CONTENTS
Friday, October 4, 1996
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5097
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 5105
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 5107
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5107
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5108
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5108
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5109
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5111
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5111
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5112
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5112
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5112
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5112
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5113
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5114
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 5115
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5116
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 5117
Bill C-332. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5117
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5117
Bill C-333. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 5117
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5117
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5118
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5118
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5121
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 5125
Bill C-267. Motion for second reading 5128
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 5134
5097
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, October 4, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 3, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk
offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Department of the Solicitor General Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to this bill today. It is an important criminal
justice bill which has been talked about and anticipated for a long
time and parts of which have been demanded for a long time by
members on this side of the House and by Canadian citizens.
There is both good and bad in the bill, as is the case in many bills
the government brings forward. I would like to go through some of
the positive things which are in this bill and some of the things
which we think are mistakes, and to offer my advice and enter into
the debate on whether Bill C-55 should be supported.
Usually on this kind of bill which is of a technical nature I try to
do work on behalf of my constituents to bring forward what I think
would be their analysis and their concerns. The criminal justice
system is an issue which is often top of mind in my riding. From
my own phone surveys and from more technical surveys that I have
had done and from the letters and phone calls I receive in my
office, I can say that people are not convinced that the criminal
justice system is operating on behalf of the best interests of
law-abiding citizens. There is a feeling in many parts of the
country, and certainly in my own riding, that there is too much
emphasis on the rights, opportunities and demands of the prisoners
and not enough emphasis on the rights of the law-abiding citizen.
(1005)
I would like to talk about an individual case that happened in my
own constituency which has ramifications for this bill. Many
members of Parliament will probably be able to relate to stories
like this because we all have situations which we confront from day
to day.
This constituent's name is Carol. She was married to an abusive
husband. Her story is really the plight of thousands of women, and
even some men I suppose, across Canada. Day in and day out they
live in silent fear, not just fear of abuse, but in Carol's case fear for
her own life. She was badly beaten by her husband in 1993. She did
the right thing, the one which I always encourage spouses in
abusive situations to do, and that is to get in touch with the police.
She called the police and her husband was charged.
Unfortunately, as is often the case this made her husband very
angry. Instead of becoming a chastened man who realized the error
in his ways, he became a very angry and dangerous man. And this
is where our criminal justice system failed my constituent.
As a bit of an aside, in the October 3 Ottawa Citizen it was stated
that even the police are angry at the courts for granting bail to a
man accused of forcing a woman out of a 10th storey window. Is
there no sense of justice in the justice system? People must ask:
How on earth can we grant bail to some of these horrible people?
How can the immigration minister grant bail to dangerous
offenders? A person who has been convicted of a crime and has
escaped justice in the United States can come to Canada, throw
himself at the mercy of the Canadian system and say that he needs
refugee status, that he is a poor abused person.
The justice system is not balanced. It does not understand that
when people do serious crimes, especially personal injury crimes,
they need to be addressed in a serious manner. That has not
happened to date.
In the same way, the system let my constituent Carol down. Her
abusive husband came back with a vengeance. There was a
restraining order against him, as there often is, but that was useless.
The total protection offered to this poor lady was that the courts had
a restraining order on someone who had already beaten her to a
pulp. This scuzzy excuse for humanity stalked his former wife,
eventually kidnapped her, stabbed her six times nearly killing her,
and he was sentenced to two years less a day.
5098
That sentence does not sound too horrible, but this is what it
was about. He would come around and tap on her window with
a butcher knife. When she would open the drapes there he would
be. Although this was well known and well documented, that is
what happened. He was charged with aggravated assault for what
he did to Carol. He should have been charged with attempted
murder but he was charged with aggravated assault and received
only a two year sentence. This man will be out of jail any time
now and his former wife, Carol, who has changed her name, once
again lives in fear.
I sat in the office with this lady, who has made a remarkable
recovery, and her father. As with many members of Parliament,
these cases are outside my realm of reference. I had no way of
knowing how to handle this case. I keep a box of Kleenex on my
desk for the people who come in to tell me these stories which I just
cannot believe.
(1010)
They sat there and told me the lead-up to their story. The father
said: ``Chuck, what would you have me do when this happens
again? There is no justice in the justice system. They knew he was
trying to kill my daughter. He stabbed her six times and for that he
gets two years less a day for aggravated assault. I will tell you what
I am going to do. If he taps on my daughter's window again, I am
going to kill him. What would you do in that situation?'' I told him
if he did that he would get 25 years for protecting his daughter,
because it would be premeditated murder.
Mr. Ramsay: He will be able to appeal after 15 years.
Mr. Strahl: As my hon. colleague says, he will be able to appeal
after 15 years under the new regulations but I do not want to get
into that.
What could I tell this father when he asked what I would do if
somebody tapped on my daughter's window with a butcher knife
and the police just said: ``Hey, you take your chance''?
I wrote to the Minister of Justice and the attorney general of the
province of B.C. to ask if there was something we could do to
change the system. The system is broken. It is not working. It is not
protecting people like Carol.
I wanted the standard of proof in the Criminal Code to be
lowered in the case of attempted murder. I also wanted to allow
probation to be imposed along with sentences longer than two years
less a day, which was not allowed at that time, so that judges would
be free to give inmates longer sentences knowing they could be
supervised afterward. Let me run through what happened after that
to indicate the sad sorry state of justice.
The attorney general of British Columbia, whom I do not see eye
to eye with politically on a lot of things, did have the courage to
undertake a study of the Criminal Code. He is not in charge of
criminal law but he did undertake a study on my behalf and he in
turn made the two suggestions to the Minister of Justice.
When I met with the Minister of Justice upstairs in Centre Block
he gave me this advice: ``Why not try a civil restraining order
instead of a criminal, court ordered restraining order?'' That was
the sum total of advice and help for this lady: ``Last time he was
under a restraining order from the courts, he stabbed you six times.
That did not seem to work too well. So why not try a civil
restraining order? That ought to fix him''. That was it for an answer
and that is not good enough.
This lady is running, hiding, changing her name. She has been
beaten with a rifle butt. He has tried to throw her in the river. She
has been stabbed six times. She has been living in fear and is on the
run. So get a civil restraining order because the courts cannot deal
with it. That is not good enough and that is why I made the
demands I did at that time.
This was one of the first cases I dealt with when I became an MP.
Three years later, the B.C. attorney general and I have been
badgering the Minister of Justice. He has asked to have the issue
put on the federal-provincial Criminal Code review. Finally after
three years we are starting to see some changes in the law, and
some of those changes are reflected in Bill C-55.
But again the minister has fallen short. There is nothing in Bill
C-55, nothing in the legislative agenda, nothing in the works
anywhere, nothing in the hopper that I can find to deal with this
problem of attempted murder. It is not dealt with in this bill of
course. It is not dealt with in any bill. We just have to put up with it.
(1015)
The reason attempted murder is almost never successfully
prosecuted in British Columbia is that it has to be proven, without a
doubt, that the person meant to kill their victim.
I will cite this example again. This woman was stalked for
months. She was beaten with a rifle butt. She was stabbed coming
out of her apartment. Thankfully she did not have her children with
her. She was stabbed six times until she dropped to the ground and
lay unconscious.
The man told the crown prosecutor that he had stabbed her a few
times, that he had stalked her, that he had beaten on her window
with a butcher knife, that he had beaten her with a rifle butt, that
she had fallen to the ground unconscious with blood pouring out of
her, but that he had not meant to kill her. He told the crown
prosecutor that he was just sending her a message. He said he was
warning her.
It is sicker than sick. What does it take? What does a person have
to do to be convicted of attempted murder, sever the head from the
body?
5099
This is wrong. The minister has to address it. The attorney
general of British Columbia has demanded that the law be changed
to stop this from happening. Regularly in British Columbia they
plea bargain away the attempted murder charge because it has to
be proven, beyond any doubt, that murder was intended.
What does it take? The case against this man was plea bargained
away. Worse yet, it was plea bargained away over Carol's
objections. It was plea bargained away without telling her. It was
plea bargained away when they had promised her they would not do
it. It was plea bargained away when she had told them that she
wanted the case to be pushed to the maximum degree. This animal
has to go away not only for the protection of the woman but for the
protection of her children.
It did not happen. Again it did not happen. I have to wonder what
it takes. I sat down with the minister and he empathized with me.
He said: ``Yes, that is a tough one. Why do you not get a civil
restraining order on the guy?'' That is not what I want. That is not
what Canadians want. Canadians want animals like this to be
treated as animals.
I believe all members of the House could cite cases in which a
victim of crime asked to be notified if the perpetrator was going to
be transferred to a nearby prison. They want to know for their own
security. I have chased these cases down to the warden of the prison
where the guy is incarcerated. I have asked the warden to flag the
guy so that when he is transferred to Chilliwack, for example, I will
know it has happened and my constituent will know that it has
happened. It can happen, but we deserve to know.
Do victims have rights? They do not. Prisoners are transferred.
Sometimes we read in the newspapers that the guy has escaped
from jail. The officials come back to us and say ``gee, he slipped
through the cracks''. Victims were not notified. Victims have no
rights. It is always written in terms of ``we should consider
notifying them''. It may be that they will be notified. That is not
adequate. That is why people continue to rise on this side of the
House to speak on behalf of these people who say the minister is
missing the boat.
There is something about mandatory supervision in the bill. The
bill allows for some high risk offenders to be subject to ten years of
supervision after release from their sentences. That is half of what I
ask from the minister.
Up until this bill was introduced judges were frequently saying
``I am going to give him two years less a day because then there can
be some mandatory supervision afterward''. If the guy gets 10
years, like he deserves, he cannot be supervised. He gets out and he
is gone. This bill at least addresses that.
(1020)
For that, maybe my three years of letter writing, begging and
pounding doors and desks had an impact. I hope so. One never
knows. The minister, I am sure, would not give me any credit. At
least it is something I have been asking for, begging for,
demanding, however you want to say it. At least it is there.
I want to note that there are provisions in the bill that I disagree
with as well. There are accelerated parole provisions for so-called
low risk non-violent offenders which will permit them to return to
the community after serving only one-sixth of their sentence, a
maximum six months in jail.
It seems there is something wrong. I do not know if this is the
minister's idea of truth in sentencing. I do not know what it means.
It seems there is an indictment of our entire penal system in this.
Why sentence criminals to jail time at all if the sentences are
basically meaningless? They say to somebody, whatever the crime
that if you do that, you are going to get a couple of years in jail. If
you sentence the person, everybody walks away and says that
should be the end of that.
Then they find out: ``We do not want to punish them and, of
course, we are not going to really rehabilitate them. We just do not
want to have them, so jail sentence suspended''. Off they go,
one-sixth of their time.
This bill also gives courts the power to put people under
electronic monitoring, even those who have never been charged
with an offence. Do I want to see things toughened up in the
criminal justice system? You bet. Do my constituents say that the
criminal justice system is failing the law-abiding citizen? You bet.
They ask whether we should supervise and monitor dangerous
offenders, pedophiles, sexual perverts, violent offenders and stuff.
You bet. They want them supervised. They want to know where
they are. They want to know who they are. They want to know
when that person applies for a job in a day care centre. They want
to know all that.
I do not think they want to take it the next step, which is to say
that someone who has never been charged, I am going to put the
shackles on him and he has no say. I do not know. Get tough on
criminals, but criminals who have been convicted of something.
We have to follow the rule of law.
The evidence points to a conviction in the case I mentioned. I
think it is pretty clear. If the guy has attempted murder, at least I
would toss the guy away and lose the keys. Besides that, people
would say there is a due process that we have to follow. The due
process includes getting before a lawyer, having their day in court.
If they are found guilty, the full force of the law comes down on
them. Protection of victims is paramount.
5100
In our system people are innocent until proven guilty. I hope
the government would listen to the concerns of many people who
are concerned about civil liberties who say ``I understand why you
are doing it, I understand you want to protect the people, and so
on''.
I am not prepared to say that without their day in court, without a
formal charge, without a hearing, without time to defend
themselves, as some official says, that the person should be
specially marked, the shackles thrown on him and we will be able
to follow him around to the ends of the earth. I am not happy with
that.
The government is schizophrenic on this. On one hand, it
coddles the criminal. On the other hand, it lets people out after
one-sixth of their sentence. On the other hand, it will not eliminate
section 745.
It coddles the criminal in many ways. We could go into what
goes on in the prison system. I could tell about the prison breakouts
in my area. In prison now they refuse to wear certain coloured
T-shirts. They just rioted in Kent. They say: ``I can't be expected to
wear a T-shirt that reflects my position as a prisoner. I want to wear
whatever I want''. They get away with it.
(1025 )
I wish I could say more. I have more private member's bills
which I will be bringing forward on the criminal justice issue in the
coming weeks. In my office I have a petition bearing 25,000 names
dealing with sexual predators and the way the justice system treats
them and what I and the people in my constituency would like to
see done. I am happy to bring forward these concerns from my
constituents and I hope that somewhere the justice minister or his
people are listing to the concerns of Canadians. It is not evident in
this bill.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the member for Fraser
Valley East, I could not help but remember a truism that to give no
information is bad but to give misinformation is worse. The
member for Fraser Valley East just said there was nothing in the
bill. He emphasized those words.
I would like to say to this member that all my colleagues on the
government side are definitely committed to the safety of the entire
Canadian citizenry. That member, of course, is again not telling the
truth.
An hon. member: Nonsense.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I wonder if the member for Fraser Valley East
and the other member would be polite enough to allow reasonable
debate, which may be also part of civility in our society.
The member for Fraser Valley East said there was nothing in the
bill. I wonder if the member has read clause 9(1) of the bill, dealing
with potential serious personal injury offences. It is a special
amendment to the Criminal Code. For the member to say there is
nothing in the bill is entirely false. Where the attorney general
feels there are reasonable grounds to fear that another person will
commit a serious personal injury offence, as the expression is
defined elsewhere in the bill, in respect of one or more persons, the
attorney general may lay information before a provincial court
judge whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom
there is fear that the offence will be committed are named.
Within that section are enumerated the many grounds that could
be included in that order by a court, including the non-possession
of firearms.
I think the member for Fraser Valley East has to be forthright in
the Chamber, forthright with the Canadian public that this bill is an
advance in ensuring the safety of Canadians. I can see the member
is finally agreeing with me.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I did not say there was nothing in the
bill. As a matter fact, I said I was happy to see that after three years
of my bashing my head against the minister's wall there are some
provisions I approve of. I said that in my speech. I like the idea that
there can be mandatory supervision for up to 10 years after. That is
a good provision. I like that. I have been demanding for three years
to get that. The AG of British Columbia has been asking for it.
I did not say there was nothing in the bill. I talked about some of
the things that have not been addressed in their entirety in the
criminal justice system and I used this opportunity to talk about a
few of those. However, do I think that people who have uttered
threats using a firearm should have their firearms taken away from
them? You bet.
When it comes to firearms and threats with a weapon, I
personally have a zero tolerance policy. If we had a better system in
place in British Columbia we would not have had the tragedy in
Kelowna. Somehow that person received permission to own a
handgun even though he had threatened his wife's life. It turned out
that he took not only her life but nine members of the family. It was
a real tragedy.
(1030 )
The tragedy is that the government has taken the easy route, the
publicity route, especially on firearms. It says we have to get the
hunters of this world, the shooters of this world, the Olympians of
this world to register their weapons and the world will be a safer
place. That is the problem with the justice system, the law-abiding
people are made to jump through the hoops.
Let me tell you a story of another case in my riding. A guy
slipped across the Canada-U.S. border at Columbia valley. The
police sent out someone to intercept him. A police women
apprehended him. He lunged at her, grabbed her gun, shoved the
barrel into her mouth and said: ``It's curtains, lady''. Thankfully a
5101
passerby came over and talked him out of this, even though he had
the gun cocked and shoved in her mouth.
Thankfully, because of this passerby, he eventually turned her
loose. However, he stole the four-wheel drive cruiser and drove it
into the mountains. He had the shotgun, his own illegal
unregistered gun, the police woman's weapon, the police car. He
set it all on fire, burning everything to the ground. The police got
the dogs out and they caught the guy.
In Canada you can get five years for having an unregistered clip
for your gun. This guy got two years. He is not that bad. He entered
Canada illegally, he assaulted a police officer, he threatened to kill
her, he stuck the gun to her head, he did $50,000 damage to federal
property, he evaded arrest, he had possession, and he had a track
record of former convictions. What he did not have was not worth
talking about. What sentence did he get for these crimes? Two
years, but he will be out in six or eight months.
Ask the police in my area what they think of the justice system.
It is weak. A guy like that is an animal and probably should never
be let out of jail. Instead laws are passed that make honest,
law-abiding people jump through hoops. Many of them will
become criminals through ignorance and this guy, instead of
having the book thrown at him, is left to walk free in a few months.
It is not right.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-55 mainly because I am a
government MP. As a government MP I naturally would prefer to
support my government in any legislation that it brings forward.
Indeed I try to do so in all instances.
