CONTENTS
Thursday, September 19, 1996
Bill C-57. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4415
Bill C-58. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4415
Bill C-59. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4415
Bill C-60. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 4415
Motion for concurrence in 25th report 4416
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 4422
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4427
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4440
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4451
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4451
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4452
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4452
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4452
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4453
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4453
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4454
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4454
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4454
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4455
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4456
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4456
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4456
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4456
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4457
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4457
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4458
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4458
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4458
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4459
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4459
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4461
Bill C-45. Motion for third reading 4462
Bill C-201. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 4479
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4479
Division on motion deemed demanded and deferred 4484
4415
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, September 19, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 25th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of committees.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (for the Minister of Industry,
Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency,
Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill
C-57, an act to amend the Bell Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1005 )
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada
Shipping Act (maritime liability).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-59, an act to implement articles 1 to 22
of the Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and
their luggage by sea, 1974.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to
inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it
is the intention of the government that this bill be referred to
committee before second reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might ask the
assistance of the hon. minister. I neglected to recognize him on the
first bill I presented in his name. Was his last remark applicable to
the first bill, the second one or both?
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to
request the permission of the House to have both bills referred to
committee prior to second reading in this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I apologize to the minister
and my colleagues for not recognizing the minister in the first
instance.
* * *
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): moved for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an act to
establish the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to repeal and
amend other acts as a consequence.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for two
motions. The first reads:
That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-201 later this day, a recorded
division be deemed to have been put; and the said division be deferred until Tuesday,
September 24, 1996 at the conclusion of Government Orders.
4416
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you will also find unanimous consent for the
following:
That notwithstanding any order of the House, debate on the motion to concur in
the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the
composition of committees, tabled earlier this day, be held and be concluded no later
than 1.50 p.m. today; and at the conclusion of the said debate, the motion be deemed
to have been put and carried on division; and that the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Finance be permitted to hold their
organization meetings later this day.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1010 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion put before the
House by the chief government whip, as I stated, carried and we
will now continue with motions.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The motion that
was placed before the House and was agreed to calls for debate on
the motion. When will the debate commence?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just as soon as the
government tables the motion we will move to debate. The motion
presented by the chief government whip was the agreement to
debate the motion once it is tabled, within certain parameters I
believe, until 1.50 p.m. this afternoon.
I will look to the government side and see if we can move back to
motions.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs, presented to the House this day, be concurred
in.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the
concurrence motion so ably put to the House by the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader.
As we commence the debate we are setting in place the
committees for this fall and for next spring, committees which
could in fact be in place from now until the next election. Of
course, next fall if we are still in session and still in this Parliament,
then the whips, through the mechanism of a striking committee,
will table another report which would be subject to something
similar to what we are experiencing today and new committees
would be struck then.
[Translation]
Meanwhile, we are all here this morning to debate this report,
which, as I pointed out earlier, will put in place these committees.
To start with today, I would like to talk about the amendments
made to the whole committee system in the past few years and the
new openness that now exists in this Parliament. In previous
Parliaments, parliamentary committees did not have the same level
of authority as today.
For example, committees now have the authority to draft
legislation. These committees have done so. The bill on lobbyists,
for example, was drafted by a parliamentary committee.
Mr. Bellehumeur: This is not a good example.
Mr. Boudria: I for one think it is a good example because we did
a good job. I commend opposition members for their excellent
work, notwithstanding the criticism aimed at them by my friend
across the way. I think the members from both sides of the House
who sat on this committee did a good job.
Having given you that example, I could add several others.
[English]
This morning one minister tabled two bills which will be sent to
committee for study prior to second reading. The general principle
of the bill, as opposed to merely the clauses, are up for review at a
very different level, a far more intense level of criticism than those
bills which are sent after second reading. That is an innovation of
this Parliament and that is the kind of good work that can be done
by parliamentary committees when bills are sent there prior to
second reading under the new mechanism and, of course, pursuant
to the promises that were made in the red book and which have
been delivered, as were so many promises in the red book.
(1015)
The parliamentary committees have done tremendous work. Just
yesterday we saw the finance committee table a report in the House
on the whole issue of family trust.
[Translation]
A while ago, we saw a whole series of reports prepared by
parliamentary committees and the good job they did.
I must tell you that, when I first arrived here as a member of
Parliament back in 1984, committees were not doing much other
than dealing with legislation and budgetary estimates. Today, under
Standing Order 108(2), committees can practically turn into
working groups and review all kinds of matters coming under the
responsibility of the departments associated with the various
committees.
4417
Under Standing Order 108(2), the transport committee can
review transportation issues either within or outside the estimates.
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): The auditor general.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member opposite talks about the auditor
general. In fact, this power existed before the amendment I just
mentioned. This is not a good example, because this power has
existed for a long time. It existed before Standing Order 108(2). In
fact, the power of the public accounts committee to review the
auditor general's report is similar to the power now held by other
committees; it did not exist before.
In that sense, I am glad the hon. member raised the issue.
Committees have a much freer hand today than they did, say, 10 or
12 years ago when I first came to this hon. House.
Of course, much more headway has been made since this
government took office and opened up all sorts of new ways to
improve the efficiency of parliamentary committees.
[English]
We have, for instance, seen some of the work done by the foreign
affairs and environment committees in dealing with issues ranging
from pollution, circumpolar issues and so on. The foreign affairs
committee is, as I understand it, studying the possibility right now
of doing work in that regard. All of this would have been
impossible under the rules as they existed only a few years ago.
We saw a joint committee early in this Parliament do a review of
both the foreign affairs department and the defence policy put
together. This was a joint effort of the foreign affairs committee
and the defence committee. This was early in Parliament. They did
an excellent report, widely quoted, and this work was done under
the able chairmanship of the then member for Ottawa-Vanier,
now a member of the other place, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier.
That kind of excellent work was done in this Parliament by the
parliamentary committees.
The point I am making here is that the parliamentary committees
have a role to play today which is far different than the one I knew
when I came here. I only wished that as a new member I would
have had the power to do all these things that new members today
as they come here in Parliament are experiencing. The level of
frustration that some of us had many years ago when we tried to do
anything in committees was unbelievable.
I see my distinguished colleague from Edmonton who was a
member in this House several years ago at the time when I believe
estimates were probably done right on the floor of the House of
Commons. There was little or no work done by committees. You
could not even call witnesses before a parliamentary committee.
You could barely hear testimony of any kind with regard to
legislation.
Today we have committees sitting in Ottawa, bringing experts to
give advice so that we can improve on the legislation of the
government and study issues far and wide. All of these
opportunities would have been virtually impossible before.
(1020 )
We have starting next week the standing committee on justice
travelling to look at the Young Offenders Act. I am sure it will
produce an excellent report.
I hear a member of the Reform Party being critical already but I
am not that negative about the Reform member who will be sitting
on that committee. I think he will probably do a good job. I am
willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member,
notwithstanding the criticism which is already starting by some of
his colleagues. That is okay.
We have faith in some of the Reform members. We say that the
ones on that committee will hopefully do a good job. I hope they
do. I am still hopeful. I hope those Reformers do not take
personally the criticism of their own colleagues we have just heard.
We are on their side. We will defend those Reformers sitting on the
justice committee.
The parliamentary committees have done a very good job over
recent years. In this Parliament we have seen them do excellent
work. We have seen them produce legislation. We have seen them
produce reports. We have seen them study various issues, make
recommendations to Parliament and we have seen many of those
recommendations turned into law.
During the 1993 election campaign our party had the red book. I
know you are a non-partisan person, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless
I am sure you will recall those of us who are more partisan-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Boudria: The members across who want to abolish the CBC
did not get their way. I guess they are agitated this morning.
Notwithstanding that, here is what we said. We said we would
give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of
Commons committees. That was done. Legislation was produced,
everything from the redistribution bill that was produced by
parliamentary committee to the committee that dealt with the
lobbyist registration and so on.
We said we would permit parliamentary committees to review
order in council appointments. Most people across the way have
never even used that process. That process was used a lot more
when we on this side of the House were in opposition. We were
4418
scrutinizing those things a lot more diligently than some members
of the opposition now.
We said at that time there would be more free votes allowed in
the House of Commons. Free votes occur almost exclusively in the
Liberal caucus. When was the last time we saw the Reform Party
vote against one another? I know someone will bring to my
attention the gun control issue where one member voted against the
rest of them. Shall we say he had a different job not too many days
later, a job with less whipping. Nevertheless we had some free
votes. The consequences were a little different in the Reform Party.
We also said the parliamentary committee would do prebudget
consultation. That has been probably the greatest success of all
parliamentary committee initiatives. I congratulate all members of
the finance committee on both sides of the House in all three
political parties officially represented in Parliament. That
consultation has occurred every fall. It has given Canadians a more
precise picture of the country's finances and we have been able to
track gradually how this country has been doing financially. That is
something which is unprecedented.
We have the finance committee televised nationwide, being
questioned by members on all sides of the House and being able to
indicate to all Canadians the progress of Canada's economy.
Whereas that process formally occurred once a year at budget time,
we have developed an almost twice a year system. We now have the
fall consultation process with the appearance of the minister and
the others who also appear before the Finance Committee, and then
the spring budget free period.
(1025)
Why did this happen? I believe it happened in large measure
thanks to the diligence of members on all sides of the House. In
order for that to happen the proper climate had to be there to start
with. That process was permitted because this government wanted
to change the rules and allow Parliament to do that. We did. It was
in the red book. We made the commitment. We delivered on the
promise. We made that kind of thing happen, or at least we created
the climate to make it happen.
The reason I make the distinction is that notwithstanding the
wishes of the government had members on all sides of the House
done a shoddy job of the whole thing it would not have been very
significant. The government made the commitment. The House put
the structure in place. Members on all sides of the House acted
properly and made it work. I congratulate all members. You did a
good job and that process now has an incredible level of credibility.
[Translation]
You can certainly see the good work parliamentary committees
are doing. The Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development has also done a fine job with its comprehensive study
of social programs in Canada.
I mentioned earlier that the Standing Committee on Finance took
on prebudget studies. There is also the Standing Committee on
Industry, with its ongoing review of the banking industry in
Canada, its summer hearings and all it has done. Why is the
industry anxious to know what the Standing Committee on Industry
is going to do? Because this committee has gained credibility in
this matter through its good work and because the rules we have
now allow committees to do that kind of work. These rules did not
exist when I was first elected to Parliament in 1984.
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): It has been many
years.
Mr. Boudria: It has been many years indeed. In fact, to be more
precise next Wednesday I will be celebrating 20 years in political
life. The rules have changed over the years and they have changed
for the best.
I will conclude on this to give as much time as possible to
parliamentarians from other parties to speak. I am confident that,
like me, they will express satisfaction with the way parliamentary
committees operate and will want to commend the hon. members
for their excellent work on these committees.
This was made possible by the excellent co-operation of the
committees and by this government's agreeing to put the system in
place and improve it as required and then listening to the advice
given by parliamentarians. Through committee reports, we have
collectively ensured better government for Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if we could
seek the unanimous consent of the House to take a few minutes so
we could introduce petitions and then come back to the motion
rather than waiting until the debate collapses. This way we would
be able to get petitions finished and get back to the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, if we immediately move to the
presentation of petitions, it will leave us less time to debate the
committees' motion. Is this indeed the case? I would first like to
know how many petitions there are. They could always be
presented at three o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I appreciate the involvement
of the chief opposition whip, but the House did not give its
unanimous consent. We therefore resume with the questions and
comments for the last speaker.
4419
(1030 )
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question for the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
In the member's commentary he spoke for a long time and
virtually said nothing of substance except to praise the status quo,
which is not what we are here to do. We are here to bring about
positive change. The member also made an implication as to my
role when I was whip and about free votes. Let me explain to him
very briefly what free votes are all about in the Reform Party.
A free vote means that we vote the party line, the platform and
policies that we represent to the people, unless we have clear
evidence from our constituents, even those who did not vote for us,
to vote otherwise. The way we find that out is to do polling, talk
shows, town halls, surveys through householders and scientific
surveys. I did that on gun control. I live in an urban riding and there
is a greater mix there. Therefore, I voted the wishes of my
constituents which were with the government on that issue. My
colleagues are proud of that. That is a free vote.
That is the way we would do a free vote if we were government,
not the way the member claims a free vote should work, which is
that on private members' bills we have free votes. That is a sham
and that is not what free votes are about.
On sexual orientation, I did the same thing. I voted with the
government because there was a clear indication from my
constituents to vote with the government on that bill instead of with
my party. My party did not kick me out of any position. I resigned
the position of party whip voluntarily and freely.
For the member to use an argument of convenience is once again
misleading the public which not only he is doing today but the
finance minister and every minister across the way has done,
except for the current human resources development minister. He is
doing the best job of all.
I will now put my question to the hon. member. As the whip for
the government, as a man who bragged about his 20 years of
experience in the system, as a man who has honesty and integrity,
as a man who I know will tell me the truth to this question, as a man
who I know will not shirk from his responsibility to answer this
question, does he, when these committees are set and struck, tell
the members of his committees who are assigned to those
committees how to vote and whom to vote for in terms of
vice-chairs? Will he answer that question with conviction, honesty
and courage on chairs and vice-chairs? On public accounts we
cannot have a member of the opposition party as a chair. On that
issue, would he give me the benefit of his 20 years of experience
and be honest with me?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let us start with the issue of the
wishes of constituents before I get to the second part. The hon.
member just told us how he did the right thing by voting on gun
control because it was the way his constituents wanted him to vote.
However, there is something wrong with the proposition here
because his leader said that even though his constituents wanted
him to vote for the bill that he was going to vote against it. What
the hon. member just told us is that he did the right thing by not
adhering to the party line. He has to at the same time recognize that
he has told his leader that he has done the wrong thing because he
did the opposite to what his constituents wanted. That is the
proposition that has just been-
Mr. Silye: And I will be held accountable.
Mr. Boudria: He just told us now that his constituents will
probably kick him out. That may be so but that is not the point. The
point is that the hon. member has just said that a rule applies to him
and he followed it and that the rule was the rule of the Reform
Party. However, the leader did not follow the rule which he has just
himself invoked as being the rule for the Reform Party. We have to
admit that there is something inconsistent in that.
Let us get to the second part. The member has asked me how I do
my job of whip in the Liberal Party. I hope I do it with honesty. I
hope I serve my country, my party, the Prime Minister of this
country and all of us in the House of Commons properly. I believe
that is how all of us should behave in our jobs.
(1035 )
The hon. member was the whip of his party; the hon. gentleman
performed this function for his party for some time and he did it
very well. He will note that whether the issue was the timing of a
vote or any other issue, he consulted with his colleagues and with
his leader and then took a decision. After making that decision he
would take action on whatever issue.
I do not know whether in his party it was he when he was whip or
his leader, who selected the critic, which is roughly the equivalent
on the opposition side of what the chair or the vice-chair is on the
government side. I have no idea how this selection process occurs.
Maybe they draw straws. Maybe the leader selects them. I do not
know because it is an internal caucus matter on their side.
Mr. Strahl: Committees are supposed to be independent, Don.
Mr. Boudria: And the hon. member says that committees are
supposed to be independent.
We just appointed the members to the committee. The member
across is not going to tell me that he did not appoint them. His
signature is on the report we tabled in this House a few minutes
ago. Obviously determining the composition of committees is not
4420
an independent process. Under the standing orders it is done by the
whips of all political parties.
The member cannot say that he has no knowledge of the rules.
He was, after all, the whip for some time, and I know the whip
knew the rules.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I call for resumption
of debate, just so we all understand the rules of debate on this
motion, I will look to the Bloc Quebecois then the Reform Party for
their participation.
The time allocations are all the same with 20 minutes and 10
minutes. Then we will revert to the normal rules of debate, going
from one side of the House to the other.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
always I enjoyed the speech of the government whip. He is always
very entertaining. He always gives us a nice little political story to
go with his speech, but he often does not answer the question. The
question that was put to him today was point blank: Does he or
somebody else in the leadership of the Liberal Party instruct the
members on those committees how to vote on the committees as to
who will be chair and vice-chair?
A committee is supposed to be independent of the House. In
other words, it supposedly has an agenda of its own. It calls the
witnesses and comes to conclusions independently of the House. It
runs its own affairs, organizes itself and if it has to spend money, it
will ask the House for permission.
What we are trying to get from the government whip is the
answer to the question: Do committees really have that much
independence or is the government whip or someone in their
hierarchy actually holding them down under their thumb and
telling them what to do?
As we head into the election of the chairs and vice-chairs it will
be interesting to see what happens. The government whip would
not answer that question because the truth is that members are told
how to vote in committee. They are told who the chair will be and
they are told to vote for the Bloc Quebecois members, the
separatists, for the vice-chairmanship in every committee. They are
told that, they are instructed to do that. If they break the rules, they
pay the price.
That is the kind of discipline we are trying to break in this House
of Commons. It is the kind of thing we say should be the
prerogative of individual members. They have worked with one
another for several years now.
I cannot say how much it boggles my mind to say that the
vice-chairmanship of the Canadian heritage committee should be a
separatist who wants to break up the country. On foreign affairs we
want to have somebody who represents Canada and Canadian
views, who portrays the Canadian perspective on international
issues. So what do we do? We put a separatist, a person who wants
to break the country in half, in the vice-chairmanship, the steering
committee as it were of that committee.
That is a shame. It is a shame because it is instructed from the
government side by the whip, the person who would not answer the
question of our former whip. He knows the answer yet he tries to
get around it. That is one of the things that is wrong with the
committee system.
(1040)
Why are we debating this today? I can tell you why. We are
debating what is wrong with the committee system.
I should have mentioned before I started that I was dividing my
time.
There are two broad headings we are going to be discussing
today from our perspective as to what is wrong with the committee
structure. First, there is too little independence from the governing
party. I already mentioned an example and I will talk a little more
about that and what is wrong with the partisan process in the
committee structure. The second part ironically is that committees
are too independent from Parliament. They are too dependent on
the party hierarchy and too independent from Parliament. I would
like to expand on that a little bit in my time remaining.
To use an example, I was on the committee debating Bill C-64,
the employment equity bill. When it came time for amendments, of
course, I had many amendments to the bill from my perspective of
what should be done to improve it. But the amendments given on
the government side were not amendments from the committee
people at all. The amendments were brought in by the cabinet
minister, laid on the desks of committee members and people
started making amendments. Unilingual English speaking
members were making French amendments to the bill. In other
words, they did not have the faintest or foggiest idea what they
were amending. If we brought that to their attention, well of course
they had no say in the legislation at all.
The bill went to committee, sure. We investigated it, sure. But
the word came down from on high: ``These are the amendments
that the cabinet minister wants. Do it, or else''. That is not
independence and it is not what we had hoped for, which was some
true independence from the governing party.
That partisan process, the fear that the members in these
committees have of what might happen to them if they break party
lines, is hindering the political process. It hinders the independence
of the committee process. It hinders the ability of individual
members to have an impact on the governing of our country.
At times it gets to the farcical stage, it gets really bad. For
example last year the chairman of the defence committee would not
allow our members to question the defence minister when he was
before the committee. The reason? Well, he was our guest and we
do not ask nasty questions of our guest. It is partisan, highly
4421
partisan. The chairman was chosen beforehand and did not have the
confidence of the committee and has not proven herself on that
committee. Instead, she was using her absolute authority to tell
people what they could or could not do.
If only the government would realize that if it cut the apron
strings, the partisan strings to the committees, the committees
would suddenly blossom on their own into useful, powerful and
dynamic committees. They would have the independence required
to get individual members of Parliament some influence into actual
government business. Instead of being a voting machine, they
would be a policy making machine. That is all that has to happen.
It is the same thing that was wrong with the parliamentary
system 20, 30 or 40 years ago and in essence it has not changed.
Whether a bill is referred on first reading, second reading or third
reading, we all know the truth: The committees do as they are told.
And that, regardless of how we try to change it is what the
government insists on.
The second thing is about too much independence from
Parliament. Committees are dependent on the party partisanship in
order to make them function because of the way that party over
there runs things. That is too bad and it should be broken in order to
free up all backbench members who sit on these committees to
have some real influence.
Parliamentary committees are too independent from the rules of
Parliament. The rules are made in the House of Commons, our
standing orders. They give order and civility to debate. That is why
I address you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, instead of calling
somebody by name across the way.
The Latin phrase that guides this parliamentary system is lex rex.
It means the law is king. In other words, the rule of law, the way we
handle ourselves, the way we conduct debates, the questions you
can ask and so on are decided by law or parliamentary procedure by
order as to what can happen and in what order.
(1045)
The committee system is a law unto itself. When the government
majority decides to do something it is king. In other words, the
party is king. I do not know what the Latin for that is but the party
is king. Instead of the rule of law being king, instead of having
predictable standing orders for the committees, it does as it wishes
when the going gets rough.
On May 17, 1995 the human rights committee was studying this
same employment equity legislation. During this supposed
investigation I made a point of privilege. Let me read my point of
privilege, a little of what happened during this debate. I brought
into the House of Commons the following observations.
First, I brought amendments to that committee in English and I
was not allowed to table them because they were in English only.
The chairman would not accept my amendments. They were all in
proper order but they were in English and he would not accept
them. This is totally out of order in a country that accepts both
languages, and yet who cares? The chairman hammers the gavel
and he is king. The orders came from on top. The chairman's ruling
was challenged but it was supported entirely by the government
whip and others who were there to make sure the chairman was the
king. He had all the authority.
When we had some of the amendments come forward
amendments were passed in that committee without a vote. The
chairman said: ``I do not want to hear anymore about this''. Smack,
amendments carried. We said: ``But we have not even tabled the
amendment''. He said: ``It does not matter, it is carried''. That is
the new openness, the new co-operation.
The committee moved then to time allocation. It said it would
debate it all right, five minutes total time allocation per section.
You could not even read the sections out in five minutes, but that is
the freedom that we have in committees.
The problem remains and it is two-fold. The partisan system
drives it from the top, it drives it from the party hierarchy in the
Liberal Party and demands strict obedience to its rules. On the
other hand it does not have a law except the law of the jungle. The
people it appoints in those positions do the bidding of the
hierarchy. It is wrong, it is an effective committee system and all
backbenchers from all parties should be outraged at the way that
works.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, several of the examples provided by the hon. member are
true. We have to review the way committees operate, including the
election process within committees, but the issue today is really
that of the party line.
I believe the party line is indeed a foundation of the British
parliamentary system, as can be seen when a general election is
held. Candidates try to get elected on the basis of a platform, a
party line. Why, once elected, should they no longer adhere to the
party line? These people can run as independents if they wish. If
they get elected, they will have their own line. It is up to them.
Reformers claim to have ideas, a program, something to offer to
Canadians. They would get elected based on that platform, but then
they would do away with it? It does not make sense.
The real problem is that this new party has a great deal of
difficulty adjusting to the way the House operates. Let me give you
an example. Once, we spent an evening here voting on a series of
amendments tabled by a Reform Party member, who voted against
his own amendments. The House was unanimous; everyone voted
4422
against the amendments that the member had proposed. This is
quite something, but we should tell it like it is.
I took part in the negotiations on the establishment of the
committees when this Parliament first opened, in January 1994. We
discussed the issue of offices. It took me two hours, on behalf of the
Bloc, to select the offices of Bloc members. It took about ten days
for members of the Reform Party to do the same. They even chose a
closet for one of their members. I think there is a problem at some
level.
(1050)
I suggested to the Reform members that they could co-chair five
committees, a first in the history of the Canadian Parliament, here
in Ottawa. They said: ``We insist on having finance, commerce,
agriculture, justice and industry.'' And a cherry on top, I suppose. I
do not see what else they could ask for.
It does not make any sense. These people do not know how to
negotiate and then they complain that things do not work well. I,
for one, think that they should adapt to how things are done here.
We are a sovereignist party. We, of course, have major
disagreements with the party in office, but we agree on how to
disagree. We can agree on the rules and say: ``Here is how things
will be done.'' Then, of course, the going gets tough, but we have
agreed on the rules.
There is always some way we can work with these rules. We
have done it before and we are a sovereignist party. We are able to
work with the rules of Parliament. I do not see why a federalist
party like theirs has trouble functioning here. The problem is not
with the rules. The problem is with that party.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear the strong
defence of the rule of law. I hope the members opposite will, during
any referendum debates, ensuing negotiations and that kind of
thing, stand by and say that nothing will happen to Canada except
by the rule of law and observance of the Constitution. I hope they
would do that, although I will not hold my breath. The rule of law
seems to be a convenient thing for them.
One of the things I am talking about is that in committee,
certainly we can obey the rules. Certainly we will observe the rules.
The trouble is that there are no rule in the committee. Some
committees only act as a law unto themselves.
Sometimes there is a good, experienced parliamentarian at the
head of the committee. The member across the way is a fine
example. We disagree with him in many ways. We disagree with
many of his policies. We disagree with a lot of what he says and
stands for.
Even on the gun control debate, a very heated and protracted
debate, we had absolutely no problems with how he handled
himself and how he handled the chair. That is not the case by and
large.
There are inexperienced people, people being paid off or people
who are being rewarded somehow who get to chair these
committees and ramrod things through following the wishes only
of the party leadership. That is not right.
The member opposite, a former justice minister with many years
of experience, whether I disagree with him politically or not, is at
least fair in committee and I do not have a problem. It is interesting
that when he votes against the government, when he stands up for
what he knows is right as he did a year ago, he lost his
chairmanship. We do not have the benefit of his experience any
longer. That is a shame.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to debate this issue today on committees.
Although it is a debate about committees, it could almost be a
debate about democracy itself. It is really a debate about the
definition of democracy in a way that it fits our committee
structure.
I could talk about committees in general. My colleague has
already brought up specific examples of committees. I could speak
about them in general but I will start with some comments about a
committee that is probably the worst committee on the Hill. It is
perhaps the best example of what I would call manipulated
democracy.
That committee is the committee that decides whether private
members' bills will be votable. Just before the summer break in
June 1996, a member from the government side of the House, the
member for Mississauga East, had her comments about the
committee that had just decided that her private member's bill
would not be votable quoted in the Hill Times: ``I am not
suggesting that it is a kangaroo court. It is more like a cockroach
court. You cannot see them at work and then they run away''.
It is a really good description of what that committee stands for.
The member from the government said had a private member's bill
that would have ended concurrent sentences and forced rapists and
murderers to serve consecutive sentences for multiple crimes. That
bill was made non-votable because the government side had
decided it did not want that issue to go to a free vote in this place.
(1055)
Can a member of this House get an explanation of why it was
non-votable? Can she or he find out what happens in that commit-
4423
tee? No. There are no records kept. There are no notes. It is all done
in secret behind closed doors with no records kept. No wonder the
member for Mississauga East called it a cockroach court. As she
said, we cannot see them at work and then they run away.
That member's experience is not unusual. It has happened to me.
Every single one of the private member's bills and motions that I
have put forward has been made non-votable. Maybe there were
good and logical reasons for that to happen but there is no way that
I could get an explanation for that. That for me certainly and
perhaps anybody in this place who has put forward a private
member's bill is the worst committee on the Hill.
As the member for Mississauga East said, if she had a bill that
offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the
place in a week, but if you have a bill that wants to side with the
victims or correct obscene injustice in our system you can expect
resistance and many years of effort and debate. To that member,
welcome to the club, because that is what this side of the House is
fighting the entire time.
Last year there were a total of 16 private members' bills which
would have toughened up the justice system and not one of them
could get past the system that is put in place through these
committees to prevent it from ever becoming law. Even the ones
that are made votable by that cockroach court committee that end
up being passed in this House by the members get referred to
committees which then stonewall them, delay them and keep them
there under the orders of the ministers until they disappear
completely off the map.
We see those examples over and over again. The bill that would
have rid section 745 from the Criminal Code passed in this House
and yet the committee and the minister are defying the will of the
members here. It is contempt of Parliament in our estimation.
The members on both sides of this House are demanding more
and more that all of our private members' business should be made
votable and that the committees should stop interfering with the
process. We should be permitted to bring the will of the people to
this place and to put it through and turn it into law. I certainly hope
we will soon see the disbanding of this cockroach court committee
which has been a major problem for us.
The problems of the committees are really symptomatic of a
load of problems that go right through the system which operates
here, that makes this place almost just frosting. The real issue, the
real cake, all happens behind closed doors. Everything is
predecided and this is just the charade that happens on the top.
An example is I write letters to ministers about important issues
about these committees. Months go by. A letter written to the
justice minister remains unanswered after two months. A question
on the Order Paper in this place, put here on October 5, 1995 with a
45 day answer period asking what sort of money the Squamish
Indian Band gets in my riding has been sitting on the Order Paper
since October 1995 and never answered. That is just another
symptom of our constant problems.
My colleague from Fraser Valley mentioned the employment
equity committee. I was sitting with him on that committee when
the employment equity bill was considered last year. We were told
that bill would be referred to committee before second reading so
that members could have meaningful input to shape the bill prior to
coming back for second reading in the House. What an absolute
sham that was. It was unbelievable. When we describe it to people
in the outside world away from this place they can hardly believe
that it is true, what we tell them.
There was a time limit-arbitrary rules created by the
committee-to discuss any clause. It did not matter how long it
was, how short it was. Five minutes included the time it took for
the government member to read it out and describe what it was all
about. My colleague from Fraser Valley and I were denied the
opportunity and ability to even ask questions of expert witnesses
who were at that committee, experts from the government side. We
were not even allowed to question them. We had questions from
our constituents and we were denied the right to put them. That bill
was rammed through the committee after hours, at short notice,
when it was impossible for us to get witnesses to come to the
committee. This is an abuse and a manipulation of democracy. It is
unacceptable.
(1100)
One example my colleague from Fraser Valley gave was how the
chairman decided he had had enough discussion and just passed
something by himself. We had another example where we managed
to catch a few of the government members napping and got a
particular clause through and the chairman reversed it by himself.
He changed the vote. The vote was yes and the clause passed. He
said it was no and it had failed. We were unable to get that reversed.
Days later when we came back into this House and appealed to the
Speaker for justice to be served and these decisions at the human
resources committee to be reversed, we were told that the
committees were their own masters.
I have another example. I sat on a small committee which was
looking at the boundary changes in North Vancouver. There were
only three members on that committee, two from the government
side and myself from the Reform Party. There were about five
clerks there, one to watch translation, one to watch what's going on
and others whose jobs I do not know, five people and the three of
us. We had to elect a chairman. One of the government members
asked me if I minded if he nominated the other government
member to be the chairman. I told him I knew how it worked
around here and he should do what he had to do. So he nominated
the other Liberal member to be the chairman. Then they both look
4424
at me to second the nomination. Can you believe it? ``Not a
chance'' I said, ``you can't expect me to do that, it is not
democratic''. They looked at one another for a moment, looked at
the clerk, and the clerk said that we could always change the rules,
so they did. They changed the rule so they did not even need a
seconder to elect the chairman.
The whole committee system is a disgrace. I could go on for an
hour giving examples. I see my time is up and I welcome questions
and comments. I will just say that this needs changing badly.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like my
colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie who asked a question a few
moments ago, I also agree that we can support some of the
arguments put forward by the Reform Party. It is indeed difficult to
work in committees where the majority of members are on the
government side. Since the government exhibits a certain amount
of ministerial solidarity within committees, it is difficult for us to
win every time. It is part of the game of democracy.
In this context, it can be very frustrating for the Reform Party, as
well as for the official opposition, to have requests or proposals
rejected sometimes.
I would like the member to tell us what changes he thinks should
be made to improve the committee system. Before knowing if we
can support their position and if we can denounce the government's
attitude on this issue, I would like to know what alternative the
Reform Party is proposing for these committees. What democratic
system would it like to see put in place in order to be able to
achieve its aims, because I suspect that under all this lies a feeling
of frustration with regard to proposals that were not supported by
the majority in committee? What mechanism would Reform
members suggest be put in place to ensure that other members who
do not belong to their party would get the respect they deserve in
committees?
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for his question about the operation of
committees. There has been some discussion about the British
parliamentary system. There is a lot of tradition involved in the
operation of this place. That is absolutely true.
(1105 )
However, all it takes is the political will to change these things
which have been in place for a very long time. Most of these things
were put in place to fit a time that has long gone, a time when the
people were not well-educated and when communications were not
very good.
When Edmund Burke said: ``You don't do your constituents any
favour by representing their will'', that was 200 years ago. Today
we live in the information age. Our constituents are exceptionally
well-informed. They know what is going on in the world. They can
find out the minutest detail about what is going on in this place.
I am sure all members have experienced from time to time
constituents who know more about a particular bill and its possible
problems or benefits than they do. There is a member over there
from the islands who said that he never reads the bills. There are
constituents out there who take a direct interest.
The suggestion from Reform is that we can run on a general
mandate of what we stand for but within that we must have
flexibility to suit the information age and the flexibility to adapt
that agenda to comply with the will of the people, the people who,
after all, are paying our salaries. This means that when a committee
goes travelling across the country taking submissions, it should
truly take democratic submissions so that it is not a predetermined
outcome and that it truly wants to know what Canadians want and
is prepared to have the political will to adjust its agenda and get
away from partisanship.
It does not happen very often. If we look at the past three years in
this place, I have had to vote three times contrary to my party
mandate in order to represent my constituents' wishes on
government bills. Therefore, it is not something that happens every
day. It is on very carefully considered issues. I do not suffer any
consequences from being able to do that.
It is a new democracy. All it takes is the political will. I would
urge members to get behind these changes so that we can get real
democracy in this place.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I regret to have
to say in this House that it seems to me that the Reform Party has
chosen a topic for debate this morning that would have been more
appropriate for a supply day.
The hon. member from the Reform Party did not reply to the last
question I asked him. I threw the ball into his court by asking him,
through you, if he could tell us how he would like us to operate in
committees. He did not answer the question.
What is at the bottom of all this is the Reform Party's frustration
at not occupying the position of official opposition in this
Parliament, and at not being able to obtain the number of
vice-chairs that it would like in committees. That is the real issue.
Under the guise of a free vote, the Reform Party would have us
believe that it allows its members to vote as they wish, that they do
not have to toe the party line. I would like to hear from them what
happened to Jan Brown, what happened to her? I am sorry, Mr.
Speaker, I ought to have used the name of her riding.
4425
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but nobody can
hear you right now because my microphone is on, not yours. Only
one person may rise at a time. The member corrected himself, but
I would like to remind the House that when speaking about our
colleagues we must use the name of their riding or their
department.
Mr. Laurin: As I could not be heard, I will correct myself now
that my microphone is back on and say that I should have said the
member for Calgary Southeast. I would like the members of the
Reform Party to tell me what they did with the member for Calgary
Southeast when she decided to vote freely, when she decided not to
toe the party line, because she found it too radical, too extreme?
(1110)
That MP was not allowed to remain in the party, she was
expelled. Today, they are telling us, with a ``holier than thou'' air,
that they advocate the free vote within their party. Granted, but on
certain minor bills only. If, for instance, the Reform Party were to
introduce a bill on the use of cow hair in mortar, I do think it could
let its members vote freely on something like that, but on
fundamental and vital questions which were part of a party's
election platform, it is important for solidarity to be maintained,
and that must extend to the committees as well.
I also have doubts about how sincere the Reform Party members
are, because we have seen them in action in committee. In the three
years since we were elected, every time committee chairmen and
vice-chairmen are selected, the Reformers opposed having a Bloc
Quebecois member as head of the public accounts committee, for
example, or as vice-chair of other committees-because,
traditionally, a member of the party in power heads committees
except that the public accounts committee is chaired a member of
the official opposition.
The Reform Party would have liked to be the official opposition,
but unfortunately the voters decided to give them two seats less
than the Bloc Quebecois. Terribly frustrated by this, the Reform
Party decided to try to change the rules, to change tradition. True,
this is not a Standing Order, but it has always been parliamentary
tradition to have a member of the official opposition as the
vice-chairman of a committee.
The Reform Party ought to have put more effort into its election
campaign so that more of its candidates could have been elected.
Then it would have been recognized as the official opposition and
would have had that privilege. With all their talk of democracy and
British tradition, Reformers ought to know that democracy and
British tradition recognize that the majority rules.
As it happened, the Bloc Quebecois won more seats than they
did, but they refuse to accept this, and that too is just another
excuse, because the real reason they are making such a fuss about
how vice-chairs, how Bloc representatives are chosen in
committees, is not that Bloc members are involved but especially
because Bloc members are sovereignists.
We are sovereignists because that is what our platform is about.
We presented our platform to the people of Quebec, who
democratically elected to send us to Ottawa with a majority to
represent them. The people of Quebec chose so wisely that, as a
result, we became the official opposition. Quebecers owe
themselves a vote of thanks now because they are well represented.
Reform Party members would like to see this sovereignist
position, this political option prevent us from having the
democratic right to sit on committees. Because we are
sovereignists, they would like to see Bloc members denied the right
to be vice-chair of a committee.
If we did not have that right, why would we have the right to
have a member on the committee? If we have no members on the
committee, where does that leave our democratic rights? Is this not
about the most elementary respect for democracy?
(1115)
The most elementary respect for democracy means accepting the
decision made by voters in a riding, in a province, to send
representatives to the House of Commons. That is the most
elementary respect for democracy. Denying someone a
vice-chairmanship because it is not convenient this time around is
not a good reason. A person holds opinions we do not share, and as
a result, we deny him the right to be vice-chair of a committee. If it
were like that, we would not get very far in a democracy.
We saw the attitude of the Reform Party in the committee that
dealt with the Jacob case, for instance. Oddly enough, they showed
a great deal of solidarity at the time. The Reform Party members on
that committee did not seem to be allowed much latitude to express
their views. They all had to think the same way, otherwise they
were not allowed to sit on the committee. If one member did not
work out, they would substitute another.
And today the Reform Party tells us, with a ``holier than thou''
air, that it wants more democracy in committees. I agree that we are
sometimes pushed around by the party in power which has a
majority in all committees. I agree that the party in power, which
has a majority and decides to exercise its solidarity, can beat us
every time.
Mr. Pettigrew: That is what the people want.
Mr. Laurin: That too was the result of a democratic decision. I
wonder what the Reform Party would do if it were in office. I
would be curious to see if its position would be: ``From now on,
you are free to elect whomever you want to chair the committee, in
spite of the fact that we have a majority''.
4426
Angels act like that, not the Reform Party, in spite of its ``holier
than thou'' air. If it came to power, the Reform Party would be
the first to insist that rules of democracy that are to its advantage
apply; it would want to use them and would fight anyone opposed
to their use.
I am sorry but the real subject matter of the debate today is the
Reform Party's frustration at not being the official opposition, and
that is how their remarks must be taken.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to offer a comment based on what I have heard here this
morning on the rule of law. My colleague, the member for Fraser
Valley East, was very specific about it. He said this Chamber
operates under the concept that law is king. He said the Latin for
that is lex Rex.
He went on to describe what committees do, that this is not the
rule of law. He said instead, committees seem to operate under the
rule of politics, that the political system is Rex, is king. He did not
know the Latin for politics is king.
I have done a little research and I have this to offer to the House.
I believe the Latin translation for that as it applies to the committee
system is tyrannosaurus Rex, which comes from the dinosaur era.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not know if the hon.
member for Joliette wishes to comment on his colleagues' remarks.
Mr. Laurin: I do, Mr. Speaker. Such remarks are surprising,
coming from the hon. member who just spoke, after his recent
comments last spring and during the summer.
The rule of law does not mean much to people like that. What
matters is their owns views, extremist views. When the law gets in
their way, they get around it. When the people in front of them do
not share their views, they try to get rid of them. If their skin is not
the right colour, out they go. If they do not have the right political
ideology, the right views about where this country should be
headed, out they go.
(1120)
We have been here for three years and both the official
opposition and the governing party have been saying all along that
the Reform Party is a party of extremists whose attitude is reflected
not only in official statements to the press and in the excessive
behaviour displayed by individual members but also in each and
every committee of this House. They would have people excluded
on the basis of their political opinions. That is discriminatory. That
is extremist. It is like racial prejudice, like being against religion.
Today, these people want to teach us a lesson in democracy. But
they cannot even tell us how the committees should operate in
order to be more responsive to public opinion.
I suggest that they think this over and I am confident that this is
the last time they make such a request because not enough of them
will get elected in the next election to be in a position to demand
anything, whether in committee or in the House of Commons.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time allocation of five
minutes for questions or comments is brief. I want to accommodate
as many participants as I can. I simply ask for the co-operation of
the member for Calgary Centre. If he could he either make his
comment or pose his question within the one minute period then I
could give the same amount of time to the member for Joliette to
respond.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member talked about tradition and what we suggested should be
used in the standing committees.
He referred to tradition. I would like to refer to the rules, and the
rules are clear. We wish the standing committees would operate
according to Standing Order 106(2):
Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two
Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the
third a Member in opposition to the government-
The wording does not preclude members of the third party in the
House from filling these positions.
Since 1958 the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts has been a member of the opposition, following British
parliamentary tradition. Even Beauchesne's parliamentary rules
and forms citation 781 states it is customary for the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts to be chaired by a member sitting
in opposition to the government. That does not preclude any
opposition party. It does not refer to the official opposition, the
tradition he refers to.
Procedurally no party member is precluded from assuming the
position of the chair in any committee. A precedent was set during
the third session of the 35th Parliament when members of the NDP,
the third party-the third party in the House like us-served as
vice-chairs to standing committees and subcommittees and chaired
legislative committees.
This party is recommending a push for real openness and real
free votes for chairs and vice-chairs, not the set up that the
government perpetrates on each of the standing committees. That is
what we are recommending. Allow the members to be masters of
their own destinies and vote for their own chairs and vice-chairs.
4427
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre is
absolutely right. True, this is what the law says but it is also true
that we are often guided by the traditions and practices in our
parliamentary system.
But if we look only at the legislation, the Bloc Quebecois
proposed candidates for the position of vice-chair in the various
committees and managed to convince the government
representative to vote for them. All this proves is that we had the
same right as Reform members. We exercised this right and, since
we are better than they are, we managed to convince the
government to vote for our candidates. That is why some of our
members are now committee vice-chairs, and this was done
democratically.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the most extraordinary thing about parliamentary life is
how one always has to expect the unexpected. Last night, when I
went to bed, I certainly did not think that, this morning, I would be
debating a report tabled by the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
In 1993, during the election campaign, four major parties were
trying to win the support of Canadians. There was the Liberal Party,
which claimed to be in the best position to manage the affairs of the
country. There was the Conservative Party, which, of course, made
the same claim. There was the Reform Party, which wanted to
change Canada and knew how to do it. And then there was another
group, made up of separatists, sovereignists, who said: ``We want
to go to Ottawa to protect the interests of Quebecers''.
(1125)
On October 25 of that year, the Liberal Party formed the new
government, with a strong majority and, of course, the
responsibility that goes with it. When you have a strong majority,
you ultimately have the power to do what you want. This comes
with a price though, and I think that, when the time comes, voters
will make the government pay that price.
The Reform Party got 52 candidates elected, not bad for a new
party. Unfortunately, the Bloc got 54 candidates elected in Quebec.
In other words, we became the official opposition by a narrow
margin. It was a narrow margin indeed-only two members-but
we got it nonetheless.
The value of parliamentary government and the respect in which
society holds it derive entirely from its rules and tradition.
Accordingly, we became the official opposition. This did not thrill
the members of the Reform Party, and I can understand that.
What I have more trouble understanding is that after three years,
they have been unable to sort out common sense, logic and, finally,
their responsibility as a party in this House to ensure that the
House's time is used intelligently. They wanted to reform Canada.
When their members are capable of taking up the time of this
House for matters which are very interesting but somewhat
dubious, we have to wonder what is going on.
What does the time of the House mean? It means 295 members
who are here to defend their constituents' interests, it means staff
who work with these members, it means the House's support staff.
When the House's time is wasted, tens of thousands of dollars are
being thrown out the window.
My colleague, the hon. member for Joliette, mentioned the Jacob
affair. Everyone remembers the Jacob affair, I should think. In any
future discussion of the 35th Parliament, it is one issue that will
stand out. We listened to the Reform Party, we appeared before the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, much work
was done and the final conclusion was that there was not really any
basis for the charge.
As for what we are hearing this morning, and with any luck the
debate will be over at 1.55 p.m., there is not really any basis for it. I
can understand that it is frustrating for the Reform Party to see
members of the official opposition holding the position of
vice-chair on each of the committees for three years, but that is one
of the responsibilities of the official opposition. The governing
party has understood that, and finds it perfectly reasonable to vote
for the candidates the Bloc Quebecois submits to committees.
There are certain actions that go along with the recognition of
responsibility. I feel that the governing party can live with us as the
opposition, and I am totally in agreement with that. I have no
problem with that.
It is quite another thing, however, to say that it is easy to work in
committee. It is not. Sometimes one has good ideas, is convinced
they are excellent ideas and can make a valuable contribution to the
government's bills, but sometimes, unfortunately, our valuable
contributions end up in the waste basket. That is the government's
choice and the choice of the majority in committee.
What we have to demonstrate is that our arguments, our
contributions, are important and have real potential for improving
the lives of our fellow citizens. When we work in committee and
try to convince our counterparts on the government side that this or
that amendment is important and should be passed by the
committee, and subsequently by the House, we are doing our jobs.
We may regret that we are not always successful in doing so, but
I do not think it is productive to take up three hours of debate to say
that one is not in agreement with the report tabled by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that really,
everything ought to be done according to a free vote.
When we ask ordinary people, the people who constantly switch
channels on their tv and end up getting bits and pieces here and
4428
there, who sit around discussing this and that, what they think
about politicians, their answers are not always very reassuring.
(1130)
It hurts to hear this, when we have the impression we work hard
and are doing our best. However, if they are watching us today, and
I imagine some of them are, they will inevitably start wondering
and say: ``What on earth is going on? Let them go to work in
committee, instead of wasting their time''. They may have a point
there.
However, I wish the voters watching us this morning would
remember one thing, and that is that the parliamentary system
works according to certain rules, which means there is a price to
pay when we have a majority government and there is also a price
to pay when a party is the official opposition thanks to a single
member.
I would therefore urge them to elect a sizable official opposition
in the next election, which will probably be held within a year. I am
convinced the official opposition will come from Quebec, because
to me it is clear that as far as the rest of Canada is concerned, the
Reform Party is not up to forming an official opposition with a
sense of responsibility and capable of acting accordingly.
Amazing, Mr. Speaker. You are signalling that I have one minute
left, so I will do you a favour: I would rather not take it. I am sure
my Reform Party friends have plenty of questions to ask and
perhaps members opposite as well, you never know, so thank you,
and I will wait for their questions.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the member for
Laval Centre is the only one I know who has brought up the Jacob
decision or transaction in the committee. She is the one who
brought it forth, not the members of the Reform Party.
We were not questioning the decision of that committee here in
this discussion. I find it absurd that members of the Bloc party can
question our concern about committees. If members of the Bloc
party really think that being the official opposition is the be all and
end all, then maybe they should have the courage to put candidates
in all of the ridings across this country and see whether they have
the support of the Canadian people for the kind of issues and
positions that they take. They know that they represent one
province in this country. If anybody is extreme, it is the Bloc
Quebecois members who are talking about leaving this country and
breaking this country apart. If they do not call that extreme, I do not
know what is.
I would like to ask the member if the Bloc Quebecois has the
courage to put candidates in the other provinces other than Quebec
in the next election.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I was negligent in not raising
the issue earlier when it occurred the first time. I believe in the
affair we are referring to we are referring to one of our colleagues. I
would simply ask the co-operation of the House in reference to that
particular issue that we would refer to the member for
Charlesbourg.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, your point is well taken.
I want to inform the hon. member that whether something is
extreme depends how you look at it. Yes, I referred to the case of
the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I made that reference to use an
example everyone would be familiar with. You know, when you
teach a class, the best example is one that is crystal clear. For
everyone in Quebec and the rest of Canada, the case of the hon.
member for Charlesbourg is an example that is self-explanatory,
and a case that took quite some time. The hon. member may think it
extreme of me to bring this matter up, but I do not think that just
because this case was closed by the House, we were bound never to
discuss it again.
Fielding candidates in all Canadian ridings is an interesting
point, but the hon. member should remember that we are here to
defend the interests of Quebecers and to stand up and say what is
wrong with this system, because there is something wrong with it. I
see the hon. member is smiling. I am sure this means he agrees with
me. There is something wrong with the system, and we believe it is
not only our right but our responsibility to say what is wrong on
behalf of the rest of Canada, when we wear our official opposition
uniform, which we do quite elegantly.
(1135 )
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the dialogue. With regard to the investigation of the
member for Charlesbourg, the member has basically stated that it
was a waste of time. What she is saying in fact is that the House
made a decision of its members to do something and that this entire
House therefore was the cause of wasting its own time.
The member may want to reconsider whether or not the integrity
of the House is being brought into question, because it was our
decision and not a committee decision to undertake that
investigation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I will give one response
to that comment: in its highly democratic spirit, of course, the
House agreed to have a committee examine the case of the hon.
member for Charlesbourg.
4429
What I mean is, if the Reform Party had not introduced a
motion, as far as I know, I do not think the House would have
had to use such precious time to come to the conclusion, following
the tabling of the procedure committee report and our minority
report, that, ultimately, there was nothing to make a fuss about.
It must be recognized that we sometimes waste our time. It is not
because a decision was made that, a posteriori, we cannot say that,
in fact, there was nothing to fret about. So, our time was wasted
somewhere.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been listening to the debate this morning. I have also been,
with some interest, involved in the matter that led up to this debate
coming before us today.
As a new member of this House, I too have found it to be a
learning curve challenge to deal with some of the issues of the
standing orders, the rules, the decorum and the general principles
of governing ourselves as members of this House and as members
of the other house.
Frankly, I think that on balance, one of my frustrations when I
listen to some of my colleagues from the Reform Party is based on
the fact that they-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I hesitate to interrupt
the proceedings and particularly the parliamentary secretary, but I
have been apprised by our table officers that there is a technicality
here that I think we should clear up.
The parliamentary secretary in tabling the motion earlier is
deemed to have spoken. Therefore, just to assure myself that we are
following the correct parliamentary procedures here, I will have to
ask the House for consent to permit the parliamentary secretary to
continue his intervention. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, there is a good example where a rule has
come up and we learn by our inexperience.
The point is that we need to look at what the government said
when it was the Liberal Party of Canada in the 1993 federal
campaign.
In that campaign there were a number of commitments which
dealt with parliamentary reform. They included the commitment
that would give members of Parliament a greater role in drafting
legislation through House of Commons committees. That was a
commitment we made. We made a commitment that would permit
a parliamentary review of order in council appointments.
(1140 )
It was a commitment we made as a Liberal Party. We stood
before the people of Canada and said that was a principle. We all
felt in the run up to the 1993 election that the respect the people of
Canada had for members of Parliament was low. Now that we are at
our places in the House we all have a responsibility to try to
enhance and improve the respect and the integrity of the system.
We also talked about more free votes in the House of Commons
in the lead up to the campaign. We talked about the fact that
members of Parliament should be involved in the prebudget
consultation process.
Frankly, whether or not the Reform Party members have
accepted this, we won the election. Therefore, our platform is the
one which will be adopted and imposed. Despite their opposition, I
am somewhat sympathetic to certain remarks that were made by
the whip for the Bloc Quebecois this morning. All parties have to
work together at committees to produce and enhance the work of
the government as it is presented.
As I was thinking about what I wanted to say this morning, I was
really struck by the very first line in Beauchesne. It states:
The principles of Canadian parliamentary law are: to protect a minority and
restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority; to secure the transaction of public
business in an orderly manner; to enable every Member to express opinions within
limits necessary to preserve decorum-
We must have certain limits and certain rules. Just because the
Reform Party members do not like the rules, they want to change
the rules.
The rules have become part of the Canadian tradition which
adopts the principles of the British House of Commons, the
principles that all members have respected. Notwithstanding those
principles or precedents, the Liberal Party of Canada came forward
with a series of changes and said that there were certain flexibilities
it would like to build into a new approach to Parliament. We ran on
them and we got elected on those and we implemented them.
On February 7, 1994 our government House leader brought
forward a substantial motion that detailed changes to basic House
rules. He stood in his place and said that there should be a motion
to change the rules. He talked about the fact that he wanted to
implement a number of commitments that our party made in the
election campaign and in the speech from the throne. That is how it
works. He talked about a revitalization of Parliament.
Not everything the Reform Party has said is wrong. Not
everything the Liberal Party, the Bloc or other Canadians have said
is wrong, but we have a set of principles of British parliamentary
tradition that we have had for hundreds of years. When we look at
how Canadians have reflected on this Parliament and the previous
Parliament during the mandate of this government since 1993, it
speaks volumes about how Canadians have reflected on us as
members of Parliament. I do not say that in a partisan way. I talk
4430
about it as the hard, good work that has occurred on committees
such as the industry committee, government operations committee
and the lobbyist committee.
(1145)
As a new member of Parliament I have been given the
opportunity and the honour to have served shoulder to shoulder
with members from the Reform Party and the Bloc where we work
together in procedure and House affairs to resolve difficult and
complex issues when legislation comes after first reading to our
committee as it did with the lobbyist bill.
We were given a rare new Canadian opportunity, an opportunity
that lived up to the commitment that we made as a government and
as a party. We said that members of Parliament should be given
more flexibility and so we effectively drafted new legislation.
We had a minister come before our committee who said: ``Here
is my bill, my opportunity to present my best chance to give you
how I believe a policy should be implemented on lobbying''. The
committee took this very seriously and worked very hard with
members of the Reform Party, the Bloc and with our own members.
We had members of the Liberal Party agreeing with the Bloc. We
had members of the Liberal Party agreeing the Reform. At the end
of the day we had a very good quality result. The result was a better
piece of legislation.
We brought the minister back and he said: ``I think you have
gone a little further than I might have gone but if that was the
consensus I am prepared to accept it''. I use that as an example of
the credibility of members of Parliament. Frankly, our credibility is
at stake every day because all members of Parliament at the end of
the day have to work together. They do not have to agree on
everything from hair style, suits or opinions but we respect each
other's opinions.
One of the frustrations that I find with what Reform members
have suggested in certain comments today is how committees have
manipulated democracy. Frankly, what I worry about is in whose
view of democracy have they manipulated? Is it their view? Is it the
people's view? Which people of Canada's democracy have we
talked about?
The issue is not that the government has failed to live up to its
commitments. The real issue is the Reform Party has failed to
understand that it did not win the last election. Many of my
colleagues know I have tried throughout my career in Parliament to
be a non-partisan chairman at industry, at government operations,
at lobbyists and procedure and House affairs. At the peril of my
own party I have tried to be a non-partisan chair of a committee.
I find it most irritating when I see members opposite,
particularly in the Reform Party, trying to portray the government
as manipulating democracy because their characterization of that is
a perversion of democracy. Their characterization is manipulating
the true realities of how this place works. Many Canadians do not
get an opportunity to get the flavour of what goes on in this place.
Frankly, perhaps rather than televising this place we could have
more television at our committee rooms when a lot of the real work
of what goes on at committees is what is going at this place for the
work of the men and women who work shoulder to shoulder
regardless of political persuasion.
Because there is a particular agenda in one particular party
which represents only a very small part of that overall agenda, I
find it irritating disruptive-
An hon. member: Rubbish.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member calls it rubbish. It is
important to look at what our party has done, at what we have
accomplished, at what we have done and what we said we were
going to do and at what Canadians feel about members of
Parliament today.
(1150)
I feel better about being able to say to people when I get into a
taxi, when I am in a restaurant or when I am on the street in a
market that I am a member of Parliament than I might have
characterized being a member of Parliament 10 years ago.
Elections are something that we have for 45 days every four or
five years. I would urge those members of the Reform Party who
have not bothered to read the newspaper to realize that they lost the
last election to look at some of the polls about how Canadians feel
about Parliament, that we are doing a better job. It is not as
Liberals, although the Liberal Party is doing quite well. I am very
proud of that record but those members should reflect on how
Canadians view Parliament, how Canadians have viewed the
committees that are working, the role of the member of Parliament.
I am very proud of the committees that I have worked on. I am
proud of the work of the members of the Reform Party and the
members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have contributed. We have
become friends, colleagues and compatriots. We have become part
of a process of changing this place and making it better. We have
become part of making the British parliamentary tradition that we
have so carefully preserved at this place more flexible, more
current.
As the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley said, it
needs to be something not spoken by Sir Edmund Burke 200 years
ago. It has to be more modern. We have a more modern democracy
and a more modern federation.
While I disagree with certain views of the Reform Party or
certain views of the Bloc, we have become a better federation. I do
not think it is fair to characterize the new government initiatives
that were brought about as commitments in the red book to give
members of Parliament more flexibility, more involvement with
drafting legislation, and have them whitewashed as a manipulation
of democracy. That is wrong. It is disruptive. That is intellectually
dishonest.
4431
An hon. member: That is rubbish.
Mr. Zed: There is a good example where a member walks into
the Chamber, barks out ``rubbish'' and then wants to participate in
the debate.
If Canadians want to look at what is really going on, perhaps
they want to re-examine what is going on with certain members of
the Reform Party. Frankly, it makes me very worried about
democracy when I look at some of the extremist views that come
out of certain elements in the Reform Party.
I respect the member's right. I would ask you respect our right
to-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have been here since the
beginning of the debate. There are strongly held views about this
issue. Please allow the Chamber to do its work in the usual
parliamentary fashion. We will get through this debate and all the
others.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with what Reform Party
members said when our government leader spoke about the
reforms and brought forward the reforms, the enlightened changes
in my view, to the House.
The House leader for the Reform Party, whom I would consider a
colleague and a friend, said the following. I respect what he says.
The members of the Reform Party should listen carefully to these
words and take heed of them: ``Mr. Speaker, today is a very great
day and one we should mark high on the marquee as being very
important for the House, for Parliament and for the people of
Canada. First I want to thank the government''. He spoke those
words in reply to the government House leader. He spoke those
words in response to the changes, the initiatives we brought
forward, to the initiatives we campaigned on, to the initiatives we
have implemented.
(1155)
An hon. member: Be specific.
Mr. Zed: If you had been listening to the debate you would
know what the specifics were.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know that shortly we will
get to questions and comments. I urge you to please make your
interventions through the chair.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I believe MPs have been given a greater
role. I believe MPs have been permitted to have Parliament review
legislation. I believe we have been given more free votes. I believe
we have been more effective in becoming involved in the
consultation process.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
sort of enjoyed that presentation. It was a lot of good political
rhetoric, not as good as the government whip who I still think
trumps this particular member because he gets the political rhetoric
up to a different level. I did not believe most of it, but still it was
relatively good rhetoric.
The question I have is two-fold. This was asked of the
government whip, and I will ask the deputy House leader. The
committees are supposed to be independent and above board,
masters of their own destiny. I asked the government whip if he
instructs the members of the committee as to who should be the
chairman and vice-chairman. The government whip would not
answer. So I ask him the same. Who in the hierarchy in the Liberal
party instructs who should be chairs of these committees?
Second, on the greater issue of fulfilling red book promises, one
of the promises for parliamentary reform is that the position of
deputy chair should go to one of the opposition parties. That was
the position in the red book, written by the hon. member for
Kingston and the Islands. That has not come to pass, even by the
furthest stretch of the Liberal imagination. I wonder why that did
not happen if it was a red book promise? What about these
committees? Who chooses the chairman?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a new complaint
coming from the whip of the Reform party or from the previous
whip of the Reform party, or the previous whip of the Reform party,
or the previous acting whip of the Reform party. I get a little
amused-the old expression that people in glass houses should not
throw stones.
What I find curious is why members of the Reform party would
want to have information about how the Liberal caucus operates?
The committee operation is open. The Liberal party continues to be
the most open party on Parliament Hill. We have democratic
elections. We have democratic open contests. There is no fettering
of that. There is no interference with that. We have a caucus
system.
I make no illusions about the fact that I got elected as a member
of a political party. We campaigned on it. We produced our
information in black and white and we were elected on it. What I
find a little curious is that we made commitments, got elected and
delivered on those commitments. What part would the hon.
member say we did not deliver on? Have we given a greater role to
drafting legislation? How many pieces of legislation have gone to
committee after first reading? How many parliamentary reviews
have there been of order in council appointments by this
Parliament? How many more free votes have there been in this
Parliament than the previous Parliament?
4432
(1200)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I recognize the hon.
member for Chambly I should explain to the House that when we
began the debate on the motion, the first time around each of the
parties, the government, the Reform and the Bloc spoke. We are
now reverting to the customary order for speakers and I will now
go to the official opposition to see if someone wants to speak and
then I will revert back to the government to see if there is a
spokesperson and of course subsequently to the Reform Party.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to stand up before you in this House to make a few comments on
the attitude of the Reform Party today.
I am a member of this Parliament. With a senator I co-chair the
Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. As the hon.
member who just spoke pointed out, it is in the committees that the
real political work gets done. It is there that members can have an
impact on the legislative process, often without regard to how
parties are represented on the committee.
This morning, for example, I attended a meeting of the industry
committee at which another member like myself asked pertinent
questions and tried to influence the position of the Liberal majority
on the committee. Judging from the reaction of the other members
and of the Liberal majority, I now believe that his proposals may be
approved. That is the ultimate reason why members sit on any
committee.
It is the same for the regulations committee, where a Reform
member often asks relevant questions and contributes ideas the
committee needs, because they often-not always, but
often-reflect common sense and a real search for solutions.
For example, I must point out to the Reform Party, the third
party, that since the real political work is done in committee, it is
normal for those who appoint the committee executive to choose
people who tend to share their views.
That is probably why, in many respects, the Liberal Party is in
perfect harmony with Bloc members, and that is probably why
Liberal members on a committee will often vote for a Bloc member
as vice-chair. In fact, other than on sovereignty issue, if you look at
the record of the debates and votes held in this place, you can see
that the Bloc Quebecois has often adopted or already shared the
Liberal position. That is politics.
By contrast, and I must remind Reform members of this. They
often come here to defend the oppressor rather than the oppressed,
and I can elaborate on this.
(1205)
They often remind me of this joke a member told me a while
ago. Two young men are trying to steal a purse from an old lady on
the street, but she puts up quite a fight. He said-that is how the
joke goes: ``I stepped in and the three of us had no problem
snatching the purse from her.'' What the Reform Party is doing in
this place is similar.
Take for example the banking legislation, the Interest Act
introduced in this place. That year, banks had made between $3.2
and $3.4 billion in net profit after taking advantage of every
allowance for bad debts permitted under the law. The Reform
Party-I had not travelled as extensively in Canada at the time as I
have since-objected to telling the banks that their profits were
excessive and that they should loosen their stranglehold on
consumers.
The Reform Party voted unanimously against it. I figured that
everyone in western Canada were either bankers or very wealthy,
with close ties to banks. They could not be consumers or debtors;
they had to be creditors.
I have travelled through there a few times since. Along the road,
I have seen houses no more sumptuous or larger that those in rural
Quebec. I noticed big equipment, probably mortgaged or financed,
in some people's back yards. They could have used the kind of
assistance provided for in this famous piece of legislation.