As a government MP I feel that I have a fundamental obligation
to signal my concerns when I see something in the government's
legislation that concerns me deeply. The reason this is important
for a government MP is that when a law passes the courts go back
to the parliamentary debates and examine the discussions and pay
particular attention to what government MPs say about the
legislation. They believe what they hear from both sides of the
House represents the thinking of Parliament with respect to
legislation. Judges use that as a means of interpreting the
legislation.
Some hon. members: Gun control legislation.
Mr. Bryden: I am coming to that, gentlemen, if you would just
wait a minute.
My concern with this legislation has to do with electronic
monitoring provision. Ironically I find myself in agreement with
some of the observations of the member for Fraser Valley East.
Last night I took time at home in my apartment to read George
Orwell's famous novel 1984. George Orwell, if members recall,
made famous the expression ``big brother''. The novel was written
in 1949 just after the world had experienced the tyranny of Hitler
and had just entered into the deepest phase of the cold war when red
army troops had seized eastern Europe. Most of the former
democracies and countries of eastern Europe had fallen under the
totalitarian sway of Stalin. Orwell's book is a depiction of the
ultimate totalitarian state in which big brother, the state, controls
every aspect of human behaviour. Orwell creates a picture of this
man-his name is Winston-in which Winston's only problem is
that he wants to express a certain amount of individuality. He wants
to be a human being, if you will.
(1035)
However, the state has prescribed the type of behaviour it wants
from its citizens and has set up an elaborate means of monitoring
their actions. Ultimately the state's purpose, big brother in George
Orwell's novel, is to put shackles on the freedom of movement of
people in society so that they always have to act according to what
the state prescribes as the correct behaviour.
Orwell in writing this novel created the ultimate nightmare. It
led to a series of other books and popular culture stories that
involved the state control of individual behaviour by electronic
means, by implanting devices that controlled individuals and
restrained them. You can see the parallels that come out of 1984
which in that period was regarded as the ultimate horror for society,
state control.
Then I read in the proposed legislation that the government is
now considering electronic monitoring. These monitors are
intended to be a sort of bracelet. People are ordered to wear these
bracelets to restrain certain forms of behaviour. The bracelet can be
used to keep track of their whereabouts. If the judge wants to
prevent a person coming near some home because it has been
decided that the person is a threat to someone, this bracelet would
electronically monitor the whereabouts of the person.
Once we enter into this whole business of an electronic shackle,
and that is what it is, an electronic shackle, an electronic ball and
chain, all kinds of opportunities present themselves in the George
Orwellian model. We can have a bracelet that remotely inflicts pain
on an individual wearing this bracelet should that individual be
about to engage in behaviour that the state wants to prevent.
As the bill is currently constituted, it basically addresses people
who have the potential of committing violent offences. It could
also be used on, say, a heroin addict. With a smart chip in the
electronic bracelet if the addict approached a drug dealer the chip
could scent the heroin and could immediately administer an
electric shock to the individual to prevent this behaviour. And so it
goes. The possibilities with a smart chip in this kind of bracelet are
endless. We could restrain all kinds of behaviour remotely.
5102
According to this legislation it is proposed that this is going
to be aimed at only a certain type of offender. The problem is that
when we get into this kind of thing, we are addressing very
fundamental liberties. We are going right to the bottom of our
basic freedoms. It is the same thing as our freedom of speech and
the constant struggle there is between how to put limits on
pornography while still maintaining freedom of speech.
An electronic shackle is the ultimate limitation on liberty. It
allows the individual some movement in society, but in fact it is the
same type of shackle that the Romans used and that was used in the
slave trade.
I will explain what a shackle is as opposed to a rope or a prison
cell. A shackle is restraint. We have used the nice words judicial
restraint. In fact a shackle is something that limits behaviour.
(1040 )
Let me give an classic example. When slaves used to work in the
fields picking cotton or sugar cane, they were shackled with an iron
bar, the idea being that if the slave attempted to escape through the
fields the shackle would get caught in the underbrush restraining
their movements so that they could not get away. The ball and
chain held the same idea. The ball was a weight that they had to
drag and they could only get so far before they became exhausted.
These were the means used by overseers to restrain their slaves in
the field for work and not actually have to keep them in prisons. It
was an economic tool that was very useful in the days of the slave
trade.
To me there is not a great distinction between this electronic
shackle and the old ball and chain. Let me just finish a point here.
As proposed, this electronic shackle is only going to apply to
certain types of individuals who pose certain types of risks.
One of the things I have learned in my three years in the House
of Commons is that the great danger when we pass legislation that
contains a subsection of a subsection that actually impinges on
basic liberties is that while in this particular legislation it may be
restricted to one group of individuals, at a later time legislation
may come along that will pass in this House that will extend the
application of the provision.
I will give an example. Right now the legislation applies to
individuals who pose a threat of inflicting bodily harm. I think it is
directed primarily toward sexual offenders. However, drunk drivers
are a threat to society. Drunk drivers are capable of inflicting
physical injury and death. Why not some day have this bracelet
imposed on people who have two or more convictions for impaired
driving? As members can see, it is so easy to take it to the next step
and the next step and the next step until we have an Orwellian state
in which any form of dissent or some form of dissent results in an
electronic shackle. We can do all kinds of things with that. We can
prevent all forms of behaviour remotely.
Where does this concept come from? I suggest the concept
comes once again from our neighbour to the south which is
confronted with a major crime problem. It is an epidemic problem
in the United States. The Americans are building prisons faster
than any country in the world and they are actually experiencing
economic difficulties because of the difficulty they have in
providing enough prison spaces for the number of people they are
incarcerating.
One of their reactions to crime, which has been a subject of
much debate in this House, has been unlimited acquisition of
firearms. Canada has reacted in quite a Canadian way to this issue.
We have had a very aggressive debate in the House about the whole
question of firearms. Regardless of what side we are all on in the
House, we all agree that Canadians do not want to see the weapons
possession that exists in the United States. The government has
gone to great lengths with the gun control bill to create a different
answer to violence that does not involve the availability of guns for
protection. Therefore, Canadians have found an alternate solution
to what the Americans have found with respect to arming
themselves against the criminal menace.
The other side of the coin is that the Americans have come out
with this electronic shackling as an economic measure. They are
building so many prisons and it is costing them so much that it is
cheaper and more economically feasible, instead of putting people
in jail, to apply electronic shackles. I am not saying they have gone
that far yet, but the opportunity is there. We can see in American
society the advantages of using electronic shackles to prevent
people from committing armed robberies. They could be used in
the drug trade. If these things could be put on people, crime could
be limited in certain areas.
(1045)
The difficulty is that in the United States, crime is centred upon
one group in society. The Americans collect statistics based on
race. I hate to bring this issue up, but we must talk about the
Americans. They feel they have demonstrated to their satisfaction
that blacks in particular have a higher proportion of incarceration
than other categories in their society.
That is a frightening statistic. I am pleased this is not the kind of
statistic which is collected by Canada. Nevertheless, because the
Americans are very conscious of this, if electronic shackling is
pursued to its ultimate end, then we will see the re-enslavement of
a people in the United States. Instead of being shackled to the ball
and chain of the overseer on the cotton plantation, they will be
shackled by an electronic device which will be more common in
one racial group than in any other. This has the appalling potential
of returning to the 19th century to an era which we must leave
behind.
5103
We as Canadians, on all sides of the House representing all
points of view, must not be driven by the type of social forces
and dilemmas the Americans are confronting, be it the question
of the availability of firearms or the question of the availability
of an electronic shackle, an electronic ball and chain. I am very
concerned that my government has brought forward the suggestion
of the electronic shackle.
I agree with my colleague from Fraser Valley East that it is
particularly dangerous because it is not intended to apply simply to
people who are convicted of crimes, it is also designed to apply to
people who may be perceived as potential criminals. Before the
suspect has actually committed the crime, they may be shackled.
That is a huge step. I would say it is a dangerous and a frightening
step.
There is an easy solution to the problem. We can have this type
of restraint if we write into the legislation that it is voluntary. The
person to whom the order is to be applied would have the option of
electing whether they will go to jail or some other option instead of
accepting the electronic shackle.
In some instances I would think that people would voluntarily
accept the electronic shackle. If a heroin addict wants to shake his
habit, or if a person is a pedophile and cannot control his or her
impulses but wants to control them, they might want to have a
shackle. Then it becomes a positive thing because we are
respecting human will.
I hope the members of the justice committee will read my words
and the words of others who have been worried about this one
provision. I hope they will think very carefully about the option of
making it a voluntary provision.
I will make another analogy. Anyone who is a farmer will
recognize what is called a cattle grate. When a farmer has cattle in
the field and he wants to go back and forth with his tractor and he
does not want to go to the trouble of opening the gate every time he
goes through, he takes the gate off and he puts in what is called a
cattle grate. It consists of a few bars of a certain spacing and is
about a foot deep. The cattle can never cross. When they approach,
they see the grate. They know that if they try to cross they could get
caught in the grates and could break their legs. The animals
recognize this and consequently they are restrained in the field pen.
(1050)
The grate works very well for all hoofed animals. It is very very
good for cattle. It works for pigs, it works for horses and it works
for sheep. One thing we do not want to do in any legislation we pass
in this House is to reduce our allowance for human will. We are
human beings with some freedom of will, some ability to decide
between right and wrong. When we reduce human beings by a
shackle or by any kind of restraint to the level of animals, I think
we are creating a very sad and despairing problem.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the very
reasoned presentation by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth. I
have always appreciated his sincerity on any issue of potential
controversy and I am addressing this issue on that basis.
I can see his point that such a judicial restraint would be a
limitation to freedom; that is a given. But even the charter of rights
in the Canadian Constitution allows for limits to freedom where it
can be demonstrated in a democratic society that such a limitation
is allowable. Who will interpret this allowance? Ultimately it will
be the Supreme Court of Canada. For example, the laws on hate
where we may not spread hate propaganda definitely represent a
limitation to freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court of Canada would like to establish that the
goal to be achieved in any limitation to freedom is a very laudable
goal for society at large. In terms of the subject under debate now,
the limitation would be imposed in the case of serious injury to a
Canadian citizen and there is no other alternative that we could use
as a tool. I am sure that in this instance, any court of law in Canada
would take that into account when trying to pass judgment on such
an application by an attorney general of a given province. I am sure
the courts would like to see that such a means would be capable of
achieving that ultimate goal.
Being a non-lawyer, I do not recall all the tests that Canadian
courts of law have applied when a balance must be struck, when
limits to freedom have to be imposed. I continue to have faith in
our judicial court system.
The very learned member spoke about shackles. I could imagine
the physical shackles and not being able to move with the restraint
of the weight on one's legs. I remember historical photos. But if
electronic monitoring is used, it would likely be non-visible,
non-intrusive to the eyes of others. Perhaps only the person upon
whom this device would be imposed by a court of law would know
that such a device existed on his body. I am sure this will be taken
into account. To compare the electronic monitoring to shackles as
we were used to imagining them is extending our imaginations a
little too much.
The member indicated that this may be a return to enslavement.
The only enslavement I can see in this would be the enslavement of
risk. We will now have one additional tool with which to control
risk of serious injury to others with this control being imposed on
other members of society.
It is a huge step but the challenge of personal safety which is
before society is very huge indeed. On that basis I would like to
submit that such a provision in the bill is reasonable. Considering
that it has only to be determined by the attorney general of a given
province based on reasonable grounds of fear that the person is
5104
about to commit a serious personal injury, there will be an
examination of this during the hearings.
(1055)
My last point is that electronic monitoring is not a monitoring
that will be imposed on the person for eternity. It is only for a
period of 12 months. In other words, there is a finite period. If the
person's behaviour has been sustained such that such an occurrence
is not likely to happen again, then the person will be freed of his
electronic monitoring.
I submit that this is a reasonable approach to a serious problem
that faces society. Therefore, I concur with this initiative on the
part of the government.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member's
judgment and sincerity in all the issues he addresses.
If I may say so, he put his finger on what is the precise problem
with this kind of legislation. It is that it springs from consultation
with the courts. He has said that the courts have been consulted on
this legislation and then it was written.
I submit that this is one of the great problems we have in
legislation in this House all the time. It is not remembered that this
House of Commons is the highest court in the land. It is we the MPs
who look to our constituency to try to understand the nation, to try
to understand who we are as Canadians and to write the laws. It is
wrong in my view to consider legislation and to consider how the
courts will interpret that legislation rather than considering its
moral and ethical impact on society. It is putting the cart before the
horse.
I am not prepared to give the judges of the land who sit in their
chambers a better acknowledgement of what Canada is all about
than members of Parliament. It is we who have to interpret the
ethics and the propriety of the laws.
The Speaker: You seem to be on a roll. I was afraid to come in
too fast but it being 11 a.m., we will proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
5104
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many of the constituents in my riding have special
programs in place to honour their residents and volunteers for their
outstanding contributions and achievements, which is one of our
fine rural Ontario traditions.
In my hometown for example, through the Gravenhurst
Achievement Awards the community honours people who have
made their mark in things as varied as music, sports, art and
architecture. The objective of the program is to publicly recognize
the achievement of the townspeople, thereby promoting pride
within the community.
I applaud this positive demonstration of community spirit. I
encourage all the communities in my riding to keep up the good
work.
I congratulate this year's Gravenhurst Achievement Award
winners: Stephen Brackley, David Dawson, Erin Edwards,
Christine Harris, Wayne Hill and Nancy Snider.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased today to pay tribute to the organizers of ``Ça
marche'', an event that took place last Sunday in Montreal and in
over 30 towns and cities in Quebec.
This annual event is held to raise funds for the Farah Foundation,
which distributes them to dozens of organizations serving people
living with AIDS. Over the years, this event has become an ideal
opportunity for expressing solidarity with those whose lives have
been touched, even if only remotely, by the consequences of this
terrible illness.
The march in Montreal this year was an unprecedented success.
The organizers estimate the number of participants at 30,000 and
the money collected at $582,000, $22,000 more than last year.
This event shows beyond a shadow of a doubt how important the
fight against AIDS is to the people of Quebec and of Canada.
Research in this field must be a government priority.
In closing, I would like to warmly thank the organizers, the
Farah Foundation, the dozens of volunteers who made this event
possible and all the community groups that, day after day, work on
behalf of those living with AIDS.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to inform the House that Chief Randy James and the
Penelakut Band on Kuper Island in my riding of
Nanaimo-Cowichan will be conducting a memorial service
tomorrow, October 5, to honour the memory of those children who
died while attending the Kuper Island Residential School.
5105
While the Penelakut Band estimates the number of students who
perished between 1890 and 1984 to be in the hundreds, the exact
number may never be known because of the manner in which
records were maintained.
Following the memorial service there will be a traditional native
healing ceremony for the survivors and their families. Along with
Chief James, I call upon members of Parliament to think of Kuper
Island today and tomorrow and, in so doing, honour the memory of
those who died not only on Kuper Island but also at residential
schools across Canada and ask for the healing of those who
survived.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last week the federal Liberal government wined and
dined over 100 hand picked delegates gathered in Ottawa for a
three day national conference. The aim was to have these youth
delegates help provide solutions to growing problems faced by
young people in Canada today.
The problem is the federal government did not invite any student
groups, where corporations were welcomed with open arms,
showing once again how this government believes that only the
wealthy and large corporations really matter.
Obviously the government believes that rising tuition costs,
decreasing quality of education, high student debt, chronic student
unemployment and decreased accessibility to university education
are irrelevant and trivial issues for the youth of today.
The chair of the conference conveniently forgot to mention the
government is backtracking on the Liberal Party's red book
promise to fund a $100 million youth core program to employ
10,000 youth every year. He also neglected to mention the
government's plans to privatize Canada's student loan program and
the $7 billion cuts to provincial social transfer payments.
The corporations and the government were so successful at
pulling off this farce that Canada's second largest bank, the CIBC,
has generously offered to host the second national conference on
youth next March. And why not? The government has already
abandoned middle class and working people for banks and big
corporations.
* * *
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mary Lou Carroll of
Adolphustown is an extraordinary volunteer, and I am honoured to
recognize her humanitarian achievements during Women's History
Month.
Mrs. Carroll first contacted my office in October 1994 with a
request for assistance in arranging an airlift of supplies on a DND
flight to the Sisters of St. Joseph Orphanage in Haiti. Since that
successful airlift, Mrs. Carroll has continued her efforts to aid the
people of the village of Sen Rafael.
I recently received a note from Mrs. Carroll:
When Sister Cecilia Tallach started the school, the parents were less than enthused
about sending their children. However, when the community became aware of what
those children who did go to school could now do, then all the parents wanted their
children in school.
As a result, 90 new students, some 20 years old in grade one, are
attending this year.
Mrs. Carroll is presently organizing a fourth shipment. She has
motivated countless people and gained broad community support.
Her efforts have been assisted by individuals and groups.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Seager Wheeler Historical
Farm Society. Named for Seager Wheeler, the internationally
renowned plant breeder, the society was one of only 10
organizations to receive a Parks Canada award in 1966.