No Reform member rose on party lines to say that the banks
were doing a little too well. Reform members all voted against the
bill presented by the hon. member for Portneuf calling for the
employees working in a company just before it went bankrupt to be
given priority when assets were distributed, even ahead of the
banks. Unanimously, Reform members voted against. They are not
right of centre, but extreme right wing, which is unfortunate.
They would like the majority to submit, to shut up, and to let
them have the whole playing field. They think they could go ahead
with hare-brained ideas like reinstating the death penalty.
Apparently, they even sent someone to the eastern bloc countries to
learn how to give a good beating, how to flog people. They are
pretty good at whipping themselves. They discovered something
good, something equitable and fair: how to whip others.
Will we put up with such attitudes in committee? When the
message does not suit Reform members, they go after the
messenger. They kill the messenger. It is simpler to eliminate him,
and thus silence any opposition.
I heard Reform members, puritans no doubt, saying that God did
not make all men equal. He created the rich and the poor. It is not
up to a man, a legislator, or society to restore a just balance. God
created such a world, and we must respect His will. The poor have
no choice but to die, or to starve. This is Reform's basic
philosophy. The rich can become richer. God wanted them rich.
This is the other side of Reform's basic philosophy.
4433
Fortunately, in committee, and I acknowledge it, their views are
somewhat less rigid. They know they are in a minority position
and cannot impose such a philosophy, and this is what frustrates
them.
Now, put yourself on the side of the majority. Will the majority
let reformers run the show in committees and try to sell all sorts of
preposterous ideas, all this is in the context of a political agenda so
convoluted that is hard to follow?
In this particular case, I can understand that Liberal members
would vote in favour of Bloc Quebecois members who, since the
beginning, and in spite of having had just about every possible
insult hurled at them, have been able to stay on course and follow
their ideal and their philosophy, which is to show compassion for
the poor and to have an understanding of the political situation in
Canada, and in Quebec in particular.
(1210)
All these factors come into play and influence the outcome of an
election to a committee.
I want to reassure reformers right now by telling them that the
redistribution of the electoral map for the next election will greatly
favour them. There will be several new seats in western Canada,
including British Columbia and from Ontario on. This will be a
golden opportunity for them to become the official opposition, as
they so strongly wish. Are we to interpret their attitude this
morning as a sign that they have come to the conclusion, as the
party whip said, that they might be wiped off Canada's political
map in the next election? They may have come to this conclusion
but, of course, they will not all tell us.
All this to say that we cannot, in the committees, grant executive
representation to a minority party. It cannot be done.
Since I only have a minute left, I will to reply to the member for
Vancouver, who quoted a latin maxim of his own. Let me tell him
one which I hope he will understand. It is not from me. It says: Vox
populi, vox Dei. When the majority speaks it is the very basis of
democracy and we must respect that. We must not start interpreting
democracy. When democracy has spoken, we must respect it.
In response to what the member proposes, I will simply say that
the nicest bird song is not always and necessarily the longest one. I
say no to what he is proposing this morning.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
been sitting here right from the beginning of this debate, and I have
to admit I have not been able to understand what Reform members
are driving at. What do they want?
None of them has been able to describe the kind of democracy
they would like to see here.
But I did understand one thing. Reform members are unable to
adjust to the system. Whether we work here, in the Canadian
Parliament, in a workers' union, in a school, or a hospital, there is
always a system that cannot be ignored. It is needed if we are to
avoid constant strife and futile discussions, to avoid having to do
without an established order. Under such conditions, it is extremely
difficult to reach a consensus.
It is a well known fact that Reform members have a hard time
agreeing among themselves. Just imagine the problem they have
living within the system as it now stands.
To make things change, one must work from within the system.
That is the way to improve it.
(1215)
I have to admit that I sometimes have a hard time accepting what
goes on in committee. I sat on the public accounts committee,
which is chaired by the official opposition. The chairman did an
outstanding job, I have to say. He did not try to give preference to
the official opposition during the proceedings. Instead, he tried to
stick to existing criteria.
Since the chairman of the public accounts committee was a
member of our party, I would obviously have liked to have
preferential treatment and to get a little more time during the
proceedings. But we followed the rules on allocation of time in
committee.
There is room for improvement in the committees, and some
procedures could also be improved. However, did Reform
members make any constructive suggestions in that regard? In any
case, in the committees I sit on, and especially in the government
operations committee, I never saw nor heard any Reform member
try to improve our operations. This is not to say that everything is
perfect, far from it, but within the committee everyone is allowed
to express one's view.
Problems can arise when the time comes to table in the House a
report on a committee; there too there might be room for greater
information and above all improvement.
All committee members should be able to talk to each other, to
have certain discussions, instead of constantly complaining that
nothing works. This is how to improve things.
As we know, the Reform Party wanted to change Canada. Let us
look at what it has been doing for the last three years. In my
opinion, it has not succeeded in changing much, except, as I heard
the hon. member for Vancouver North say this morning, for turning
the House into a spectacle, into a farce.
I do not have to go back very far. Since the House resumed its
work this week, what has happened here? We got to hear the same
old stories, stories that took up a lot of the time of the House, that
4434
kept members away from dealing with the real problems Canadians
have. They used anything and everything to make a spectacle of
this House.
We avoided true debate on job creation. We avoided talking
about family trusts. Those are the issues people want to hear about.
I find this morning's debate pointless. Why is this issue being
raised again? Why challenge the Bloc Québécois' legitimacy as the
official opposition and refuse to go by the rules of the Canadian
parliamentary system? The voice of democracy has been heard.
(1220)
It is as a result of a democratic process, namely the last election,
that the Bloc Quebecois, which has been mandated to protect the
interests of all Quebecers in this House and has, until now, fulfilled
its mandate in an honourable and dignified manner, became the
official opposition. Why is its legitimacy always put in question by
the same people, the same political party?
I can understand that there is some frustration, but at one point
they have to get over that kind of frustration. They have to roll up
their sleeves and get to work. I think that is still beyond the Reform
Party. Why lose time on a pointless debate on procedure, that
means nothing to Canadians, that will not change the way things
are done and that will bring no improvements whatsoever, when we
have so much to do?
Of course, they will blame it all on the separatists. But that is not
the case. In committee, we have constantly made suggestions to the
government, ever since it was elected in 1993, and we will continue
to do so. We want to represent with dignity the people who elected
us, my constituents and each and every Quebecer. That is how
things should be done. If something needs to be corrected, we
should go through the existing channels, make suggestions, hold
discussions and things will improve.
Let me conclude by asking the following question: What have
the members of the Reform Party done to improve the system? In
my view, not a thing. I agree with my party's whip. So, ``until the
next time''.
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a comment and also ask a question of the hon.
member.
The hon. member talks about democracy, structures, a waste of
time and these kinds of things. In debate previous to this, reference
was made to the same thing. I suggest to the member that
Parliament has roles. I agree that we are elected and we come. The
bulk of the members form the government and subsequently down
the opposition.
I suggest very strongly that the role of the opposition is to
critique. The third party is doing that. We do not see that coming
from the official opposition. Someone has to do that regardless of
what his or her mandate is. We also have to address the mandate of
the House. That is in the traditional structure of this place.
He also mentioned that we have structures by which we function.
I suggest that structures are human made and they can be changed.
It is not necessary to continue to use something forevermore amen
because it happens to be a structure that is in place. It is the role of
the opposition to critique that structure and make it function as well
as possible in today's environment.
I ask the hon. member if he feels that it is not a democratic
principle to critique these things and bring to them a modern day
concept of what is happening. The rest of Canada's citizens are
asking us to do that and not just say it is a waste of time.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
for her question. I will answer this: When we want to change
things, when we want to improve things, we have to work within
the system, to discuss, to negotiate.
During this Parliament, committees operate in a way they never
did before. So there is room for improvement and there is still time
to act.
Now, as far as the Bloc Quebecois' role as official opposition is
concerned, I must say that it plays that role fully, on top of its
mandate, which is to defend the interests of Quebecers. Whenever
the interests of Quebecers are at stake, we have solutions to
suggest, we question the government, whatever the subject,
whether it concerns what happened in Somalia, what is happening
on the job creation front, what is going on with respect to family
trusts or what is going on in the different committees.
In the committees, there are certain stands with which the Bloc
Quebecois disagrees. On such occasions, we criticize and play our
role as official opposition fully.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Some
members who have arrived recently may be wondering exactly
what is going on in the House.
We are debating a motion which has to do with a report tabled by
one of the House committees. Pursuant to the rules of this place,
after the adjournment for the summer all committees have to be
reconstituted. We need to have chairs, vice-chairs and the
membership of all committees reassessed and reaffirmed by each
of the parties. That report has come before this place for adoption.
Normally what would happen is that the report would be tabled
during Routine Proceedings and a motion to accept that report
4435
would be put. Then, by unanimous consent of the House, the report
would be adopted and committees could proceed with their work.
That is not what is happening now. The motion to concur in the
report of this committee and to accept the structure of the
membership of the various committees of the House of Commons
is being debated. It is being debated not because the government
wanted to debate the work of that committee but because the
Reform Party decided it wanted to take up some time of this place
to talk about its wish list and to do a little whining.
Reformers want to talk about how awful it is that they did not
form a government after the last election. They want to talk about
how awful it is that they are not in charge of this place. One of the
previous speakers made the point that they just do not understand
democracy. So we are here and will be having this debate for four
hours.
The point of the Reform motion is that there is a lot of wasted
time here. Right now 295 members of Parliament are hung up,
unable to do any work whatsoever in this place for four hours.
Committees cannot even hold meetings because they are not
officially constituted. They are waiting for this motion to be
passed.
The hypocritical arguments of the Reform Party to this point are
blatantly evident. The Reform Party does not even think it is
important enough to participate in debate or to follow the debate.
Although this is a waste of time we have to go through it. Yet the
issue here should not be a partisan debate on whether the Reform
Party's views or the government's views or the views of any other
party in this place are okay.
Madam Speaker, if you had been here last night you would have
heard the very interesting speech of the member for
Gander-Grand Falls which reflected what should be happening in
this place.
(1230 )
We were here until after 11 p.m. last night dealing with House
business. A number of members were doing other work, making
calls and getting ready for a vote that was to be taken, but when the
member for Gander-Grand Falls rose in his place to give a brief
intervention, people stopped and listened. Not only did they stop
and listen out in the lobbies, they came into the Chamber and they
took their places because they wanted to hear what was being said
and they wanted to participate in the event.
The event was a barn burner of a speech. People were listening.
People watching television I know were listening because here was
a long time member of Parliament who is not a member of the
cabinet, who is not a parliamentary secretary, who is not I do
believe a chairman of any committee, but he is one of the most
eloquent debaters in this entire House. People listen to what he has
to say.
The point is, he is a member who is a model for all members. He
is a member who is working as hard as he can to do one thing: to
improve the image of people in political life, to improve the image
of members of Parliament not only in this place but at home in their
communities and as they travel across this country. Probably the
most important work of any member of Parliament is to make their
contribution in whatever way they are capable of, to improve the
productivity, the image and credibility of this place like the
member for Gander-Grand Falls does.
One of the important issues that has to be accepted in this place
is that a majority government was elected in the last election. In
some respects that is a curse to a government. A government that
has a majority has complete control of the House. Democracy
makes it so with the majority of the members in the House,
provided they maintain solidarity among that team. They all ran for
a party, they all ran for a platform and they are here to deliver on
their promises. As long as that government is true to itself and true
to its platform to the best of its ability and within its control, then it
has the control of this place. It has the control to the extent that
when issues come up and votes are taken, the government with a
majority will win the vote. It is a quirk of democracy in that a
majority government is fully in control of the aspects of this House.
That is a very frustrating position to be in, not only from the
opposition party standpoint, but also for backbench members of
Parliament who are one of a very large number of members of a
caucus. It is very difficult for all members in this place to fully
participate to the extent that opposition members do.
If you look at the news on any one night, the clips of the action in
this House that were taken for the news will be of opposition
members. An opposition member will get up and say: ``The
minister over there was just protecting his own sorry butt'' and that
gets on television. Another member will point their finger and
make some rhetorical comment and that is on the news.
All members of Parliament regardless of whether they are on the
government side or the opposition side, if they are doing their job
effectively, if they are taking advantage of the opportunities
available to them, have ample opportunity to demonstrate to
Canadians what their salt is in this place, what their value is and
whether or not they respect this place. This place must be
respected.
I want to point out that we have four hours to debate a motion
which is just going to review old arguments. This debate could not
have taken place without the unanimous consent of the House. The
Reform Party, the Bloc and members on this side of the House gave
4436
unanimous consent. If Reform Party members were really so
agitated about what was going on, they would look at all of the
aspects of the operations of this House in which unanimous consent
is asked for and required.
(1235 )
There was one this morning when the parliamentary secretary
rose to give a speech. Somebody realized that he was the mover of
the motion and in fact was deemed to have spoken and technically
should not have been speaking. The House was asked for
unanimous consent to waive the rule and allow him to speak. The
Reform Party accepted. It could have said no and he would have
had to sit down and we would have moved on to the next speaker.
If members of Parliament who have a problem with the process
would look very carefully, they would find that there are ample
opportunities for them to direct the activities within this House, if
they would only exercise them. However they do not.
I will tell the House why members of Parliament do not take
advantage of the opportunities they have to direct the activities
within this House. It is because it is clear to all members of
Parliament here that regardless of political stripe and regardless of
views on the issues, it is in our best interests, in the best interests of
our constituents and in the best interests of all Canadians that we
co-operate and make sure that this place is operating efficiently and
that we are dealing with issues which are important to Canadians.
It means from to time to time members from all sides of the
House have to co-operate. Therefore, we make deals. We
co-operate with each other. We say: ``We will allow you to have
this debate this morning but listen, we have to get our committees
working. Therefore, why do we not agree to let this debate go
forward and instead of for the full day let us cut off the debate?''
The Reform agreed, the Bloc agreed and the House agreed. We are
going to at least limit this so that the vote on the motion can be
taken before the House and the committees can go back to work
this afternoon. That is co-operation and work.
Committees are an interesting beast. Someone said earlier that
committees are where the real work takes place. That is absolutely
true. As a backbench member of Parliament, I want to personally
attest to the fact that it is in committees where the real work, the
strong work, the intelligent work, the work which applies the
experience and expertise of members of Parliament really comes
into play.
When I have an opportunity to address the House, it is a very
honourable and awe inspiring occasion. It is always a great honour
to be able to speak in this Chamber. However, whenever I speak in
this Chamber, the Chamber is generally empty. There are usually
about 10 people in the House. I look up in the galleries and try to
sense what the people are thinking: ``Gee, there are not too many
people down there. Where is everybody? We pay for 295 members
of Parliament. Where are they?''
We all know that right now many members of Parliament are
making calls to constituents, writing letters, meeting people in their
offices or at committee meetings. Things are going on on
Parliament Hill all the time. We do not all have to be here. As a
matter of fact we do not all have to participate in the debate on
every issue. That would be tremendously unproductive for the
House of Commons.
Therefore, we have a committee system. We have a committee
system where hopefully each of the parties has assigned to their
committees representatives from their parties who they feel have
appropriate experience, expertise or certain things to contribute to
the activity of that committee. It is in their best interests that the
views of their party and the views of their constituents who are
represented by those members are brought to bear at committee
which is where it really happens.
I had the honour to chair a parliamentary committee on a drug
bill. It went on for a year. I enjoyed the opportunity to lead a group
of my colleagues through a very complex bill, as it ultimately
turned out to be. I think we came back with some 70 amendments
to a drug bill which dealt with all kinds of very interesting
problems.
Being a member of the health committee, having served as an
associate on the finance committee, having participated to some
extent on the industry committee, I have had an opportunity to
move around through various committees. I had an opportunity to
make a contribution and to participate in the debate, to participate
in the questioning of witnesses and to help focus on the relevant
issues to the matter before that committee.
(1240 )
It is easy to say that committees are free to do what they want to
do. Technically, that is true. The parliamentary secretary quoted
earlier from the first line of Beauchesne's which basically says that
the rules, the limits and the principles articulated in the rules of this
place are there to protect the rights of minorities. It means that
things like unanimous consent are required. Even if there is a
majority government, if we co-operate, that means we can be
productive.
One of the most important changes that has happened in this
House to make it a productive place was the change which was
made and introduced by the government House leader with regard
to voting procedures. We have had literally hundreds of votes in
this place. In a vote it takes about 10 minutes to call the roll of the
members. If we wanted to grind this place to a halt, consent should
not be given to have any votes in this place without calling the roll
each and every time.
Whoever says no to unanimous consent will do so at their peril
because Canadians will quickly understand that the House is going
4437
through a process that is not productive. We agree on a number of
things and that means we can apply votes. It means that we can
express the will of our constituents, of our parties or of our
individual views.
We have had cases where ordinary members have voted in a way
contrary to their own party. They voted their own views. We have
had free votes. I am very grateful that the government has extended
free votes on certain issues to its caucus. The other parties have
done the same or similar things. They respect the values, the
interests and opinions of their own members because there are
certain issues that are not partisan issues. They are personal issues.
They reflect social and personal values that someone holds very
dear.
We will not force people to simply be lemmings that run and
jump off the cliff if somebody says to jump off the cliff. Members
have more integrity. We are here trying to improve the optics of the
House of Commons, the integrity and the view of the integrity and
image of people in political life.
This is a very honourable profession. It is a great honour to be
here serving people. We all know that we give up a great deal to be
here because we feel we have something to contribute. Most if not
all members are giving up valuable family time to be here. Many
members who live far away from Ottawa and who travel
extensively to get home give up a lot of their own personal time to
be here representing people because they feel strongly about it.
We know that nobody takes this job to get rich. Members do not
get rich. Most members I know made a better living in terms of
income in their former lives. I know many of the members. Look at
their history. Look at what they have done in their communities.
They have been involved at the grassroots level, at the local level of
politics, at the provincial level and territorial level. They have been
involved in raising money for causes they feel strongly about. They
have track records and they are here because of those track records.
They are here because they have experience and expertise that their
constituents felt was important to bring to this place.
People have made that contribution as members of Parliament
and we respect that. I hope each an every one of us is making
progress, ensuring that our constituents and Canadians we
encounter know we are doing the best that we can to improve the
image of people in political life.
Having said that, is it good? We have seen the polls on what it is
to be a member of Parliament and where we rank. It is very low.
There is very little respect for people who are in political life. It is
unfortunate. It has taken about 25 years to get there and it will
probably take as long, if not longer, to earn back a measure of the
respect we need in this place.
To get back to the issue of committees, some have suggested that
we really should have certain parties as vice-chairs or whatever. I
can tell of my experience in committees. I would not want to be a
vice-chair. If a person cannot be the chair and at least have some
control over the timing of the meeting and have an opportunity to
apply one's wisdom, then I would rather be an ordinary member of
the committee and be able to participate. f I had a choice and could
pick what would be the best position for me I would rather be a
member of the official opposition on a committee. The normal
procedures and the rules of the House are that members of the
official opposition get to ask the first questions of witnesses and
make the first interventions. They get to ask all the good questions.
They get to set the tempo and some of the focus of the committee
meeting. Then it goes to the third party. By the time it gets around
to government members in committee, there are few substantive
matters to be dealt with. Very often, as we all know, time runs short
because we only have a half an hour for a witness. Time runs out
and government members do not even get a chance to participate.
There are some awkward things.
(1245)
However, we have made progress in making this a more open
place. As long as the opposition parties are going to be given
unanimous consent, I will be comforted to see that unanimous
consent coming forward. It continues to remind me that we all have
to co-operate in this place. We do from time to time get into
situations like this because we have to keep our feet on the ground
and say: ``Let us get a little bit of that partisan stuff in there''.
I have tried not to make this a partisan speech. I respect my
colleagues in this House. I do not agree with them on many issues
but I respect their right to have a different opinion and I respect the
opportunity to be able to continue to express my opinion in this
place.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for
Mississauga South a question. He spoke about respect for
parliamentarians and that the public needs to re-establish respect
for the people who have chosen to serve their country in this
manner.
I would like to ask the member how the public can respect
members of Parliament and members of committee when often
times we see that the chairpersons or other members of the
committee do not respect the member of Parliament's right to
represent his or her own opinion rather than that of the party in
committee? Is that not something we should be dealing with? That
person is there representing Parliament, not necessarily a political
party, and he or she should be given the freedom to say what he or
she thinks openly, rather than being controlled by the party whip. Is
that not required as respect for that member in committee?
4438
Mr. Szabo: Madam Speaker, the member raises a very good
question. However, the member would agree that it does not get
back to the issue of what are the implications to the House of
Commons and to Parliament if a majority government is elected.
If I were in the Reform's position, I probably would share their
frustration to some extent in certain aspects, for instance
committees. If there is legislation or issues that the committee has
decided to deal with and the government policy or platform is
articulated and specific, the government members of the committee
will support the platform on which they ran. They will support the
legislation they are dealing with or they will support the opinion
articulated by the party for which they ran.
Notwithstanding what the Reform or the Bloc or even other
Liberal members have to say in committee, with a majority
government situation there is no question that by and large the
decisions made by that committee reflect the government position.
There are cases where very important changes have been made
and very important points have been raised in committee.
Committee is where the work happens. I know that the member has
been very active in the justice committee. I know that this member
and many other members working in committee do make very
positive contributions and consultations in committee.
(1250 )
As was suggested earlier, I wish that more committees could
have their proceedings televised so that Canadians could see all
members at work. What happens in this place happens in about 45
minutes during question period. That is where the theatre is.
Canadians think that what they see during question period is what
happens all day long in this place. It is not.
In fact this place is a forum for the opposition parties. I recall
when a colleague from a long time ago asked the rhetorical
question: ``What is the role of the opposition?'' Somebody blurted
out: ``The role of the opposition is to deliver blows that would
tenderize a turtle''.
It was a rhetorical question and a flip answer. But in this place
when there is a majority government, that majority government is
in a position to either deal with matters straight up or to have a little
fun with them. Government members will be held accountable
when they go back to the electorate. A majority government which
is in control day after day is fully responsible for its decisions and
for the results of those decisions. It means that even at committee
the government still must call the shots. It is the one that is
responsible, not the opposition parties.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member said
and perhaps question him at the same time.
He speaks of progress in the committees. This is my first
Parliament, so I would not be aware exactly what progress he is
talking about. I am concerned that when the election of vice-chairs
for instance is not an open and democratic process, where is the
progress in that? We have ample proof that it is not. I am not going
to waste the time of the members giving them examples for which I
have facts. I would like the hon. member's comment on that.
I would also like his comment on this. I know that in the last
Parliament that third parties had vice-chairs. Why is that not the
case now? I know who it was too and that party only had 44
members in the House. Why could the third party in the House not
have vice-chairs on the committees? That would be fair and
progressive. If we are talking about progress that would certainly
be progressive.
I am also concerned about the democratic process when a bill has
been voted unanimously in the House of Commons and it is
non-partisan. I hear this member talking considerably about
partisanship. This particular bill was non-partisan. It was presented
that way. When it went to committee it was voted down completely
and buried. It was voted down in such a way that it could not come
back to the House. The committee would not return it to the House.
Yet technically and procedurally that bill was considered alive. It
stymied anything that the member, who is working hard for
non-partisan interests, could do.
When the bill came back to the House because of the prorogation
last February the same thing happened. It went to committee and it
was voted down, and would not be returned to the House. That is
not a democratic process. We must do something to change it. I
would like this member to give me his comments on this. How can
we change it?
I happen to have a motion in. I put it in last June so it is far ahead
of what we have been doing this last two weeks. We must address
these concerns.
Third, I have suggested to those who are in charge of committees
that when any information comes in from witnesses it is given to
the member whose bill is on the committee agenda at that time. In
fact, it must be given to the member whose bill is being discussed
at that time or that member is at a disadvantage. I have also
addressed that to those who are in charge of committees.
Could this member please comment on those three items?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
with regard to the vice-chairs issue, I understand that Reform
would like to have people in the position of vice-chairs. They well
know that committees have two vice-chairs, one is the government
vice-chair and then there is the official opposition vice-chair. That
is the pattern we have had.
4439
(1255 )
If the chair is not there, the government vice-chair takes over. If
the government vice-chair is not there, then it would go to the
official opposition vice-chair. That happens so rarely that in my
view having a vice-chair position is actually a disadvantage. The
opposition members who would not be in the chair would get an
opportunity to question witnesses. I do not see it as a significant
issue.
I understand parliamentary tradition. It is frustrating but I do not
see it as a problem.
With regard to private members' bills I agree. The member will
know that I have a similar situation with a bill, Bill C-222, on
health warning labels on the containers of alcoholic beverages. It
was dealt with at subcommittee. But the subcommittee did not take
a vote on the bill. Rather, it referred it back to the main committee
and said let us continue to study it. It is at committee now. It may
never come out which is very frustrating.
The issue here is private members' business. I would support the
reform of the selection of bill for private members' business. I do
not believe we should be debating bills that do not qualify as
votable. If a bill is frivolous there is no point in taking up the time
of the House by talking for an hour about it. A bill which does not
merit being votable should not go through the process.
For any bill that is passed at second reading and referred to
committee, I do not support the committee failing to report the bill
to the House. At least it should report that it has decided the bill has
no merit. Then the House would have an opportunity to determine
whether it shared that view. That would be an important
clarification which I would support.
With regard to witnesses, it sounds like a technical matter.
Anyone who has business before this House or a subcommittee
should be privy to all documents. That is something the member
could work out herself.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate. When I
first ran for Parliament in 1993, I had a couple of real concerns
about the preceding years. It seemed like the will of the people had
not been heeded on many occasions. The Trudeau government
began an era with all kinds of legislation being forced on the people
of Canada although they objected to it.
When the will of the people guides the politicians we have a
democracy. We do not have that, which is the problem with this
place and this country and which is also the reason I am here.
Instead, we have the will of the politicians who make decisions that
affect the people, even if those decisions are against the wishes of
Canadians. In my view that is tyranny, and that is what we have to
break.
I find it amusing to hear the Bloc members debating the issue of
democracy when they will not even honour a referendum of their
own people that said no to separation. I wonder what part of no they
do not understand. This was the result not once but twice. And they
are talking about democracy. I find that kind of amusing.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Sadly amusing.
Mr. Thompson: Sadly amusing.
We are talking about the committees today. As I look about the
room, I see the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was the
chairman of the justice committee when I served on that
committee. He did a very admirable job. He is a very fair
individual.
However, I found it really discouraging. One day he chose to do
what he felt he had to do as a politician, as a representative of some
people, and voted a certain way. He is therefore no longer the chair
of that committee.
One might say that those committees are supposed to be there for
the benefit of parliamentarians. They will examine issues and do
things right. We are going to put people in charge, in the chair
positions, who are the most capable and the most able. I have found
that is not so.
It is being used as a place of patronage if an MP is a good old boy
or girl. If a member does not behave, they will be booted out and
their position will be taken away.
(1300)
I see another member in here from Scarborough whom I admired
on that committee because of his ability to go through legislation in
a legal manner that I am not capable of doing as an ex-educator. I
relied on his statements and opinions that he put forward on that
committee. He was a valuable instrument as far as I was concerned.
One day he chose to go against somebody over there on a little
decision. So out he goes. We do not need him there any more and
instead we will shove in somebody else. Guess who we shove in?
Maybe not anybody nearly as competent but somebody who will do
as they are told.
When you have a government constantly telling the people
running this country to sit down, be quiet and do as they are told or
face punishment, that is wrong. I am going to do everything I can to
inform the people of this county about what is going on. It is a
dictatorship, not a democracy. The sooner the voters realize it the
sooner these guys will be gone. That is what I am waiting for. I
hope for the sake of my grandchildren that is exactly what does
happen.
4440
In 1993 the Liberal party put together a red book of promises to
act on if it became a governing body. On page 92 it states:
In the House of Commons a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in
drafting legislation through House of Commons committees.
So much for that. How many of these pieces of legislation have
received second reading approval in this House of Commons and
go to the committee and there they lay? They were never brought
back to the House to discuss. I find it absolutely deplorable that we
are voting on Bill C-45 this week when about two years ago we had
78 members from that government vote to abolish section 745.
Those same 78 will probably have to support Bill C-45 because a
certain minister has said that is the way it will be.
That is a shame. Once upon a time they were in full support of a
private member's bill that would abolish section 745 of the
Criminal Code. Now we have a flip-flop. Why? The word must be
out. You had better shape up. Is that what it is, you little puppets?
When are you going to wake up and start being the men and women
you were sent here to be and represent the people of Canada?
That statement of page 92 has turned out to be nothing more than
a red ink book lie, another broken promise. They ought to be
ashamed. It is a farce going through the motions. I felt like all we
were doing on that justice committee was going through the
motions day after day. One member from the government asked a
while ago who reads it. There were some very conscientious
workers from the Liberal government on that justice committee
who tried their best to make some important changes.
Consequently they will probably not be on that committee again
under these social engineers we have on the front row of today's
government.
An hon. member: There is nobody here today.
Mr. Thompson: We will use our imagination. That is what they
use all the time.
There is a rule that we could follow. I talked to the chairman of
our committee, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, and I said
the member from Calgary Northeast and John Edwards, the past
commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, and I visited the
University of Alberta. We met with some researchers in their
department who gave us some very strong messages: ``We must get
our message to the Parliament of Canada, it is essential for the
safety of Canadians''. I talked to the chairman of the committee
and he suggested I put it on a letter and send it to the committee
requesting that particular researching group to appear before a
committee to tell it what they had found out because they were
unable to get the ear of the government. Even Mr. Edwards
indicated from his visit to the committee that this information
should be brought to our attention and that it could be extremely
important.
(1305)
On April 27, 1995 I wrote a letter to the chairman of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I did not even get an
acknowledgement, and I am on the committee. I did not get this
before the steering committee for even a suggestion that we
consider it. Nothing whatsoever happened to this.
I asked the next chairman to review this, look at it and he said:
``What letter? What request? I have no idea what you are talking
about''. In 1995 the researchers told us that if something is not
done about what we are finding out, in the very near future, within
the next year or two, we will see a major increase in HIV in the
prisons across this land. We could do something about it but we
have to have the ear of the government. You try to do that through a
committee where you are supposed to. Not a chance.
They are going to get the ear of the government because I am
going to the press. We will get it out. I am going to the researchers
and they are going to join me. The message will get out. They have
been ignored.
Suddenly last week we see a huge increase in HIV and hepatitis
C in the prisons because a non-democratic body of people are not
interested in what the opposition has to say. I say opposition is right
here, not there. They are in with the Liberals on so many pieces of
legislation they ought to have a copy of the red book to go along
with the other propaganda they read.
I hope the Canadian people will wake up one day and realize
what kind of people are operating this country. It is not a
democratic group. We need a change.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I served on the human resources development committee
for two years after being elected to Parliament. I would like to
recount a bit of my experience on that committee and ask the hon.
member for Wild Rose to comment.
One of the first things the government mandated that committee
to do was consult Canadians. We were instructed to make a
cross-Canada tour to find out how social programs should be
changed, reformed and modernized.
As a young rookie parliamentarian I felt that was very important
thing we needed to do. One of the reasons I was elected was to
change and modernize Canada's social programs. Canadians
wanted to preserve some of their most valuable social programs
and so I participated in that complete tour. We went across Canada
and consulted for over six weeks. We amassed volumes and
volumes of material on what Canadians wanted to do. I was excited
about the possibilities of what could be done.
The tour cost millions of dollars. We went from Yukon to
Newfoundland to consult Canadians about what the wanted to do
with unemployment insurance, pensions, welfare, health and all
4441
the areas under this entire umbrella. It was virtually half of
government spending.
Canadians told us very clearly what they wanted to do with
unemployment insurance. That was one of the special interests I
had on this. Canadians wanted unemployment insurance to again
be a true insurance program. They wanted a lot of the things the
government had put into that program taken out and made a true
insurance program with employers and employees having a much
greater say in how the funds would be managed.