These awards are presented by the Government of Canada in
recognition of exception or innovative achievement in the
protection, preservation and presentation of Canada's natural and
cultural heritage.
The recipients of these awards must have made a contribution in
at least one of the following areas: responsible action and
stewardship, education, research or policy development. The
Seager Wheeler Historical Farm Society excelled in all categories.
Today Larry and Doreen Janzen will attend a special Parks
Canada awards ceremony in Banff, Alberta to accept this
prestigious award on behalf of the many volunteers like them
whose tireless efforts have safeguarded and enhanced this
Saskatchewan heritage treasure.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
francophones outside Quebec are giving increasing thought to the
development of economic strategies that will enable them to make
an even greater contribution to the future of their community.
Three regional economic forums will be held to look at the best
ways of furthering the economic development of our community,
the first in St. Boniface, Manitoba, October 4 and 5, the second in
St-André, New Brunswick, and the third in Ottawa. These regional
forums will be followed by a national forum, to take place in
5106
St-Georges, Quebec, in November. The purpose of the national
forum will be to work out the necessary planning.
These forums will bring together municipal elected officials and
the business community and will facilitate the establishment of
economic ties and co-operation agreements among
French-speaking Canadians with respect to economic development
across Canada.
I wish all the participants good luck and much success. Thank
you for your efforts.
* * *
(1105)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
Bloc Quebecois's general council held last Saturday at Lac Delage,
delegates voted unanimously in favour of an urgent motion calling
on the federal government to maintain its $7.2 million financial
participation in the Varennes Tokamak project.
The withdrawal of the federal government from this project will
deal it a fatal blow, as layoff notices will start to go out at the end of
this month. The talented researchers who work there will inevitably
have to look for new work beyond our borders. The skills
developed within this country and the $70 million invested over the
last 20 years in this project will be lost forever, and Canada will be
deprived of the spinoffs resulting from the development of new
technologies related to Tokamak.
It is therefore imperative that the federal government rethink its
decision to end its financial participation, which represents a large
portion of the federal government's already too small investment in
research and development in Quebec.
I appeal to the common sense of federal government
representatives and call on them to reassess as quickly as possible
this decision that may well be bitterly regretted. Time is running
out for Tokamak.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why is
it that the heavy hand of the law always punishes non-violent
citizens who fighting for the principle of freedom, while violent
criminals who break in and destroy the sanctity of our homes
receive a mere slap on the wrist?
Darren Watson of Saskatoon pleaded guilty to breaking into a
Leask area farm in April and stealing two trucks. During the
burglary three dogs were beaten to death and a truck was set on fire.
Under the sentencing bill Watson's lawyer asked the judge to
merely impose community service as an appropriate punishment.
Conversely, in the case of wheat farmer Andy McMechan of
Manitoba, he was found guilty on all five charges laid against him
in a dispute over the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on grain
sales. He was subsequently fined $13,000, jailed for four months,
told to turn over his tractor and sentenced to two years of
supervised probation.
Here we have yet another example of hypocrisy in our justice
system. It is clear to me that one man poses a threat to society while
the other does not. Why were alternative measures not suggested
for Andy McMechan?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that the Canadian
government has just announced the creation of a new service to
encourage the economic development of Quebec in the high tech
sector.
This was announced yesterday by the Minister of Industry. The
partners for investment in Canada bureau will focus on identifying
foreign investors and encouraging them to come to Canada and
Quebec.
The categories of investment being sought by the members of
this bureau will vary from province to province. We already know
that pharmaceuticals, aerospace, biotechnology and
telecommunications will be given priority in Quebec.
In announcing this new initiative, the Government of Canada is
once again confirming its determination to actively encourage the
creation of more jobs and a strong economy with development
potential for the future of Canada and Quebec.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when people hear the name of Robert Bourassa, they think of the
father of James Bay comes to their mind. That was, of course, the
high point in his long service at the head of the province of Quebec.
But remembering Robert Bourassa also means remembering the
two major recessions he had to face during his time as premier and
his epic battles with the big labour unions in order to preserve the
delicate balance between the needs of workers and the economic
needs of the state.
5107
Remembering Robert Bourassa means remembering the man's
devotion and determination in propelling his province into a new
economic universe, by providing it with the tools essential for its
prosperity.
Quebecers are, and will forever be, grateful for his exceptional
contribution to the economic development of Quebec.
We have lost a great Canadian, who rendered exceptional service
to his country and his province. I would like to express my heartfelt
condolences to the Bourassa family, both personally and on behalf
of the people of my province of British Columbia.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in recent
public statements, often partisan ones, the Minister of International
Co-operation has criticized the official opposition for not having
asked him anything in the House since his appointment.
In his speeches, the minister refers very little to international
co-operation, preferring mostly to entertain his audience with
questions relating to Canadian unity or the constitutional debate,
since he realizes that his colleague in Intergovernmental Affairs
enjoys precious little credibility in Quebec.
(1110)
Yet, it would be worth his while to do more in his own area, and
to question the unacceptable decisions made by his predecessor,
André Ouellet, such as the abolition of the public awareness
program, the use of double talk in defending human rights, the
watering down of official development assistance through the
NGOs and the propensity to favour only the private sector.
As you can see, we have an urgent situation here.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to congratulate the Canadian AIDS Society on its sixth annual
National Aids Awareness Week which wraps up tomorrow. The
annual AIDS Awareness Week helps increase awareness about
AIDS and raise funds for services and programs.
Many people think that AIDS is only a problem in the cities, but
it is also a serious threat in our northern communities. Ignorance of
this threat makes it worse, as our people think they do not have to
worry about it. There have been few AIDS programs in rural areas.
Healthy Thompson, a volunteer organization in the city of
Thompson, is working with Health Canada to address this issue in
the Thompson region. It is working to improve treatment,
prevention and awareness of AIDS in this area. I applaud Healthy
Thompson and I applaud all Canadians who have contributed to a
successful week of AIDS awareness activities all over Canada.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to draw to the attention of the House the September edition of
Fraser Forum. To cut through the bafflegaff, two years ago the
Fraser Institute developed a Canadian budget performance index to
monitor the financial records of the country's 11 senior
governments.
The index is composed of an array of variables dealing with both
spending and taxation as well as deficits and debt. The best
performer in 1995 was the province of Alberta, and Saskatchewan
is forecast to be the best performer in 1996.
The worst? Over the two year period it is forecast to be the
federal government, placing 10th out of 11 in 1995, and forecast to
be no better than 9th for this year. This is all the more fascinating
since much of federal budgetary progress in the past two years has
been in the form of offloading to the provinces.
There are two lessons here. First, Canadians should not be
conned about the federal fiscal situation. The federal Liberals have
a record of brilliant propaganda and mediocre performance.
Second, the House should be reminded once again of the invaluable
public policy work that is regularly provided to Canadians by the
Fraser Institute.
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
taking a tough line on violence against women and children,
strengthening our gun control laws, reforming the Young Offenders
Act, improving our sentencing system, reducing hate crimes,
introducing measures to deal with high risk violent offenders,
reversing Canada's growing crime rate; in 1993 this was the list of
what the government promised to do to improve the lives and
safety of Canadians.
In 1996 it is a list of what we have done. We promised to provide
Canadians with safer homes and safer streets and we have
delivered. Canada's crime rate fell again in 1995, its fourth straight
drop, following 30 years of almost constant increase. Violent crime
is down for the third year in a row and the homicide rate reached its
lowest level since 1969.
This government has indeed made a difference.
5108
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in 1990 the UN General Assembly designated October 1
as international senior citizens' day.
As the official opposition critic for senior citizens organizations
and as a retired teacher, I would like to emphasize the important
role played by seniors throughout the world.
The United Nations has asked the government and
non-governmental organizations to contribute to a special UN fund
on aging in order to increase public awareness throughout the
world.
In a world where work and productivity are the order of the day,
senior citizens must not be perceived as a burden on society. Every
year, this international day dedicated to senior citizens reminds us
that these people have contributed to the development of our
society and will continue to do so according to their abilities.
I would like to pay tribute to all senior citizens throughout the
world, and especially to those who built this country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to
create greater awareness of women's contribution to Canada, the
federal government declared October Women's History Month. For
this reason I wish to pay tribute to Yvonne Tousek who, with great
determination, represented Canada at the Atlanta summer
Olympics.
A member of the Cambridge Kips Gymnastics Club, Yvonne was
named the 1995 athlete of the year by the Canadian Gymnastics
Federation and was the only Canadian to reach the gymnastic
finals, competing with the elite of the world and placing a very
impressive 26th.
(1115 )
On behalf of the people of Cambridge, I congratulate Yvonne on
her tremendous effort and excellent showing as a member of
Canada's gymnastic team.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday when the House was debating a
motion on federal issues that are adversely affecting the province
of British Columbia, we witnessed a litany of Liberal members
inform this House that they are responsible for B.C.'s booming
economy. Never mind that B.C. had been doing just fine prior to
this government's election in 1993, the Liberals actually wanted
everyone to believe that they were responsible.
However, yesterday the provincial Government of British
Columbia announced that it has slashed the province's economic
forecast from 2.7 per cent to just 1 per cent.
Well, if you want to claim the credit you also have to accept the
blame. So can we expect the Minister of Transport to admit to
British Columbians that his government's policies are responsible
for this significant drop in B.C.'s rate of growth? Of course not,
because this government's philosophy is accept the glory but put
the blame on somebody else.
_____________________________________________
5108
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
As he vaunted his government's performance on job creation, the
Minister of Finance said that Canadians were doing well. However,
in its latest report, the Conference Board estimates that in 1995,
two million Canadians were jobless and 500,000 had left the labour
force. This means, according to the Conference Board, that the real
unemployment rate in 1995 was not 9.5 per cent but 12.5 per cent.
Considering the government's triumphant statement on job
creation, could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the real
unemployment rate in Canada, which includes those who have
given up looking for a job, is now 12.5 per cent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not
triumphant. We are still looking for ways to create new jobs. That
is why I was somewhat surprised to hear that the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois does not fully support the federal government's plans
for the infrastructures program, which has created 80,000 jobs
across the country, many in Quebec.
I am surprised he does not endorse the second infrastructures
program, which could be expected to create more new jobs.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to correct a tendency of the Deputy Prime
Minister to misquote people. The Leader of the Opposition said
that he was prepared to support an infrastructures program,
provided that, unlike the first program, which created temporary
jobs,
5109
this one would provide stable and well-paying jobs. That is what
the leader of the opposition said.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister say, with the Minister of
Finance, that Canadians are doing very well, when according to the
Conference Board, two million people are still jobless and the
figures of Statistics Canada indicate the government has created
only 153,000 jobs since early 1996? These figures come from
Statistics Canada, not from the Bloc.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as long as there is a single
unemployed person in this country, we have no reason to be
triumphant. Someone who is unemployed means someone who
cannot feed his family, and that is why we want to go ahead with
the infrastructures program.
I can assure you that although the Bloc Quebecois did not
support a program that created 80,000 jobs across this country, we,
the Government of Canada, trust that we proceeded with a program
that was supported by the people in their ridings.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thought the Deputy Prime Minister had a poor memory,
but now I wonder whether she hears what is said.
(1120)
I said that the Bloc supported the infrastructures program,
provided there were durable, well-paying jobs. Did you hear me,
Madam?
The Speaker: I may remind hon. members that I am the one who
is supposed to hear.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I
wish some day you would make sure she understands what was
said.
The Deputy Prime Minister refuses to face the facts. Not only
has the labour market not returned to what it was in 1989, the real
labour force participation rate is in free fall and the job-population
ratio is stagnating. Even worse, Canadians are 7 per cent poorer
than they were after the last recession, in 1989. If that is what you
call doing well in this country, I wonder what the future will be
like.
Does the minister realize that the labour market situation is a
disaster and that the few jobs created by her government have
failed to add to the wealth of Quebecers and Canadians? It is high
time the government created stable, well-paying jobs.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to the Mayor of
Montreal, one of the current problems is political instability. I
would urge the hon. member opposite to consider what her own
leader said yesterday when he referred to the infrastructures
program as an election goody.
I am going to make sure we go ahead with this program, even if
the Bloc Quebecois is now obstructing a program that created jobs
in all ridings across the country, including the ridings with the
highest rate of poverty and unemployment in the province of
Quebec.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the
Conference Board is saying is that low productivity is the primary
reason for the lack of investment in research and development and
the lack of job training. A distinction must be made.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. If it had wanted to
bring back the sort of job market the people of Quebec and of
Canada had in 1989, in terms of the unemployment rate and the
participation rate, this government would have had to create over
one and a half million jobs since it came to power. According to its
own statistics, the government has created only 669,000 jobs. It
still has over 800,000 to go.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that, at the rate this
government is going with job creation, it would take at least four
more years before we see conditions similar to those of seven years
ago before the last recession?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we see the rate of
unemployment among young people, and especially when we see
that the majority of people who have left the province of Quebec
this year are young people, it is a terrible loss.
What we want to do, through programs like the infrastructure
program, which has not been supported so far by the Bloc
Quebecois, by the way, is to restore some semblance of economic
stability. For this to be possible, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti
Quebecois must respect the promises of Quebec's premier to set
aside the quarrels over separation and work flat out on the
economy.
That is what we want, but unfortunately it is not what the Bloc
Quebecois is doing right now. Right now, it is creating political
instability.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is political
instability the reason why New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island
and Newfoundland have an even higher rate of unemployment than
Quebec? Yet there is no talk of separation in these provinces.
After 2 years and 10 months of power, this government is
crowing about having created 669,000 jobs, while the former
government created 930,000 jobs in the same length of time. For a
government that was elected to create jobs, we have seen better.
When will this government stop patting itself on the back and
admit that it has not yet delivered on its main election promise?
5110
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what creates political
instability is what they are now calling the referendum. There was
one referendum, and Canada won. A second was held, and Canada
won. Now, they are talking about trying again. As long as they
keep on wanting to hold referendums, the Parti Quebecois and the
Bloc Quebecois are adding to the climate of political instability,
whose results we are now seeing.
* * *
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday one person of a group of ten who arrived in Canada
from Pakistan died as their boat turned over in choppy waters on
the St. Lawrence River near Cornwall en route to the United States.
Yesterday, Akwesasne police and the OPP charged a Canadian
man with manslaughter in connection with this botched smuggling
attempt. This incident illustrates a well documented problem,
namely, the unchecked flow of illegal smuggling through the
Akwesasne reserve.
Why has the solicitor general not clamped down on this activity?
How many more must die before he takes action?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was a tragedy the other evening
when lives were lost in an illegal attempt to smuggle people across
the border.
The hon. member knows that any such activity is a criminal
offence under the present laws of Canada, that the RCMP work
closely with the American immigration and naturalization service.
Every effort is made to discourage, detect and to prosecute this
unlawful activity.
The reality is that some three years ago, the government created
the anti-smuggling initiative which represented an increased
investment of funds and people into the resources of the RCMP and
related services to deal with smuggling in general, including the
smuggling of people.
Our resolve in that regard continues. We shall do everything we
can to detect and to prosecute such illegal activity.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately the reality is that the police are afraid to patrol the
river at night because the criminal activity is a threat to their safety.
Organized criminals, drug traffickers and bootleggers are running
rampant on Akwesasne and Cornwall Island. Obviously the police
on the reserve have been ineffective in doing their jobs.
Canadians are beginning to question if the police there are
turning a blind eye to the smuggling and drug running that is going
on. If the Akwesasne police will not do their jobs, maybe it is time
to send in the RCMP or even the Canadian Armed Forces.
Will the solicitor general send in the RCMP to clean up the
mess? Or will he continue to tolerate organized crime and give it
free rein on Akwesasne?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that
the RCMP are very much directly involved in efforts, not only in
that area but across our border to deal with efforts to smuggle and
to break Canadian laws.
Last weekend the solicitor general and I hosted a forum on
organized crime in Canada. The forum was attended by
representatives of police forces, provincial governments,
prosecutors, defence counsel and working police officers. We
reviewed not only the present state of the situation but also specific
measures that can be taken to give police additional tools in their
efforts to combat organized crime.
Arising from that conference, together with the government's
demonstrated resolve to deal effectively with smuggling, I am
certain that we will have even more effective steps in the months
ahead to deal with this problem.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
police in the area and in other areas of this country have been
seeking desperately the assistance and support of the federal
government and have not been able to obtain such.
This tragic incident demonstrates the government's double
standards in enforcing the laws in the nation. The government has
made it a priority to arrest, detain, fine and even harass western
farmers who want to do nothing more than to sell grain to the
United States at the best price they can get. The solicitor general
turns a blind eye year after year, even after people have died, from
the rampant crime on Akwesasne.
(1130 )
Will the solicitor general commit today to end the double
standard, enforce the law equally and send in whatever force
necessary to stop the crime at the borders, in other words, do his
job?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the hon. member
that the RCMP take their responsibilities very seriously. Their
resources were supplemented almost three years ago with the
anti-smuggling initiative.
The border is never going to be entirely beyond the commission
of offences. It is a 3,000 mile border and it is an open border. The
hon. member knows the level of difficulty in policing it all.