I was most disappointed when at the end of this tour the minister
completely disregarded what the committee had done. The minister
completed disregarded the input Canadians had through that
committee.
(1310 )
I was shocked at the amount of money that was wasted. All of
this material was simply shoved away. I do not know what room it
was put in but it would have taken a fairly large room to house all
of the submissions that people, in good faith, thought were going to
be heard by this government. It was completely disregarded. This
was a farce, as my colleague said.
The government claims it will listen to the committees, that the
committees will be effective and have an influence on the agenda.
There is concrete proof that absolutely nothing was done. This
committee process was an absolute joke. The government
completely disregarded the report and the recommendations that
were made.
A government that claims that the committees will be effective
and which made that promise in its red book has completely
reneged on that. I am very concerned that it continues to give the
impression that through the committees effective changes will be
made to legislation. That is not happening. I have been an eye
witness to the waste of money and time these committees are
because Canadians do not have a say even when the government
tries to give the impression that it is consulting.
Would the hon. member have any comments with regard to that?
I think it is a serious matter which I have not heard addressed.
However, it continues to go on behind the scenes all the time.
Mr. Thompson: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question. I do agree. I know what he is talking about. He is talking
about a group of people who have been put together to go through
the motions.
The decisions on all of these issues are already made. They are
made behind the closed door of the minister's office. That has been
evident over and over again in the last three years. The decision is
made but they go through the motions and pretend that the
committee is really having some input and the Canadian people are
really having some input. It is all a joke.
On January 16, 1994-I will never forget the day-the social
engineer from the justice department, our justice minister, said:
``Get your submissions in for the Young Offenders Act''. I can tell
this House that they came from all across the land, thousands and
thousands of them, including my own. They arrived in that
minister's office and then the committee was struck. We then got
Bill C-37 which was approved by this House.
Guess what? After all that work, the committee is going to tour
around and see what the people want to do with the Young
Offenders Act. It is a joke, a waste of time and a waste of taxpayer
dollars.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have sat on several committees and would
like to support my colleague by saying there have been some good
chairpersons from the government side who have taken on their
role very judiciously. However, I have also sat on a committee that
broke the rules and changed the membership to accomplish what it
wanted accomplished, which was to kill a report from the
subcommittee on national security.
This committee met, and I will only use the 1995 year, for seven
months. It spent over 35 hours hearing witnesses and preparing a
report. During this time the member for Scarborough West was a
member of the government and led the government's attack or
representation on dealing with a report from SIRC, the security
intelligence review committee, that we were reviewing.
This individual put hours of research and represented the
government in what I thought was a very competent manner. He
has a very astute legal mind and offered a lot in the discussions and
debates on this report. As I said, the committee members sat for
over 35 hours listening and cross-examining the witnesses to get as
much information out as we could.
The members of the committee, which included the Bloc
member and the Reform member, got to the fourth draft of a report
on September 8. This report was being prepared to be introduced
and tabled in the House of Commons by the end of that month.
However, lo and behold, one of the other members of this
committee, obviously on instruction from the party and the
government, which the member for Windsor-St. Clair who maybe
had not understood the issues but who participated in the
discussion, had been involved in bringing this report to a fourth
draft.
(1315 )
On September 19 the government made sure that this report
would not go on, would not be tabled in the House of Commons.
The government took the member for Scarborough West off the
committee. He was the only government member who probably
had actually read the report under discussion and knew anything
about it and he was taken off the committee. The government
4442
replaced him with an individual who had not sat for over 35 hours
listening to witnesses with a chance to cross examine them.
The second meeting of this committee with the new members
from the government side lasted for 10 minutes before they
adjourned it. They waited until they had eaten the sandwiches. We
met at suppertime because that was the only time we had available
as busy MPs. They waited until they had filled their faces on the
sandwiches and fruit before they adjourned the meeting because
they did not want to address the report.
There was one government member who decided they would
rewrite the report after the committee got to a fourth draft. The
member for Windsor-St. Clair went away and rewrote the whole
report without any input from the opposition members on the
committee. What a farce.
The government, in order to keep this report from being tabled in
the House of Commons, did not even respect their own member. It
did not even respect the chair of that committee. The adjournment
by his own party members was done without his knowledge. They
adjourned our meeting early on three occasions in order not to deal
with the issue. They did not even have the courtesy to tell the
chairman who was representing the same party, the government
party, that they were doing this.
It shows to me the absolute disregard and disrespect the
government has for the independent operation of a committee to
get down to the real work and to determine whether something is in
the best interests of the people of this country.
It is about time the government realized that each one of us is
here to give the best that we can, including the government's own
members. If they happen to find something that is wrong and that
should be brought to the attention of the government, they should
be allowed to do that.
I have watched time over time this kind of interference by the
government whip. I watched it in the justice committee when we
were debating Bill C-41. Two Liberal members had gone through
the process, had gotten replacements signed in to show up and sit
down and the party whip came in and said: ``No, you are not
representing the government. Here are the replacements that we
have approved''.
There is total disregard for the process and the rules that are in
place so that we as members of Parliament can do the job for the
Canadian people in reviewing legislation in committee to make
sure the end result is the best possible for the people of Canada.
I would suggest that the government has a long way to go before
it is fulfilling its red book promise of giving more independence to
committees, of giving more members of Parliament the ability to
affect legislation and to help in the creation of legislation.
I am another private member who has a bill that made it through
second reading in the House of Commons. Mine passed
unanimously two years ago. It is sitting in the justice committee
and has been for two years. The Minister of Justice introduced a
bill on the same subject two years later. Why did the committee not
deal with a private members' bill that was dealing with dangerous
offenders and how to keep them off the streets of Canada? Two
years ago that was passed unanimously by this House, placed into
the committee and totally disregarded.
I would suggest that the tyranny of the majority which one of the
Liberal members referred to earlier is precisely what this country
has with the present government. Because this government has
such a massive majority, it feels it has the right to totally disregard
the rights of its own individual members of Parliament to represent
the Canadian people in what they feel is right and just.
(1320 )
Anytime there is a critical review of something which may point
out an issue or an area that the government should back away from
or reconsider, it is disregarded. Maybe I have misread the position
of the member but I thought we were all here to do the best job we
can for the Canadian people and to make sure that those who follow
us have the best legislation, the best rules to govern the country to
make sure that it is a strong, vibrant and unified country in the
years to come.
I do not see that our work in committees is allowing us to do that.
I have seen interference by the government, not only on opposition
members but on government members which is in contravention of
the parliamentary system.
If the government wants to return to this House with any
majority let alone a mass majority it had better pull up its socks and
start listening to the Canadian people because it may not be given
another chance.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member made a very good intervention. I am glad she was able
to get all of her frustrations out. It is good to be able to express
one's frustration at democracy. However, it is a contradiction
because one cannot be frustrated with democracy.
The issue here is that a majority government is fully in control of
the work and the decisions of the House of Commons by virtue of
that majority. The electorate as a whole is going to hold the
government fully accountable for the decisions and actions in this
place, understanding fully that the opposition parties were not in a
position to defeat anything.
4443
The member raised issues about something that happened in the
justice committee and talked about our work. I believe her quote
was ``our work'' as a collective of the committee, as if the
committee does not reflect a microcosm of this place. It is a
partisan committee made up of partisan members and team
members who represent their party's position. That means
notwithstanding that the member has made good points, the
ultimate decision is of the committee. The committee is controlled
by the governing party with the majority and thereby transposing
the responsibility, the government is responsible for each and
every decision the committee makes and must be accountable to
the people.
If the member feels that the committee's work and the end result
of the decisions made and the amendments proposed and the bills
supported or not supported were wrong and not in the best interests
of Canadians, there will be an opportunity for those members in the
next election.
The member should remember that the curse of a majority
government is that it is deemed to be in control by all Canadians. It
will be held fully accountable and what it does is at its own peril.
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting to hear
a member of the Liberal Party say that the government is fully
responsible for the decisions of the committee. In this case the
member the government replaced on the committee was
recognizing that there was a discrepancy in the information or the
testimony of witnesses and questioned and challenged it. Because I
had no support from the committee for recognizing there were
discrepancies in testimony and that it should be challenged and
questioned, I brought it to the House as a point of privilege.
(1325 )
I will quote from the Speaker in his ruling earlier this week:
``However in my opinion this is a matter for debate and not a
question of privilege. The member clearly has a dispute as to the
facts presented to the committee. Should the member wish to return
to the committee with the matter, and the committee ought to report
to the House on this aspect of the question, the House at that time
may choose to deal with it''.
The committee refused to even deal with it in the report stage.
That is why the member for Scarborough West was kicked off the
committee. He recognized that the other members of the committee
would not deal with that issue. I would suggest that the government
is responsible for the decisions to help cover up.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask my colleague what she really thinks about the selection
of vice-chairs, especially only from the ranks of the separatist,
break up the country party.
Ms. Meredith: Madam Speaker, the issue really is the openness,
the ability for the members of the committee to choose the person
they feel is best able to represent the opposition. I would suggest
that there have been times when many of the government members
would have liked to have supported a Reform Party member who
was presented to them but were told not to.
The day that the Liberal members of these committees are given
the freedom, and I mean full freedom, to select who they feel is
best able to represent them, we will see some Reform Party
members placed in the vice-chair positions.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have just a few points concerning this debate.
What started it was the tabling of this excellent report by our
whip, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is
doing a fantastic job. He has been one of the best whips I would say
in the history of this place. On the list of names of people serving
on these committees, months of consultation have gone into
preparing this list to make sure that members are on the committees
they want to be on if possible.
All of a sudden, the Reform Party stands up in the House,
frustrated by its own unpopularity, frustrated because the
government is so far ahead in the polls, but mainly frustrated
because of the Bloc. Under our system it is the Bloc, the official
opposition, which has many of the privileges the Reform Party
would like to have.
Here Reformers are today criticizing of all groups to criticize the
Government of Canada for this lack of democracy, for this lack of
accountability to the House of Commons, to the Canadian people,
to this lack of power over the legislative process. There are only
two functions of committees in the House of Commons under our
system and they are accountability and the legislative function.
Is it not strange that they should be criticizing the very
government in the entire history of this place which has allowed
free votes not just on private members' bills, but also on
government initiatives. If we investigated the mother of
Parliaments, the British Parliament, I do not think we would find
there such progressive actions as those by the Government of
Canada, by the Prime Minister, under the present administration. It
is historic. It has never been done before.
(1330 )
On top of that, with this new found power which has been given
to members of Parliament on government bills and private
members' bills, we have in this place the best accountability of any
legislature under the British parliamentary system. I am referring
to question period.
4444
There is no other legislature in the world that has a question
period that the ministers, the executive, have to attend to answer
whatever questions are posed by the opposition parties- no other
legislature in the world.
I will tell the House what we do have in the world. Perhaps the
Reform Party would like to have this. Perhaps it would like us to
become up to date like the British, the Australians or any other
Parliament where one has to give notice of a question to a cabinet
minister. The cabinet minister does not even have to be in the
House every day. They are only called once every two weeks to
come for a day to answer questions in the House, questions for
which notice has been given.
Why have we retained this? We have retained this because the
Government of Canada, particularly now, is in a situation with a
separatist party as the official opposition. The Government of
Canada has rejected the many suggestions from the academic
community that we go the way the British and the Australians have
gone where they have to give notice of every question and the
cabinet ministers would not be confined to their places here in this
House every day and be answerable to a complete free for all by the
opposition parties.
The system we have works only if the accountability of the
government is actually accomplished by the two main political
parties in opposition, first the power given to the separatist party.
We can imagine why the Reform Party is rather frustrated. We
have a system whereby one of the two main players in question
period is a separatist party that is only interested in breaking up the
country. That is its agenda. It is not interested in anything else. I do
not think Bloc members are interested in anything else. When they
sleep they dream about it. They plan it day after day: ``What are we
going to say in question period to break up the country?''
Obviously that is not working in the best interest of Canada. Then
there is the second party.
An hon. member: Extremists.
Mr. Baker: As the hon. member pointed out, this is party of
extreme political positions. And so we wonder who the losers are.
The losers are the people of Canada.
An hon. member: Give us an example of what is extreme.
Mr. Baker: The hon. member has asked for an example. We can
give examples. Imagine a political party with that much power for
accountability being opposed to our health care system. Imagine a
political party that includes in its position that it wants the public to
have roads built by private enterprise and then we would need toll
gates. How else? Imagine the Alaska highway. Imagine if there
were tolls on the TransCanada highway. This is the party with these
very extreme positions on certain things.
An hon. member from the Reform just mentioned
unemployment insurance. They had this great plan. Let us talk
about the extreme position of being opposed to reducing the
premiums for employees and employers, to use the unemployment
insurance fund to pay off the deficit, to make sure that everything
becomes zero, and then they will reduce the premiums. That is in
their policy booklet, page 24 of the budget they presented.
(1335)
What we have is the Government of Canada being held
accountable to the people of Canada by two political parties that
are not representative of the wishes of the Canadian people and
therefore cannot really hold the government accountable for their
actions. The government holds true to the principles of democracy
in the House by giving members of Parliament on the government
side a free vote even on matters that are introduced by the
Government of Canada.
It is clear the reason the system is not working is the fault of the
opposition parties and they only have themselves to blame. They
should go back to the drawing board as far as question period is
concerned and perhaps come up with some better suggestions
rather than hold up all of these excellent committees with these
excellent MPs just waiting to do their job as presented by our whip
earlier on today.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
always interested to hear the member from Newfoundland speak.
He spoke of extremism. We have seen extremism in this country
for the last 25 years. We have seen the extremism in the fiscal
monetary policy that has created a $600 billion debt in this country.
We have the extremism result in a $50 billion interest payment
each year on that debt. We have seen the extremism of the MP
pension plan which is not a pension plan at all but a winning lottery
ticket.
We have seen the extremism of section 745 that allows first
degree murderers like Clifford Olson to apply for early parole after
serving just 15 years and take everyone of those 11 families whose
children have been murdered through the horror, pain and the
anguish again and again.
We see the extremism of politicians who support those kind of
rights and protection for the murderers in this country while
ignoring completely the duty and responsibility to protect the
innocent victims of the children of those families.
Yes, this country has had to be subjected to extremism,
extremism that I have talked about, which we could speak about for
hours in this House; extremism of the Young Offenders Act that is
considered to be a joke by many of the young offenders them-
4445
selves; a justice system that cannot protect the lives and the
property of our citizens. Yes, we have extremism in this country
and it is the result of people like my colleague who just addressed
us.
We can talk of something the hon. member did not address with a
democracy as expressed within our committees. I sat on the justice
committee and I saw one of the finest chairman who knew the
rules, who was an experienced capable man and who was fair to
both the government side as well as the opposition. I saw that hon.
member fired from his position simply because he chose to
represent what he thought was in the best interests of his people on
a government bill.
The hon. member has not addressed that. Perhaps he could
address that in the time he has left. What does he think about the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce being treated in that
horrible manner by a so-called democratic process and a
government that is supposedly sworn to uphold the democratic
principles of this country? Let us hear the hon. member respond to
what happened to this hon. member over here.
(1340)
Mr. Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has claimed we
are a government of extremes. He started his point by talking about
the debt and the deficit, of economic extremes, as he called it.
I have to admit this country today is in an extreme position
because we are at an extreme, are we not? Which one of the G-7
countries leads the world in economic development? Which
country is at the economic extreme? Is it Italy? Is it France? Is it
Germany? Is it the U.K.? Is it Japan? Is it the U.S.? What country is
at the economic extreme? We agree with the hon. member. The
country at the economic extreme is the country of Canada, which
leads everybody else.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member, speaking of extremes, which political
party's extreme ideas did the government adopt? Which party ran a
campaign on cuts and deficit elimination and that cuts lead to jobs,
better opportunities and make this country better? Which party ran
on jobs, jobs, jobs? Which party has stolen the other party's ideas?
We want nothing to do with its ideas and we are glad it is stealing
ours, our extreme views, our extreme positions and our extremely
valuable contribution we have made to this country.
Mr. Baker: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada would
never be that extreme. The Liberal Party of Canada, since the fall
of 1993, has been the most progressive economically of all of the
industrialized nations of the world, and is projected to be that way
next year, without adopting the Reform principles of cutting health
care, making people pay for their roads and doing away with social
programs.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I can see as you do that the government majority is
pleased to hear what I have to say, and I will not be afraid to speak
my mind.
The fundamental reality we are faced with here is that we have a
democratically elected opposition composed of 53 members who
agreed to comply with democratic rules with regard to party
fundraising, rules that were rejected by both the Reform Party and
the government majority in this House.
We are being told today that our work as parliamentarians,
particularly our work in committee, is useless. That is what the
Reform members are saying. They are saying that our work as
parliamentarians is useless because they are not the official
opposition.
That is sheer hypocrisy. You will recall that less than two weeks
after we came to this House, the leader of the Reform Party invited
us to a luncheon where he told us that his party would have a new
image, that we would see a new way of doing politics, that his party
would be democratic, that it would enrich debate.
Despite the fact that we have a system where the people have
their say, where they can choose their representatives
democratically, some members have the gall to tell us today that
this system is worthless with regard to committees, because they
are not the official opposition. It certainly takes some nerve to rise
in this House today and make that kind of comment.
How should we evaluate the work of the opposition? We have a
democratic opposition.
(1345)
And we are here because we received a mandate. What is that
mandate? It was given to us during a democratic electoral
campaign held according to public rules. The people of Quebec
chose 53, 54 members from the Bloc Quebecois. That is a fact.
What is so painful for the Reform Party members? I hope that
one of them will have the courage to stand up and say it instead of
their usual hypocritical speech. What counts in democracy is not
what you have on your head, but what you have in it and how much
4446
brain power you have that determines whether you should aspire to
form the official opposition.
What does the Reform opposition have to say? What do the
Reformists say about public finances? And on the foreign affairs
policy? And what about human rights? What do they have to say
about the big debates of the moment? And about the recognition of
the rights of Quebec? They have nothing to say and this is why not
only will they not form the official opposition after the next
elections, but we will see to it that they are completely wiped out.
I challenge you, Madam Speaker, and any of the
Reformers-who are a throwback to bygone days-to give us an
example of any occasion where we have been remiss, either with
respect to content, policy or ethics, or in connection with
attendance in the House, or our use of any of the prerogatives of the
official opposition. I challenge them to give us one example.
We know very well that we have done our work properly. We
have done it like those who know that, when the official opposition
rises in the House, it speaks on behalf of the Quebec people, who
made a democratic choice, and who will do so again in order to
reach an ideal that we have never concealed, which is to see that,
when it so decides, Quebec will be able to attain sovereignty.
But did that mean that, when we had the opportunity, we were
not able to honestly and respectfully represent a broad range of
Canadians? Yes, we were able to do so. We were able to do so when
we spoke about Bosnia. We were able to do so when we spoke
about renewing institutions internationally, particulary with respect
to the United Nations. We agree that, in specific cases, the Quebec
nation may have interests in common with the rest of Canada, but
we have never compromised our principles.
Did the Reform Party fight against family trusts? Did you hear
them on this issue? Did the Liberals get up and fight when
apparently two billion dollars had more or less legally left the
country, left Canada? Did they stand up and fight? No.
What bothers both these parties is that we take a unique position.
We have something different to say, something specific.
I know both the Reform Party and the government majority wish
we could blend in with the rest of Canada. But that will not happen,
because we know what Quebecers will do, because they are capable
of democratically choosing what is in their own interests. And
being guided by their own interests means electing spokespersons
exclusively dedicated to promoting the interests of Quebec.
(1350)
In the same breath, I hasten to say that each and everyone of us
has friends in English Canada, and we believe that the best way to
conduct our political business in the next century is in the form of a
partnership.
That is what we believe, and we are not naive about the
eventuality, the plausibility and the eminently desirable policy of
maintaining a Canadian common market. We are not naive in this
respect.
I am concerned to say the least that the Reform Party has nothing
to say about these issues. To rise in the House with all the naivety
and indignation of a convent school girl of 17 and say they are
unhappy because in committee they are not the official opposition
is an affront to democracy.
Democracy is about being able to elect the people who represent
us. Do Reform Party members seriously believe that with this kind
of holier than thou attitude, devoid of any common sense, they will
win the popular vote? Is that what they believe? I hope not.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know
we have to wrap up the debate momentarily as per the motion we
passed earlier this morning. Is there going to be an opportunity for
questions and answers following this?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is not a
point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, I would like to carry on with my
speech.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Strahl: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I know the
normal method of debating here in the House is a statement period,
a period of debate-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Please sit
down. It was agreed that discussions on this motion would end at
ten to two. I will give the hon. member an additional minute to
complete his 10-minute speech.
Mr. Strahl: Will there be time for questions?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Madam Speaker, here you can see this inability to
take a position on issues and the use of tricks to avoid the real
debates. This is why these people, at least I hope for the sake of
Canadians and Quebecers, will never be the government nor the
official opposition.
4447
Here we are, acting in a responsible way, talking about the real
problems and ensuring that the voice of Quebec is and continues
to be heard. We are all, without exception, very enthusiastic about
the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 1:55
p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the motion is deemed to
have been put to a vote and agreed to on division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions from several hundred Canadians
from different provinces which state that abolishing the
opportunity for prisoners serving life sentences of 15 years or more
who apply for a judicial review of their parole eligibility will likely
only serve to increase both the human and economic costs of the
criminal justice system and increase public fear and
misconceptions about crime among the Canadian public.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to oppose the repeal
of section 745 of the Criminal Code or the restriction of prisoners
access to just and fair procedures as well as to launch a concerted
public education campaign to promote the need for more
responsible and humane criminal justice approaches to enhance the
safety of all Canadians.
(1355 )
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition containing over
500 names from the riding of Simcoe North.
The petitioners state that there are profound inadequacies in the
sentencing practices concerning individuals convicted of impaired
driving charges and that Canada must embrace a philosophy of zero
tolerance to people who drink and drive.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that
the sentence given to anyone convicted of impaired driving causing
death carries a minimum sentence of seven years and a maximum
of 14 years as outlined in the private member's bill C-201,
sponsored by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
wish to present two petitions. The first is on taxation of the family.
The petitioners from Kirkland Lake, Ontario would like to draw
to the attention of the House that managing the family home and
caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which
has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
choose to provide care in the home to preschool children, the
chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition, which has to do with the labelling of alcoholic
beverages, comes from Belleville, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners, therefore, pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have petitions to present from people in the lower mainland of
Vancouver regarding veterans of the wartime merchant navy who
are excluded from the War Veterans Allowance Act, from pension
benefits, from veterans post-World War II free university
education, housing and land grant benefits, small business financial
aid and veterans health care benefits.
The petitioners call on Parliament to consider the advisability of
extending benefits and compensation to veterans of the wartime
merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World
War II armed services.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I pleased to present a petition signed by 92 constituents
from the province of British Columbia and the communities of
Horsefly, Williams Lake and Miocene.
My constituents request that Parliament enact Bill C-205, a bill
which would amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act.
Passage of this bill would prohibit a criminal from profiting by
selling, authorizing or authoring the story or details of a crime.
4448
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour
to present the following petition.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that
this nation is in danger of being torn apart by regional factions.
Therefore, they pray that the Prime Minister and the Parliament of
Canada declare and confirm immediately that Canada is
indivisible.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I am honoured to rise to present two petitions from
residents of the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The first one is from Sun Hope Petitions in memory of Andre
Castet. The petitioners would like to draw attention to a great
public concern that sexual predators are at large in our streets
without public notification.
They feel that Bill C-37 does not address the public's call for
substantial revisions of the YOA and they call on the House to
enact legislation to reform the justice system and the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act addressing a number of principles,
primarily that new laws would ensure that sexual predators are kept
off the streets and placed in a secure setting until they no long
represent a threat to public safety.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is again from a group in my area. They
call on Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and
dental benefits and to put a hold on any future consideration of such
a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts
on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.
I am pleased to present both these petitions.
The Speaker: It would be my intention, immediately after
statements and question period, to take up where we left so we can
receive all the petitions you want to make today.
It being 2 p.m., we will now go to Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
4448
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians know that strong families make a strong country and
that we must pursue appropriate initiatives to build that strength.
These initiatives also include mitigating problems which
undermine and weaken the family such as alcohol abuse.
Tragically, 50 per cent of family violence, 65 per cent of child
abuse and one in six family breakdowns in Canada are all directly
or indirectly due to alcohol misuse.
The consequences of family violence and child abuse are
devastating and long lasting. However, this is a societal problem
which requires the resolve of both men and women working
together to identify and eliminate the root causes of family
violence.
Reducing family violence means healthier families, improved
outcomes of our children, lower health care costs, lower social
program costs, safer communities and stronger families.
Finally, strong families make Canada strong. Therefore I call on
members of Parliament to pursue initiatives to restore the strength
of the traditional Canadian family.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
today to salute the management and employees of Les industries
Cascades. Environmental protection is an important value for
them, and an integral part of their management philosophy.
Evidence of this is their recent official opening of a secondary
water treatment plant at the Kingsey Falls pulp and paper complex,
representing an investment of over six million dollars in order to
reduce biological oxygen demand and hence the toxicity of effluent
from the four Kingsey Falls plants.
Cascades employees were responsible for much of the design,
construction and installation of the equipment, and its operation.
This company now has one of the most efficient secondary
treatment systems in the pulp and paper industry. My
congratulations to the management and employees of Cascades,
which has now moved into the vanguard of environmental
protection. Theirs is an example to be followed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this Liberal government's lavish spending sprees are
breaking through the superficial fiscal restraints.
The Liberals have committed to pay approximately $3 million or
30 per cent of the total cost of the francophone games to be held in
Madagascar. These games include medals for such events as
sculpting, video production and even story telling.
4449
We plan on spending over five times more than what we spent
on the Commonwealth games which were held in Canada and over
ten times more than what we spent on the 1996 Olympics.
Government waste of taxpayer dollars is indefensible. In bad
times such as what we are in now when many Canadians are
suffering, the government is hard pressed to-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a national disgrace that the unemployment
rate in Canada is still higher in comparison to our neighbours to the
south.
Canadians are tired of excuses and slogans from this
government. They want to see employment opportunities created
regularly. Creating jobs for Canadians has to be the number one
priority for this government.
Recently the Prime Minister stated that more than half a million
jobs had been created since the last election. Nothing is ever said
about whether this is the net total and not another flip-flop statistic.
If these jobs have been real then let us see the true numbers from
this government.
I hold this government personally responsible for the sad state of
affairs of our economy.
* * *
(1405)
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over 1,300 Canadians living in 180 communities from
every province have expressed their support for my private
member's bill which would adopt an official pledge of allegiance to
the Canadian flag.
Individual Canadians are not alone. The councils of 33
municipalities including Windsor, Rockland and Guelph, Ontario,
Beaconsfield, Quebec, Chester, Nova Scotia, Cardston, Alberta and
Logan Lake and Cranbrook, British Columbia have passed
resolutions of support in the past three weeks.
Some of our country's greatest moments have involved our flag.
Canadians love their country and the flag that flies proudly
everywhere. Young and old, they have said this summer: ``The
maple leaf forever''.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the city
and county of Peterborough have submitted a bid for the 2001
Canada Games.
The bid is the result of months of work by hundreds of
volunteers. It includes details of our sports facilities and of our
expertise in sports management.
The bid points out that we have already hosted the Ontario
Games for the Physically Disabled, the National Slo-Pitch
Championships, the Memorial Cup Tournament and two Ontario
Summer Games. We have decades of experience in hosting sports
events.
This bid has the full support of the city and county councils,
local municipalities, the Curve Lake First Nation and our sports
organizations. The bid already has strong financial as well as moral
backing.
Peterborough will ensure that the first Canada Games of the new
century will be the best ever. I urge all members to support
Peterborough's bid.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
record three people from Newfoundland and Labrador competed at
the Summer Olympics from July 19 to August 4 in Atlanta,
Georgia.
Maria Maunder as well as Phil Graham from my riding of St.
John's East and Andy Crosby of Corner Brook each competed in
the rowing events.
Maunder and her Canadian women's eight crew rowed to second
place and received a silver medal. Graham and Crosby rowed in the
men's eight and finished fourth.
I want to thank and congratulate each of these athletes for their
contribution to sports in our province and as well for Canada. Their
spirit and dedication stand as examples to all of us to try our
hardest at whatever task is before us. Canada is proud of you.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
conclusive scientific evidence on gulf war syndrome verifies that
neurological damage occurs when two pesticides, deet and
permethrin, are used in combination with the anti-nerve gas agent
pyridostigmine bromide.
University of Glasgow studies show neurological dysfunction in
gulf war vets and the U.S. Defence Department confirms use of
chemical weapons on seven occasions during the first week of the
4450
war, including the area of Hafr Al-Batin where some Canadians
served. These confirmed the 1991 Czech and French reports of the
presence of chemical agents in this area.
On May 16 the defence minister said that veterans affairs would
review gulf war veterans' disability applications, assuring that
those who display symptoms will be given the benefit of the doubt
for treatment and compensation.
However, current regulations accept only disabilities with
medically recognized symptoms. These regulations must be
changed to recognize the chronic and multiple disabilities from
which our gulf war veterans suffer. Talk is not enough. Action is
needed now.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
NDP views the preoccupation of Parliament with the fate of the
defence minister and General Boyle as politically unfortunate. It
has let the Liberals off the hook on other issues.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister and the minister of defence
have been disappointing in their stalwart defence of General Boyle.
The Prime Minister is right to say that the inquiry should be
allowed to do its work but the Prime Minister should do his work.
To question General Boyle is not to attack or criticize the
enlisted men and women of the Canadian forces who are
distinguishing themselves at home and abroad.
To imply that questioning General Boyle is an attack on all who
serve in the forces is false and a cheap rhetorical tactic. To imply
that all General Boyle's internal critics are only motivated by
resistance to change in the department is also false. There is a
legitimate question of leadership here and it is hard to argue that
General Boyle is the one to provide it.
The Prime Minister should be wary that his twisting, evasive and
often shallow defence of General Boyle is enough to make some
Canadians wonder about his leadership abilities. It is time he
stopped bragging about his standing in the polls. Pride goeth before
a fall.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): I am
pleased to rise today to make my colleagues aware of the Acadia
advantage.
As of September, Acadia University is the first fully wired
campus in Canada.
The use of IBM ThinkPad computers is now an integral part of
first year courses in business administration and computer science.
By the end of year 2000 a high end lap top will be a standard part of
every student's admission package. Acadia University recognizes
that computers are no longer the wave of the future. They are the
way the world communicates now.
With the help of their partners in this project, IBM Canada
Limited, MT&T, Mariott Corporation of Canada Ltd. and
American Express special teams, students will be equipped to learn
the skills they need to compete successfully in a demanding world.
Acadia University is truly taking a leadership role in innovation
among Canadian universities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the start of a first-ever forum of agents of
local development in rural settings at
Saint-Germain-de-Kamouraska. Focussing on the theme
``Rebuilding the countryside, villages and towns for the 21st
Century'', this meeting brings a number of rural local development
workers and prominent speakers from France, Belgium and Quebec
together from September 19 to 22.
This little village of barely 300 people is to be congratulated for
its initiative in encouraging reflection on the conditions fostering
the development of rural villages and towns.
We are sure that this first forum on rural local development will
draw from accumulated knowledge in this field to consolidate the
actions needed for a rural renaissance.
Congratulations. We wish you every success in your
undertaking.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, national defence contracts are helping to stimulate our
economy and are creating and sustaining many trading jobs. For
instance, Atlantis Aerospace Corporation and Fullerton Sherwood
Engineering Limited in my riding recently submitted successful
bids for DND contracts valued at over $1,400,000 each.