5111
We believe that the RCMP are doing as effective a job as they
can under difficult circumstances and the government's resolve to
do everything possible against smuggling is quite clear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the President of Treasury Board alleged that 54 per cent
of federal public service positions in Quebec needed to be bilingual
in order to serve anglophones and allophones. By thus linking the
allophones with the anglophone minority, the President of the
Treasury Board, a francophone minister who is an elected member
for Quebec, is openly admitting that he is working to anglicize
Quebec's allophones.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Why is
the President of the Treasury Board, a francophone, working to
anglicize Quebec's allophones, in contradiction of every language
policy adopted by the governments of Quebec since 1960 for the
purpose of integrating them into Quebec society through their use
of the French language?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
allegations the opposition member is making are totally unfounded
and, what is more, he is attacking my credentials as a francophone.
Allow me to say that his French name does not entitle him to
defend all francophone traditions.
My family has been here since 1648. My entire family has
defended the francophone literature, culture, language, institutions,
and no member of the Bloc Quebecois or of the Parti Quebecois can
tell me what my family has done from the francophone point of
view.
In my opinion, the Bloc Quebecois are the ones working against
the interests of Quebec at this time, and the ones whose efforts will
gradually weaken the influence of the French language and culture
in Quebec. It is they who are doing a disservice to francophones.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, the truth is hard to take. It is up to the President of the
Treasury Board to stand up for himself, for it is he who clearly
spoke yesterday of ``serving the allophones''. So he is incapable of
standing up for himself.
I wish to ask him this: if it is good for Quebec anglophones to
have five times as many bilingual public servants as their
demographic weight justifies, would it be logical for the same rule
to apply to the francophones of New Brunswick, who represent 34
per cent of the population, or those in Ontario, who form the largest
francophone minority in Canada? Why do the federal government,
and the President of the Treasury Board, a francophone member of
Parliament from Quebec, continue to systematically disadvantage
the francophones in English-speaking Canada?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
clearly not true that the government, or myself, are disadvantaging
the francophone minorities in Canada. The opposition does nothing
but spread rumours which, they know to untrue.
What the report by the President of the Treasury Board
demonstrates, and clearly demonstrates with figures, not with
untrue allegations, is that the linguistic minorities in Canada have
received far better service in recent years than in the past.
(1135)
In fact, from the point of view of service to the public, from the
point of view of language of work, from the point of view of their
numerical representation in the public service, francophone
minorities are better off now than they have ever been in the past,
than they were 20 years ago. I myself bear witness to that, and the
allegations being made by the opposition will not change those
facts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
heritage minister's defence of her free flag program giveaway is
total garbage.
We are proud that Reform staff are trained to help constituents,
which does not change the fact that her program sucks wind. This
program has been flim-flam from the word go. Her officials
originally said that it was going to be $6 million. Now it is $23
million and climbing.
The minister told Canadians that her flags were free, yet on the
document that comes with the flags she says that you will receive a
tax receipt for donations of $10 or more.
Why does she refuse to give any spending details to this House?
It is $23 million and climbing. Precisely how many dollars have
been collected?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
member for bringing to the attention of Parliament the most
popular program of government.
As of this morning 613,420 families across Canada have
participated in the flag program.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: That represents one in every sixteen Canadian
households that have actually received a flag. In certain ridings the
participation is even stronger.
5112
In the riding of Beaver River, one in eleven households has
received a flag. In the riding of Calgary Southwest one in sixteen
households has received a flag. In the riding of Fraser Valley East
one in thirteen households has received a flag. In the riding of
Calgary North-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay East.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister does not seem to understand that the Liberals have no
monopoly on patriotism, it is just that they do it with taxpayers'
money.
Realizing that these flags cost money, can the minister tell the
House how many hospitals will close, how many books will be
taxed, how many seniors will be cut off from benefits to pay for
this program?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, none.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, things being
what they are, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime
Minister.
A shocking case of fraud at the Valcartier military base is one
more reason to question the effectiveness and relevance of the
court-martial system. Although the same kind of fraud was
allegedly practised in several other military bases in Canada in the
past 15 years, very few charges have been laid. Light sentences and
limited investigations cast some doubt on the credibility of this
justice system.
Since the entire military justice system has been sorely strained
since the appointment of the Minister of National Defence and the
current Chief of Staff, General Boyle, will the government appoint
a parliamentary committee to carry out a full and detailed
examination in this respect, and do so as soon as possible?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, considering the
seriousness of the allegations and the fact that an investigation is
now taking place, we cannot comment on the case here in the
House.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
to the minister is entirely relevant and does not concern the current
investigation.
The attempt to silence Corporal Purnelle and deprive him of his
most fundamental rights, when the army wanted to bring him
before a career review board instead of a court-martial, is a very
good example of what is wrong with the military justice system.
(1140)
And now for my supplementary. Instead of minimizing the
problems, will the minister or will she not admit that the military
justice system is ailing in more ways than one and that a remedy is
needed, not six months from now but right away?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he
is not talking about problems but that is exactly what he is doing.
We take these charges very seriously. That is why the investigation
is continuing, and that is why we do not want to discuss the justice
system here in Parliament.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has summed herself up
quite well over the last two days. She blows $160 million on flags,
propaganda and TV advertising while her government taxes books
and cuts medicare. Her only response to Canadians is to wave her
little list. Canadians deserve a whole lot better from their Deputy
Prime Minister.
Let me try again. The minister has been building a list of voters'
names from flag order forms. Is that list to be used for Liberal
election mail-outs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the flag is not Liberal.
The flag is Canadian.
When the member talks about the television programming fund,
he should be aware that the television programming fund, with a
budgeted investment of $100 million which was provided for in the
last budget, is expected to lever a total of $600 million in
investment in new Canadian programming.
That same program is expected to create thousands of jobs
across the country. At the same time, it will help Canadians share
their stories with each other, something that we desperately need in
this difficult time for our country.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder how many byelections it is going to take for this
minister to learn the importance of honesty in politics.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you please not to use
reflections on the honesty of any member of Parliament. We take it
for granted that you are all honourable members. I would ask the
hon. member to please be very judicious in his choice of words.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the flag
giveaway is nothing more than blatant electioneering by this
government.
5113
Is it not true that the Deputy Prime Minister thought her
reputation was so badly damaged by her broken GST promise that
she had to rob $23 million from Canadians to prop it up?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Once again, if the hon. Deputy Prime Minister
wishes to answer that question, I will permit it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
We learned, last July, that the Minister of Transport was taking
the Prague route away from Air Canada and giving it to Canadian,
the very day that Air Canada announced its new service to Prague,
in partnership with Lufthansa.
How can the Minister of Transport justify this decision as
anything other than a shameless bias in favour of Canadian to the
detriment of Air Canada, which has its head office in Montreal and
employs 5,500 people in the west and over 14,000 in Ontario and in
Quebec?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is simple. There is an almost automatic policy
in place for cities such as Prague. If the first airline does not use the
route, and Air Canada did not, it goes to the other airline. It is
almost automatic. I made no decision. That is how it works.
(1145)
Air Canada knew this, as my colleague, the former transport
minister, sent them a letter last year, when they indicated that the
Hong Kong routes would also be available for Canadian
International.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is odd that
it happened the very day that Air Canada had an agreement with
Lufthansa specifically to use the Prague route.
How can the transport minister justify before this House that Air
Canada never had an opportunity to be heard before it was decided
to take the Prague route away from it and give it to Canadian? At
least they could have listened to what Air Canada had to say.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have just said, it is not a question of reviewing the
matter or making a decision. It is automatic. If the route is not
established in 365 days, it goes to the other airline. It is very clear.
Air Canada is aware of this rule.
Yes, they put out a press release saying that they were in the
process of setting up an office, and it is too bad, but they did not
clearly indicate that they were selling tickets long before the
automatic application of the policy established by my predecessor,
the former transport minister.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Labour.
Over 15,000 auto workers are now out on strike in Oshawa,
Durham and Ste-Thérèse. Canadian auto workers feel they are
being used as pawns in negotiations between General Motors and
the United Auto Workers in the United States. The cars are made by
Canadians; they do not want their agreements made in Detroit.
Will the minister tell Washington that Canadians demand made
in Canada solutions to their labour problems?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the labour negotiations between General Motors of
Canada and the Canadian auto workers fall under provincial law
and not under the Canada Labour Code. Therefore, I cannot
intervene in this dispute.
However, I am very concerned about the effects such a strike will
have on Canadians and the Canadian economy. Therefore, I invite
the parties to continue negotiating and to find a Canadian solution
as soon as possible.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite
the claims of the Deputy Prime Minister, Canadians from coast to
coast are complaining about the cost of the flags program. They
typically state that the certificates alone must have cost more than
$1 million and surely that money could have been put to better use.
Since the Minister of Canadian Heritage originally stated that
this program would be funded by corporations, could she please tell
the House how much money the corporations have given toward
the purchase of flags for this program? And while she is at it, could
she please tell the House how much of her personal money she has
put into the program?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would have to challenge
the hon. member's claim that complaints are pouring in from
across the country. In fact, calls are pouring in from across the
country. In the first eight months of the program we have received
over three million calls from Canadians who obviously believe this
program has something to offer.
5114
I will say that we have also received a commitment from a very
large number of corporate presidents for the corporate flag
challenge, which I believe will be launched on November 1.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take it
then that the corporations have donated nothing. It is interesting
that out of three million calls, two and a half million have gone
unanswered because of the busy signal.
It has taken the taxes of 1,600 Canadian families to pay for this
program. In addition, owners and employees of flag shops across
the country are being put out of work by a government program
which competes directly with them. Now a Léger and Léger poll
shows a dramatic increase in support for separatism since the
program was introduced.
Is the minister so blinded with ideology that she cannot see that
her flags program is playing into the separatists' hands and
contributing to the break-up of Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should say
that as usual the Reform Party has it all wrong. In fact, in the Léger
and Léger poll which came out today, there has been a significant
drop in support for the Parti Quebecois and for the Bloc Quebecois.
As usual, the member's polls are probably way behind.
* * *
(1150)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In early July, Canadian National announced its plans to sell or
abandon the Matapédia-Gaspé line. So far, the section between
Chandler and Gaspé has not found a buyer and may disappear
altogether.
Does the minister realize that this railway network in the Gaspé
is in danger of disappearing altogether and that especially in the
winter, local communities will be deprived of the only safe means
of transportation in this region?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, railways throughout Quebec are in the same situation as
those in the rest of Canada. If there are doubts about safety, we
cannot let passengers continue to use these lines.
If the problem is a lack of proper maintenance or if an accident
creates a hazard, then, as is the case in other parts of the country,
they will have to resort interrupting service. It is impossible to do
otherwise and at the same time protect Canadian travellers.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is not the same everywhere. In the Gaspé, Radio-Canada has
practically been taken off the airwaves. And now the government
also wants to make cuts in transportation. It is not the same
everywhere.
Could the Minister of Transport at least give us a guarantee
today in the House that he will take the necessary action to have the
passenger train service maintained along the entire
Matapédia-Gaspé line?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are now looking into a number of different routes,
especially fairly short ones. We are considering ways to continue
the service referred to by the hon. member. The decision cannot be
made now, because investigations and studies have not yet been
completed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
continue to ask questions about the flag program because it is very
symbolic of something the government is doing wrong. It
symbolizes two things. One is that the government has very poor
spending priorities. It will shut down the lighthouses, it will shut
down the coast guard in my province and then it spends far more
money on the flag program. Also, there is no unity plan coming out
of the minister's office. There is no plan A and no plan B. There is a
plan F for flags and that is it.
Will the minister ever come out with a comprehensive plan for
national unity, or do we just have to find it in between the cracks?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member was
absolutely right when he said there is something symbolic.
Obviously, there is something symbolic in the fact that in the riding
of Fraser Valley East, one in 13 households have thought this
program was worthwhile.
I think I made the point yesterday that the flag program is only
part of an overall government approach that seeks to build for
Canadians a sense of ownership of their country. Flying a flag is
not going to save the country but it is certainly giving Canadians a
positive public expression of their belief in the capacity of this
great country. It has obviously struck a cord with a lot of
Canadians, including the hon. member who used his own fax lines
at considerable cost to the taxpayers to fax my office in Ottawa
from his office in British Columbia to get the flags.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
people the minister needs to talk to about national unity are the
separatists in Quebec. The rest of us are already proud Canadians
and we do not need a flag to prove it. Her flag plan is a failure. Of
5115
all the flags the minister has sent out, only 8 per cent have gone to
the people of Quebec. When the people in the west want to order a
flag they have to go to their MP's office or phone in on the French
only line because it is the only line that is open.
How many separatists in Quebec does the minister really think
she is going to persuade to become federalists with this flag
program?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate
manifestation of the narrowness of the hon. member if he thinks it
is only one part of the country that needs to work on the links that
are going to keep this country together.
(1155 )
In fact, 2,677 households in the member's riding obviously
thought the Canadian flag was important enough that they wanted
to fly one.
I would have to say that with the kind of narrow view expressed
by members of the Reform Party, I think it is unfortunate that
instead of working with the government to try to build this nation,
they are only interested in scoring cheap political points.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Canada has taken a leading role on the world ban of land mines,
most recently this week with the announcements by the Minister of
National Defence of the destruction of two-thirds of Canada's stock
of land mines, and by the Minister for International Cooperation of
an additional $2 million to clear land mines around the world.
Has the conference in Ottawa this week given us any real
progress on this issue? Is there reason to hope that the scourge of
land mines may be removed from this earth?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the conference was to bring together like minded countries from
around the world to work toward the goal of a global ban on the
heinous weapons which are anti-personnel mines.
The conference has already had a demonstrable effect. The
number of countries that have committed themselves to such a ban
increased from some 14 a year ago to over 47 today in time to
participate in this conference. We hope that more countries will
join this accelerating bandwagon in time to have a really strong
resolution on these weapons at the UN this fall.
In addition, the conference brought together not only
governments but also parliamentarians and NGOs active in this
area to develop an action plan to lead to the global elimination of
these weapons.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
The government is still facing lawsuits on the order of $660
million following cancellation of the Pearson airport contract. And
this is all because the Liberals, since coming to power, have refused
to listen to the official opposition, which is asking them to get to
the bottom of this political and financial scandal. The minister
obviously has no intention of taking any action.
Is the minister not admitting that the federal government is
sitting back and doing nothing while it waits for the courts to
decide how much Canadian taxpayers will have to pay for the
mistakes of this government, which is trying to protect its friends
involved in the privatization of Pearson?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yes, we must sometimes wait on the courts, but I can
assure the hon. member that as soon as we are in a position to make
a decision that will be right for all the individuals involved, we will
do so.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
news for the heritage minister: There is no free lunch and there is
no such thing as free flags. A dozen hospitals in this country could
have been kept open for $23 million. For $23 million, enough
police could be hired to do a better job of protecting society.
When will this minister wake up and get her priorities straight
and stop wasting my grandchildren's money? Does she not realize
that my grandchildren and hers are going to be paying for these
so-called free flags on borrowed money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my priority and the
priority of this government is to make sure that my grandchildren
have a country. We will do anything to involve ordinary Canadians
in the capacity to express their love for their country. Flying a flag
5116
is not going to save the country but flying a flag is part of the fact
that as Canadians we have to start celebrating who we are and
standing up for the fact that we have the greatest country in the
world. The flag can do that. I think the member should get on board
the program, as obviously many of his colleagues already have.
* * *
(1200)
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, at this hour at a news conference in Regina the minister of
agriculture is apparently making an announcement concerning the
Canadian Wheat Board.
The rumours this morning suggest the minister is announcing a
costly plebiscite on barley marketing.
Can the parliamentary secretary confirm these rumours and, if
so, will he also acknowledge that this important decision was made
without the consultation of the producer elected Canadian Wheat
Board advisory committee?
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
true that the agriculture minister is now in Regina and that he
should be momentarily starting his news conference to announce
his response to the Board's report.
Rather than confirming or denying the rumours that the member
seems to want to put before us, I would invite him to come to my
office to listen to the minister at the news conference, which will
provide him with all the answers he wants.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
members of Parliament, their staffs, individuals and associations
across the land make extensive use of the government telephone
directory which was last updated in 1994.
Would the parliamentary secretary for public works and
government services confirm whether the government intends to
publish an updated version and, if so, when?
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. I appreciate his keen
interest in the matter.
I do have good news for him. There will be a new paper version
of the phone directory available to the public in January, about
three months from now. I mention the new paper version because
this directory is already on the Internet. It can be accessed at the
Government of Canada home page. All one has to do is click on
that little red phone on one's computer screen and the Internet
message number is http:canada.gc.ca.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the members of the German/Canadian
Friendship Group from the German Bundestag led by Mr. Siegfried
Hornung.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Beauchesne, which is very
clear. The President of the Treasury Board said earlier that my
colleague made false statements, which is tantamount to accusing
the member for Richmond-Wolfe of lying in the House.