I congratulate DND on its ongoing willingness to shop Canadian
when seeking the finest expertise and equipment available. It is
clear that the Minister of National Defence takes his job quite
seriously. The minister has displayed tremendous strength and
tenacity as he works to make Canada's defence department the best
it can be.
4451
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to once again to your attention an innovative
tool for promoting literacy.
I had the recent pleasure of participating in launching a new
Canada Post Corporation stamp in Fredericton. The new stamp is a
partnership effort between CPC and ABC Canada, a non-profit
organization that helps raise awareness of literacy and promotes
private sector involvement in supporting the cause.
The new stamp costs 50 cents, with five cents from every stamp
going to ABC Canada.
I wish to commend Canada Post for this novel and creative way
to support literacy in this country. It is once again helping us raise
funds on a community basis. New Brunswick has been a leader in
the promotion of literacy and I hope it continues to lead by
supporting the use of this new stamp. If all 10 million stamps are
sold literacy groups across the nation will benefit to the tune of
$500,000. If one in three Canadians buys just one booklet of stamps
they will sell out.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 27, the chief government whip will
be the star of a benefit rock show to help those who deliberately
broke the Quebec Elections Act during the last referendum.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did not settle
with funding civil disobedience in Quebec using federal public
moneys, he called upon sponsors such as Canadian International,
the official carrier for all those who love Quebec, The Ottawa Sun,
famous for its Quebec bashing, and the parliamentary channel,
which is funded by Canadian cable companies.
No matter how hard the government whip tries to look like a
rock star and how many heritage minister's flags he waves on
stage, his government's music will always sound off key to
Quebecers.
* * *
(1415)
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.):
Well, Mr. Speaker, the summer is over
The Liberals thought they were really in clover
Three months back home to talk to the folks
Would give them the chance to garner some votes
What do you know, the people were mad
A brand new government they thought they had
But when listening closely it was the same old tune
Liberal, Tory, just two sides of the same old loon
We want jobs, real jobs, not an infrastructure scheme
We want leaders to really say what they mean
We want violent criminals to do their time
But the government says, hey, everything's fine
The military is crumbling from the top down
The general blames the troops on the ground
The minister says I'm proud of that man
He should be let go, not given a hand
Let's get on with how to fix this land
Let's get people to work-let's give them a hand
Let's show the world if you commit a crime
The consequence is you do the time
Let's prove to the world that our country is one
And quitthis fighting the separatists have begun
Canada is good butlet's make it great
Times running out and the people can'twait.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between
now and the next election, the Bloc leader and his advisers intend
to show Canadians, and I quote from their report, ``that sovereignty
and an offer of partnership are the best path toward a solution to the
future of Quebec and Canada''.
How can the Bloc leader be taken seriously when he said exactly
the reverse, on December 22, and I quote again: ``Mrs. Lalonde
wants to convince Canada of the benefits of an economic
partnership with Quebec. For my part, I believe it is more
important to be in Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests and show to
its people that federalism as it stands is not in their best interest, so
that they will vote yes at the next referendum''.
Who is telling the truth now? The member for Roberval who
wanted to become leader of the Bloc Quebecois or the member for
Roberval who is trying to get re-elected?
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
everyone will remember, early on during the last referendum
campaign, the separatists promised federal civil servants that they
would all be integrated into the new Quebec civil service.
4452
[English]
A few weeks into the campaign spokespeople for the separatists
began to send the message that perhaps they would not be able to
guarantee a position for all public servants. In the end federal
public servants were told it would be unrealistic to guarantee work
for anyone in an independent Quebec.
[Translation]
Last week, at the PQ regional convention held in Quebec City,
delegates asked that the clause concerning the automatic
integration of federal civil servants be withdrawn from the agenda,
since it was, in their views, the biggest blunder in the PQ strategy
in the Quebec City area.
[English]
What else is new? They never keep their promises. The
hypocrisy and the flip-flops of the separatists never cease to amaze
us and do little to improve the image of all Quebecers.
_____________________________________________
4452
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in an absolutely unprecedented gesture, Liberal members
have attacked the auditor general for blowing the whistle on the
family trust scandal.
For three years the Bloc Quebecois has been criticizing these tax
havens, yet now, because the auditor general has confirmed what
we have been saying, that billions of dollars are going out of the
country tax free, the Liberals are questioning his competency and
the way he is fulfilling his mandate. And this is someone appointed
by the House of Commons.
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he dissociates himself
from the opinion of certain members of his party or whether he
rejects this report?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to thank the finance committee for its
report. I would like to thank the representatives of the government
for the majority report, and the opposition members from the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party for their minority report. I intend
to examine it with care.
As for the comments about the auditor general, someone who, as
the hon. members are well aware, has always had our strong
support, I must admit that there was a difference of opinion in the
committee on certain steps taken or recommended by the auditor
general.
(1420)
Differences of opinion are, I feel, part of democracy. What I do
not understand about the tone of the comments on the auditor
general in the Bloc Quebecois minority report-for it is not merely
a disagreement with the government-is that the Bloc seems to
hold the position that the committee, that Parliament, does not have
the right to make comments about an employee of Parliament,
which is what the auditor general is.
It is the role of Parliament, and the role of the members of
Parliament, to make comments, whether about the Prime Minister,
the Minister of Finance, other ministers, or the auditor general.
That is part of what democracy is all about, and that is what they
have done.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance has given up his
fancy footwork for the summer. He was much more nimble when it
came to skating around the GST issue.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by remaining mum, he is
sanctioning the report by his MPs and making a direct attack on the
very institution of the auditor general, the protector of the general
public and the one whose job it is to call attention to the faults in
the public administration? Does the Prime Minister realize that he
is backing up his MPs by his silence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what the Leader of the Opposition is really doing is confirming the
point I wanted to make in my response, namely that the standing
committee does not have the right to make comments about an
employee of Parliament. This is totally ridiculous. I would ask the
Leader of the Opposition to speak about the substance of the
majority report, a report which I applaud. This is a very meaty
report, with a great deal of merit, and we on this side plan to
examine it carefully.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister wants to talk substance, we will talk
substance. We will talk of the very philosophy of this government.
It has to be understood. When the Somalia inquiry tries to cast
some light on administrative and leadership failings in the Army,
the Prime Minister discredits the Commission. When the auditor
general tries to cast some light on the matter of family trusts,
government members discredit the auditor general.
How can the Prime Minister explain to us the new philosophy of
his government, which to all appearances consists in discrediting
those who are not in agreement with it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition has not
had time to read the majority report. First, their criticisms were
made very respectfully, and second, they accepted most of the
auditor general's recommendations very favourably. They thanked
him for them, point by point. That is in the report, the thanks to the
auditor general. Moreover, we in government thank the auditor
general for the points he had raised, and because of the fact that he
4453
did raise those points-and the majority report says this-the
Ggvernment will be in a position to act.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for the past three years, we have been asking the
government to get to the bottom of the family trust scandal. It was
not until the auditor general recently condemned the scandalous
transfer of $2 billion in trust funds to the U.S. tax-free that the
Prime Minister finally decided to ask the finance committee to
review, to shed light on this matter. The Liberal majority tabled its
report yesterday and all they did was attack the auditor general.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Who is the Prime
Minister trying to protect?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, this matter was first raised in 1991 under the previous,
Tory government. Second, right after we came to office, we dealt
directly with the matter of family trusts and, in our second and third
budgets, we eliminated all the fiscal abuses associated with family
trusts. Third, the hon. member must know that this matter has
nothing to do with family trusts. It was indeed a family trust, but
the real issue is how to collect taxes from immigrants when they
leave the country. That is the real issue.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if this is only a Tory matter, why should they be afraid to
get to the bottom of this scandal? Why? While the Minister of
Finance and the Prime Minister are stalling, more billions of
dollars are leaving the country tax-free, because the government
refuses to plug the loophole created in 1991.
The Prime Minister is aiding and abetting the flight of capital,
and I ask him again the same question: Whose interests is he trying
to protect?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is really unfortunate on a matter of some seriousness that the
opposition is unable to treat a serious matter with the serious
degree of concern that it requires.
Instead of yelling here in the House or trying to seek a diversion,
why does the opposition not deal with the fundamental matter
which is what the majority report did? This occurred in 1991 under
the previous government. Immediately upon taking office we
eliminated all fiscal abuses having to do with family trusts. We
then asked the finance committee to take this issue on. It has in fact
made a serious number of recommendations that we as a
government intend to look at.
I only wish the opposition parties had been able to sit down and
understand the issue. Under those circumstances they might have
been able to deal with the debate in an intelligent way.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government cannot have it both ways on the Somalia inquiry. The
Prime Minister has complained that it is too slow, too expensive
and too hard on witnesses. The reason the inquiry has been delayed
again and again is that the department was not producing the
relevant documentation. If this government wants someone to
blame in this whole affair, it should simply look in the mirror.
Why will the Prime Minister not simply admit that if the
Minister of National Defence and Jean Boyle were really capable
of doing their jobs, the commission would have had all the
documents and the Somalia inquiry would be on track today?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member says the government cannot have it both ways. I would
submit that her party cannot have it both ways. Her party advocated
the establishment of the commission. That commission, as I have
reminded hon. members, will allow for an impartial setting to hear
all of the evidence and have everyone dealt with fairly.
However, for the last three days in the House, if we look at
Hansard, what have we seen? We have seen accusations coming
from the other side, imputation of motive and reflection upon
evidence. One cannot one day advocate having an inquiry with an
impartial setting and then the next day come in the House of
Commons and do the opposite. It is the opposition that wants it
both ways.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
very minister, by appearing on TV and pronouncing Jean Boyle
innocent even before the thing was finished, has castrated that
commission and that is all there is to it. It is as simple as that.
The Somalia inquiry is having such a hard time doing its job
because the department does not have any real leadership. We then
see a minister step in and think that he can make announcements
about it before it is even over.
The minister and Jean Boyle himself do not know up from
sideways. There is precious little respect in the military across the
country for this minister and for Jean Boyle. That is why the
department is in such a mess and why the Somalia inquiry has
taken so long.
4454
I will ask one more time. If the Prime Minister is really serious
about mopping up the mess in the military, why will he not start
at the top with the minister and Jean Boyle?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has uttered an absolute untruth. I am sure she has done this
inadvertently. I defy her to show any time where I reflected upon
evidence before that inquiry.
(1430 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not on
evidence but by inference he was saying that Jean Boyle is a great
guy. On national television the minister stood up and said: ``He is a
fine man, we support him and he is doing a great job''. I do not
know how much more clear I could get that he is trying to influence
and interfere with the commission and its findings.
The only reason the Prime Minister will not fire these guys is
because he is worried about potential political damage. Let me tell
him from Canada: There is far more damage in keeping them than
in letting them go.
I ask the minister, the Prime Minister or whoever is going to
juggle and get themselves up on this one, why does the Prime
Minister not just admit he was wrong, cut his losses and let these
guys go?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have an inquiry that is doing the job it was asked to do.
We would like to have the results as quickly as possible so we can
deal with the matter efficiently.
In the meantime, I urge everybody to let the commission do its
job, let General Boyle run the armed forces and let the Minister of
National Defence do what is needed in national defence to give it
some stability and the political leadership that is needed. In the
previous nine years, in the previous administration, the department
had seven ministers. There was no connection between the political
needs and the administration. The stability that is needed is being
established at this moment by the good work the Minister of
National Defence is doing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, family trusts are a strange issue to say the least.
Two billion dollars were transferred out of Canada tax free, with
the kind help of Revenue Canada officials. The auditor general
exposed the scandal, the official opposition demanded that an
inquiry be held, the government refused, turned around and
attacked the auditor general.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime
Minister not want to look into this scandal in which billionaires are
able to transfer huge assets to the United States to avoid paying
taxes like everyone else?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
regarding the substance of the question, the majority report
contains a series of recommendations vital to ensuring that any
loophole that may have existed is plugged.
That said, the hon. member used the word ``scandal'', implying a
lack of credibility on the part of certain people. We were not in
office when this took place, the Conservatives were, and I must
point out that the auditor general himself, whom the hon. member
quoted, confirmed the integrity and credibility of all concerned.
Is the hon. member telling us that the auditor general was
mistaken?
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister justify refusing to
review such an unfair tax system, which always benefits the same
people, unless he is trying to protect those around him who
contribute to his election fund?
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, the question itself seems to be
imputing motive and that should not be a part of the questions we
address to one another. I would caution all members to please be
very judicious in their choice of words.
I saw the hon. Minister of Finance was moving to answer. If he
so wishes, I will permit it. If not, we will pass on it.
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the problem in dealing with this issue is that the hon. members
opposite have been overtaken by the events.
(1435)
We set out to tackle the family trust problem immediately upon
taking office. We started by repealing the 21-year rule.
Then, we eliminated the choices that applied to the privileged.
As a result of the steps taken by this government, the fiscal abuses
associated with family trusts have been eliminated. Unfortunately,
the hon. member is two years out of date.
4455
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, double standards prevail at the Department of
National Defence. There is one policy for General Boyle yet a
different policy for the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces. Due
process for subordinates and none for General Boyle.
In the tragic death of Corporal MacKinnon, his commanding
officer Major Hirter said he is responsible and he has been charged.
Boyle said he is responsible yet nothing has happened.
Is this glaring double standard the kind of management the
Prime Minister is proud of?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here is yet
another example of the hon. member reflecting upon something on
which he knows I cannot comment because of my obligations
under the National Defence Act.
He has made reference to potential proceedings against one
member of the armed forces and he wishes to have this debated in
the House of Commons. We have a justice system within the
military and the people in the military are subject to it. It is
constitutionally sanctioned by the supreme court. It could, perhaps,
be in need of some updating and I hope Parliament will help us in
that.
I think it is grossly unfair for the hon. member to raise the cases
of individuals knowing that I cannot reply because of the
obligations I have under the National Defence Act.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, again the Minister of National Defence tries to spin
the argument in his own favour. He knows full well that Major
Hirter will get due process. The problem is that a political
appointee of the government does not seem to be able to be lowered
to the due process the law system should provide. There is a clear
double standard.
Canadian Armed Forces personnel were ordered not to use work
or business hours or resources to prepare their testimony for the
Somalia inquiry. Yet despite this order, access to information
documents show that General Boyle spent more than 50 business
hours preparing to testify.
Is this glaring double standard and violation of orders the kind of
management the Prime Minister is proud of?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows I cannot comment on any matter before the inquiry.
Even if I could, it would be very difficult to cut through the
convolutions and non sequiturs in his question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, listening to the Minister of Finance, one gets the
impression that only the Liberals are right regarding this issue. All
the editorial writers are wrong. The Liberals are the only ones in
step, as in the case of the army.
The Prime Minister's silence today speaks volumes. So do the
comments made by the Minister of Finance, who tries to cover up
his colleagues' blunder.
I ask the Minister of Finance: What does he have to say to the
statements made by the auditor general, Mr. Desautels, who said he
would do the same work again, and by the former auditor general,
Mr. Dye, who said the Liberal government does not understand
anything about the auditor general's role?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the majority report said that the advance ruling process must be
protected. The auditor general said the same thing. Is the Bloc
Quebecois for or against that?
The majority report says the credibility or the integrity of the
public servants involved is not in any way at issue. Similarly, the
auditor said he had no intention of attacking the credibility and the
integrity of these public servants.
(1440)
The Bloc Quebecois cries foul, but the auditor general does not
agree. There is no scandal, as stated in the majority report.
Clearly, we must now follow up on the substance of the
comments made by the auditor general, and the majority report
agrees with that.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I can remember seeing the Minister of Finance more
comfortable than he is today. If anyone was attacked, it is the
auditor general, yesterday. The members opposite are having a hard
time dealing with the substance.
I ask the Minister of Finance why he is taking cover behind
something which is said to have occurred in 1991, on December 23,
around 11 p.m., just before Christmas, when everyone is partying.
Some hard-working public servants can come and find a little hole
to slip $2 billion through. This still goes on every day, and the hole
is not being plugged from the other side.
The auditor general called for an end to it. Why not take action?
Why not follow up on the auditor general's recommendation? Who
are you protecting?
4456
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let the hon. member name these public servants. He is attacking
the credibility of the public service. If he wishes to do that, then
he should give names. Who is he attacking? If he has the courage
to talk about substance, then he should read the majority report.
We must deal with fundamental issues here. Why is the Bloc
Quebecois afraid to tackle these issues, preferring to create a
scandal on the grounds of lack of substance.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor
General of Canada is an independent officer of Parliament whose
mandate it is to investigate government mismanagement, waste
and abuse.
Not only is the Prime Minister critical of the independent inquiry
into Somalia but the Liberal dominated finance committee has also
found fit to interfere with the day to day affairs of the auditor
general.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What is the purpose of
this attack on the auditor general, who is an independent officer of
the House and whose job it is to investigate the government and
report back to this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have committees of the House of Commons that look
at reports from a lot of officials from many important sectors of
public administration.
When the committees meet, the duty of the members of
Parliament is to look into the report and express their point of view
about it. We have different parties in this House and sometimes the
parties do not agree.
We are not about to ask the committee to meet and not to look
and not to report. They are there to do just that. Now the report will
be studied by the Minister of Finance. There are in this report
suggestions by the people from the government side, people from
the Bloc and from Reform. We will look at all the suggestions, take
the good ones and reject the bad ones.
The committee members have to do their work, to study the
report and have the honesty to report to the House what they
believe should be reported to the House.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this report
is extremely critical of an officer of this House. It was not the
officer, it was not the auditor general, who waived the $500 million
in tax revenue. It was the Department of National Revenue. It was
not the auditor general who approved a tax waiver of that
magnitude with no documentation in the files whatsoever. It was
his duty to report these facts to the House.
Clearly this government favours the rich and taxes the poor.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the government
act today to close this loophole that has been wide open for several
months and stop it right now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member earlier said that the committee had interfered in
the work of the auditor general. That is obviously nonsense.
The committee, immediately on receipt of the report of the
auditor general, convened, heard the auditor general, heard a
number of experts on the issue and came out with a report that
largely agreed with the auditor general on the steps that had to be
taken. In fact we have now received the report and we are going to
act on it as quickly as we possibly can.
It is really nonsensical for the member to say what he has said.
What is even more nonsensical is for a member of the Reform
Party to talk about somebody preferring the rich over the poor. This
is the party which has consistently for three years stood up and said
eviscerate the poor, get rid of them so that we can protect our
friends. This is the party which has said let us get rid of old age
pensions. This is the party which has said let us eliminate health
care. This party which has tried to destroy the social fabric of this
country, and he has the nerve to stand up here and say that. Mr.
Speaker, I cannot believe my ears.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.
This morning, the CBC took action in response to the Liberal
government's order to reduce spending. When it has completed the
operation, it will have reduced its budget by one quarter, or $414
million, and its staff by one third, or 4,000 positions.
How can the minister explain that, with one hand, she is cutting
the CBC's budget by $414 million, while, with the other, she is
creating a $200 million patronage fund, in the guise of promoting
the production of Canadian content?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the
cuts made today to the CBC, in response to our budget, are not
easy. I must remind the hon. member that the cuts were made to
several levels of government.
Over the next three years, the federal government will let 40,000
people go. I must remind the member that, last year, even
4457
Radio-Québec had to reduce its staff by half. It is true that we are
losing positions, but during the budget cuts last year
Radio-Québec, now Télé-Québec, had to let half its staff go.
I am satisfied that the CBC's president and board of directors
have done their best to at least respect the CBC's right to be heard
throughout the country in both official languages. They were not
forced to cut as deeply as Radio-Québec did.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister would do well to get her facts straight.
Télé-Québec may have made cuts, but it reopened all the regional
stations, it did not close them, like the CBC.
Are we to understand that by transferring money from the CBC
to the television production fund, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, who until today had no influence over the CBC's editorial
content, has finally given herself the power she has always wanted
and that she will control the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is not easy to
make cuts. Radio-Québec dropped from 629 employees to 329, a
reduction of 50 per cent. One thing is certain, and that is that the
programming fund, half of which has been set aside for the CBC,
was supported by all of Quebec's artists, by Quebec's cultural
community.
What is interesting is that this will give the CBC, working in
partnership with the private sector, access to funds that will give
priority to Canadian production, up to a total of $650 million. We
are creating 10,000 jobs.
There is no doubt that these are difficult times and this is why we
must work in partnership with film makers, the true creators of
Canadian and Quebec culture.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this weekend will mark the return of a very special
tradition for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the
people of the lower north shore of Quebec.
Both the food fishery and the commercial fishery for cod has
been closed for several years now to allow for rebuilding after a
catastrophic decline. Conservation has been our first priority.
Would the hon. minister explain to his colleagues why he has
allowed the resumption of the food fishery?
(1450 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this year I implemented
the continuation of the sentinel fishery. This is a survey designed
for fishermen and scientists to determine the rate of return of the
cod stocks that were decimated. The results are optimistic. In some
cases the results this year as compared to last year are from double
to 25 times greater.
This is not sufficient for a commercial fishery but after
consultation with every aspect of the industry, all the stakeholders,
including the senior scientists, I have decided that it is prudent to
allow a very limited, very closely controlled food fishery for two
weekends. Essentially this will allow the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador and those of the Quebec lower north shore to return to
a traditional association with cod as a food in a very limited manner
that they have been associated with for hundreds of years. I was
very pleased to do it.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
question is, did the Deputy Prime Minister scrap the GST like she
said she would? No. Did the Deputy Prime Minister provide stable
funding to the CBC? Rather obviously not. Did the Prime Minister
fulfil his promise to scrap the GST on reading? Rather obviously
not. In fact, he doubled it.
Given a record that would make Pinocchio blush, why should
Canadians believe anything at all this government has to say?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when you are looking to
find out who is telling the truth, I have a hard time taking the
question of the hon. member seriously when he and his party have a
stated policy of abolishing the CBC.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
advise the Deputy Prime Minister to stay away from those bank
machines.
I would like to quote from the Liberal Party policy convention:
``A Liberal government would reaffirm the historic principles
embodied in tax free status for the printed word and remove the
goods and services tax on reading materials''. The Liberals have
put it in writing for us and we are very appreciative of that.
Since the finance minister likes to talk about his government's
commitment to education and literacy, I wonder if he can explain
his broken promise, for instance, to medical students at Memorial
University who are going to have to pay $400 more for their books
because of a promise that the Liberals did not keep. In fact, not
only did the government not keep its promise it doubled the GST
on books.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
I said yesterday, there has been no change in the GST on books and
there has been no doubling.
4458
At the same time I indicated very clearly in this House on
numerous occasions that we are very open to the concept of
examining the way in which books are taxed. However, we raised
certain questions which the hon. member has not yet answered.
In fact, is this the best use of $140 million or are there other ways
in which one can support literacy?
We will continue in that vein. Our basic goal is certainly an
improved workforce and more educated Canadians. I ask the hon.
member, why is it that in the last budget we increased educational
credits for students? We made it easier for students to go back to
school and to afford it. We made education easier in the last budget
and Reform voted against it.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the army was at a standstill.
Obviously, its chief of staff is busy defending himself, preparing
his testimony and trying to get out of the mess he is now in.
Are we to conclude from what the Prime Minister said that he
admits the army is paralysed because he refused to suspend his
chief of staff at a time when the latter's credibility is being
questioned? In other words, will the Prime Minister acknowledge
that if he had suspended the general, the army would not be at a
standstill?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, General Boyle has finished his testimony, and now the
commission is continuing its work. We hope the commission will
be able to finish its business as soon as possible, so that we can
bring the necessary remedies to the present situation.
(1455)
We should all let the commission go ahead with what it is
supposed to do, which is to do its job so that the necessary reforms
can be implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
present context, could the Prime Minister tell us how much time
General Boyle can spend on leading the army, carrying out his
tasks and playing his leadership role, considering that for more
than 12 months he has been busy managing the mess he himself
helped to create?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process of
change in the armed forces is going on very rapidly. I am pleased
that the chief of the defence staff and his colleagues have been at
the forefront of bringing some very important changes to the
armed forces.
Yesterday in a speech in Ottawa the general talked about some of
the real accomplishments of giving commanders more control, of
devolving more authority to base commanders across the country,
of looking at terms of service for military personnel so that they
can be assured of service depending on performance.
Lots of reforms are going on. It is a pity that people have become
so obsessed with some events that they are overlooking the
fundamental changes, the good changes, that are putting the
Canadian military in the forefront of reforms of all military in the
world.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Prime Minister about how his government
distributes regional development program funds.
Last week, the Liberal member for St. John's West gave an
ultimatum to the town of Placentia. The ultimatum was this. Sell
two surplus fire trucks for a token fee against your will or face
losing a $350,000 federal grant for an arena.
I would like the Prime Minister to explain to us why Liberal MPs
can use the money from taxpayers' pockets across Canada to force
provincial or municipal governments to toe the Liberal line and to
agree to individual MP's projects.
The Speaker: The way the question is worded, I am trying to see
how it fits in with the administrative responsibility of a minister. I
see the parliamentary secretary has risen. If he wishes to answer the
question, I will permit it.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the statement that was made and attributed to
the hon. member is not government policy. I understand that she
has apologized. That ends the whole matter.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what do we say about this? It is not government policy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Why is it that time and time
again in this House, the Prime Minister of this government defends
unacceptable behaviour by ministers at times, by backbenchers?
Why does that happen? All they say is: ``Ain't our fault, folks. It is
not government policy''.
I would like to know whether the Prime Minister has the courage
to call in the ethics counsellor-
4459
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberals on the finance committee got the message from
the auditor general that there was something wrong in the way
Revenue Canada was mollycoddling the Bronfman family trust
they chose to attack the messenger.
Nevertheless, they did make some recommendations. I want to
ask the finance minister, who claims that the Liberals have already
dealt with this problem, why the finance committee would make
such recommendations to deal with the problem if, as the finance
minister says is the case, the government has already dealt with the
problem.
(1500 )
I would like to further ask the finance minister when he is going
to wake up to the fact that Canadians who pay their fair share of
taxes are sick and tired of people getting away with this stuff and
they want something done about it. They want the government to
revisit this tax decision because it is legally possible to do so. Get
that money back so we can-
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
immediately upon taking office the government dealt with the
question of family trusts. It took away all of the abusive tax
advantages that accrued to family trusts. We did that immediately
upon taking office.
That is not the issue in this case. What happened in 1991 brought
up the issue of how we should treat property owned by somebody
who is a resident of Canada who is leaving Canada, of how we
should treat the property of an immigrant. It was not a family trust
question. It was really a question that dealt with very wealthy
Canadians but every bit as much could have dealt with a widow of
an immigrant who was returning to her homeland and how she
should deal with that property. That is the basic issue at stake here.
The auditor general made a series of recommendations and the
majority report made a very important series of recommendations
which the government intends to study very carefully.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last week the annual meeting of the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization was held in St. Petersburg, Russia. Would
the minister inform the House of the results of that meeting, of the
impact on Canada's fishery and fishery resources that are so critical
to my riding, my constituents, and all of eastern Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have to report on a meeting that took place in St.
Petersburg two weeks ago. It was a very important meeting to us
because of reasons everyone in this House will be familiar with,
related to the importance of the fishery to Canada.
There were three points that were achieved through careful
negotiation and a lot of homework. The first is that Canada will
control the total allowable catch when the fish recovers in NAFO
area 2J 3KL, which is adjacent to Canada's coast. The second is
that the amount of total allowable catch for a NAFO non-Canadian
will be restricted to 5 per cent. The third is that a dispute settling
mechanism will be allowed to look at the difficulties we have
experienced in the past.
These measures and the continuation of Bill C-29 will ensure
that the uncontrolled fishing that has taken place in the past will
cease.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
point of order is with regard to the question I asked during question
period.
As I understand it, it is the responsibility of the government and
a minister to fairly distribute regional development grants. My
question was related to the purview of the minister and the question
went to the Prime Minister in that regard.
I was asking whether it was right or wrong for a Liberal MP to
interfere with the minister's role. The Speaker called that question
out of order and I would like you to review-
The Speaker: In the course of question period I give as much
latitude as I can. But when I do not know where a member is going
in his question, when and I give every latitude for him to get to the
question and the question is not arrived at, I feel it is my
responsibility to intervene. I made a decision and my decision
stands.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
clarification, the question asked was about referring something to
the ethics counsellor which is under the purview of the Prime
Minister. Is it not appropriate to ask if something can be-
(1505 )
The Speaker: I invite the hon. whip to see me in my chambers. I
will be happy to discuss this with him.
4460
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during my speech yesterday you informed me that we
should not use the word ``hypocrisy''. Today, during members
statements, the hon. member for Saint-Denis used this word. I
imagine you did not hear it. I would ask you to check the blues and
then get back to us.
The Speaker: I can inform the hon. member that I did not hear
the word but I will check.
I would ask all members of the House to please not use words
like ``hypocrite'' or ``hypocrisy'', because members get angry and
sometimes respond in ways the Chair considers out of order.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask one of my colleagues on the other side of the
House to state the business of the House for the coming week.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today the House shall consider third reading of Bill C-45
concerning section 745 of the Criminal Code. If this is completed,
we will return to debate on Bill C-53, the corrections legislation.
Tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-54, the Foreign
Extraterritorial Measures Act. If this bill is completed, we shall
return to the point where we left off today.
On Monday and on the days following, we shall pick up the list
from Friday, followed by Bill C-41 respecting child support
payments, Bill C-26 regarding oceans, Bill C-44, the marine bill,
Bill C-47 respecting reproductive technologies, and Bill C-29
concerning fuel additives.
We shall likely designate next Thursday as an allotted day.
The Speaker: We will move directly to tributes.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to Arnold
Peters, the CCF-NDP MP for riding of Temiskaming in Ontario
from 1957 to 1980. Arnold died at the age of 74 on September 17.
I had the honour of being a colleague of Arnold's all too briefly
from May 22, 1979 until he was not re-elected in the general
election of February 18, 1980. During that time I came to
appreciate him greatly as a happy warrior who knew Parliament
well, who knew his constituents well and who knew where he
stood.
Arnold stood on the side of working people and he made no
bones about it. He was a rough but gentle person with strong roots
in the mining and logging communities of northern Ontario. He
loved the people of these communities and worked hard for their
welfare. He had worked in various capacities as a union organizer
and was very clear on who he represented when he came to
Parliament.
Arnold and his CCF colleague Frank Howard were responsible
for reforming Canada's archaic divorce laws in the late 1950s. As I
understand it, divorces in some provinces used to have to come
before Parliament, something that seems ridiculous to us now. By
discussing or reading into the record each divorce claim that came
before Parliament, Arnold and Frank made the ridiculousness of
such a process obvious and it was soon changed.
Arnold knew the rules and he knew how to use them. He was not
one to be pushed around politically or personally. He did not mince
words, and stories abound about how direct Arnold could be with
bureaucrats who were frustrating the legitimate needs and rights of
his constituents. As a rookie MP, I always knew that we were in
good hands when Arnold was around.
Arnold Peters also had a reputation as one who worked to reform
the prison system in his day. He was also, I might add, an advocate
for those who worked for the House of Commons without benefit
of collective agreements.
I spoke with a long time colleague of Arnold's this morning,
Mark Rose, who told me that Arnold at one time could fairly have
been called an ombudsman for House of Commons security and
other staff who needed someone to go to bat for them on many
occasions.
(1510 )
During the second world war Arnold Peters served in the Royal
Canadian Air Force, and we honour his service to his country in
time of war, as we have honoured it in time of peace.