The member came at this honestly, referring to remarks made by
the minister, which can be found on page 5059 of Hansard:
In Quebec, the proportion of anglophones and allophones is nearly 20 per cent,
and consequently we have a proportionate number of bilingual public servants
which reflects the needs of the province.
We are quoting the minister. So my colleague made no false
allegation. Mr. Speaker, I ask the President of the Treasury Board
to withdraw his remarks.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, the President of the Treasury
Board is here. If he wishes to add anything to these comments, I
invite him to speak.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
false allegations that have been made show clearly through the hon.
member's question, since it includes personal allegations which, in
my opinion, show disrespect for the dignity of the House and the
other hon. members.
(1205)
This is an unfortunate tendency, and one which ought not to exist
in this House. The members of the opposition should stop making
false personal allegations, should stop attributing motives which
are false, should stop claiming that any Quebecer who does not
follow their way of thinking, for one reason or another, is a traitor
to his race and his roots.
The question from the opposition members needs careful
rereading, and it will be seen to contain false allegations that are
not based on fact, that are contrary to reality, that are evidence of a
type of effrontery and arrogance that ought never to be tolerated in
this House.
5117
The Speaker: I believe, dear colleagues, the words in question
here are ``false allegations''. At times, we use language in our
debates which comes very close to crossing the line into
unparliamentary language.
I would like, if I may, to ask all of the hon. members to cease
using inflammatory language during our debates. We have seen
today that one side has interpreted the matter one way, and the
other side, another way. I would simply ask you not to use terms
like ``false'', because they stir up controversy here in the House.
I do find, however, concerning the point of order, that the
minister has explained what he meant to say with use of the term
``false''. I believe that he ought to have withdrawn the words in his
explanation, and I would ask him that directly. I would ask the
minister, after his explanation, whether he will withdraw the word
``false'', which he used here in the House?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, now that you have given me the
opportunity to explain clearly why I responded as I did, I consider
the allegation withdrawn.
The Speaker: Very well. If there is another point of order, I will
listen to it, but I consider this one closed.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask you to take this point of order under
advisement, for his first reply just added insult to injury. If stating
that the minister is a francophone and an elected member for
Quebec is false, than I wish he would reveal his true identity.
The Speaker: Yes, if the hon. member wishes me to look at
Hansard, I shall do so. If it is necessary, if I deem it necessary, I
will get back to the House.
_____________________________________________
5117
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-332, an act to amend the Employment Equity Act
(elimination of designated group and numerical goals) and the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
(1210 )
He said: Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present a
private member's bill which would deliver on the wishes expressed
by my constituents.
The bill amends the Employment Equity Act to remove the
concept of designated groups and numerical goals and to repeal the
employer's reporting requirements. It will come into force when
the Employment Equity Act comes into force.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-333, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the
Criminal Code (refugee or immigrant applicants convicted of an
offence on indictment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill which was
developed with the assistance of a Liberal supporting lawyer in my
riding. If passed and accepted by this government, it would give the
power to provincial judges to deport criminal refugees in lieu of
sentence.
It is supported by some crown prosecutors in the Vancouver area.
I think it is a great bill and I look forward to debating it in the
House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I present an entirely
spontaneous petition from all across the country that would call on
Parliament to take measures to withdraw charitable status from
special interest groups.
By special interest groups I believe the petitioners mean those
groups that lobby on behalf of particular interests and yet receive
government funding because of their charitable status.
Canadians from one end of the country to the other would
support the initiative in this petition 100 per cent.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I have
the privilege of presenting to the House two petitions from
concerned citizens in my riding of Cambridge.
The first petition contains approximately 400 signatures and
requests that the Parliament of Canada amend the Criminal Code to
ensure that anyone convicted of impaired driving causing death
receive a sentence from seven years to a maximum of fourteen
years.
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition urges the government to enact legislation to prohibit
convicted criminals from profiting financially by selling the details
of their crimes to others for publication through books, movies and
videos.
5118
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, of all
Canadian institutions, surely the most controversial is the other
house.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, the petitioners, 2379 in number,
are calling upon Parliament to take steps to abolish the Senate.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
bit like asking someone to close the barn door after the horses have
escaped, but in spite of that I rise today to present a petition signed
by 97 of my constituents who wish to draw the attention of the
House to their belief that the privileges which society accords to
heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex
relationships, and their fear that the inclusion of the term sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act will be seen as
societal approval for same sex marriages.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table a petition from Canadians who encourage the
government to ensure that Canada remains united and indivisible in
the future.
(1215 )
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Bob
Hackett and 32 other residents of North Vancouver who point out
that currently Canadian law does not prohibit convicted criminals
from profiting financially by writing books, setting up 1-900
numbers, producing videos and so on.
The petitioners ask that Parliament enact Bill C-205, introduced
by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest
opportunity, to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits
from committing a crime.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5118
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records
Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the
Solicitor General Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues from all
parties represented in the House on Bill C-55. I would like to
indicate that there are good portions in this bill. However, we do
not think it goes far enough and I will be dealing with some of
those aspects during my speech today.
On September 14 of last year an article appeared in the Financial
Post containing figures from Correctional Services Canada. These
figures, the author said, and I concur, are worrisome and clearly
indicate the system does not protect the public from convicted
murderers and other dangerous predators. These figures
demonstrate a need for additional Criminal Code changes which go
far beyond Bill C-55.
According to a chart furnished by the solicitor general to Diane
Francis, editor of the Financial Post, between 1989 and 1994 no
fewer than 78 people committed murder while they were on
conditional release. This means 15 innocent people were killed
each year in this country during that period of time by people who
were on conditional release.
The same figures reveal that some 4,960 persons convicted of a
lesser violent offence such as child molestation, manslaughter, rape
or attempted murder repeated their crimes while on conditional
release. Miss Francis concluded: ``Those figures are awful''. I
concur.
Statistics do not provide an adequate picture of how repeat
offenders become progressively more violent. Therefore, I would
like to provide the House with evidence that supports a need not
only for Bill C-55, but a need for additional Criminal Code
amendments as well.
Since 1975, Allan Wayne Walsh of Mission, B.C. had more than
60 convictions for kidnapping, confining women, sex crimes,
robbery and weapons offences. In 1983, he was convicted of 26
offences, including two counts of rape, and sentenced to 25 years in
prison. Ten years later he was out on parole. Within months he used
a knife to try to rape one woman and then raped and robbed
another. On September 21, 1995 he was convicted of seven new
offences, including sexual assault, which led the crown to have him
declared a dangerous offender.
5119
These seven additional offences never would have occurred if
Walsh had served his full 25-year sentence. Seven innocent people
would have remained unharmed if this dangerous offender had
served out his full sentence of 25 years. I ask the question: Why
do we continue to release high risk offenders into society to go
on to reoffend?
Reform believes in truth in sentencing for violent criminals in
the absence of a dangerous offender designation. Truth in
sentencing means that if a 25-year sentence is imposed a 25-year
sentence is served. In essence we support no parole for violent
offenders; no reduction in the term decided by the court on
consideration of the facts.
(1220)
Why would government members want a court, a judge, perhaps
a jury to consider all of the facts and the circumstances and impose
a penalty based on those facts and circumstances and then have a
parole board second guess them and reduce the time that a violent
offender spends in jail? They will not answer that question.
Ronald Richard McCauley, another B.C. rapist, was sentenced to
17 years after two vicious rapes in which the victims were left for
dead. At the time of sentencing McCauley had a criminal record
dating back to 1969. When McCauley came up for parole in 1992
he admitted to the parole board that if he had not been caught he
would have become a serial killer like Clifford Olson. The board,
noting that McCauley appeared to benefit only superficially from
treatment, turned down his request for early parole.
In 1994, two years later, McCauley got statutory release.
According to a September 25, 1995 newspaper article, Mr.
McCauley is now a suspect in the murder of two Vancouver
prostitutes.
The Reform Party proposes that Bill C-55 be amended by
eliminating statutory release. Melanie Carpenter would not have
been murdered if Mr. Auger had not been free on statutory release.
In 1983 James Ronald Robinson of Ottawa was convicted of
manslaughter in the stabbing death of Roxanne Nairn, a
17-year-old grade 12 student. He was sentenced to three years on a
manslaughter conviction, but was released early, despite being
caught trying to smuggle hashish into jail while returning from an
unescorted temporary release.
In 1990 Robinson spent two years in jail for raping and
threatening to kill a woman he had lived with after his release from
prison. On March 6, 1995 he was charged with another count of
sexual assault.
Despite having consecutive sentences adding up to 27 years and
despite having committed crimes while on parole, Claude Forget
was given an escorted pass to visit his sister in 1993. He escaped.
Two months later he shot two police officers.
In September of 1995 he was up for parole after serving only a
fraction of his sentence because the parole loophole required any
new sentence to be merged with an existing sentence. In Forget's
case this meant he was eligible to apply for parole almost as soon
as he was convicted of the attempted murders. Forget was granted a
full parole hearing in December of 1995.
In 1986 Martin Dubuc, a Montreal hockey coach, was convicted
of molesting team members. After his release from prison he did
not let a lifetime ban on coaching in Quebec stop him. He changed
locales, becoming a coach and eventually president of the minor
hockey association of southwest Montreal. As well, three different
school boards in the Montreal area hired him as a substitute
teacher. In September of 1995 he pleaded guilty to using the
telephone to threaten boys aged 10 to 13.
More and more of these types of cases will occur unless
additional amendments are made to the Criminal Code that go
beyond the scope of Bill C-55. There will be no discernible impact
on repeat offender rates unless the government is willing to go the
extra mile.
The Liberal's soft on crime approach to justice is not working.
What we need to do is implement zero tolerance for violent and sex
offenders, which means we come down hard on those criminals
who prey on the weak and vulnerable members of our society.
Under Bill C-55 high risk offenders will still be released back
into society and Canadians will still remain at risk, even though
there are some minimal forms of supervision in place. The only
way to truly protect Canadians from high risk offenders is to keep
them locked up where there is absolutely no risk of them
reoffending. In the case of any serious personal injury, all of those
convicted should serve out their full sentences.
(1225)
Reform proposes that Bill C-55 be amended for greater certainty
to require courts to automatically place a dangerous offender
finding on any person who commits on two or more separate
occasions an offence constituting a serious personal injury offence
and subject them to an indeterminate period of incarceration.
Reform also recommends, in support of our colleague from
Surrey White Rock-South Langley private member's Bill C-254,
that Bill C-55 be amended to allow for dangerous offender findings
to be made at any time after sentencing. The crown must be given
the right to seek dangerous offender status for persons convicted of
serious crimes causing serious personal injury at any time during
that offender's penitentiary sentence.
5120
Why would we release an offender if it is clear that offender
has not been rehabilitated and will go on to target innocent
children or adults on release? That is what Bill C-55 will do.
Reform also supports amending Bill C-55 to expand the list of
criminal offences on which a dangerous offender application may
be brought to include pedophiles and other sexual predators. There
is probably no crime short of murder that offends the sensibilities
and the values of a community more than the sexual assault of
children. In many ways it is the most unconscionable of criminal
acts because it victimizes the weakest, most vulnerable and most
innocent among us.
It is not surprising that the public recoils in horror with the news
that a pedophile is being released into the community after
completing his jail sentence, particularly when the convicted
pedophile is considered a high risk to reoffend.
In December 1995 Manitobans were warned about the danger of
a released sexual offender who police claimed was a high risk to
reoffend. The Winnipeg police were concerned Osborne could
either attack someone he knew or simply attack a stranger. Douglas
James Osborne was released from Stony Mountain Institution on
November 23, 1995 after serving a three-year sentence for sexual
assault. He was not to be under any supervision on his release.
Also in December 1995 the York Regional Police in Ontario
issued a public alert warning to York and Durham residents of the
release of Donald John Jones. The police considered there was a
high risk that this sexual sadist, as termed by the police, would
attempt to attack other women. Jones refused to take treatment for
his sexual deviance while incarcerated in Kingston Penitentiary. He
had a criminal record dating back to 1970 when he was sentenced
to five years for sexually assaulting a 59-year-old Whitby woman
in 1981. Jones attacked an 18-year-old convenience store clerk in
1986 while on a pass from the Kingston pen. He also sexually
assaulted a 78-year-old woman in 1987 while out on another
temporary pass. Is it not wonderful that these people are allowed
passes before there is any assurance they have been rehabilitated?
They go on and on to commit offence after offence against innocent
people.
Reform proposes Bill C-55 be amended to eliminate any type of
temporary release for sexual offenders. As stated earlier, we
propose Bill C-55 be amended to include sex offenders in the
dangerous offenders designation. We also propose that the review
of indeterminate sentence of sex offenders include the examination
and recommendation of at least two psychiatrists.
Sex offenders, especially child molesters, have a high repeat
rate. The only way to keep our children safe, the only way to
prevent sexual predators from taking victims and destroying the
life of another innocent child is to keep them locked up, keep them
incarcerated, keep them away from those they wish to target, keep
them incarcerated indefinitely as dangerous offenders until there is
absolutely no risk of them reoffending.
I do not think there is anyone in Canada, certainly not in this
House, who would want to see someone after they have served their
term of imprisonment, on being completely rehabilitated, kept in
prison. That is not the point. The point is that we must protect
society by ensuring that those who have a high risk to reoffend are
not released back into society.
(1230)
No one should be released from prison if they exhibit signs or
evidence they will reoffend. We have the power to protect the
Melanie Carpenters of this country. We have the power to protect
all the citizens of this country. Bill C-55 moves in that direction but
it does not go far enough.
In closing, I would like to read for members of this House an
Edmonton Sun editorial written by Linda Slobodian:
On July 16, a 36-year-old Edmonton man was sentenced to 712 years in jail for
repeatedly sexually assaulting two relatives when they were little girls. He was found
guilty on numerous sexual offences.
Yet less than three months later he's back out on the street. Little wonder one of
his victims, now 26, says she feels ``betrayed'' by the court system.
``I felt justice had been served'', says the victim who testified the assaults started
when she was three or four, soon progressed to intercourse, and lasted a number of
years.
``Now that he's walking free, I feel it was a waste of time getting up there and
mutilating ourselves in front of everyone at the trial. It was so difficult, embarrassing
giving all those details'', she says.
Court heard the convicted man's abuse of the other victim, her sister who is now
24, started when she was about four and also progressed to intercourse.
The convicted man faces more charges, involving other young relatives, for
which he's scheduled to go on trial in the middle of this month.
How can it be that someone who gets such a heavy sentence for deplorable crimes
against children gets out so soon?
He put in an application for an appeal. He's not get been granted one but on Sept.
27 he was released on bail.
That isn't all that unusual in our justice system.
The victims received a call Tuesday from his parole officer advising them he'd
been released a few days earlier.
``I flipped out'' says the victims' mother. ``He was found guilty of rape, among
other things. We phoned (Justice Minister) Brian Evans. His staff said, `That's the
justice system'''.
This is the justice system we are presently burdened with in this
country and that we speak out against and implore the justice
minister to do something about. It is due to the bleeding heart
5121
mentality which continues to exist in this place to place the rights
of the criminal ahead of the rights of those two innocent rape
victims. It is due to the fact that we have a federal justice minister
who, in the words of one grieving father whose daughter was
murdered, is a friend of the criminal. The justice minister has now
been labelled by citizens of this country as a friend of the criminal.
Reform proposes we drastically overhaul the justice system. Our
first priority will be to make the protection of society and the rights
of the victim the guiding principles of justice in this country.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech on this
important piece of legislation.
I wonder if it would be possible for the member to perhaps clear
up a misunderstanding that arose in this House yesterday when we
were also debating Bill C-55. The member for Cape Breton-The
Sydneys was talking about an unfortunate incident in a riding in
Canada where there was a dangerous offender released in that
community. It was not until the general public got involved in
drawing the attention of the authorities to the fact that they did not
want this individual loose in their community that something was
done and pressure was brought to bear. Eventually Mr. Oatway
voluntarily went back to jail in British Columbia.
It is my understanding that Bill C-55 cannot retroactively apply
to dangerous offenders, no matter how bad these people are, no
matter whether they do not voluntarily undertake treatment while
they are incarcerated. It is my understanding that it simply will not
apply.
(1235)
The hon. member from across the way led the House to believe
yesterday that it would apply to individuals who are currently
incarcerated.
That is a great concern for Canadians at large who understand
that we have a lot of inherently evil people presently incarcerated
who are coming up for either parole or the end of their terms in jail.
They will be released into society.
Can the member shed any light as to whether Bill C-55 is really
going to help society in that regard? It is my understanding, once
again, that under the present system the crown prosecutor has to
apply for the dangerous offender designation at the time of trial,
that Bill C-55 will expand that window to be six months after
conviction but that it will not apply to anyone who is in the system
and has been there for longer since their conviction. I want to know
if he agrees with that.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing
this matter to my attention. There is no question in my mind that
this bill, if it becomes law in its present form, will not allow any
prosecutor to deal with those who have already been convicted with
regard to the dangerous offender provision.
That provision is provided for the cases that will be brought
forward after this bill has been passed. It has expanded the window,
the time that the crown can apply for the dangerous offender status,
to six months.