I last saw Arnold at the unveiling of the plaque in the Centre
Block where the names of those who served in former Parliaments
are inscribed. The name of Arnold Peters is inscribed there nine
times. But more important, Arnold Peters' name and memory is
inscribed in the hearts and minds and stories of all those who love
justice and who fight for the common people. Arnold Peters was
such a person and we loved him for it.
To his wife Alma, his sons and all his family, I express sincere
condolences on behalf of the NDP caucus in Parliament. We
4461
continue to be inspired by Arnold's legacy and we will honour his
memory by continuing to fight the good fight that Arnold fought so
well and for so long in the House of Commons.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute
today to Arnold Peters who served with distinction for many years
as the MP for the riding of Temiscaming in Northern Ontario.
I remember him well, for Arnold Peters was my member of
Parliament during the years I was growing up in Kirkland Lake.
Arnold Peters died on Tuesday.
Before his election in 1957 Arnold Peters had been a gold miner,
a union activist and had served during World War II.
[Translation]
When Arnold Peters was first elected, in 1957, I was still quite
young, but, as my family lived in Kirkland Lake, I remember very
well when he became the member for our riding of
Temiscamingue.
[English]
He very quickly made a name for himself in Parliament when he
and his CCF colleague Frank Howard successfully managed to
reform Canada's divorce laws. As a result he became known
around here as one of the divorce twins.
As an opposition member first with the CCF and later with the
NDP, he was certainly outspoken. I am sure some of my colleagues
on this side of the House can still remember this northern
Ontarion's spirited questions from his seat across the way.
He was rewarded for his dedication to his constituents in
Temiscaming and for his service to all Canadians in the House of
Commons by going on to win eight more elections. With 22 years
in this Chamber he was the longest serving member in the riding's
history.
On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, I would
like to extend our sincere condolences to his family.
[Translation]
Again, we extend our most sincere condolences to the family of
the late Arnold Peters.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the
Reform member from Ontario, I rise in the House today to join my
hon. colleagues in paying tribute to Mr. Arnold Peters, who passed
away this week.
Mr. Peters served in the RCAF during World War II and in 1957
was elected as the member of Parliament for the Ontario riding of
Temiscaming, an office he held for 23 years, winning nine
successive elections.
Mr. Peters served both his country and his constituents with
distinction and honour.
On behalf of the Reform Party I want to give thanks for his years
of service and to extend our sympathies and condolences to his
family and friends.
The Speaker: Before we had Statements by Members today, we
had a few more petitions that I said I would take in and also
answers to Questions on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4461
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 three petitions.
The first petition signed by my constituents calls on the
Parliament of Canada to prohibit convicted criminals from
profiting financially from book writing, setting up 1-900 numbers
and producing video tapes.
(1515 )
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from two co-operative housing projects in
St. John's, Odyssey House and S.O.D. Housing Co-operatives,
which calls on Parliament to administer a financial and federally
funded co-operative housing office for non-governmental
organizations.
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): The third petition
calls on Parliament to extend benefits to veterans of the merchant
marine equal to that enjoyed by veterans of Canada's World War II
services.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 10 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
[Text]
Question No. 10-Mr. Ringma:
For the fiscal year 1995, and with respect to minority language broadcasting
stations across Canada, what has the government determined to be: (a) the total
amount of federal monies spent on providing these services and (b) the total amount
of advertising revenue generated by these stations?
Return tabled.
4462
[English]
Mr. Zed: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4462
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review
of parole ineligibility) and another act, be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak in support of the third reading of Bill
C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code and another act.
This bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code which
provides for judicial review of the parole ineligibility period for
life sentences for murder and high treason.
I note for the information of the hon. members that section 745 is
now called section 745.6 as a result of the coming into force of Bill
C-41, the sentencing bill, on September 3, 1996. Under section
745.6, as it currently reads, an offender is not eligible to apply for
review of his or her parole ineligibility period until he or she has
served at least 15 years of the sentence.
During such a review the decision on whether or not to reduce
the ineligibility period is made by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens
drawn from the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. At
present this decision can be made by a majority of eight out of
twelve members or two-thirds of the jury. This is one of the aspects
of the provision that would be affected by Bill C-45. The decision
is made by a jury after it hears evidence presented by the applicants
and by the crown.
It must be noted that under section 745.6 the jury has no
authority to release the offender from prison. All it may do is allow
the applicant, in appropriate cases, to apply to the National Parole
Board for a parole hearing prior to the expiration of the 25 years of
ineligibility. A decision on whether or not to grant parole is made
by the parole board after considering whether the offender's release
would present an undue risk to society.
Where the parole board decides to release an offender who has
had his or her parole ineligibility period reduced, the board
imposes conditions on that release. These conditions and indeed
the life sentence itself continue to apply for the remainder of the
life of the individual or the life of the sentence and the offender
may at any time be sent back to prison should he or she breach the
conditions of that release.
This means that the offender continues to be subject, literally for
the rest of the offender's life, to the risk of being reincarcerated at
any time for a breach of the conditions of release.
I would also note that for the consideration of all hon. members
that a system of review of the parole ineligibility period after 15
years is consistent with systems in place in many of the western
democracies we like to compare ourselves with, in that, in many of
these countries parole eligibility for murder is set at 15 years and in
some cases less than 15 years. In the United States the average time
served by murderers who are not executed is 18 years at the federal
level, and 15 years at the state level.
(1520)
As hon. members know, section 745.6 was enacted in 1976 in a
public fashion when the death penalty was abolished in Canada. It
was felt at the time that section 745.6 was necessary as a source of
hope for the rehabilitation of convicted murders and as a source of
protection for prison guards as well. We can all imagine situations
where convicted murderers have a faint hope of being released on
condition that their behaviour will be better. If they knew in
advance they would be imprisoned for the rest of their lives, what
incentive would there be not to put the safety and life of prison
guards in jeopardy?
The enactment of section 745.6 also recognized, in some cases,
keeping offenders in prison beyond 15 years does not serve the
public interest. We all know there is a great deal of public concern
about section 745.6. Many have asked for the repeal of this section
out of concern for public safety. Others have cited the
revictimization of the victim's family by the review hearing 15
years down the road at a time when the terrible wounds inflicted by
the crime may have started to heal. Others focus on the appropriate
minimum period of incarceration for the worst offence in the
Criminal Code.
I share the concerns of Canadians about the need to ensure public
safety. I am moved by the pain and experience of the families of the
victims of these often brutal, senseless crimes. The prospect of
victims' families being revictimized through a public review
conducted before a jury in cases where the offender has no
reasonable prospect of success is one of the considerations that has
prompted the government to act by bringing this bill to the House.
However, I do not support the repeal of section 745.6. I believe the
reasons that justified its addition to the Criminal Code in 1976 are
still valid today. Bill C-45 amends section 745.6 in order to ensure
the provision is available only in appropriate cases.
4463
Before moving on to the three main elements of the bill where
changes are being sought I want to speak briefly about a number
of principles on which our criminal law is based. These principles
which have evolved over hundreds of years of jurisprudence
through the British courts, the Commonwealth and the courts of
Canada. We must keep these principles in mind when we are
considering some of the arguments made, particularly those
arguments that this section should be abolished.
If we cast our minds to what we have heard about the criminal
justice system a number of these sacrosanct principles come to
mind. Probably the most obvious is during a criminal trial that in
order to have a finding of guilt we must prove that guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. I suppose in some instances the person that
committed the offence is found not guilty because of that very high
standard. We could have a standard where perhaps the person is
guilty, so let us convict him. Or, they are likely guilty, or on the
balance of probability they are guilty and maybe we should convict
them. The law has evolved in this civilized society, such that we
want to keep the number of innocent people in prison to a
minimum. That is why we have a very high standard of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If we question that principle, let
us remember why it was enacted in the first place.
(1525)
Another principle that has evolved over the years is the rule
against the retrospective application of the criminal law. What does
that rule say? It says that someone cannot change the criminal law
in a substantive way to affect the life of an individual after the fact.
We cannot make a new law to apply to past actions.
This law probably evolved many hundreds of years ago through
the jurisprudence. It was a way for the judiciary to protect citizens
many centuries ago from the capricious actions of a state less
concerned about the rights of an accused. For example, a person
does an act that is not illegal. Subsequently, whatever government
it is changes the law and makes that act illegal. Surely there is
something wrong with charging the person after the fact. When the
person did the act, it was not illegal. However some government
enacted a law making that act illegal and are going to charge the
person. That does not make any sense.
What if a person commits a criminal act and the sentence is a
maximum of any number of years in prison. Subsequent to the
person committing that offence, the government changes the law
and puts in place a penalty that is much harsher. What about the
death penalty? Surely it would be unfair to impose a more
significant penalty after the fact. This principle is no doubt
protected in the charter. Do not blame the charter as often
Reformers are prone to do. This rule has evolved over hundreds of
years to protect citizens from the capricious actions of government.
Governments many years ago may not have held the individual
in such regard. Let us never forget to look back in history to see
how these rules evolved, to see what abuses they were designed to
alleviate, before we disregard them.
We believe that individuals must be notionally aware of what is
legal and what the consequences are before the act is committed.
By promulgation of these prohibitions, and the statutes of the land
are in the code, action is to be taken against them. Society must be
aware of these restrictions and activities before they can
contravene these prohibitions. This makes common sense.
What is the implication of this rule against retrospectivity in
relation to the repeal of section 745 when it means that even if this
section were repealed, the people already in the system, that is,
those already convicted of murder and serving time in prison for up
to 25 years? In the future if they were recently convicted and
sentenced, they could still apply. The repeal will not bring to an end
the ability of people who are already sentenced to make application
under section 745.
Reformers tell people to go out and campaign for the repeal of
section 745 and the person who committed this horrible crime
against their loved one will not get a section 745 application. That
happens. That is a fact. That is what the Reform Party is telling
these victims of crime to do. I want to read the words. We have the
words of the hon. member for Macleod who indicated quite clearly
in a speech on Monday. that he advocated that an individual go out
and campaign for the repeal of section 745, reliving past horrors,
spending their own money, spending their own time in order that
the individual who committed this terrible crime would be
prevented from making a section 745 application.
(1530 )
Surely the Reformers cannot have missed one of the
fundamental principles upon which our criminal law is based.
Surely even if the members happened to miss it perhaps their
researchers might have caught this very fundamental principle.
They could have told the victims of these horrible crimes exactly
what the fact of the matter was instead of urging them to campaign
against this legislation, suggesting to them that the individual that
committed this horrible crime against their family would be
prevented from applying. That is an absolute exploitation of the
pain of the victims and their families. It is an exploitation for
political purposes of people who have been hurt in the most
fundamental way.
Reformers are always interested in talking about the effects on
the victims. I ask the question: What about the effects on the
victims of this kind of nonsense? The Reform Party would do well
to advise people who come to them to counsel as to exactly what is
entailed by repeal of section 745 of the act before sending them out
to conduct their campaign for them.
4464
It is very disturbing that these people who have committed these
horrible crimes and have been convicted, and those who seek
nothing more than to gain publicity because they know they will
never ever ever get out of prison, utilize people from the Reform
Party to get their publicity for them.
I remember a day at the justice committee when the hon.
member for Calgary Northeast sat there with eyes aglow reading a
letter from a notorious criminal. The hon. member was hoping
beyond hope that maybe he would get some attention by bringing
forward this letter. The Reform Party needs to think about the
witting assistance of individuals who have no hope of getting out;
all they are seeking is publicity. They need to think about whether
they should in fact be giving them publicity. Serious thought
should be given to this tactic and changes in behaviour should
result.
Our legislation deals realistically with section 745 and the
changes that are required. We acknowledge that even a repeal
would not change the system. The changes we are proposing, while
one of the changes cannot be implemented after the fact because it
is a substantive change, the other changes to the act are procedural
and thereby we can make them.
I will now go over the changes that have been brought in by this
government. The three elements of the bill that are changing
accomplish the goal of ensuring that only in appropriate cases will
individuals have the benefit of success of this application.
(1535 )
The first change eliminates judicial review for all multiple
murders committed in the future, whether or not the murders are
committed at the same time. This would include serial murderers.
The proposed amendment is consistent with a notion found in the
Criminal Code that repetition of the offence should be treated more
harshly by the law than a single offence. Therefore anybody who
commits multiple murders will not be allowed the benefit of
section 745.
The second proposed amendment is procedural in nature. It
creates a screening mechanism whereby a judge of a superior court
would conduct a paper review of the application to determine if
there is a reasonable chance of success before the application is
allowed to proceed to a full hearing. This would help to ensure that
only deserving cases get before a section 745 jury, that only in
appropriate cases would there be a full blown hearing. This would
ensure for frivolous cases with no likelihood of success that the
victims would not have to relive the horrors of the situation.
The third amendment would provide that a parole ineligibility
period may only be reduced by a unanimous vote of the jury. As a
result of this provision, an application for a reduction in a parole
ineligibility period would be denied when a jury decides it should
be denied or when a jury simply cannot reach a unanimous
conclusion to reduce the period. Also in denying an application, a
jury can decide if and when the offender may make another
application, but in any event, not before two years.
In June, before the summer recess, the standing committee heard
from a number of witnesses with strong views on section 745.6.
Some of them asked for a complete repeal of the section. I cannot
support this because I believe that doing away with section 745.6 is
not good policy and not the right thing to do in addition to the other
problems I have mentioned.
Other witnesses have argued forcefully for maintaining the
section in its present form. In light of the committee hearings
which accurately reflected the deep division in opinion evident
during the consultations that preceded the introduction of this bill, I
believe Bill C-45 strikes the right balance between those who want
to maintain the section and those who want it repealed.
When the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-45 on June 11, it
was my hope this House would be able to move quickly to pass
these amendments before the House rose for the summer.
Regrettably this was not possible. I ask hon. members of this House
to support the bill at this time and give it quick passage so we can
bring these amendments into force as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
the third time I speak to Bill C-45, not counting what I said to the
Standing Committee on Justice.
Right from the beginning, we have been hearing double speak
from the hon. member for Prince-Albert-Churchill. On the one
hand, he says: ``We are not striking down section 745 of the
Criminal Code. It should not be struck down, there must be some
hope left'', and on the other, for all intents and purposes, the
provisions of Bill C-45 will make release under section 745
impossible in several areas in Canada.
Let us start at the beginning. When did article 745 appear in our
criminal law? Twenty years ago this year, in July 1976, as a result
of a compromise negotiated by the then Solicitor General, the
present member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, amendments to the bill
abolishing the death penalty in Canada were tabled. These
amendments were referred to as the Prud'homme-Fleming
amendments, after the names of their movers.
(1540)
Why? What happened? Nobody had to toe the party line, it was
to be a free vote in the House of Commons, and those in favour of
abolishing the death penalty simply could not count on enough
votes; the numbers were not there. If the vote had been on the
initial bill introduced by the Trudeau government, it would have
been defeated by 4, 5 or 6 votes. Negotiations conducted by the
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and the Prud'homme-Fleming
amendments made it possible to secure another 6 votes, and I
4465
believe that the death penalty was abolished on the strength of
these 6 votes. But when you negotiate, you make compromises.
Some kind of compromise had to be reached at that point with
the people who were inclined to favour the death penalty but still
had some doubts, and the members who took part in the
negotiations at the time were able to tell them: ``Look, the basic
decision to make here is not to choose between 25, 10 or 15 years,
but to determine if we want to abolish the death penalty''. This is
how they were able to convince some individuals who were against
a firm sentence of 25 years in prison to support the 25-year
sentence; otherwise, the death penalty would have been
maintained. The government back then made it very clear. I
remember hearing Mr. Trudeau say in this House: ``If the bill is not
passed, do not rely on cabinet to systematically use the royal
prerogative to commute sentences. People will be executed in
Canada, and scaffolds will be built''. The message was quite clear.
Members who wanted to take it into account did just that.
The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River would
have us believe that section 745, as amended today, is a measure of
clemency, but that is not so. In 1976, the law was made tougher.
Until July of 1976, anyone under sentence of death, whose sentence
was commuted to life in prison or anyone found guilty of first
degree murder and sentenced to life in prison was eligible for
parole after 10 years. They did not have to appear before a jury;
they only had to go to the National Parole Board and, based on the
circumstances, apply for parole. In fact, convicted murderers
sentenced to life imprisonment spent an average of 13.2 years in
prison. That is far from the minimum of 25 years stipulated in
section 745.
All these negotiations made the law tougher; it was not improved
for the inmates. Section 745 provides that anyone convicted of first
or second degree murder and sentenced to more than 15 years in
prison may, after 15 years, apply to the chief justice of the
province's superior court or supreme court, who would then
empanel a jury. The chief justice has no discretion in this; he must
empanel a jury and it is up to the jury to make the determination.
After the evidence is introduced, after the sociologists,
psychologists, social workers and correctional officers have
presented their arguments and reports, sometimes after the victims'
families have provided relevant information, the jury will
determine whether or not it should recommend that the inmate be
paroled, since the inmate will always have his life sentence
hanging over him. The procedure outlined in section 745 is not a
lottery.
Under the current provisions in section 745, the jury must make
a decision based on a two-third majority, or 8 out of 12 members,
which, I think, is quite reasonable since, according to criteria that
were set centuries ago, their cedision does not have to be based on
something beyond a reasonable doubt. All they have to do is make
a determination based on a preponderance of evidence.
(1545)
In the circumstances, does the inmate deserve to be paroled
earlier? Do you need unanimity for this? I think not.
I think that, back in 1976, the legislator had the good sense to
determine that a two-third majority was sufficient. Maintaining the
two-third rule will result in the standard application of the law
throughout Canada. Regardless of the province where we live, we
will all be subject to the same laws and regulations not only in
theory but also in practice.
The comments made by the Reform Party reflect a Canadian
reality that cannot be ignored. These members represent a
significant number of Canadians, who want tougher sentences and
are asking that section 745 be repealed or Bill C-45, with its
tougher sentences, be passed. In certain regions of Canada, western
Canada in particular, juries will certainly be less lenient.
If the hon. members representing western Canadian ridings have
been calling for the repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code with
such vigour, I assume that judges and juries in western Canada will
reflect the same social reality.
These members must not be out of touch with the reality in their
region. This means there will be one reality for western Canada,
one for Ontario, another one for Quebec and yet another one for
Atlantic Canada. I submit that, since criminal law comes under
federal jurisdiction, there must be a single standard applicable from
coast to coast to coast. This standard should allow for a bit of
leeway-a margin of error, so to speak, i.e. four members in the
jury. That sounds like an excellent idea to me.
As I said earlier, under the current legislation, after 15 years,
inmates are fully entitled to ask the chief justice to empanel a jury.
The point was made during the debate that only a minority of
individuals actually make an application. They realize, in many
cases, that it may be rejected.
The chief justice then empanels the jury and the jury makes a
recommendation. If it is recommended that the individual be
allowed to apply for parole, the individual can go before the
National Parole Board. This means that, at the end of the 15 years,
several more months may elapse before a decision is made.
We have heard of individuals who applied for parole but were
not released until much later. If the jury is not convinced by the
4466
arguments presented, it sets a date when the person may reapply for
parole or release before serving the full 25 years of their sentence.
The hon. member for Crowfoot asked an excellent question of
most of the witnesses at the hearings, both on Bill C-226 and on
Bill C-45. The question he asked was the following, and he may
correct me if I do not get it right. He asked the witnesses what was
the appropriate sentence for a person found guilty of murder. It is a
fundamental question, the crux of the whole debate.
Once the answer is that a person found guilty of murder should
not be sentenced to death, once the possibility of the death penalty
has been eliminated, what is the appropriate sentence? Nothing can
replace a life, we have been taught this from an early age. This is a
value-I was going to say an almost universal one-that would
benefit from more universal exposure. In the world in which we
live, it is one of the supreme values we have.
There is no way to replace the life of a person lost in such
circumstances. And then the Canadian Parliament decided that
taking someone's life because he had killed another person was not
a good way of showing that it was wrong to kill.
We are in a difficult position. We cannot just let people go free.
There has to be a penalty.
(1550)
Twenty years? Twenty-five years? Life? Something along those
lines, without being more specific. Twenty-five years seems like a
sensible proposal. Life imprisonment with the possibility of review
later on, yes. People must have something to hope for. We must not
remove hope. That is what helps a person to survive. To sentence a
person without holding out the hope that some day he may be
released is at least as bad as a death sentence.
On the other hand, the sentence must be exemplary, since murder
is, in my opinion, the most serious crime that exists in the Criminal
Code. We cannot give a suspended sentence for first degree or
second degree murder. So we need something that is severe enough
to set an example, to protect society, so that the person who is
found guilty is punished and the family, the community feels safe.
People have the right to be protected.
We said at the second reading stage that we wanted a review of
the legislation, which is now 20 years old. We had a day and a half,
two days at the most to do this review, practically sitting around the
clock. We expected a review process from coast to coast. Like the
unemployment insurance scenario, it seems everything was agreed
upon beforehand. We heard witnesses, with very little time to
spare. It was impossible to do parliamentary committee work
worthy of the name, but the vast majority of witnesses who
appeared, the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society and
even people representing victims told us: ``Do not tamper with
section 745.''
What was the rush? Where were the public demonstrations
demanding amendments that affect about 75 or 76 people who have
filed requests in the past 20 years? There are other problems that
are far more acute and require immediate attention. We would have
had time for a thorough review.
Now that 20 years have passed, would it not be better to go back
to the situation that existed before 1976 and judge each case on its
merits before the Parole Board? That was an option.
Is there a case for keeping the section as it is now or should we
consider all other avenues? That is what we wanted to do and what
we were not allowed to do, and now we are faced with legislation
that is fundamentally reactionary, since it will now require the jury
to be unanimous, with the consequences I mentioned earlier. It will
also force prisoners who want to apply for parole to first go through
a judge to whom they will give evidence, not in person in an
adversarial hearing where each party can argue its case, but in
writing. In common law, while the judge could decide to hear the
parties, the prisoners have no statutory right to be heard, they
cannot demand a hearing. Depending on what school of sentencing
he belongs to, the judge may decide: ``There is no probability of a
jury granting you parole; your application is denied.''
Individuals will not be judged twice, but the facts will be heard
twice. In criminal cases in general and, by way of comparison, in
trials by jury, the jury is master of the facts, while the judge is
master of the law. But in this case, the judge will be master of the
facts. He will first examine the facts of the matter. If he does not
find the evidence probative enough, he will not allow the prisoner
to go before a jury. Should the prisoner be allowed to proceed, he
will then have to make his case again.
The burden of proof is on the prisoner. Do not mislead us into
thinking that this measure is designed to protect the system and to
extend the traditional jury process to the system under section 745.
The prisoner who goes before 12 jurors to be allowed to apply for
parole after 15 years has to convince those 12 jurors. The Crown is
not there to say: ``In objecting, I must convince the 12 of them to
vote unanimously against his release.''
The burden of proof is on the prisoner. It seems to us that it is too
heavy a burden, with the consequences we enumerated earlier.
Reference was made to Bill C-226, which I opposed, in which
the issue was set in much clearer terms by simply calling for the
repeal of section 745.
4467
(1555)
There was at least a clear question and no double talk. Now
people in the West can be told: ``See, criminals will no longer be
paroled under section 745 because the law was tightened up'',
while people in Ontario and Quebec will hear: ``See, social
workers, psychologists, we believe in rehabilitation because we
have amended the provisions in section 745 to make them even
more attractive''. That is what they will say. As one of my
professors used to say in law school: ``The best thing to do when
one wants to win a case but does not have one is to confuse the
judge''.
During elections, it is the people who are the judge. When one
wants to win a case but does not have one, the thing to do is to
confuse the people so there is a chance that, on election day, they
will be confused and put their Xs in the wrong spot. The chance to
vote in an election comes only every four or five years so one must
be careful not to make a mistake. That is what the government is
doing.
At least, those who argue in favour of simply abolishing section
745 are being honest. I do not share their views, but their arguments
were clear. By contrast, the government's convoluted reasoning is
anything but. I wish to commend the courage shown by the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands, who held his ground
throughout the debate and who, at report stage yesterday, put
forward an amendment and voted against the bill, as did the former
Solicitor General, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
along with a few other colleagues on the Liberal side.
One can live with double talk for a while. According to the old
saying, you can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool
all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the
people all of the time. This is what the Liberal government has
tried to do since the beginning of its term, believing that it would
improve the plight of the unemployed, the Canadian prison system,
the transportation system by privatizing it, in spite of all the
comments and interventions of the hon. member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. As you know, his comments
were right on throughout this whole issue.
Some day, the dust will settle and voters, who are not stupid, will
render their judgment. The hon. member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River also said that section 745 would be
improved, since a serial killer, a person who has committed more
than one crime, at the same time or consecutively, will no longer be
allowed to invoke this section. This is a step backward. One can
easily think of cases where a person may commit more than one
crime in a given situation but still deserve to be released.
Take the case of someone who decides to rob a bank with a gun.
Criminal intent may not be present at the beginning, but the person
ends up killing two people during the hold-up, according to the
rules of interpretation of murder. This is a regrettable and
reprehensible act, and the person will be sentenced. However, if
this person has not committed any other offence, should he be
prohibited from invoking section 745, in the same manner as a
murderer such as the one to whom the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead referred, who savagely killed and
raped Isabelle Bolduc in such a sordid manner that it cannot be
described in this House? There are people who seem beyond
redemption for society. Committing one sordid murder is often
worse than killing more than one person.
The bill also attempts to establish levels of murders. Is it less
serious to kill two people, than one? Is it less serious to kill one
person, than three or four? The particular circumstances of each
case must be taken into account. We cannot rely on a general rule,
as the government wants to do.
The government wants to pave everything over. This used to be a
popular thing to do. The City of Quebec did it about 20 years ago. It
put concrete everywhere in the city. Today, all that concrete has to
come down in order to restore the beautiful architecture of this city.
Today, the government is putting another layer of asphalt on
parking lot 745, hoping that the spring thaw will not do too much
damage. But we will begin to see the perverse effects of this
legislation in a year or two. We will see these results in the prisons,
because, as I said earlier, if we remove any hope for these people,
we will force them to do desperate things.
(1600)
Will prison guards and law enforcement officers be safer? Will
an inmate who knows that he will never get out of prison have no
qualms about killing a guard or two, because he has no hope left? I
think that the way we are going about addressing this issue is all
wrong and that the status quo would have been much better.
Not one of the opposition amendments has been accepted. Even
the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands were not approved by the government. Was the bill so
good? It was introduced on June 11, then there was a time
allocation motion at second reading when the bill was rammed
through and sent to committee for a day and a half or two days,
forcing its members to sit night and day almost. Do we have all the
information we need to say: Yes, we are sure that, beyond a
reasonable doubt, this bill will improve the situation in Canada? I
do not think so. This is a bad piece of legislation that will only
undermine the judicial process in Canada.
In conclusion, after indicating that the official opposition will be
voting against this bill, I want to move an amendment, which reads
as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that'' and
substituting the following therefor: Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code
4468
(judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another Act, be not now read a third time
but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, the motion seems in order.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I support the
hoist. In fact I would like to see this bill hoisted forever without a
glimmer of hope of ever being returned.
As I rise to address Bill C-45, I will first comment on two points
in the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Justice.
He suggested today in his speech that the removal of a parole
application is barred by the principle of retroactivity. That is really
what section 745 is. It is a section that allows for a parole
application for the reduction of the parole ineligibility of a life
sentence. The legal advice we have received is that the removal of
section 745 would affect all people who are imprisoned at the
present time and who would wish to apply. This would deny them
the right to apply and it would be sound and constitutional.
(1605)
I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's statements
and he suggested that members of Parliament, including Reform
members of Parliament, would use the pain and agony and
suffering of families who have had their children murdered for the
purpose of partisan political gain. If I understood him correctly, in
my humble opinion that statement is beneath contempt.
I oppose this piece of legislation which in my mind and that of
many Canadians demeans the value of a human life. Bill C-45
clearly demonstrates that the Liberal justice minister and a
majority of his Liberal colleagues place very little worth on the
lives of Canadians.
I would like each of the members of this House who voted in
favour of Bill C-45, who voted to allow first degree murderers the
opportunity for early release, to ask themselves: What value do
they place on the lives of their brothers and sisters or the lives of
their children? Do they feel their lives are only worth 15 years?
Would the joy and excitement which rings in the voices of their
young children and grandchildren be forgotten after 15 years?
I would like the justice minister to ask the Rosenfeldts when they
attend the justice committee hearings today if they have forgotten
how their son once smiled and laughed, or if they have forgotten
how it felt to cradle and comfort their young child.
I would like the justice minister to ask the Rosenfeldts how they
felt the day they learned Daryn was tortured, sexually assaulted and
killed by the deranged Clifford Olson.
I would like the justice minister to ask Mrs. Rosenfeldt how she
feels every time she is forced to think about Daryn's last hours of
life, or how she felt on August 12 when Olson exercised his right
for early release courtesy of the Liberal government.
I would like the justice minister to look into the eyes of Mrs.
Rosenfeldt and explain why he supports the bid for early release of
her son's killer. I would like the justice minister and all members to
pause and think about our own children and grandchildren and then
justify to Mrs. Rosenfeldt why her son's life is worth a meagre 15
years.
The minister is directly responsible for Clifford Olson's August
12 bid for early release. He is directly accountable to the
Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose children were ripped
from their lives at the hand of this man.
The justice minister is responsible for Clifford Olson's news
making attempts for early release. The justice minister claimed Bill
C-45 was not about Clifford Olson; he claimed the bill was not a
result of Olson's August 12, 1996 date to make application for
early release. Why then was the minister and his government so
insistent that the bill be passed before the summer recess? Why did
the Liberal government ask us and the Bloc not to unduly delay the
bill?
We provided our co-operation despite the fact we do not support
Bill C-45. We gave our word that we would not block the passage
of the bill because we did not want to be responsible in any way for
Olson's bid at early release. We did not want the Rosenfeldts and
the other families to have to relive the nightmare they have endured
for the past 15 years.
And although Bill C-45 would still give the likes of Olson an
appeal to a judge, which I find beneath contempt, there is the
possibility he could be denied a full judge and jury hearing he now
has under section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The justice minister has had almost three years to introduce Bill
C-45 but he chose to drag his feet. He chose to introduce Bill C-45
at the eleventh hour. The justice minister chose to gamble with the
emotions of the Rosenfeldts and the other 10 families whose
children were killed by Olson and he lost that gamble. Bill C-45 did
not pass and Olson once again grabbed the spotlight he so
predictably seeks.
(1610)
For the benefit of the members of this House that do not sit on
the justice committee, I would like to read the testimony given by
Sharon Rosenfeldt on June 18:
4469
Emotional upheaval, that was what I felt on February 8, 1996 when I found out
that Clifford Olson, the killer of my son, had applied for his 15-year judicial review. I
do realize that the full application cannot be made until August 12, but I know that
all the paperwork is ready. I have known for the past number of years that it was his
right to apply and that in all likelihood he would. Yet for some reason, although my
mind knew it could be a reality, my heart, emotions and soul denied it. I was afraid to
think about it, so I put my feelings on hold, something I have grown accustomed to. I
know how to make certain feelings go numb. I learned how to survive like that.
You see, I have to stay strong because I made a promise to my son as his coffin
was being lowered into the ground that I would do everything I could as his mom to
ensure that the person responsible for killing him would be brought to justice. I
promised I would never leave him until that happened. I know I have to put him to
rest and that he deserves to be put to rest, but the laws in our country prevent both of
us from experiencing any peace.
When I learned that Olson had indeed made the application, I was stunned.