Of course, what we would like to do is amend the bill in this area
to have dangerous offender status apply at any time during that
period of incarceration, particularly at the end of the warrant of a
violent offender.
The reasoning and rationale behind this is simply that if a
dangerous offender application has not been successful or has not
even been applied, and an individual who has committed a violent
offence has served his time and at the end of his warrant period has
not been rehabilitated, if there is clear evidence that this person
represents a high risk to reoffend, why are we releasing him?
If we would expand the provision that my hon. friend referred to
so that the prosecutor could apply to the courts for an indeterminant
sentence application, the dangerous offender application, at the end
of the sentence we would have a workable tool to determine
whether the Augers, a prime suspect in the murder of Melanie
Carpenter, ought to be released.
In that case Auger was released on statutory release. The
officials were concerned that he was a high risk to members of
society. There was not a thing they could do about it because there
were no tools within the law for them to do anything about it.
We will be making this amendment to this bill at the appropriate
time to expand that window of time from six months to the full
warrant period in order to provide the tool that I have just described
within the justice system.
(1240)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55.
The efforts of the justice minister, the champion of the social
engineers on that side of the House, are probably a little better than
they have been in any bill that I have seen in the last three years.
However, as usual there are some things in there that have to be
fixed, there are flaws and there are some changes that need to be
made. Hopefully we will be able to see that accomplished at the
committee meetings.
The sad part about it and the fear that I have is that behind closed
doors in the justice department there are decisions already being
made as to what can be or what will be allowed with regard to this
bill. We have seen it happen before to bills coming from the
committees.
If this justice minister says there will be no amendments to this
bill, and he says it to the members of his caucus who serve on that
committee, that is the way it will be regardless of the debate,
5122
regardless of the discussion and regardless of the witnesses. I have
seen that happen and unfortunately it is going to happen again in
my view.
This bill is need of amendments but the dictatorship of this
government has already indicated it will not be changed. Decisions
are made behind closed doors and then all the members of the
party, the justice minister, the social engineer, will be required to
rise in their seats and vote according to what he says. That seems to
be the democratic process, and I use that term loosely. This
government does not seem to understand the democratic process.
What a great thing it would be for Canadian people if democracy
truly existed when it comes to making decisions on behalf of
Canadian people. We could back up a few years, during the time of
Trudeau, when people expressed loud and clear things they wanted
and things they did not. The voices were being heard. They tried to
participate.
I remember when they brought in the metric system there was
quite a outcry. People did not want it but it did not matter. The
people in this place do better. So we got the metric system anyway
whether you wanted it or not as a Canadian.
I remember the language laws coming in and the great debates
that took place across the country. The debates had no play. It is
what this government wanted to do.
I remember the GST. There could not have been more
resounding voices in the land by the people saying no to the GST,
but they got it anyway because the little dictators who sit in this
place made the decision and that is the way it is going to be.
That is just the way it was through the Trudeau years, that is the
way it was through the Mulroney years and that is the way it has
been during this session. Decisions are made behind closed doors
and the government will do that whether you like it or not.
I talked to a number of backbenchers who have said that they
would like to vote against a bill but they do not dare. Or they would
like to vote against this bill but they do not dare because in the
Liberal Party you are punished if you do not do as you are told.
An hon. member: That did not stop Silye.
Mr. Thompson: I understand there are some people sitting over
here, there are a lot of good committee members who used to
serve-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The Chair will not
accept members being named either by the person who has the
floor or people who are waiting to get the floor possibility. I would
ask you to keep those matters in mind.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is
that you have to do as you are told if you belong to a certain party in
this place. That is too bad because there are a lot of people on that
side of the House as well as this side who would truly like to
represent their people even when it comes to Bill C-55. They would
like to hear their voices with regard to issues and would like to be
able to express that through a vote in the House, but it does not
work that way.
(1245 )
Three things bother me about Bill C-55. First is electronic
monitoring. A provision in the bill states that a person only has to
be a suspect in order to be monitored. This person does not need to
have a conviction or a record or even been charged. The provision
states that if we think you are he kind of a person who might
commit this or that crime, you would qualify for electronic
monitoring.
Many people would think that is a fairly strange process for a
country like Canada to engage in. Some people would even go so
far as to say we are moving toward a police state when we start
electronically monitoring people who have neither been charged or
convicted of anything. I find that rather strange.
I wonder if that kind of system would even come close to passing
a charter challenge. Many things I thought should pass a charter
challenge in this land never did, however, this one is very
questionable. I imagine there would have to be some changes there.
How can they go around this country and say that it is okay to put
an electronic monitoring device on someone because they think
they might do this or that? That is a serious flaw which needs to be
addressed.
Second, I have a problem with the aboriginal clauses. They will
go into a community where an aboriginal is released and do special
things in order to make that release successful. I cannot say that is
wrong in itself. I see nothing wrong with that. But if it is good for
that community, then why would it not be good for another
community?
Why is the government always so quick to identify a group in a
piece of legislation, set them aside and say: ``We're going to do
something special because they are this or they are that''? If I were
to suggest something like that in the House I am sure there would
be screams of racism, prejudice and everything under the sun. That
would happen if I would dare take a group of people and suggest we
ought to do something special for them but not for the rest of
Canadians. I find that rather strange. But if it is a good idea, which I
think it is, and if it is found to be a good idea, then why stop there?
Why not do it for community a, community b and community c?
Why not go through the whole list and do it? I believe that has to be
addressed and I hope it will be.
5123
The third point, which is probably the worst of all, bothers me.
It is the provision that a criminal can be declared a dangerous
offender six months after the time of sentencing. There will be
six months after application to declare a convicted criminal a
dangerous offender. At the end of the six months, if he is not
declared a dangerous offender, then it is my understanding that
it can never be done again. I find that really silly. I do not know
any other word I could use.
When I was the principal of a school, the students would have
loved to have a rule that would say: ``In a 10-month year, we'll
evaluate you in the sixth month, and if you've been good up until
then, we'll pass you into the next grade''. They would not have to
worry about the next four months. I am sure that a lot of people in
prison are thinking the same thing.
If government members do not believe for a moment that these
convicts do not know how to play the game, how to avoid certain
things, how to get certain favours, then I would suggest they go to
the prisons and talk to the guards, talk to the caseworkers, talk to
the frontline workers and find out just how wrong they are.
(1250 )
What is wrong with leaving the door open and being able to call
them a dangerous offender at any time? Application can be made to
do that.
I will go back two or three years to the family and friends of
Melanie Carpenter and how they could have probably today been
enjoying that young woman if there would have had something in
place that would have said to her killer: ``Auger, you are not getting
out because you are a dangerous offender''.
All the psychological reports, case reports, the frontline workers,
the guards, the warden and everybody said: ``This fellow should
not be let out because he is not ready to go into society. He will hurt
somebody''. However, our hands were tied. Nobody could do
anything about it because he had served his time. The result?
Melanie Carpenter no longer exists.
What is wrong with leaving the door open? If they were able to
discover after seven or eight years that this fellow Auger, who
killed Melanie Carpenter, was a dangerous offender and would hurt
people again, then why did they not make it possible to say that he
was a dangerous offender? Why did they not do it in this bill?
The number one priority that I keep hearing from the social
engineers on that side of the House is the protection of people by
preventing crime. What better prevention is there than to keep a
dangerous, violent person behind bars? However, we cannot do it if
we are going to say we have to declare that within six months.
After a six-month period goes by and it has been decided the
person being evaluated will not be declared a dangerous offender,
what happens if all of a sudden he tells us where to put our
rehabilitation programs and that he will not take treatment, which
we cannot force him to do? We should be able to re-open the case
since this guy is not going to take any treatment and never wanted
to do anything about his problems. He is going to be released some
day, he thinks. Let us declare him a dangerous offender.
I would rather see something at the end after a long period of
time that might lift that classification, if it was deserving, rather
than after a long period of time we could not put that classification
on him because of Bill C-55.
If the government is so keen and so interested in prevention and
protection then why does it not do that? I am sure the Canadian
people would applaud that decision. As my colleague from Calgary
Northeast knows after visiting a lot of prisons, the guards, the
frontline officers, the caseworkers and the psychologists would all
appreciate being able to have an influence on the decision makers
who release these individuals. That is why we believe that the
parole system should be placed in the hands of these people on the
front line, those who know best.
I will go back to the school idea when I was a principal. It would
been nice for my staff and I to have gone into the community, and
because they were nice to us or because they did us favours, we
could have appointed a pass and fail board from the community. At
the end of the year we could just bring them in and bring the kids
before them one at a time and they could decide what to do with the
person. I know what the people would say. They would ask: ``How
can I know? You have worked with him or her all year. You should
make that decision''.
I believe that if someone is going to work for a number of years
with a prisoner then he or she should be the one to have the biggest
influence and say on whether that person qualifies to go back into
society. It sounds like common sense to me. But no. The good old
boys and the good old girls have to be appointed to serve on a board
which I think at this time is doing a better job than in the past. In
the past it was a dismal failure simply because the people in those
positions were making decisions and they were not knowledgeable
enough to know exactly what should be accomplished. Does that
not make sense?
(1255)
Just think, June 30 every year, I could have gone home, all my
teaching staff could have gone home. We could have brought in
half a dozen people from the community and they could decide
whether the kids would pass or fail. We could dump a few papers in
their laps and let them decide.
We have to stop shirking responsibility for our decisions. We
need some accountability. Who is accountable for Melanie
Carpenter's death? The killer? Yes. But he should never have been
out of prison.
5124
The government knows of many examples. It knows about
Oatway, Auger and many more. Why will it not stop them? Why
not fix the bill so that anyone can be declared a dangerous offender
at any time?
Canadians are continually telling pollsters that 70 per cent of
them want capital punishment. What is wrong with members in this
place listening to the people and giving them the opportunity to
express their feelings in a referendum? Give us a chance to find
out. Let the people speak. But not the Liberals. They say they know
best.
Let the Darlene Boyds, let the Debbie Mahaffys, let the victims
and survivors of victims across the land know that we support what
they as taxpayers want from us, that section 745 be abolished.
When Bill C-55 was introduced the minister had the police
chiefs all around him. He was smiling, he had their support and that
is good. I am glad he had their support. But where were they on Bill
C-45? We did not see them then. I saw most of those people and
Scott Newark, executive officer of the Canadian Police Association
sitting up here waiting for us to vote to put section 745 out of
business. When they saw the vote on the private member's bill
which would have done that, they were very pleased and they felt
that the voice of the people had been heard.
All of a sudden the miracle worker, the champion of the social
engineers came out from behind closed doors and says: ``This is
better''. The worst part about it is that he convinced all of his
colleagues who initially wanted to abolish section 745. All of a
sudden they came out as supporters of Bill C-45. I wonder if they
really supported it or if they just continue to do what they are told?
I am sure it is the latter.
When this bill goes to committee and the witnesses come before
the group, I really hope there will be a genuine effort on the part of
the government to allow those witnesses, most of whom are
ordinary Canadians, to have their voices heard and be incorporated
into the decisions that are made. That would be a nice change. I just
hope that will be done.
There are flaws in the bill. It needs to be fixed. Give the
Canadian people a voice and fix it.
(1300 )
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the
speech of the hon. member for Wild Rose. I would call to his
attention that paragraph 753(4) on page 5 of the bill as printed
states in part: ``If the court finds an offender to be a dangerous
offender, it shall impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary
for an indeterminate period''. I underscore the word
``indeterminate''. It is a serious sentence.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Oh, oh.
Mr. Pagtakhan: The member should be civil and respect debate.
He should be quiet and maintain decorum in the House.
I would like to assure the member that the government is
definitely committed to community safety. This remains a
government priority. There is no debate about it. Hence, this bill to
amend the Criminal Code and other acts.
The member alluded to electronic monitoring, that it could be
subject to charter challenges, et cetera. I remind him that in the
charter itself section 1 indicates that limits to freedom may be
imposed when a higher goal, to protect society at large, becomes
paramount. This limitation to freedom is not taken lightly by the
courts.
The member may want to learn a few of the precedents
established by the Supreme Court of Canada. The goal being
attained must be laudable. We all agree that we have to protect
Canadian citizens from dangerous offenders. Also, the electronic
monitoring approach has a reasonable basis of success and it must
be made less restrictive.
Mr. Hanger: How is it going to work?
Mr. Pagtakhan: If the member does not know how it will work,
then how can he say that it will not work? The member should be
courteous and listen. The member belongs to a party which
purports to be concerned about high risk offenders, yet the member
is objecting to a judicial restraint, electronic monitoring, which
will not likely be visible in its restriction of freedom. The Reform
Party cannot have it both ways.
I would suggest that the Reform Party is concerned mainly after
the fact, after the commission of an offence, after serious injury to
a Canadian citizen, and is not prepared to support a provision in the
amendment which may in fact prevent such an offence. Even in the
field of medicine, prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
I would like the member to kindly reconsider his views for the
greater safety of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad the member
was not looking at me when he talked about being heckled and not
listened to. I was listening intently.
It is too bad the hon. member was not here for my entire speech.
He came storming out here in the last couple of minutes and by
golly, he has all the bases covered. If he had heard the speech
properly, he would have heard me say nothing against electronic
monitoring.
I was only wondering if this kind of law, which would make it
possible to electronically monitor those who have not even been
convicted or charged but who are only suspects, would pass a
charter test. I am sure the hon. member believes it might. I am not
so sure that it will. There should have been a little more care taken
5125
in putting the bill together. If it has to be challenged, then it will be
challenged.
Many people I have talked to have said that when we start
electronically monitoring those who are only suspects, we are
moving very close to a police state. We do not want that in Canada.
If indeed that is true, we need to talk about it and get rid of that idea
if that is what it is leading to.
(1305)
There is a six-month limitation. There is a six-month period
where a person can be declared dangerous. Why only six months?
That is all I am asking. Why does the bill say six months? Why not
leave it open ended? Ten months from now they may wish they had,
but that will be too late. Why do we want to limit ourselves? Leave
it up to the people who work in the prisons. Leave it up to the
guards and those who have the expertise to let us know when it is
time for the person to leave and whether they consider him to be
dangerous. If they do, then for heavens' sake, do not let him out.
If that had been done in the Melanie Carpenter case which the
member knows well, Melanie Carpenter would be alive. The
member knows very well that the killer of that girl was declared to
be a real threat the day he was let out. The member knows that and
he is willing to allow this bill to go through without addressing the
Melanie Carpenters of this land. Who are these guys for, the
criminal? Time after time after time they do what they have to to
protect the rights of the criminal. What about the rights of the
victim?
When are we going to stop having laws written by the lawyers
for the lawyers? More court cases, more appeals. Declare him a
dangerous offender, appeal it. That will be another court case. We
have to keep these guys working. Keep the legal industry booming.
Use a little common sense is what we are talking about. That
six-month thing the member mentioned is ridiculous.
The bill is the start of a good thing. This is the best effort yet by
the justice minister. That is what I believe, but it needs to be fixed.
If the member and other members of his party are allowed to do
their job, which I strongly doubt they are, then maybe we could end
up with a bill that is worth having. This one, as it stands, is not.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to talk a little about Bill C-55 today.
When I was on my feet about two days ago speaking on Bill
C-45, I was talking about the member for Kingston and the Islands
who was very worried about how he gets hoodwinked by the bills in
this place. I think he will be hoodwinked again by this one. He has
said publicly that he does not read all the bills but he really should
read this one.
I think he is about to be hoodwinked not in the way the Canadian
people are going to be hoodwinked by this, thinking that it is
actually a good bill. He is going to be hoodwinked because he
thinks we are getting too tough on criminals. He actually voted
against Bill C-45 because he was worried we were getting too
tough. It absolutely amazes me. It may be very disappointing for
him that the Reform Party is having such an effect on the
government side of the House that we are beginning to make some
progress in the area of justice reforms.
Getting tough on criminals works. I know the member for
Kingston and the Islands feels he gets hoodwinked by these things
but getting tough on criminals really does work.
I used some statistics the other day which are worth repeating in
connection with this bill. It reinforces the idea that if we get tough
on these people they stop using the system. That is a very good
argument also why we should not have this six-month window
which is built into this bill for determining whether or not someone
is a dangerous offender.
They are going to use that. They are going to use the system.
They study the law books while they are locked up in the clink.
They are going to look at the law books and say that they only have
to be good for the six-month period and then all hell breaks loose
but it is okay, because they got past that dangerous offender
window.
(1310 )
I would like to present some statistics that support the view that
getting tough on crime works very well. In 1989 the bureau for
justice statistics issued some estimates of how many crimes were
prevented in the United States while criminals were locked up
rather than walking on the streets. This was studied between 1973
and 1989, a 16-year period which is an extensive study.
Analyst Patrick Langan of the bureau for justice statistics said
that between 1973 and 1989 locking criminals up instead of
allowing them to go free cut the number of rapes by 66,000,
robberies by 323,000, assaults by 380,000, and burglaries by 3.3
million. The conclusion of the report was that imprisonment
clearly contributes to major cuts in the number and cost of violent
crimes. That does not take into account the physical cost in injury
and the monetary cost that comes from having had these people out
destroying people's property.
In 1995 another study was done at Princeton. Criminologists
John DiIulio and Anne Morrison Piehl wrote a report. They
estimated the actual cost savings to society when felons were
locked in prison as opposed to walking the streets. They studied
100 convicted felons who offended at the median rate, that is, some
of them reoffended when they were let out and some of them did
not. They found that the average cost to society for a felon who was
released was $4.6 million but the average cost of keeping them
locked up was $2.5 million. It was half the cost to society in
5126
monetary terms to keep these people locked up. As I mentioned
earlier, that does not even take into account all the physical damage
that is done which really destroys people's lives.
There is an additional study which was published on August 29,
1995 in the Investors' Business Daily. There was a full page of
justice information headed: ``Does crime pay? Not if criminals do
hard time''. Mr. Barnes wrote that in 1994, University of Arizona
economist Michael Block and researcher Steven Twist compared
crime victimization rates with imprisonment rates from 1960 to
1992. That is a 32-year study. They found that the 10 states which
had the highest imprisonment rates experienced an 8 per cent drop
in violent crime over the period, while the 10 states with the lowest
imprisonment rates saw their violent crime rates jump by 51 per
cent over the same period.
How much proof do we need to see that keeping these bad guys
locked up actually saves damage, saves costs and it really helps
society? Surely those on the other side of the House who are always
arguing for women's rights, for rights for the less fortunate in
society, should be interested in those statistics which indicated that
66,000 rapes and 323,000 assaults were prevented by having
people locked up.
I do not have any statistics for Canada but it stands to reason that
we could transpose them at least at a 10 per cent level. We would
see the enormous amount of money, the enormous amount of
physical damage, the enormous amount of suffering we would be
saving if we had a get tough approach to crime.
As my colleagues have said, there are provisions in this bill that
are a good step forward. We are very proud in the Reform Party that
we have been able to push the justice minister this far. I really do
wish that the bill also dealt with habitual repeat offenders who are
only using our justice system for their own ends. I will give a
couple of examples of the sorts of things I mean.
The headline of an article in yesterday's Vancouver Sun reads:
``Drug trafficker allowed to remain in Canada''. The piece reads:
``The federal court has stayed a deportation order for an Iranian
convicted of cocaine trafficking and assault. The order for Abdul
Nasser Taher Azar was put on hold Tuesday pending the outcome
of further legal proceedings in his case. Taher Azar is fighting
deportation claiming he could face a death sentence if sent back to
Iran''.
(1315 )
I probably have the largest Iranian community in the whole of
Canada in my riding. The first words that come out of the mouths
of refugee claimants, usually bogus, who call my office for
assistance are: ``I'll be killed if I get sent back to Iran''. It is the
very first sentence.
So this guy claimed he would be killed if he were sent back to
Iran. Immigration authorities consider him a risk to Canadian
society. What happened? The federal court let him stay here.
He has a wife and three children who live in Victoria. He said
that he has changed his habits and will become a productive
member of Canadian society. I cannot say how many times I have
heard that nonsense. It is absolute nonsense.
I could stand here the whole afternoon and give case after case in
my riding of these people who use the system because they know
how it works. They come in as bogus refugees, get married all of a
sudden and have children. We know what that does. Then they can
separate and spend years in court tying it up over custody battles
while we pay them welfare to stay here and they keep saying that
they are going to be killed if they get shipped out.
Then what happens at the end of it? Two people in my riding
went back to Iran of their own accord after arguing for four years
that they would be killed. It is the most ridiculous nonsense and it
goes on and on in cases like this.
These are habitual repeat offenders, not dangerous offenders as
dealt with in this bill. But I wish we had something in the bill to
deal with the type of person who is really just using our system.
I have a case in my riding right now that is typical of this, which
I have been trying to get the immigration minister to act on. This
person first came to Canada in the late 1970s, in the days when we
actually had teeth in some of our laws, when we treated criminals
like criminals. Very quickly it was discovered that he was a
criminal. So he was deported.
They actually deported people back then, but not today. We have
1,300 people in Vancouver alone awaiting deportation, 906 of
whom are from mainland China.
So what did he do? The first chance he got after he was deported
to Iran he raced over to Paris. Tell me how he could afford that
when he claimed he had no money. A couple of years later he went
to the Canadian embassy and applied again. Did he tell the officials
that he had been previously deported from Canada? Not a chance.
The next minute he was back here.
About four years went by and the police were tailing him
because he was forging passports so that other criminal friends of
his could come in from Iran. I got a call in my office from a lady in
the community who said: ``Everybody in Iran knew he was
criminal. Why did you let him in?''
I contacted the police and discovered they were investigating
him for passport fraud. They picked him up for passport forgery on
the day he was sworn in as a Canadian citizen. The interesting part
of this story is that he had sent someone else to stand in for him at
5127
the swearing in ceremony. So it was not actually him who was
sworn in. He only went to watch. It is amazing what these people
do.
His case for the passport forgery was dragged out and went on
for a year and a half before the judge finally sentenced him to three
months at home on probation. I would think that passport forgery
goes to the very heart of our being as Canadians. He helps
criminals come here and what does he get? Three months at home.
That is where he did his business. It was a home based business. He
did not pay any taxes or GST and here he was working at home.
Then finally he was under another deportation order, so he
appealed, if members can believe it, under the charter of rights. In
the 1970s when he was first deported he did not have an interpreter
present and therefore his human rights were infringed on.
Now that case is tied up in the courts. The first hearing is next
March. I am willing to bet he will be here for another eight years
before we finally get rid of him. And the time we are paying him
welfare and he is driving brand new cars. Now how does he buy
those on welfare? I would like a little investigation into the source
of his income.
These are typical of the sorts of things that happen under our
weak kneed, bleeding heart government. It will not see the
problems. It continues on and on about the terrible childhood these
people have had and that there is really no bad in the world at all.
The only bad in the world is that we actually lock some people up
occasionally. We really should not lock them up at all. We should
just let them walk around, take them to counselling occasionally
and they will completely mend their ways. And put a bracelet on
them, as my colleague says.
(1320)
I have been digressing a little from Bill C-55, but I think
members get the point. This expands out to being more than just
Bill C-55. It is an entire rot that goes right through the system.
One thing I did today in the House was to introduce during
routine proceedings a new private member's bill which I hope
eventually will be drawn from the barrel. We know it is a bit of
lottery. There is a bit of a move afoot now to actually get some of
these private members' bills votable. It would be wonderful if they
all were. My submission to the commission, incidentally, is that all
of these bills should be votable. I would like my bill to be votable
because it deals with this very problem. If passed by the House it
would actually allow provincial judges to deport criminals in lieu
of sentence so that we could get rid of them right away. As soon as
these bogus refugees commit a crime, let us get them right out of
the country.
I know the minister of immigration has argued they really should
serve their time here so it will be in Canada. However, that is just a
crock. What happens is that they get out on parole and parole is
considered to be part of the sentence. They are wandering around
free in society and the immigration people cannot deport them.
The first thing they do when they are coming near the end of
their parole and the immigration people are standing behind them
with the bracelets ready to go is just grab a brick and toss it through
the nearest jeweller's window or hit somebody in the mouth and
that starts the case all over again. They can go back to jail for
another little while and another probation.
I could give literally dozens of examples from my riding alone.
When we think that there are 1,300 just in the Vancouver area, we
do not have to work too hard to see how many there are in each
riding. When we also work out that certain groups tend to use the
system a little more, it does not take long to work out how bad the
problem really is.
They are probably all asking for a free flag. It would not surprise
me a bit if the thousand free flags in the Fraser Valley East riding
were all ordered by these people so they can walk around waving
them as if they were Canadians.
The only thing that bothered me during question period today
was when the Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said that the
member for Fraser Valley East had used taxpayer money to fax for
some free flags. It is a shame he did not take a $10 bill out of his
pocket and say: ``Mr. Speaker, I will pay for the faxes if she will
pay for the flags''. That would have been justice.
I digress again, but it really is related to this whole problem of
the justice issues in Canada. I think I will wind up here because I
would like my colleagues to have an opportunity to also speak to
this. However, I do want to mention a few kind words to members
on the other side because I know they do not like to be spoken to
harshly.
There are indeed some good provisions in this bill. They do not
go quite far enough. I do not think we are going to stall the passage
of the bill. We will work with the government, hopefully to try to
improve it a little. I hope the people on the other side of the House,
who cannot deny the phone calls and letters they have been getting
from their constituents on a get tougher approach to crime, will get
behind a few amendments to this bill to tighten it up a little.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to
say to the hon. member that just because he took the liberty of
exaggerating, moving information around, picking all over the
place and slandering communities does not make it the truth.
5128
For the hon. member to have taken the liberty to slander whole
immigrant and refugee communities to say they are all into this
and they all do this is totally irresponsible.
(1325)
An hon. member: He never said that.
Ms. Minna: He alluded to that and that is not acceptable to me. I
you have-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I simply ask that
in the brief period of time we have left under questions or comment
we might be able to get the question in and hopefully the response.
Ms. Minna: While he was talking about a particular case,
several members alluded to communities at large. Does the hon.
member truly believe that refugees and immigrants in this country
are all, or in the majority, criminals?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, in case the hon.
member has not noticed I do talk funny and that is because I come
from New Zealand. I am an immigrant myself and so I think I am in
a very good position to comment about immigration.
I know what it is like to work to come to Canada. It took my wife
and me two years to get permission to come here. We had to apply
three times. We had good backgrounds, no criminal records, we
had money to bring here to purchase a house and we had jobs to
come to as well. So I do not think there is anything wrong with
setting a high standard.
I am also not going to apologize for saying it like it is. I have
never said in this House, though, that all immigrants or all refugees
are criminals. They are not, but if we do not recognize there is a
problem we will reap what we sow.
I remind the hon. member that three years ago when Reformers
in the Vancouver area were saying that there was a problem with
astronaut families who were not paying taxes and were leaving
their families here, we were called racists. Today the member for
Richmond admits there is a problem with astronaut families.
If the hon. member would like to get the Vancouver papers for
the last week she will see it is a major problem that affects real
estate agents, accountants and the entire community because we
did not talk about it and deal with it when it was a problem at the
beginning.
There is a lesson to be learned from all that. We had better start
talking in this House about the things that they do not want to talk
about over there or things will get worse and worse. They are afraid
to talk about them. They hold themselves up behind the flag and
claim all sorts of compassion and tolerance, but they should stand
aside a little from that ideology for a moment and just look at what
is really happening out there.
Nobody is opposed to a good immigration policy for Canada but
let us set some decent standards for God's sake. Let us make it so
that a person entering this country feels like they want to be
Canadian instead of feeling like they want to rip off Canadians,
because that is what some of these people do.
The member should go to Pearson airport, as my colleague from
Wild Rose has done, to see the plane loads arriving everyday where
bogus refugee claimants come through, 100 a day. The immigration
people are forced to let them free on their own recognisance if
someone is there to meet them. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of
a refugee who had someone to meet them at the airport?
The trouble is they will not look at the facts. They stand there
accusing us of all sorts of things, but if they would just look at the
facts they would see there are major problems to deal with. I
actually think the move on Bill C-55 is an indication that they are
finally starting to get the message. They know the Canadian people
want to get tough on crime.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before going to the1.30 p.m. proceedings I want to give advance notice to the House.
When this bill is before the House next, the five hours of debate
which allow for 20 minutes of interventions and 10 minutes of
comments or questions have expired. The remaining portion of the
debate will allow members 10 minute interventions.
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
5128
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved that Bill C-267, an
act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the bill comes at this
particular juncture when the House of Commons seems divided on
many issues, the issue of gasoline pricing and the concern of our
constituents is one that unites us all. It unites us all in the common
recognition that there is something patently wrong with gas
pricing.
The bill seeks to try to provide some very simple answers for
Canadian consumers and those who have a concern about the high
price of gasoline. That can be done by way of information.
We are fast approaching the 21st century when the information
age will become even more important. Very few consumers or any
of us here can say that there is an alternative choice to gasoline.
5129
We need to know why the increases take place, why they take place
on weekends and why the only answer by the oil industry is: ``We
do not have to provide any answers''.
Let me say first that the Bill C-267 amends the Competition Act
by requiring that the oil company in question, before the price of
oil is raised more than 1 per cent, must give 30 days' notice. From
the wellhead to the gas pumps where the consumers fuel their
vehicles, it takes six months for price increases to work through the
system. As members of Parliament we cannot provide answers why
these sudden gyrations take place. Consumers are asking above all
for some predictability.
The bill does not regulate any industry. I am very emphatic about
that point because I think there are some misgivings. Some may
want to take the point of view of the industry which says that
somehow it is causing the industry to feel it is being burdened.
Perhaps this may be an argument that is given by the department.
I think a good corporate citizen which wants to make sure it
keeps customers on line would above all want to make sure that at
the end of the day the consumers are well informed. This is very
good PR and it also allows us to have some accountability to our
constituents.
Let me give some points. A year and a half ago when the
Minister of Finance presented his budget, he included a 1.5 cent
increase in the excise tax. Politicians from all sides of the House
may be able to use that as a pro or con, but the money ultimately
goes into the general revenue fund to pay for things like hospitals,
pay down the debt and do a number of good things for the economy
and the general interest and welfare of all Canadians.
At the same time that 1.5 cent increase took place the oil
industry took liberties and tacked on another 4.5 cents. From
February to March, April, May and June 1995, Canadians were
paying an extra 6 cents a litre. Is that justified? That is not for me to
question. If I were to ask the question, I suppose some would say
that it is matter that would border on regulation. I believe that
consumers would like an explanation from the oil industry once
and for all.
I have taken it on myself to remove the shroud of mystery that
surrounds oil pricing in Canada. When we peel back the various
layers of the oil onion, if I can call it that, we find that there is
something sinister in the way that gas pricing is headed in this
country. For the first time in many years people living in the
Toronto and Montreal regions and some parts of western Canada
have found that the price of gas rises uniformly and declines
uniformly. There is no longer the kind of competition from station
to station that was once available. Why is it that way?
It may come as a surprise to members of the House to learn that
over the past 15 years we have lost a number of potential refiners
in this country. The takeover by Petrofina of BP, the demise of
Texaco and the takeover of Gulf Canada has all meant that the
question of supply is really relegated to a very few companies.
(1335)
At the same time, the supply of gasoline would not be a matter of
great controversy if there was not the appearance of a new
phenomenon known as vertical integration in the market. Crude oil
refiners are not only the distributors but are now, in many respects,
the retailers. It is the connection from end to end that has given the
impression that what we have is an oil monopoly.
If a company controls the supply, its distribution and retailing, it
stands to reason that, at some point, the price will be controlled.
Therefore, it is not by accident that we are seeing sustained,
uniform and high prices in this country.
The people of Canada begged Parliament for an answer. In the
absence of any other remedy, it is this Parliament that is the eyes,
the ears and the conscience of consumers.
[Translation]
So I have trouble acknowledging that some of us think we have
no way of guaranteeing competition in the oil industry.
[English]
We have an opportunity with this bill to provide consumers, not
only with answers but allow them to formulate, in the absence of
any choice, not being able to use any other mode of transportation.
They cannot suddenly put lemon juice in their gas tanks. Every
Canadian has an interest in finding out why the gas prices are what
they are.
In talking about why prices are uniformly high and why we are
seeing unprecedented levels of high prices, the argument has been
put forward to look at what happened in the maritimes over the past
few months. In Quebec, the price has actually gone down.
That example should alarm every member of this House of
Commons because it demonstrates very clearly the real possibility
of predatory pricing. The wholesalers that had an interest in
retailing since they wanted to control the supply over this past
summer, engaged in a process of driving the price down at the retail
level precisely so that they would knock out the independent
gasoline owners who have, for the longest time, provided the
equilibrium for competition in the industry.
With all the knowledge that I have received from speaking to
many of these independent gas owners from Sudbury to Windsor to
Cape Breton to Quebec de la region du Saguenay, we have a very
serious situation on our hands which requires at least some
consideration by members of Parliament here and now.
5130
If we do not believe that a free market ought to apply in the
oil industry, then where do we stop? Do we now say it is okay
to have this in the pharmaceutical industry? Do we say that it is
all right to have no competition and have only a handful of people
or a cartel drive the price to whatever it deems fit?
It is important that we understand the plight of the independent
gas station owner, the person who gets up in the morning and
knows that if they do not put in 18 hours a day of sweat equity, they
are not going to get a paycheque at the end of the week. The
problem is that that paycheque has been severely and calculatedly
reduced. How is it possible for a person who buys his products
from an oil company to be able to make ends meet when the person
he is competing with happens to be a gas station that is owned by
the wholesaler.
If this does not raise concerns about the abuse of dominant
position of the oil industry today, I do not know what will.
Canadians may take some slight comfort in the fact that they may,
from time to time, get lower priced fuel as they saw in the
maritimes.