Suddenly many images flashed through my mind. I felt shock but I should not feel
shock. I felt angry but I should not feel angry. I felt hurt but I should not be hurting. I
felt betrayed and I felt panic. I could not breathe and I could not stay still. I kept
pacing from room to room. I wanted to cry. I wanted to scream and I wanted to run
again-Why do we have to go through this again? I felt weak and vulnerable. I
cannot lose my dignity again-I went into the family room and took my son's
picture off the cabinet. I sat down and stared lovingly at him, outlining his face with
my hands. He looked so perfect. You see, I always have to reconstruct his face in my
mind because a hammer was used on him. He was beaten beyond recognition. I
cradled his picture next to my heart and once again made the same promises I had 15
years earlier.
I got on my knees and I asked God to give me the strength to keep my dignity.
This is very important to me because after Clifford Olson took my child's life, he
also took my dignity for a while. I will not let Olson and the system do that again.
The justice minister failed to stop Olson and he failed to protect
Sharon Rosenfeldt, her family, and the 10 other families whose
children were murdered by Olson from feeling shock, angry, hurt,
betrayed, weak, or vulnerable. Instead the justice minister and the
Liberal government are protecting the rights of Clifford Olson by
refusing to eliminate section 745 of the Criminal Code. To
emphasize my statement I would like to quote Mrs. Debbie
Mahaffy who said:
You, this justice committee, and I wager every MP and MPP in Canada, have not
heard the screams of terror and the cries of their child as she plead with her killers to
let her live, to let her come home, but everyone has heard the synthetic cries of
murderers wanting protection in prison for his or her safety, or wanting better food
or a bigger cell, or no cell mate, or a different cell mate, or release from prison. The
wants and the wishes of the murderers are even given fiscal priority over the needs of
victims' families whose members need professional counselling: the mothers,
fathers, siblings of all ages, grandparents, cousins and friends whose lives are forever
changed.
I cannot begin to imagine the pain these parents experienced
when they were told their children had been taken from them. I
attempt to empathize with the families of murder victims, however,
I cannot fully understand the depth of horror they have gone
through. To have this agony awakened by a section 745 application
provided by the Government of Canada is beneath contempt. Like
them, I believe the lives of their children are worth much, much
more than 15 years.
Bill C-45 and the justice minister's last ditch attempt to pass a
bill of this nature clearly shows that the minister does not
empathize with the families of murder victims and the nightmares
they endure as a result of the reliving of the heinous crimes
committed against their children and grandchildren. Instead the
sympathy is with the murderers of our children, the Olsons and the
Bernardos.
(1615)
Bill C-45 clearly shows that the letter written to him by Sylvain
Leduc's grandmother, Teresa McQuaig, had absolutely no impact
on him. This grandmother's pain and her plea did not change the
justice minister's support for the early release of first degree
murderers or his attitude toward justice.
Here is what Sylvain's grandmother said in her letter to the
justice minister:
The most painful thing in life is to live with the knowledge that your child lies
naked and cold in a morgue. My grandson was in the morgue for three days. I was
frozen to death. I could not warm up. I was in a hot tub for three days. I could not
stand it until I knew he had clothes on him.
My heart is a pump that keeps blood flowing through my veins. I have a special
sacred place situated below my stomach. Some people call this intestinal fortitude,
but I call it my soul. It is there that love, hate, courage, faith, humour, anger,
compassion, happiness, conscience and God dwell. The horrible murder of my
grandson has made my soul very sick. At times it is numb and on other days it is like
jello. It has lost its desire for living. It does not care much about everyday things any
more. It has lost its desire for food, sex, enjoyment, travel and books. There is a
emptiness there, a hole that will never be filled. My grandson left this earth with part
of it. Horror and fear live there also.
Sylvain's murderers have done this to me. When all is quiet I cannot stop my mind
from imagining the pain and horror Sylvain suffered before dying. I must take
sleeping medication to dull those horrible pictures. I receive psychiatric care but I
find it difficult to speak of Sylvain in the past tense and it takes so much energy to get
there. I find it also hopeless. I feel like a dead flower who has been trampled down. I
feel like I have been robbed.
That forms part of the letter to the justice minister. For the
justice minister to allow that anguish to keep festering to allow this
grandmother's wounds to be opened and reopened is wrong. Yet
that is precisely what Bill C-45 allows. Every time a killer applies
for a judicial review of his parole the family and society relive the
horrible memories and live in terror of the day these killers will be
released early from prison.
I would like to share with the House the feelings and memories
of two other mothers whose children were murdered and who
presented testimony to the justice committee. The justice minister
4470
should have been present during Mrs. Boyd's and Mrs. Mahaffy's
testimony. He should have faced these two grieving mothers and
publicly explained to them why he places only a value of 15 years
on the lives of their children and why he is not protecting these
grieving mothers instead of those who have murdered their
children.
I begin with Darlene Boyd:
In 1982 our 16-year old daughter Laurie was abducted, sexually assaulted
repeatedly and stabbed 18 times. They did not leave her any dignity. They then
proceeded to douse her body with gasoline and set her on fire. She was the second
victim. There was a High River girl. It was the same scenario, but they beat her head
with a tire iron.
This is what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who commit
heinous crimes like this. I truly believe that the man who took our daughter's life and
that of the young girl from High River is not and never will be rehabilitation
material, especially after serving only 15 years in his confined environment. To
rehabilitate there has to be some spark of remorse, and James Peters did not
demonstrate any of this. The chance of filtering men like James Peters back into
society after 15 years through the system we now have is too great a risk. We will be
digging more graves for innocent people.
Truth in sentencing must be addressed here. Our maximum penalty for murder in
this country is life with no eligibility for parole for at least 25 years. This, however, is
a lie and the lie is still going on. They are still telling this lie at the time of sentencing.
Nobody told us about section 745. We found out about it from a newspaperman, not
from the parole board or the legal system, but from a newspaperman. That demeans
Laurie's life right there, I would say.
(1620 )
Section 745, Bill C-45 and the members sitting on that side of
the House heave demeaned Laurie Boyd's life as they have
demeaned the life of all Canadians through their continued support
of a murderer's right to early release. Section 745 provides killers
with an avenue of early release. This makes a mockery of the term
life imprisonment.
In the absence of the death penalty the only just and fair penalty
for premeditated first degree murder is life imprisonment. To those
who say that we do not have a glimmer of hope without section
745, I would suggest to them that there is a glimmer of hope after
25 years because that is what the law states. No parole for 25 years.
They do have an opportunity of parole after serving 25 years.
Although Debbie Mahaffy does not support the return of capital
punishment, she does support the complete repeal of section 745 of
the Criminal Code. Mrs. Debbie Mahaffy believes section 745
should be repealed because she believes her daughter Leslie's life
is worth at the very least life imprisonment without the eligibility
of parole for 25 years. I quote Mrs. Mahaffy's testimony of June 18
this year:
To do anything less than that is to say the best is irresponsible, unconscionable and
does not represent our Canadian values of zero tolerance of violence, but continues to
erode the sanctity and the preciousness of life and fairness. My family and all victims'
family members have to recover from a death that is not normal. The bereavement is
not normal, the grief is not normal, the recovery is not normal, and to build, to redefine,
to live a new and normal life will take a lifetime, not just 25 years, but the rest of my life.
I am talking in absolutes. Twenty five years is absolutely 25 years before
considering a release back into society, because that is the closest balance our
government could ever come to my absolute pain and other victims' families'
absolute pain and slow rehabilitation to a much lesser degree of happiness for the
rest of my life. This absolute pain is felt by a growing and hourly increase in the
number of Canadians who feel this absolute loss of joy. Our loved ones are
absolutely dead. Killers receive nothing more absolute than the guarantee of their
life in custody for 25 years.
Bill C-45 does not provide the absolute guarantee of life in
custody for at least 25 years. It is precisely for that reason that Bill
C-45 is being opposed by Debbie Mahaffy, Sharon Rosenfeldt,
Darlene Boyd, the Canadian Police Association and I would
suggest a majority of Canadians.
On Tuesday of this week the justice minister stood in the
company of the Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of
police when he introduced his legislative initiatives in Bill C-55
with regard to dangerous offenders. In reference to Bill C-55,
Darlene Boyd said: ``The minister is trying to deflect attention
from the contentious Bill C-45 by introducing dangerous offender
legislation. He is trying to take the heat off himself when nothing
short of a total repeal will do''.
The Canadian Police Association and the chiefs of police
endorsed the justice minister's dangers offender legislation this
week. And the justice minister capitalized on their support during
his press conference. I would like to share with the House and with
Canadians the view of the vice-president of the Canadian Police
Association on Section 745. In doing so, I would like to point out
that the Minister of Justice did not broadcast the Canadian Police
Association or the chiefs of police opposition to Bill C-45.
On June 18, 1996 before the justice committee Mr. Grant Obst,
the vice-president of the Canadian Police Association said:
My world entails dealing with victims who have had loved ones yanked from
them through the most reprehensible crime that can be committed against mankind:
murder. It's a lifetime of loss to them. It is not a 25-year loss and it is not a 15-year
loss. There are no judicial reviews or section 745 hearings for victims of murderers
or for their families. There are no second chances for them. There is nothing to make
their life whole again. There's no section of the Criminal Code that relieves their
pain.
I sat through section 745 hearings in my jurisdiction and I have become very
close with the family of a murder victim. I have seen what these hearings have done
to them. I have spoken with police officers, my colleagues across this country, and it
is nearly unanimous that section 745 has to go. That comes from those of us who
have experience with murder, murderers and victims.
4471
Section 745 creates disgust and distrust in the criminal justice system. To a large
extent, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me and my colleagues to defend the
criminal justice system we work for, believe in and want to believe in. Our position
has been, is and will be that section 745 has to be repealed in its entirety.
(1625)
Mr. Neil Jessop of the Canadian Chiefs of Police echoed those
very sentiments, as did Scott Newark, executive director of the
Canadian Police Association, who on June 18 also said:
Section 745 contradicts fundamentally not only public confidence but the entire
philosophy of how our criminal justice legal system has grown.
It is a bleeding heart mentality of the glimmer of hope advocates
who contradict the philosophy of our justice system. It is they who
have made a farce of our penal system by extending rights to
murderers, rights they deliberately and viciously denied their
victims.
Convicted murderers, rapists and others who take it upon
themselves to assault or take the life of another human being throw
all their rights away the minute they launch their deadly attack, all
their rights except to a fair hearing and humane treatment if
incarcerated.
For the criminal justice system to provide a killer with a
so-called glimmer of hope or to restore their rights is a further
injustice to the victim, the victim's family and an offence to
Canadians. That is the Reform Party's fundamental justice
philosophy, a philosophy which is shared by thousands if not
millions of Canadians.
Bill C-45 contradicts that philosophy but, more important, Bill
C-45 demeans the value of a human life. That is why I stand
opposed to this bill. It is unworthy of support.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm has the floor.
Mrs. Lalonde: For Mercier, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Mercier. Pardon me. The hon. member
for Mercier.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
constituents will be annoyed with you for failing to appreciate this
riding in the east end of Montreal known for its proximity to the St.
Lawrence River and its oil companies.
I wanted to speak to this bill in support of my colleague's
amendment, because I want to say that the discourse I have heard
repeatedly in this House from the colleagues seated geographically
to my left strains belief, and despite their claims, does not serve
Canadians.
I would also like to speak in support of my colleague's
amendment because I think that Bill C-45, by its very wording,
even as presented by the minister, is a bill that contradicts the very
essence of the minister's arguments and that also contradicts the
old reform, which undoubtedly needed to be reviewed, but not
along these lines.
It is important to point out once again, as my colleagues have
done, that the parole provisions set out in section 745 are not
frivolous.
(1630)
Before someone who has committed first or second degree
murder can be eligible for parole, he must first of all, depending on
the degree, have served a large part of his sentence, but, above all,
he must get through three crucial steps. First, a judge must be
convinced that he can convince a jury; a sort of trial must be held
before a jury of 12 citizens with witnesses who do not make a
decision, but who decide whether or not the parole board should
hear the case and review the sentence.
In other words, at the end of a process in which citizens are
involved as jury members, a process that is certainly not full of
loopholes, a person who was punished for a first degree or second
degree crime may be granted parole.
The government took advantage of the fact that people in
western Canada were upset, and understandably so, when a serial
killer became eligible for parole, and introduced legislation to
strengthen, in fact to completely transform the conditional release
process. I would say, and perhaps I am exaggerating, to anyone
who is not an expert but is able to use his judgment, there is not the
remotest possibility that Olson, the convicted murderer, would
have successfully gone through the process leading to parole. It is
absolutely unthinkable.
I intend to prove that by quoting statistics we have heard
repeatedly, but they bear repeating: as of December 31, 1995, 175
inmates who were eligible to request a judicial review did not do
so. Only 76 had filed such a request and 13 of those requests were
still pending. Of 63 requests processed, 39 led to a reduction in the
period of ineligibility for parole, and as of December 31, 1995,
only one offender who benefited from this reduction committed a
repeat offence when he committed armed robbery.
So we must realize that the government has used a situation that
upset part of the public to act like Zorro coming to the rescue. No
doubt influenced by Reform Party speeches feeding on intolerance
and especially on anxiety, the government decided to give in, and it
did so not unwillingly, because since in Alberta the jury would
consist of Albertan jurors and in Quebec, Quebec jurors, in that
distinct society, it is very likely that the same legislation will be
implemented in widely differing ways.
4472
(1635)
Why? Because, among other things, this amendment of section
745 will require the jurors be unanimously in favour of granting
parole, while a two thirds agreement was enough in the past. To all
intents and purposes this clause become unenforceable.
We must ask ourselves a question. According to available
statistics, out of 175 prisoners, 39 have obtained a reduced
ineligibility period and, as of December 31, one reoffended. This
goes to show that rehabilitation is possible in prison.
The fact of the matter is that a number of tools including training
go into the rehabilitation effort. If individuals who have paid dearly
for their crimes and cost a great deal of money to keep in prison can
become valuable members of society, I think they should be given a
chance. Need I remind this House that first-degree murderers cost
us $76,000 per year?
How can we deprive society of citizens who, having paid their
debt to society and proven that they were no longer a threat, having
been screened through a judge, a jury and the parole board, are
prepared to pull their weight and pay their way?
There are, of course, two completely opposite views to this. One
is centred on punishment, on the pretext of protecting society. How
can society be protected? How can distressing and murderous
crimes be prevented from happening again when intolerance is
promoted left and right?
I am no expert, but I see three main categories of crimes. There
are foul crimes. Then there are what I call sordid crimes,
outrageous sexual offenses, the kind you can forgive but not forget.
There are also all sorts of crimes of passion. Under emotional
strain, people kill for love or because they are overly possessive,
having thought it through of course. It is a highly reprehensible
way to solve problems. Prevention in this case does not consist in
ensuring that these people remain in prison when they have paid
their dues to society and no longer pose a threat to society. Why? In
the name of what?
(1640)
Whenever we address the issue of prevention, we must also talk
about values, because keeping inmates in prison for life does not
guarantee the safety of citizens when the people who are free do not
share the same values of tolerance and generosity or the belief that
disputes should not be settled through violence, including violence
against women, which often leads to crime.
We should address this problem and give those who work in
areas of risk the tools they need. But depriving people who have
often paid a heavy price of the chance of having their sentences
reduced is cruel and unnecessary. Instead of protecting society, this
would create a climate and foster values more likely to generate
and justify intolerance and violence than the other way around.
We must deal with realities. We must also deal with what I called
the crimes associated with the mafia. This is something else. We
need suitable tools to deal with this.
The Liberal government did not grow in our esteem by
introducing this amendment, which will make section 745 almost
impossible to enforce. It may be a little easier to enforce in Quebec,
but it will still be extremely difficult. That is why, led by our
colleague from Bellechasse, we in the Bloc Quebecois are asking
the government to defer passage of this bill, to look at the situation
a little more closely, to identify the real reason why people do not
feel safe. Resorting to fearmongering is not the right way to reduce
violence and reassure people.
Furthermore, being able to sentence someone to life without
parole after going through the usual steps is important, of course.
As a woman and a mother, I would be the first one to demand that a
dangerous offender not be paroled, including for his own
protection. But I know people who are rehabilitated, who are now
good citizens and who have much more self-control than others
who have never experienced what they have gone through, which
will remain present in their minds. It is very important to give those
who can make a useful contribution to society an opportunity to do
so.
(1645)
A punitive approach whereby the largest possible number of
people would be imprisoned for life is in total contradiction with
the creed of the members sitting to my left, the reformers, because
prisoners cost a lot of money, even though, in some cases, there is
no solution other than incarceration. As we know, and this is
particularly true in the case of federal prisons, a person who is
incarcerated and is not a hardened criminal-and I am not referring
to dangerous criminals-can be released after two years, and can
come out a hardened criminal. We have to call a spade a spade.
I personally think that when imprisonment for life is advocated,
in spite of the high costs involved and instead of trying to promote
preventive measures, we end up with absurd situations. We end up
with situations such as in Ontario, where the minister responsible
for security is proposing to build huge prisons in which electronic
surveillance would be used to reduce costs. This solution was tried
elsewhere. What happens is that we create enormous jungles where
prisoners set their own rules. One would rather not think of the
implications. This is a nightmare that goes beyond one's
imagination.
So, we have to be consistent in our overall approach and be
careful to avoid giving way to demagogy. We must protect our
citizens. The little old ladies-and I am one of them-, who go out
at night, must not be afraid. To be sure, we must try to create a
society where we can live without fear. But we have to find the
proper means. And if this means imprisonment only, we will not
reassure our citizens, because the causes of crime are rooted in
society itself; they are related to poverty, to criminal networks and
to the problems experienced by people in their youth, when they do
4473
not get adequate support. Violence also includes conjugal violence,
which can result in tragedies and which can also destroy children's
lives.
Therefore, I support my colleague. I deeply regret that the
Minister of Justice has once again yielded to the demagoguery,
whose goal is not to protect Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to my colleague from the Bloc. I would like to ask her
a question that I asked witnesses who appeared before the justice
committee not only on this bill but on other bills that are related in
topic.
It is a question that society wrestles with. What is a fair and just
penalty for the premeditated taking of an innocent life? What
should that penalty be? Should it be only three years if after three
years the individual is completely rehabilitated in the eyes of the
officials and will never kill again? Should it be 15 years or should it
be 25 years? That is the question.
We must remind ourselves that when we as a society determine
what that penalty should be, we are placing a value on the life of a
human being.
(1650)
I ask my hon. colleague what she thinks is a fair and just penalty
for the planned and premeditated murder of an innocent life.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. I should begin by telling you that I am old enough to have
followed the debates on the death penalty. I was already an adult.
What struck me the most was that one of the main reasons the
Liberal government decided to abolish the death penalty was the
belief, backed up by studies, that in many cases the death penalty
itself was not a deterrent to murder. For example, if it was a crime
of passion, premeditated, but driven by passion, whatever the
nature of the passion, passion being an integral part of what we are.
Your question is a good one, but what do the bill and our
interventions say? We are not questioning the existing statute,
which says 25 years, especially since, in certain cases, three
successive hurdles must be crossed: the judge, the
jury-peers-and finally, if the jury agrees, the parole board,
followed by conditions that are rigorous and must be observed,
failing which the paroled inmate is reincarcerated.
It seems to me that for years now people have been creating a
system that answers I think, or attempted to answer, the question
you are asking. I would never say three years. In any event, I am
not qualified to say.
What I observe is that this society has for years found ways,
various ways it is true. Yes, there were some cases, but, in the end,
should people who are ready to reintegrate society be forced to stay
in prison because of a few cases? That is why I say that our
approach must be either punitive or consider that at a certain point,
the sentence served is sufficient for the offender to be allowed to
resume his life in society and become part of the community.
I think this particular situation, and mind you, I am not an expert,
I am really your average citizen in this debate, but when we
consider all the obstacles a person who committed this heinous
crime must overcome before being granted parole-it seems to me
that answers your question. Not three years, not six years, but 15
years minimum. That is a long time.
That is the best thing I can suggest but, I repeat, my main
conclusion is that the death sentence is not a deterrent to crime. So
yes, society must decide to what extent it makes the offender pay.
What is it worth to society? Is it worth it to have someone who
could be a useful citizen after 15 years stay another 10 years in
prison at a cost of $76,000 annually? Is that what Canadian society
needs? That is the real question.
We think that when someone has gone through three successive
screenings and has to meet certain conditions, society should give
him a chance to do his share. That is all we are saying. It would be
useless and, in fact, counterproductive from the social point of
view. That is what I wanted to say.
(1655)
The Deputy Speaker: Would all members please direct their
comments to the Chair, otherwise I get very lonely.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member.
What we are trying to find out here is the price of a human life.
The member has said that in her mind it is 15 years. If somebody
plans to murder another person, first degree murder, that person
would get only 15 years. In my humble opinion that is far too low.
When this whole debate took place 25 or 30 years ago in the
1970s when they changed from capital punishment to a new
sentence for life, it was life subject to parole after 25 years. That
was the sentence. That was the trade-off. That is what the
politicians of the day thought they had agreed to. Life with parole
after 25 years was the price for taking a life.
Where is the truth in sentencing, the deterrent to or the
punishment for taking a life, instead of capital punishment, which
obviously the member abhors and says would not be a deterrent?
There are lot of people who share that point of view, which is fine.
The replacement was a life for a life. We will not take another life
but we will put a person away for life, away from society. ``We do
not want you to do that. You cannot do that. Your punishment is
life. However, if there is a chance that you can be rehabilitated, we
will take 25 years to find out if you have learned your lesson and if
you can make a contribution to society again''.
4474
Now the person gets another lowered tier opportunity to enter
society after 15 years. The judge heard the evidence and
pronounced a sentence. Where is the truth in sentencing when after
the judge and the jury have declared the punishment for the crime,
life subject to parole after 25 years, when the criminal after serving
time in jail can apply to a parole board which had nothing to do
with the case or the trial, was not there when the evidence was
given, was not caught up in the emotion of the situation but which
can then after 15 years decide to lower the sentence or let them out
earlier?
That is an injustice. It is cruel and it is placing the lowest
possible value on a human life. We need truth in sentencing. If we
do not favour capital punishment, then a life sentence should mean
a life sentence and 25 years should mean 25 years. This 15 year
stuff has to go.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make in reply.
First, I know that for 10 years the death sentence was not carried
out. The average sentence was, at that time, from 12 to 13 years. I
have heard criminal experts say on various programs that the
average sentence-I say this to the hon. member who is not
listening, I am not supposed to say that but I will say it just the
same-the average sentence when the death sentence still existed
but was not enforced was not 25 years but around 12 or 13 years.
Those are the facts.
I have every reason to believe the people I heard on these
programs. They are authorities on the subject and they are reliable.
I also read some reputable texts. If at the time the actual sentence
served was 12 or 13 years, the introduction of a sentence of 25
years with possibility of parole after 15 years did not mean a lighter
sentence. Considering the system that had existed for 10 years, it
was more severe, according to my understanding.
(1700)
We must call things by their proper names. It seems to me that is
elementary. My second point is that as soon as we have the
requisite certainty, and I think that with these three instruments we
have ways to arrive at that moral certainty, as soon as we have that
certainty, why leave someone in prison? To keep him from
committing another crime? We know that is not true. The death
sentence was no deterrent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member has ever
experienced the prison environment, from the outside, of course. I
suggest he do so and find out what it is like. In many cases, the
prison environment is a lot like hell. I did not say purgatory, I said
hell.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to support the motion to hoist this bill. In fact, I agree with
my colleague from Crowfoot that I would like to hoist that bill right
out of sight, never to appear back in this House. With any luck
maybe in the next election we can hoist this social engineer called
the justice minister. This bill is absolutely aggravating.
Colleagues on the other side of the House do not seem to
understand that we have thousands of Canadians joining Victims of
Violence because they are not happy. Members opposite do not get
the message. Mr. Speaker, do you think Canadians enjoy going to
meetings year after year, gathering together at rallies trying to get
the message out, if they are happy with this government? No, they
would like to go home. They would like to have some peace and to
see things settled.
When you enter the House of Commons, you hear day after day
petition after petition being tabled to abolish section 745. There are
probably millions of signatures by now not to mention all the
newspaper articles that have come in, the newspaper ads that have
been answered. What do we do with section 745? Canadians want it
abolished.
The government does not get the message of the police chiefs
saying abolish this bill, abolish this section of the Criminal Code. I
find it hard to understand why a member of the Bloc would sit
there. They only ones they know how to attack is the Reform
because we would like to see the people have their way. We would
like to support the people in seeing to it that some of the things that
need to happen do indeed happen.
We would like to see a referendum on capital punishment but
then again that might prove that these guys over here are wrong.
They say they do not want capital punishment. People do not want
that. The government would not dare have a referendum on it
because they might be proven wrong. They do not dare have one
because the polls indicate it is not a good time for that kind of
referendum. In fact if they were about 15 per cent in the polls,
which I am sure they will be one of these days, they would not want
to call an election at that time either.
The only thing I can support is a bill that will repeal section 745
and nothing less. The justice system took a wrong turn back in the
early 1970s and it has been going in circles ever since. It will
continue to circle into the future with legislation such as Bill C-45.
Suddenly another bill has come out with regard to dangerous
offenders. Wait a minute, that is going to attract some attention.
That is what we have been looking for, something to deal with
4475
dangerous offenders. It appears to be a ploy to get our minds off
section 745 because they really do not want to get rid of that.
(1705)
I do not know how to play the political games that some of the
experts do, the social engineers such as the justice minister. I have
to admit they play them well. I would like to see them once present
something that everybody in the whole House could unanimously
support, mainly because it supports the will of the people. We are
really lacking in that area.
Back in the early 1970s Jean-Pierre Goyer summed up the
Liberal government's justice agenda by stating:
We have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the
protection of society.
This philosophy was continued into 1976 when Pierre Trudeau
and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-who is presently with
us today and at that time was involved with the justice
department-created section 745. This happened regardless of the
fact that most Canadians did not want to see the death penalty
abolished. As for the politicians of today, as with the old line
parties, it really does not matter what Canadians want. The fact that
they wanted capital punishment in those days did not make any
difference, it was ``we know best, we are the politicians''. That is
called tyranny, just in case anybody forgot the word. It happened
regardless of what the people wanted.
Even with this replacement I feel at that time the sentences were
clearly defined. In my opinion, they were fair and reasonable but
they made these changes. The problem is that many of the bleeding
hearts of our society felt that 25 years was cruel and unusual
punishment. Therefore, before giving support to abolishing capital
punishment, they argued that we needed to provide inmates with an
incentive. If they behaved properly while in prison they could
apply for a reduction in their parole ineligibility period. This is how
it became known as the ``faint hope'' clause.
The problem is that with all the wheeling and dealing in
abolishing the death penalty, section 745 allowed the system to
change for the worse. We see the product of that mistake today. It
was only back in 1987 that section 745 and its true meaning
became known.
Most Canadians at this point still believed that the penalty for
first degree murder was life in prison without eligibility for 25
years. The first judicial review was in Alberta in 1992 when
William Nichols was in jail for robbery, kidnapping and killing a
police officer. After the review his sentence was reduced from 25 to
20 years.
Since that first review, and up until April of this year a
staggering 79 per cent of first degree murderers who had received a
section 745 hearing have been recommended for some form of
early release, according to Corrections Canada statistics. By
December 1995, 63 murderers had asked for a review. In 50 cases
juries gave the applicant a chance at early parole. In 33 of those,
full parole or day parole had been granted. It is obvious from these
numbers that section 745 has fundamentally changed the sentence
for first degree murder in Canada. By virtue of its success, section
745 has made a 15-year sentence for murder a reality for a
significant number of killers.
I had to laugh when I heard the speech from the Bloc asking my
colleague if he had ever been to a prison. I often wonder if any of
the people here have been to a prison and visited. How many of you
have? If you have not I encourage you to do so. You will find out
these guys are not the type of guys that will come out of a prison
and then help a little old lady across the street. They are certainly
not going to sing in the community choir or do anything like that.
I do not think they really know the kind of individuals they are
dealing with. The crime of murder and the pain for the victim have
been completely forgotten. Punishment is the last thing on the
legislator's mind today and it is clear that all concessions are being
made to rehabilitate those that are convicted.
(1710 )
Traditionally the laws allowed provinces to establish their own
rules of procedure for judicial hearings. This has resulted in huge
disparities across Canada in the number of those winning an early
hearing. For example, as reported in April of this year in Alberta,
juries heard seven applications and denied five; Ontario juries
heard eleven but denied only four; B.C. juries faced five killers and
granted parole eligibility to every one; while in Quebec one has the
best chance of early parole with twenty-seven of twenty-eight cases
resulting in a reduction in parole ineligibility.
This regional disparity is something that must be recognized.
The only legislation that would restore everyone to a level playing
field would be the repeal of section 745. Then everyone would
serve a full 25-year sentence.
It is interesting to listen to those pro-745 groups trying to defend
the usefulness of section 745. They say that few killers are granted
early release and only 10 per cent of those who are reoffend.
Among the most pathetic reasons given for maintaining section
745 reviews is that it is giving inmates some hope. By doing that it
influences them to try to change their lives; or that convicts with
little hope of release, having nothing to lose, would become far
more dangerous elements in prison.
Another reason is cost related. I have heard a lot of cost figures
used like $76,000 and other figures. But the figure most used is that
it costs $45,000 per year to incarcerate a killer, while it only costs
$10,000 to supervise him as a parolee. If it costs that much, if that
4476
is too high, we will fix costs. I do not see any problem with that. It
should not be hard to do at all.
Another reason is that it is fair because the creation of the review
was a political trade-off in Parliament when it abolished the death
penalty in 1976.
The last reason cited is that not all first degree murderers are
alike and some may very clearly have paid their debt to society
after 15 years. I hardly think that is the point.
It is difficult to fathom that there are those who support section
745. For example, the vice-president of the Canadian council of
criminal defence lawyers stated that he did not think section 745
should be scrapped. He feels that there are some poor offenders
after a long period of time who are ready to be returned to society.
As my hon. colleague from Calgary Northeast pointed out, these
defence lawyers are activists to maintain a revolving door in the
penal system because it brings more money to them. We cannot
overlook the fact that some people count on making a living from
these kinds of procedures.
I have listened to the reasons of the defenders and in my books
the bottom line is we do not owe these killers any favours by
allowing them to apply for early release. Even thinking of letting
them out early is just another way of saying: ``We don't really hold
you responsible for your actions''.
There is already too much leniency in our justice system. To
those who argue that these criminals can be rehabilitated, let them
prove this after they have served their full term of 25 years and not
a moment sooner.
I frankly do not care if killers hopes are dimmed by the prospect
of no early release. We must remember that the victims' families
have no hope at all of ever seeing their loved ones again. There will
not be any rehabilitation of the victim who is in the grave. It should
once and for all be their suffering that is on our minds. That should
be the thing we think about.
The government does not seem to see that all acts of murder in
the eyes of Canadians are reprehensible. There are no good killers
or bad killers. A killer should not get special treatment because he
or she committed merely one murder. This categorization of
murder by the justice system is an insult to the families of victims
of one-time killers.
By categorizing murderers by the number of victims we are
adding yet another level of bureaucracy to our over-bureaucratized
system. We will have one level handling multiple murderers while
another handles the so-called less harmful one time killers.
Ultimately this glimmer of hope clause for killers is more
bureaucratic and more expensive. A first degree murderer will not
apply directly to a jury but has another hurdle to jump. Application
has to be made to a superior court judge, but at what cost?
(1715)
Bill C-45 contains a royal recommendation which means
additional money will be expended. The cost for the hearings
before Bill C-45 was introduced was approximated to be $10
million by the Canadian police chiefs association. That is based on
40 murderers applying per year.
This cost is sure to rise with the expanded appeal rights now
available to section 745 applicants in Bill C-45. The applicant can
appeal to a court of appeal on any determination or decision made
by the superior court judge and the applicants have the right to
apply for judicial review more than once.