I take the example of what happened in Grand Falls where there
were 11 gas stations. Of those 11 gas stations, 10 were owned by
the majors. Only one was an independent. The price was
approximately 48 cents a litre about a year and a half ago. When
that independent was smothered the price shot up to 68.9 cents. If
consumers are concerned about competitively priced oil and gas,
they had better understand that it is because of the existence of the
independent gas owner, who is prepared to pass on the savings to
consumers, and who is one of the major reasons why we have had
decently competitively priced gas in the past.
(1340)
I was a little surprised to learn that there are some members who
may still harbour the belief that free competition or open markets
actually exist in the oil industry. I should point out that from a
national point of view there are really only three major players:
Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil and Shell. Regionally there are smaller
players but who are nevertheless significant: Irving in the
maritimes, Ultramar in Quebec, Sunoco in Ontario and out west
Mohawk Oil.
There are agreements between the refinery companies to provide
supply for each other. This idea that there is not any agreement or
understanding, better known in the industry as product supply
arrangements, between refiners would be misleading. Yet the
competition bureau seems incapable of trying to address the reality
that many of these refiners are actually in a position where they can
not only agree among themselves what the price will be, but they
can also above all agree among themselves to how much to supply.
When we hear the tired arguments that the industry puts forward,
and unfortunately some members may fall victim to the argument
that the cost of heating oil, for instance, increased because we had a
long cold winter, the members ought to ask themselves if we have a
warm winter does that not mean by implication, logically speaking,
the price should go down.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about how much a person
ought to be paying in Canada for crude oil, for that which they need
to use almost every day. Because it affects every member in this
House and it affects every one of their constituents there is no
mystery here.
Today the spot oil price for crude is, at the highest level, about
$24 a barrel. Of that $24 there are approximately 200 litres of
gasoline in a barrel of oil. We understand not all of that goes to less
costly gasoline for cars. Some of it goes into polystyrenes and to
more expensive products.
Let us go with the worst case scenario. It costs the oil industry 12
cents maximum a litre to bring that product on line. According to
the Canadian Petroleum Foundation it costs 5.2 cents to refine, to
market and to distribute. That is all their costs covered. That is up
to 17.2 cents a litre. Add the federal and provincial sales taxes, and
we know where they go-even though there is a lot of debate about
where they ought to go in this House-that is an extra 29 cents a
litre on top of 17 cents. That is about 45 to 46 cents a litre.
Give the independent or the gas owner 2.2 cents and we have 47
to 48 cents a litre maximum. Today in Ottawa when it is 57 to 58
cents a litre, or when it is 61 cents in the maritimes or for that
matter 58 cents in Toronto, who is making the money? Where is the
accountability?
I have no difficulty with people making money. I think it is
laudable that they do. However they have a responsibility and an
obligation not to use their position of privilege or their oligopoly or
their cartel to bamboozle constituents, to take advantage of
consumers and to perpetuate this rip-off.
It is very clear to me that no matter how difficult it may be for
some people to accept or to swallow, the oil industry is on the verge
of what it has always tried for-I guess what many companies
hoped to accomplish in other countries, in particular the United
States-and that is to give consumers absolutely no choice when it
comes to the cost of gasoline.
(1345 )
I have received thousands of letters since I brought this bill to the
House of Commons. It was first introduced as Bill C-361 in the
previous session and has been reintroduced as Bill C-267.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was not deemed votable, I would
nevertheless call upon the House to consider this an important step
forward.
We should resolve today to at least attempt to get some answers
from the oil industry. Given that many of us in the House assume
that the big issue is price fixing, we are missing the point. We are
missing the boat. For members of Parliament to assume that the
issue today which should concern consumers is price fixing by the
oil companies, they are simply missing the boat because the cartel
5131
at the supply end already exists. There is no need to price fix when
there are very few players in the game.
I would appeal to members of Parliament to revise their
thinking, to modernize their thinking and to get in step with the
reality that exists as it relates to the oil industry in Canada today
and now.
[Translation]
I also must say to my colleagues, and more particularly to my
fellow members from the province of Quebec, that I am very
concerned and even disappointed in the behaviour of the oil
companies and the way they treated independents.
We see young people who try to get a job and offer competitive
pricing to the consumer. This is something we see, not just in the
small villages I visited this summer but also in other regions across
the country, as I explained earlier.
[English]
In the maritime provinces we have heard people saying: ``Great,
look at the prices. They are coming down to 29 cents a litre''. I was
just reading in Maclean's magazine an article by its business editor,
D'Arcy Jenish. He writes that he met several station owners in the
maritimes and one in Nova Scotia told him that in 28 of the first 38
weeks of 1996 the retail price was below the wholesale buying
price. That is predatory pricing. That is a recipe for disaster.
It is very clear to me that we need some kind of safeguard over
and above the rhetoric that we hear under the guise of the
competition bureau to actually protect the people who are
protecting the interests of Canadians and who are protecting the
interests of our consumers.
If we do not believe today that 68 cents per litre is going to be a
reality in years to come, I would suggest that we look at what has
happened in Gander, Newfoundland. I would suggest that we look
at what happened in Toronto last year. From Burlington to
Clarington which covers a population of about 4.5 million people,
there are so few independents left that they are not able to make any
impact on the price.
Those independents who are out there right now are trying to
survive. They are in no position to provide competitive pricing for
consumers. They are unfairly prejudiced by the oil companies
which are using very blunt instruments such as the removal of
credit terms. They have taken away the 45-day credit which was
previously extended to the independents. They have taken away
temperature compensation. I could go on about the methods by
which the oil industry has been able to uproot the independent oil
companies. They have done it through vapour recovery. They have
demanded higher thresholds.
Imagine if an independent sold 5,000 litres in a day and an oil
company said that was not enough because the retail outlets which
it owns sells 10,000. It says to the independent that it had better
double its sales next week, even though the price has not come
down, or the supply will be cut off. That is wrong.
I appeal to Parliament to review the decision not to make this bill
votable by seeking the unanimous consent of the House in the
following motion. I move:
That Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act (gasoline pricing), be
deemed to have been chosen as a votable item.
I do so in the interests of every Canadian consumer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion from the hon. member for Ontario. His motion
was to make this particular bill a votable item.
Is there unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable
item?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Unanimous consent is not
granted.
(1350)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member opposite who introduced Bill
C-267, because when Liberal members and the government
introduce something worthwhile, you may rest assured we intend to
support them.
It is true there is a serious problem, and we must have the ability
to defend the weakest against the multinationals. The price of gas
must be regulated. I would have thought that the big oil companies
would allow fair competition with independent gas retailers. In the
past few months, especially this summer, I noticed that this
competition is entirely unfair.
What do the big oil companies want? They simply want to get rid
of the independents, and this is a tragedy for Quebec and the
Maritimes. In the past few months they have been intent on closing
down independents and possibly getting rid of them altogether.
They have already caused many to disappear this way, and they
would like to get rid of them altogether.
Of course the consumer may think this is wonderful. If I go to
the gas station and I can pay 20 cents less for a litre of gas, I most
certainly will take advantage of this. However, we know perfectly
well that in a matter of months or years, the multinationals, since
5132
they want to control everything, will strangle the consumer as they
strangled the independents.
Well there must be some kind of control. This attempt to knock
out the independents is another illustration of the harmonious
concert of converging interests, practices and prices that unites the
big oil companies: Ultramar, Shell, Petro-Canada, Esso, and
Imperial Oil in Quebec. They are refiners, wholesalers and
retailers. The big oil companies have broken the unspoken rules of
a market in which the big oil companies were prepared to live with
competition from the independents.
Formerly, the system worked. Independents could, from time to
time, sell gas a little cheaper and provide better service. When the
big oil companies saw this happening, they wondered what they
should do, and they said: ``O.K., let us get rid of them.'' This
summer, Ultramar was particularly ferocious in the ensuing price
war.
The independents, who were losing enormous amounts of
money, could not keep up, and some with fairly high mortgages had
to close their doors. I call that disgusting, unfair, and monstrous
when they want to get rid of the little guy in order to control the
market.
Over the years, independents, as they are usually referred to,
gradually increased their market share from 20 or 25 per cent, and
for us, especially in rural areas, in my riding of
Matapédia-Matane, it was wonderful. They were not just selling
gas but provided all the other services you can get at a gas station,
never mind those people who believe that capitalism and a free
market are each other's corollary. Personally, I do not think that is
true at all.
(1355)
The government must protect those independent retailers. The
presence of efficient independent companies alone assures Quebec
consumers a fair and equitable price for petroleum products. If they
disappear, if the large oil companies take over, then consumers
must beware. These large corporations will set the prices according
to their fancy and we will have to pay or walk.
The issue is even worse for the independents. There are 300
distributors in Quebec selling gasoline and heating fuel and 2,423
retailers established mainly in the regions and serving their
respective communities. When a community has no more gasoline,
no more school, it might as well shut down.
Moreover, it accounts for 10,000 semi skilled or non skilled jobs.
This means that many young people with no education or very little
education can find jobs, and good ones at that. It accounts for $200
million in salary, 82 per cent of which in the areas around Montreal
and Quebec City. The commercial spinoffs-convenience stores,
machine shops, etc-throughout Quebec are on the order of $164
million.
The disappearance of healthy competition and the resultant
increase in prices are jeopardizing consumers' protection. Again,
the goal of multinationals is not only to recover the portion of the
market they have lost over the past decade to more efficient
independent distributors-and we know they are more efficient
because of the many services they render-but mostly to eliminate
them altogether so as to have maximum control over the retail
market.
In Quebec, we have a situation where for more than a decade
regional development and local entrepreneurship are at the heart of
economic development. When independents disappear, life
becomes very difficult in small communities. The performance and
efficiency of some 2,423 gasoline and heating oil independent
distributors in Quebec are the living proof of that. The
independents must be able to earn a decent living without
necessarily turning into multinationals. I say, ``Good for them'', as
they can still earn a decent living.
In addition to increasing their market share from 15 per cent in
1984 to 31 per cent in 1993, they saw the average number of litres
sold per station rise by 31 per cent between 1991 and 1995, thus
confirming their economic presence in rural communities.
Yet, after five years of price wars against the multinationals,
which unfairly control the profit margins of all gas station
operators in Quebec, that province's independent businesses find
themselves economically vulnerable. They are powerless to stop
the fair market value of their businesses from eroding.
Meanwhile, unfortunately, the multinationals more than
compensate for the losses arising from this planned retail price war
by increasing their consolidated profit margins through their
integrated refining and petrochemical operations.
(1400)
In their case, they can absorb losses through their refineries,
since they are not mere retailers. Because they have more options,
they can do a lot better than others.
This situation allows them to fix prices, high prices, knowing
full well that, even if they incur losses for a year or two, they will
make up for these during years, even decades, and that, in the end,
they will be richer.
Independent retailers are quite willing to face competition,
because they know they can provide additional services. They
know it and they have demonstrated it by cornering a very
respectable share of the market. In fact, their share of the market
was increasing and this is what hurt the multinationals, which then
decided to eliminate independent retailers, who were surviving
because they could provide more services while still making
adequate, albeit lower profits.
5133
The government must indeed introduce a piece of legislation
that will enable everyone to operate in a free market, where the
competition is fair, unlike what we have seen for a while now.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to
enter into the debate. But because I believe it is semi-useless
without being able to actually make a decision on it, I would like to
ask the House to reconsider and to once again make Bill C-267 a
votable motion. I would ask for unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
request of the hon. member for Elk Island. Is it the pleasure of the
House to make this item votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is agreed.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is good news. I would like to
commend the member for Ontario for this initiative. I suppose we
are all affected by the price of gasoline, not only those who own
vehicles. There are many people across the country who are
dependent on fuel in vehicles in order to bring all the goods and
services to them in order to enjoy their standard of living.
All across the country people are dismayed at the cost of
gasoline. Just the other day I told someone that had the government
not pushed us into the metric system I sincerely doubt that we
would be very excited about the cost of gasoline because it would
be in the neighbourhood of $2.40 a gallon. I believe most of us
would say that is excessive. We would object to that high price and
yet that is approximately what the price is. By the way I think it is
considerably more, probably about 80 per cent more, than the cost
per gallon in the United States. Then of course, we would have to
make adjustment for the difference in the dollar and the size of the
gallon. But there is a tremendous difference in the cost of gasoline.
It is a shame that gasoline should be so highly priced. Living in
the very harsh climate which we have in the north part of the
northern hemisphere, we are really dependent on fuel and the
energy it provides. We are also a very sparse country. It is not easy
for us to get around without a vehicle.
I want to share a personal story with the House that I hope
members will find interesting. Some 26 years ago we moved into
the country about 20 miles from the nearest town.
(1405 )
When I lived in the city I used my bicycle to go to work. It was a
6.8 mile trip every day. I always felt good about using my bicycle. I
saved pollution from entering the atmosphere and I saved costs.
Believe it or not, I was able to travel about one-third of the width of
the city of Edmonton in about the same time as I could if I used
Edmonton's so-called rapid transit system. I was in very good
shape in those days. Members think I am probably still in good
shape, it is just that my shape has changed. It was also very good
exercise and a great thing to do.
When we moved to the country I drove my bicycle but once
because it took too long. It was a two hour trip each way and I did
not have four hours a day. I wish now that I would have kept it up
because I would have been in such fine condition. Unfortunately I
bought a two wheeler with a motor and it does not take that much
energy to shift the gears on a Honda motor bike.
Getting back to the price of gasoline, one of the reasons I used
this motor bike to go to work after we moved to the country was the
cost of fuel. In those days we had vehicles that were not quite as
energy efficient as they are now. I bought a little motorcycle that
delivered for me some 100 miles per gallon. I was able to save a
great deal of money even in the days when fuel was only about 20
to 25 cents a litre by using my motor bike instead of my large car.
Since then gasoline has gone up in price so it is now between 50
and 65 cents a litre across the country. I was totally appalled in
Saskatchewan recently to see the prices there were edging close to
62, 63 cents per litre in some places. That is excessive.
We must recognize that is a damper on our economy. We must
recognize that the high price of fuel makes it less easy for our
businesses and individuals to be competitive with the rest of the
world.
Although the member for Ontario has fine intents in limiting the
way fuel companies can cause the price of gasoline to fluctuate, I
must come back to a theme which is very dear to my heart. What is
the cost of gasoline? Where does the total cost come from?
Whether we like it or not, a very large part of the cost of gasoline is
due to taxation.
I made a little chart a little over a year ago, and the prices have
changed somewhat, but I do not think the percentages will have
changed that much. The price of fuel by the time it reaches the
retail level is made up of approximately 30 per cent, crude cost,
about 25 per cent federal tax, about 25 per cent provincial tax,
between 20 per cent and 25 per cent refining and marketing costs,
profits, and then there is retail margin for the retailer.
I do not know if members realized that provincial tax is around
25 per cent, although it varies from province to province. In
Quebec it is around 36 per cent. Federal tax varies from province to
province as a percentage of the total price because the total price
varies from province to province, but it is around 25 per cent
federal tax.
I object that this government, like governments before it, uses
fuel as a source of revenue. I really do not believe that taxing fuel,
which is such a necessary commodity in order for us to compete on
a worldwide scale with our industry, with our agriculture, with our
tourism, is justified or valid. We should not be taxing fuel as a
source of revenue. It should not be singled out from other products
for additional taxes.
5134
Approximately $4 billion per year is taken out of our economy
and put into government coffers through the federal sales tax on
gasoline.
(1410 )
I have to add another thing. When it comes to gasoline, the
federal government has displayed an odd characteristic in that it is
adding a tax to a tax. After the federal sales tax is added to the
gasoline which would bring the price in most provinces to around
50 cents, then it adds the GST. The government actually charges
GST on the total price, which means the government is charging
GST on the federal sales tax. It is unconscionable to force
Canadians to pay taxes on the taxes they pay with money they have
earned on which they have already paid income tax.
In that regard, I did a little computation. Follow this. I earn
$3.33. My marginal rate of income tax, both when I was an
instructor at the college before I came here and now, is about 50 per
cent but overall I used 40 per cent. From the original $3.33, I pay
40 per cent or $1.33 in combined provincial and federal income
tax. That leaves me with $2. I go to the pump to buy gasoline. The
total provincial and federal sales taxes is around 50 per cent of the
price at the pump, which means if I buy $2 worth of gasoline, I pay
another $1.
What I got was $1 of gasoline in my tank. That is the worth of it,
with $1 being tax and $1.33 being income tax that I paid in order to
have the $2 when I went to the pump. In total, I earned $3.33. In
order to buy $1 of gasoline, I paid $2.33 in tax. That is not
acceptable. It is too high a rate.
While the member's bill is well intentioned, the much more
important thing for us to do as parliamentarians is to bring
government spending under control so that we can reduce our
demands on the taxpayer's purse and reduce taxes. I would begin
with a reduction in the fuel tax. What a tremendous boost that
would be to our economy. What a job builder that would be. What a
relief it would be to Canadian families who find it difficult.
I have appreciated the opportunity to comment on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on
Industry.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 2.15 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.15 p.m.)