In other words, any judicial decision to reject an application may
be appealed. The applicants absolute right to a hearing has been
replaced by an absolute right to apply for a hearing and to launch
appeals on an unfavourable decision.
It is clear to me that this hearing process is still weighed heavily
in the inmate's favour. The emphasis is still on the offender and his
behaviour in prison and his rehabilitation possibilities. The
information about the original crime, the full details and the impact
of the crime are not presented for consideration.
In addition, the murderer will have to be tried by a jury in the
jurisdiction in which they were convicted. This will mean that they
will be travelling and there will be extra cost. That will also
contribute to the risk factor that some killers will have to be
transported a great distance.
In my opinion instead of differentiating between multiple killers
and single murderers the justice minister, the social engineer of our
government, could have simplified the system with consecutive
sentencing. Consecutive sentencing would have at least put a value
on the taking of a life. For example, Clifford Olson should have
received 11 life sentences.
In our system he killed once and then the second one was free
and the third one was free and the fourth one was free and so on. I
think that is pretty sad.
The problem is our justice minister does not appear to truly
understand the significance of murder. For example, during
question period on June 11 the minister implied that a murderer
who takes just one life deserves special preference under the law.
He told the hon. member for Beaver River that ``if the hon.
member is not able to distinguish the difference between those who
take more than one life and those who take one life, I say that she is
overlooking a fundamental feature''. I cannot fathom how the
justice minister of this civilized country considers the taking of one
life not to be as serious as the taking of two. It is just one of his
many explanations for this bill.
4477
I still cannot get over the fact that he had so many years to
introduce something of this nature and yet he waited until there
were eight sitting days last June, knowing full well that the bill
could not properly be debated in that short period of time.
Darlene Boyd was quoted as saying the timing of the legislation
in order to ram it through the House was nothing more than
cowardly. I certainly agree with her.
Once again I see it as another example of this government's
democracy in action. We have talked about that already today and I
do not want to get back into that one, mainly because democracy in
action only exists with this government once about every four
years, and that is on election day.
All and all no one could possibly be satisfied with this feeble
attempt to remedy this serious loophole in the justice system.
Section 745, although modified, still exists and the justice minister
is simply trying to sugar coat it for Canadians. Sprinkle a little
sugar on it and make the medicine go down.
Approximately 600 convicts are soon going to become eligible
to apply for judicial review. This is a problem that is not going to
go away. By the end of the century the judicial system could face a
possibility of one judicial hearing per week.
A Calgary Sun editorial said: ``This loophole in the Criminal
Code that allows killers to apply for early parole was one of the
most heinous frauds ever perpetrated on voters by the politicians''.
(1720)
I am proud to say that this politician and those who represent the
Reform Party want to set the record straight. A life sentence for
premeditated first degree murder is not about rehabilitation. It is
about providing a fair and just penalty for the taking of another
human's life.
We do not want to have any part of Bill C-45 and want it
unequivocally known that all persons convicted of first degree
murder should be imprisoned for life with no chance of parole or
conditional release in any form for 25 years, and consequently that
section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed. Nothing short of its
elimination will be acceptable.
This ongoing travesty that this section creates must be corrected
immediately in order to stop future killers from acquiring this same
right courtesy of section 745. This has the support of 98 per cent of
the Reform delegates who attended our assembly in June.
It has the full support of the Victims of Violence, the Canadian
Police Association and a high majority of Canadians from coast to
coast. It has the support of millions of signatures. Abolish section
745. Quit tinkering with it. We cannot approach the 21st century by
ignoring the law that has effectively changed the sentence for
murder in Canada.
The old Liberal reasons of economics or prison overcrowding
will no longer cut it, nor will the bleeding heart philosophy of
remorse, rehabilitation, deterrence, restitution or any of their
sentencing excuses, nor will underhanded instructions to offenders
like those given by Liberal Senator Earl Hastings.
He advised criminals, upon approaching a section 745 review, to
express remorse, apply for legal aid before the 15th year and
develop good interpersonal relations and communications.
Develop some leadership skills. Do all the right things when that
15th year comes and you will be out of here. These are nothing
more than back door, underhanded, sugar coated baloney. They are
bleeding hearts and have reasons that just do not cut it.
Life means life, nothing more, nothing less. I find it really
difficult to understand how anybody on that side of the House can
suggest for a moment that the signatures that are on these petitions
and that the messages they get from the thousands and thousands of
people who belong to victims' groups across this country go
completely unheard. It is all right because we know best. We are
the government.
The sad part about it is that there were 78 individuals who voted
once upon a time about two years ago from those back benches to
abolish this section because they knew it was the right thing to do.
Now they will turn around a little and support a half measure. I
heard it called a step in the right direction. I do not think it is a step
in the right direction. It is a stall. I do not think it has anything to do
with that. It is simply a matter of where these people in these back
benches are who voted against section 745.
They stood up in this House and said they wanted out. What
happened to them? Let me guess. Maybe the Prime Minister and
the champion social engineer said: ``We will change things a little
and guess what? You are going to support it. If you do not, you will
be out or punished''.
The message is there. Sure enough there was unanimous support
from that side. The 78 just disappeared. That is too bad.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, although I am sorely tempted to deal with certain of the
Reform concerns about this bill, I shall restrain myself because I
feel we are straying rather far from the clause.
There could be a debate on everything that has been done,
everything that is being done, about parole, the pros, the cons and
so on. Right from the start, I think, it has been said that this bill
before us may contain things we would have liked to have seen
changed but that, overall, it is a bill that merits careful
examination.
4478
(1725)
For those listening to us, who are hearing all of the philosophical
debates but are not too clear about what the hon. members are to
vote on, Bill C-45, an act to modify the Criminal Code (judicial
review of parole ineligibility), it might perhaps be worthwhile to
understand the context, how it operates, and particularly why we in
the Bloc Quebecois have some reservations about it.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code already covered parole, and
this is the part the Minister of Justice wants to change with his bill.
Looking at the summary of this bill, one can see there are three
major points. It is not a revolutionary change to the entire Criminal
Code, only to section 745. Three key points are affected by the
changes.
The first removes the right of multiple murderers to apply for
judicial review. The second introduces judicial screening of
applications, and the third requires that decisions of juries to
reduce parole ineligibility periods be unanimous. These are the
three key points affected by the bill.
People need to understand how the system works. First of all, the
individual ``behind bars'', as they say, who has fulfilled the
conditions of section 745, applies in writing, according to the
proposed changes. In the past, this could be a verbal request, but
now, under subclause 745(1), the person applying for parole under
section 745 must do so in writing to the appropriate chief justice of
the province or a judge designated for the purposes of this section.
That is the first step.
The second step is new, and the Bloc Quebecois has reservations
about it as well, because it is an initial evaluation. The judge, on the
basis of the written material in his possession, including the
application, the report provided by the Correctional Service of
Canada, or any other document submitted by the attorney general
or the applicant to the judge, will decide whether the applicant has
shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a reasonable
prospect that the application will succeed.
There has already been an evaluation by an appropriate judge, a
judge familiar with the field, to determine whether there is a
reasonable prospect that the application will succeed. Our first
reservation about this is that the judge is not given specific
guidelines. As far as his evaluation goes, there is no problem. I
understand that judges have experience in the field, that they will
evaluate the case, that they will weigh the facts and make an
informed decision, but I would have liked to have seen something
clearer, or this part dropped altogether.
That is the second stage of the process. After written application
is made, a judge evaluates it and decides whether or not to
designate another judge to empanel a jury. Naturally, if the judge
who examines the application concludes that, on the face of it,
there is not a reasonable prospect that a properly instructed jury
would approve the application, he will obviously reject it.
There are two possibilities, according to the amendment: either
that the inmate will come before a judge in two years, or that the
inmate will not be entitled to present himself for a specified
number of years, because his record is not appropriate for parole, or
no information is given. Then the law calls for the inmate to be
allowed to make another application in two years.
Under 745 (5), if the judge says yes, deciding that the applicant
has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application
will succeed, the chief justice instructs a judge of the superior court
of criminal jurisdiction to empanel a jury to hear the application.
The third step is another evaluation, this time before a twelve
member jury. The jury has a whole series of criteria to apply. I have
absolutely nothing to say on the criteria set by the minister; they
are in keeping with jurisprudence and with what is being done at
present. I have absolutely no comments to make on this.
Where I do have something to add, where we in the Bloc see an
obstacle, is where it is stated in 745.3, subsection 3: ``The jury
hearing an application under subsection (1) may determine that the
applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for
parole ought to be reduced. The determination to reduce the
number of years must be by unanimous vote''. This is what bothers
the Bloc Quebecois, the unanimity of 12 persons. Twelve people
will have the file that has already been examined by a judge. The
judge has said ``Yes, there is a reasonable possibility of the
applicant's being able to convince a jury, so we will move it to a
jury''. The jury of 12 examines all this and has to reach a
unanimous conclusion. That will be very hard.
Finally, if the government had decided that section 745 ought to
be abolished, that ought to have been done, but without imposing
excessive criteria, because it is excessive to require unanimity on a
case of this kind.
Mr. Speaker, you are telling me I have only two minutes left, but
I thought I was entitled to 20 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: At 5.30 p.m., we will proceed to
consideration of Private Members' Business.
Mr. Bellehumeur: In that case, I will give a very quick
summary, Mr. Speaker.
The main aspect of this bill, an aspect to which we object, is
unanimity, and we also object to the government's rushing to get
this bill through the House. That is why my colleague, the hon.
member for Bellechasse, tabled an amendment seeking an
additional six months so that we can examine and study this bill
and perhaps improve it. The government has shown undue haste,
although this is a bill that deserves particular consideration.
4479
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now
proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed
on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4479
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation
while impaired), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on February 29 this year I seconded Bill C-201,
introduced by my hon. colleague from Prince George-Bulkley
Valley, and I would like to thank him at this time for the
opportunity to speak to and support the bill.
This is the second reading of the bill. It has been deemed votable
by a committee of the House. The bill essentially would amend
section 255(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada to impose a
minimum seven year sentence for a person convicted of the crime
of impaired driving causing death.
This is a piece of legislation known as a private member's bill
and it really deserves the support of every person in the House. I
really and sincerely hope the Prime Minister will allow a free vote
on this and that every member of the House will look at this piece
of legislation and throw their political affiliation aside and listen to
the debate and hopefully support it.
Before I go into many of the reasons here, I would like members
to imagine for a moment what we must do in order to seriously
consider drunk driving as a very serious type of behaviour,
something we should not tolerate in our society.
(1735)
We have done a lot of educating of members of the public to
make them aware that they should not drive while impaired and
much of that education has been taken to heart, but education in
and of itself does not do it all. Other signals must be sent to society
to illustrate how serious this is, something that no one should ever
do, something akin to manslaughter. To take the life of someone
while impaired is unacceptable.
This bill has the potential to save lives, much more potential than
some of the other legislation that the justice department has
brought down. I would like to make the point that good laws and
punishment do not necessarily make people good but they do
restrain evil, unacceptable behaviour and that is why this bill
should be supported.
A drunk driver going down the highway is very much like a hand
grenade lying on a playground with a timing device that has an
arbitrary time on it. This hand grenade has had the pin pulled but
the timing device as to when it will explode is completely
unknown. We do not know if there is going to be someone in that
playground when it goes off or maybe it will explode in the middle
of the night when there is no one there. Maybe it will go off when
there are a lot of people around.
That is what it is like when a drunk driver is going down a
highway unable to completely control his vehicle and react
appropriately to something that may happen very quickly. We
would not tolerate someone placing a hand grenade in a playground
not knowing when it would go off anymore than we should tolerate
a drunk driver going down the highway. That is why this bill is
really important.
Here are some of the reasons why I second this important piece
of legislation in addition to what I have just said. Three times the
number of people are killed by drunk drivers than are murdered.
That is a lot of people in comparison to the number of murders.
Even though the Criminal Code provides a maximum penalty of 14
years for drunk driving for killing someone with his car, the actual
sentences are only one to four years. I ask members of this House is
that all a person's life is worth?
We have to send a signal through our courts to people in society
that this is very serious and they should obey the law. Such low
sentences do not provide a meaningful deterrent to those who
continue to drive while drunk, while out of their minds. Such low
sentences do not reflect the public's concern for this type of crime.
Impaired drivers are responsible for 90 per cent of the fatal car
crashes in which they are involved. That is an unacceptably high
level.
One of the main reasons the carnage on our highways does not
stop is the present leniency of our courts. Imposing a minimum
sentence of seven years for killing a person while driving drunk
will send the strongest of messages that the lethal consequences of
driving while impaired will not be tolerated by society.
Here are some other facts which I think need to be repeated.
Forty to seventy per cent of impaired drivers have had prior alcohol
related offences. They know they have a problem. It takes between
200 to 2,000 incidents of driving while impaired to produce one
arrest, not a conviction, just an arrest. And 57 per cent of those
charged had at least one similar offence in the previous five years.
Impaired driving charges are dismissed or reduced in 40 per cent of
cases. Our courts need to deal more seriously with these things.
(1740 )
Bill C-201 has had the support of many organizations. Here are
some of them: Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Canadian Youth
4480
Against Against Impaired Driving, Ontario Students Against
Impaired Driving, Nepean Committee Against Impaired Driving,
Friends and Family Against Drunk Driving.
I understand there has been material circulating in the
government benches disputing the support of Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers, MADD Canada. Let me quote from two letters sent
to the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. On March
20, 1996, Mr. Jim Wideman, executive director of MADD Canada
wrote:
On behalf of the Board of Directors of MADD Canada, I would like to reaffirm
our support of Private Member's Bill C-201. I am aware that other correspondence
has been made to Mr. Rock's office. Let me reiterate that the National Board of
MADD Canada, our Chapters and Members wholeheartedly support Bill C-201.
On May 16, 1996 Jane Meldrum, president of Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers Canada, wrote:
It is my understanding that during the last hour of debate that [the hon. member
for Prince Albert-Churchill River] rose in the House of Commons and referred to
the letter from MADD Canada indicating that MADD did not support this bill. This
letter was written by a member of the Board of MADD Canada and was the opinion
of this person as an individual and not of that of the Board. This letter was not
approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors and was not
approved to be sent on MADD Canada letterhead. This individual has been advised
of this and has been requested to retract his statement.
I would like to now respond to a couple of other criticisms of this
bill in the short time I have remaining.
We have heard that some Liberal backbench MPs oppose this
amendment because the minimum sentence would be inconsistent
with the sentencing provisions of other sections of the Criminal
Code, in particular section 220, criminal negligence causing death.
While we thank our hon. colleagues for pointing this out, the
solution is not to oppose this bill but to propose an amendment or
introduce another bill that would make sentencing provisions
consistent.
We heard another concern that the mandatory minimum sentence
might discourage accused drunk driver killers from pleading guilty
and thereby typing up more time in the courts and causing more
pain for the families of the victims. One of the most important
principles of our criminal justice system is that the punishment
must fit the crime. It is clear that drunk drivers who kill are quite
literally getting away with murder.
If the average sentence for those convicted of impaired driving
causing death was half the maximum sentence of 14 years,
permitted under section 255(3), I would say let us leave well
enough alone, but this is not the case. The average sentence for
impaired driving causing death ranges between one to four years. I
think the majority of Canadians would agree with me that this
punishment does not fit the crime.
As for the rights and interests of the victim's family, the most
important issue for them is to ensure there is a sense of closure to
the case and, above all else, that the sentence equates with real
justice. The victim's family also needs to know that the death of
their loved one served some purpose, that the punishment of the
crime will in some way prevent someone else's death. This is what
a mandatory minimum sentence will do. This is why thousands of
Canadians have told us to support this bill.
Finally, our critics tell us that the minimum sentence of seven
years for killing someone will be challenged under the charter of
rights and freedoms because it is cruel and unusual punishment. If
anyone really thinks that this sentence is cruel and unusual
punishment, I would ask them to conduct a poll of all the families
that have had a loved one killed by a drunk driver and ask them
what they think.
While there are lawyers out there who would love to make some
money bringing forward a charter challenge, and while the Liberal
government is even willing to pay the lawyer to bring the case
forward under the reinstituted court challenges program, and while
there are judges who might agree with their claim regarding seven
years in jail for impaired driving causing death, the government
will lose the case in the most important court, the public opinion of
this land.
Frankly, I believe we need to support this bill. I think I have put
forth some good arguments and hopefully all members will be open
to it.
(1745 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to split my time with the member for Sarnia-Lambton
who also supports this bill.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleague may not realize that the
debate ends at 6.11 p.m., so there should be time for both to speak.
I am not sure that on a private member's bill unless except by
unanimous consent we can split 10 minutes into five and five, but if
there is unanimous consent we certainly can. Perhaps the member
will indicate his position. This time will not count against him.
Mr. Hanger: I would request that unanimous consent be given
then.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. Is there unanimous consent to
split the 10 minutes into two parts?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: That will be five and five.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, impaired drivers kill innocent
Canadians. No one in the House would dispute that fact which is so
obvious. The question therefore is to what extent do our laws deter
the impaired driver from getting behind the wheel of a car. I would
like to contribute my perspective on this matter highlighting some
4481
of my firsthand experience which I gained as a police officer who
served in Calgary for 22 years.
First I can say with assurance that the current Criminal Code
section 255(3) penalty for impaired driving causing death is not
tough enough. When I say that it is not tough enough, I mean that
the penalty is by no means an effective deterrent. I would argue that
many lives would be saved if the penalty for impaired driving were
increased, that is, through increased deterrence.
For my soft on crime friends, let me be precise as to say that the
philosophy and definition of deterrence is just that, deterrence. The
key instruments of deterrence are the certainty and severity of
punishment. Deterrence prevents crime and saves lives. When
potential offenders, considering the risks and severity of
punishment, decide to commit fewer crimes, logically the number
of people willing to commit crimes decreases as the danger of
punishment increases.
Consequently the Criminal Code amendment presented today by
my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley is not only
good legislation but one which is desperately needed by frontline
police officers, attorneys general and prosecutors for the crown to
deter drunk drivers everywhere.
At present section 255 of the Criminal Code provides a 14-year
maximum penalty for impaired driving causing death. The
legislation proposed today would require a judge to prescribe a
minimum seven year penitentiary sentence to any individual
convicted of drunk driving causing the death of a human being.
I can relate a situation that happened in my own riding not too
long ago where an impaired driver ran over a seven year old boy,
dragged him down the road. The boy died. The driver looked at him
laying on the road, got back into his car and drove away. The court
case finally came about and the individual driving that car got only
nine months. That is totally insufficient. It shows that the
sentencing in Canada is far too lenient for impaired drivers.
Let me also say however that the criminal justice system in
Canada is at a crossroads. Two competing visions of the future
direction of the criminal justice system exist. One view which is
promoted by socialists argues that the failure of the criminal justice
system to stem the increase in the long term trend of crime can be
remedied through the welfare state criminology. This view
espouses the belief that the solution to criminal behaviour is to
redirect resources away from the punishment of crime toward
alternative measures and jailing.
With alternative measures, just exactly what is going to happen
now with that provision on the books to an impaired driver and one
that may even kill someone? If an impaired driver will receive nine
months now for killing someone, what are alternative measures
going to do? They argue that crime is a product of social conditions
and that the most effective remedy is for the state to intervene
through programs such as stepped up welfare payments and other
tax funded social experiments.
Thirty years after the first programs of Liberal criminology and
penology were introduced, violent crime has increased by 400 per
cent. I cannot see why impaired driving causing death should not
be considered a violent crime. Property crimes have increased by
500 per cent. And impaired drivers continue to maim and kill
innocent Canadians. For this reason, it is time to change the course
of our criminal justice system back toward a system that deters
criminal conduct through rigid sentencing guidelines for serious
crime. Impaired driving causing death certainly falls into this
category.
(1750)
If there is any doubt as to why this type of legislation is needed,
consider the lenient sentences handed down by soft on crime
judges. Let us look across the country. Regina v. Lewis, New
Brunswick 1992: The accused killed a woman after crossing the
centre line of the highway. The accused received a one-year
sentence. Regina v. McLean, Ontario 1990: The accused struck a
motorcycle and killed its rider. McLean received only a two-year
sentence. Regina v. Elkas, Ontario 1990: Elkas rear ended a car and
killed two people. Even though the accused had a lengthy criminal
record, the judge ordered only a four-year sentence.
Let us look at some other facts. In 1994, 87,838 people were
charged with impaired driving. Also in 1994, 1,414 people were
killed as a result of impaired driving, which is three times higher
than deaths resulting from murder. Ninety per cent of impaired
drivers are primarily responsible for fatal crashes in which they are
involved. Out of the 1,315 fatalities in 1993 in Ontario, 565 were
alcohol related. The statistics go on and on and on.
I will conclude by saying that every member in this House has an
opportunity to take some action on this type of crime. I would urge
them to vote in favour of this bill.
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak in favour of Bill C-201, which as we have
heard, is an amendment to section 255(3) of the Criminal Code
dealing with impaired drivers.
I do not want to go into the background. I know a lot has been
said on this. There has been a lot of talk of victims. I think
everyone in this room and probably people who are watching these
proceedings, we all know of someone or some family who has been
touched by this.
I will deal with a particular part of this bill. I have heard the
criticism that any minimum sentence fetters the discretion of the
4482
judiciary. As a general rule, I believe that is true. There is no
question that we do not want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary.
Judges have to deal with all the facts. They have to consider all
the evidence and then they will pass a sentence. That is why in our
system of laws, as a rule we do not impose a minimum sentence.
We impose a maximum. In the case of section 255 it is 14 years.
However, we are dealing with the exception here. There are always
exceptions. In law there is the old expression of exceptions to the
rule.
The hon. member has struck on one topic that has become a
problem in this country: Too many people are careening around on
the roads in an impaired state. According to the most recent
statistics, approximately 88,000 people were charged with
impaired driving. More important, more than 1,400 people in 1994
lost their lives as a result of impaired driving. To me the telling
statistic is that this is three times higher than the murder rate in
terms of victims.
The argument could be made that we do not have a minimum
sentence for murder so why would we want to impose one on
impaired driving? The answer is quite simple. We recognize that
murders are committed for various reasons. Some are premeditated
but more often they are crimes of passion; they are done on the spur
of the moment.
(1755 )
Impaired driving involves two steps. One is putting yourself into
the position of being impaired and that is not an act of passion. That
is not an act that happens on the spur of the moment. That is
something that in most cases people can control. I do acknowledge
there are people in our society who have addiction problems, but
people have some degree of choice in whether or not they will
drink. They ought to realize before they start drinking that they
have a vehicle somewhere in the neighbourhood.
Once people get into that impaired state they lose all judgment.
As a result we see there is a problem on the roads and highways in
this country. In 1994 it caused 1,400 people to be killed, not by a
crime of passion, not by somebody who got into a state on the spur
of the moment, but they were killed by someone who ought not to
have been behind the wheel. As I said earlier, we all know someone
who has personally been affected by an impaired driver.
There were 1,400 people in 1994, three times the number of
people who were murdered, acts of passion, being killed. It is a
problem. We do move to address problems in this House. We are
required and it is our duty to address problems. I commend the
member for moving to do it.
I want to deal with the whole question of minimum sentencing.
Whether seven years is appropriate or not, I am not certain.
Whether two years is appropriate or not, I am not certain. But this
is a situation that we have to deal with. This is a signal.
There are those who suggest that we could use the money we are
going to spend incarcerating people on an education campaign.
Education campaigns on this have been going provincially for
years. There are road checks, spot checks, the RIDE program in
Ontario. They have reduced it some. Every year there are various
ways of dealing with it. Some people are either immune to it or not
affected by the education programs, whichever. The end result is
we have to take a more extraordinary measure to tell people they
have a choice as to whether they are going to drink. We have to tell
people to think about it before they climb into that car if they have
had a drink because they are the risk on the road.
The time has arrived for this place to send this bill to committee
and let the committee decide whether seven years is too severe, or
maybe three years is more appropriate, perhaps one year. In
principle, without any equivocation I believe that we have to look
at a minimum sentence.
This is not saying to the judiciary that we want to fetter their
discretion. This is saying to the judiciary that we believe this is an
extraordinary circumstance and we believe we have to tell them
what the parameters are at the bottom and at the top rather than
saying just what the top is.
People in this country want this. This is not falling into a trap. It
is an exception to the rule. It is an exception to our normal rules of
jurisprudence but this is an exceptional problem and sometimes we
must take extraordinary measures.
(1800 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first on a question of timing, I am going to try very hard to leave a
little time for my colleague the member for Skeena to say a few
words. However if we fail, we would like to receive a one-minute
warning from you, Sir, at five minutes after the hour so that there
are five minutes left for the sponsor of this bill, the member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-201, an
act to amend the Criminal Code in the case of impaired driving
causing death. This is a bill that Canada really needs. It is long
overdue and it deserves the support of members from both sides of
the House.
I respectfully ask that all members dispense with partisan beliefs
in order to pass this bill. With this in mind for the remainder of my
intervention in this matter, I will refrain from any political
implications of any type. All I ask in return is for hon. colleagues
on both sides of the House to do the same so that we can avoid the
usual political sniping that seems to plague our deliberations.
4483
I firmly believe that the subject before us now transcends
political differences and should unite us in a common cause. This
is not a bill reflective of any given political party. It is a bill that
seeks only to protect Canadians. Nothing more and certainly
nothing less is asked for.
We have all heard the horror stories associated with driving
while impaired accidents. They are called DWI. The yearly carnage
which is altogether senseless and tragic must end. I do not delude
myself into believing that the passage of this bill will entirely stop
people from dying in DWI accidents. However, it will go a long
way to giving the family and friends of victims some semblance of
closure and the idea that justice was served.
This bill's greatest value may also be in its deterrent value to
new drivers. They are the ones who can be educated on the perils of
driving while impaired whereas those who are repeat offenders
would only be stopped by the punitive sanction of a minimum
seven-year sentence.
Organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ontario
Students Against Impaired Driving will say that the status quo in
sentencing can no longer be tolerated. They have seen too many
tragedies and buried too many loved ones.
We have all heard the stories. Each member in this House has
one and I will share yet another. His name was David Peters, a local
boy, 25 years of age who was somebody's son, brother and friend.
On June 24, 1989 he drove his motorcycle down Albion Road,
south from where we are. A car travelling at a high rate of speed
crossed the dividing line and hit him head on. He was killed
instantly and the driver, as well as the passengers in the other
vehicle, were taken to hospital with various injuries.
The driver was subsequently charged with impaired driving
causing death. In the end, however, he walked free and received no
custodial sentence. David Peters family and friends were crushed.
A life had been extinguished and they deserved at the very least to
see the perpetrator punished. Still, they resigned themselves to the
fact that this cruel scenario plays itself out time and time again
every single year.
It has been said before by the member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley but it deserves to be said again. Victims
should not pay the penalty for impaired driving. Here are some
government statistics that members heard a little of already to show
how much of a problem this has been.
A 1992 Ottawa Sun editorial pointed out that over 13,000 people
in that one year were killed or injured because someone drove
while impaired. In 1994, 1,414 people were killed as a result of
impaired driving. This is roughly three times the number of people
murdered in Canada but one could argue that it is essentially the
same thing. It is murder. Think about that number, 1,414 people.
If this Chamber were made four times larger, it still would not
hold all those people. In 1993, of the 1,315 people who died on
Ontario roads, 565 were alcohol related deaths. Sentencing for this
crime, especially if it involves a fatality, is too lenient. That is the
rationale behind this bill.
There is no ulterior motive save to bring justice to the families of
victims and the sentencing of offenders.
(1805 )
I would like to close on that note and again urge members to put
aside politics and vote, please, in support of this bill.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief
because I know my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley
would like to say a few words in closing the debate.
I know my friend from Prince George-Bulkley Valley brought
this bill forward in response to a very horrific accident which
happened in his riding. It had very clear implications for my riding
because a father and his two children were killed in an accident by
a drunk driver who had previously been charged twice for the same
offence.
This victim, Mr. Jim Ciccone, lived in Prince Rupert for many
years. The victims of this particular accident are not just Mr.
Ciccone's family, relatives and friends. It is the whole community
of Prince Rupert because he and his family were well established in
that community. There were very valuable members of the
community, well known and well regarded. I cannot communicate
how important this family was to the community.
In one thoughtless evening of drinking and driving three
members of that family were killed. The people of Prince Rupert
and I am sure the surviving members of the Ciccone family waited
to hear what would happen as a result of this. When the sentence
was announced it was three and a half years, just a little more than
one year for each life that was taken by an individual who had a
record of disregarding the law and driving while impaired.
What do we say to Mr. Ciccone's family when that kind of a
sentence is given? Is that what their lives were worth? The question
we have before us today is, are we in the House actually prepared to
do something about this or are we just going to continue to talk
about it while these kinds of horrific accidents take place and lives
are lost?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Prince
George-Bulkley Valley will now close the debate.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to close the debate on
the second reading stage of Bill C-201.
4484
I close the debate on Bill C-201 on behalf of all the victims
of drunk drivers and on behalf of the families of victims who have
died at the hands of a drunk driver and, unfortunately, on behalf
of people who will in the future become the victims of drunk
drivers.
Impaired driving is an issue which touches every single region of
our society. I would hazard to say that there is no one in the House
tonight who does not know of someone, a family, a relative who
has not been a victim of impaired driving. This issue touches
everyone.
Many provinces in Canada have taken positive steps to deal with
drunk driving. They have taken some very positive steps and we are
happy to see that. But there have been no steps made at the federal
level, no changes in the Criminal Code that would send a message
out to the people of Canada that the Parliament of Canada takes
impaired driving seriously, that reflects a zero tolerance toward
impaired driving. The time to take that step is now with the passing
of this bill.
Since introducing Bill C-201 in excess of 25,000 signatures have
come into this Parliament and to the office of the Minister of
Justice supporting this bill.
I did a walkabout on Sparks Street yesterday and talked to over
20 people. The media was there. We wanted to see what the person
in the street had to say about it. There was 100 per cent support for
this bill.
The Liberals know that this bill is supported by millions of
Canadians who are fed up with the weak manner in which drunk
drivers who kill are treated in the courts in this country.
This bill is also supported by numerous anti-drunk driving
associations across the country, most notably MADD Canada,
Canadian Students Against Impaired Driving, Ontario Students
Against Impaired Driving, the Nepean Association Against Drunk
Driving. This bill deserves the attention of the Liberal government.
As was pointed out earlier, and I am really saddened by the
action on behalf of the government, but yesterday, purposely in this
House, there was an attempt at circulating disinformation among
the Liberal members. That was talked about by those who spoke
earlier. The disinformation attempted to convey the message to
Liberal members that MADD Canada did not support this bill.
I am absolutely ashamed of the people responsible over there
who sent out this letter in a deliberate attempt to misinform the
members and sabotage this bill on the very eve of the vote. They
clearly knew, because we dealt with this in the spring, that MADD
Canada's association with 110,000 members across this country,
were 100 per cent in favour of supporting this bill. However,
because they knew that this bill has broad support among the
Liberal members, they attempted, through a disinformation
program, to sabotage this bill. I am ashamed of that and ashamed
for them.
Bill C-201 is not the magic bullet to eliminate impaired driving
but it is an important first step. Other measures need to be pursued
in order to stop this crime. Let us get this bill to the justice
committee so that witnesses can be called and this bill can be
discussed and receive the attention it deserves.
In closing, I would say to every Liberal member who is thinking
about voting against this bill, if there are any, to ask yourself the
question: Can you face the family of a victim of an impaired driver
and tell them why you will not support this bill? I ask them to ask
themselves that question.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, conforming to an order made
earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and a recorded
division deemed demanded and deferred until Tuesday, September
24, 1996 at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.
[Translation]
It being 6.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.)