CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 9480
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 9480
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9482
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9482
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9483
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9483
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 9484
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 9485
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9485
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9487
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 9487
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 9488
Bill C-92. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9489
Bill C-93. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9489
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 148; Nays, 36 9490
Bill C-66. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and amendment 9491
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 61;Nays, 113 9500
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 113; Nays, 61 9501
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 9502
Consideration resumed of motion, amendment andamendment to the amendment 9502
Amendment to the amendment negatived on division:Yeas, 65; Nays, 95 9502
Amendment agreed to on division: Yeas, 99; Nays, 48 9503
PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS
Bill C-247. Motion for second reading 9504
9477
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada. We will be led by the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Janko PeriG
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the people of Cambridge, I am delighted to congratulate
Cambridge lawyers Milena Protich and Robert Pettitt, recent
recipients of the Law Society of Upper Canada's 1997 Bicentennial
Award of Merit. To celebrate its 200th anniversary, the Law
Society of Upper Canada introduced this special award which
recognizes the incredible contribution lawyers make to their towns
and cities through community work. This award of merit was
bestowed on Ms. Protich and Mr. Pettitt for their powerful sense of
community giving and exemplary dedication to public service.
Again, I congratulate these two community spirited lawyers for
their ongoing voluntarism.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to call attention to the 40th anniversary of
the
Guide de Montréal-Nord, which was founded on January 1,
1957 by publicist Paul Trudeau and journalist Yves Ryan, the
present mayor of Montréal-Nord.
This weekly, delivered to every home in Montréal-Nord, is part
of the Groupe Transcontinental, which owns some 100 weeklies in
eastern Montreal and the lower Laurentians region. It has been
edited for some years now by Jean-Claude Banville, a man with a
great commitment to his community. I will be attending the gala
evening event which will mark the start of these celebrations on
May 23.
My congratulations to the management, the journalists, the
support staff and all of the readers of the Guide de Montréal-Nord,
a weekly with an essential role in the social, cultural and
community life of my riding of Bourassa.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two years ago a
young woman from my riding named Tammy Fee was brutally
assaulted, raped and threatened with death in her own home after
being stalked for weeks.
The man who perpetrated this vicious attack, Rick White, was
immediately apprehended, charged and convicted. Now, after only
two years of incarceration, he is scheduled for parole on May 23.
Tammy Fee is so afraid that this man is going to come after her
that she is seriously planning to change her name and identity and
relocate somewhere else in Canada so that Rick White cannot find
her. In other words, she fears for her life so much that she is going
underground to hide.
Surely this is appalling testimony to the lack of concern the
criminal justice system and this Parliament have shown for the
rights of victims in this country.
Tammy Fee is not just a victim of violence, she is now also a
victim of this justice minister's policies.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
VIA Rail is reducing the level of maintenance on railway passenger
cars assigned to service in northern Manitoba.
VIA bulletin C-100 makes it very clear that the company has
approved ``a reduction of the level of preventive maintenance'' on
cars used in northern Manitoba. These cars ``will not be allowed to
run in any other service''.
9478
The creation of such a second class passenger rail service in
northern Manitoba is ridiculous and unacceptable. The highest
standards are required, given the adverse track conditions, greater
distances and cold weather.
(1405)
Canadians do not want a two-tier passenger rail system any more
than they want a two-tier health care system. The NDP calls on the
Liberal government to tell VIA Rail to reverse this decision.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my riding
is being honoured by the visit of a municipal delegation from the
city of Rafah in the Gaza strip headed by Mayor Saied Zourab.
They are returning the visit to Rafah by Waterloo Mayor Brian
Turnbull and city official Paul Eichinger.
During their stay they are doing as our delegation did in Rafah:
observing the operation of water and landfill facilities, social
services and civic administration.
Through this exchange we can learn from one another ways of
improving life in our respective communities. The ties of
friendship that are established between our communities so far
apart will contribute to peace and understanding.
This exchange is jointly sponsored by the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian International
Development Agency. As Canadians we can be rightly proud of our
role in participation and in the promotion of understanding and
co-operation between ourselves and other countries on a
community to community basis.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to rise in the House today to praise the navy cadets and
seamanship drill teams of the Navy League Cadet Corps Glorious
in London, Ontario.
Both the navy and seamanship cadet drill teams won their area
drill competition and will be heading to the provincial competition
in London on April 26 and 27.
For the past six months these young people, aged 10 to 13, have
given up their Saturdays and Sundays to train for these
competitions. Through hard work and dedication they have made
their city and their corps proud.
At a time when we hear many negative things about young
people, it is encouraging to hear of young people with
commitment, fervour and honour for the country's military
heritage.
To the cadets and their officers, I offer my heartfelt
congratulations and best wishes as they prepare for the finals. I
encourage all of my colleagues in the House to do so also.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, great
universities are a reflection of the communities from which they
come, the faculty that teaches there and the students that attend
them.
As I have often said in the House, the University of Manitoba is
one of the greatest universities in the country, if not the world.
I rise today to honour two students, Claudia Hudspeth and Lisa
Smirl who were recently awarded Rhodes scholarships. Claudia
Hudspeth is a third year medical student who plans to pursue a
program in developmental studies while at Oxford. Lisa Smirl is
now a fourth year honour student in political studies and will study
international relations at Oxford.
I wish to congratulate the two of them, their families, the faculty
that taught them and the people of Manitoba.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, the last
Liberal Party of Canada publication,
Women Working to Win, leads
us to make the following remark.
What is the difference between men and women candidates for
the Liberal Party of Canada? For women, the package is as
important as the contents. For men, neither has any importance.
Who will go and pick up the kids from daycare during the
campaign? Nobody, because the Liberals have not created the
150,000 daycare places promised in 1993.
What will the theme song of the ideal Liberal female candidate
be? ``Do my laundry for me now, honey, and I promise to do yours
after the election''.
It is all very fine to laugh at these funny remarks, but it is sad,
and annoying most of all, to see the lack of confidence this party
has in the political potential of women, whom they consider as
either Superwoman or Miss Universe. With the year 2000 less than
1,000 days away, there is still work to be done on the situation of
women in Canada, particularly where the Liberal Party of Canada
is concerned.
9479
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Prince George, B.C. is the greatest hockey town in
Canada, maybe the whole world.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the Prince
George Cougars of the Western Hockey League. A second miracle
on ice is happening and it is happening in Prince George. It is not
the result of divine intervention but the result of the heart, the
determination and the drive of the players of the Prince George
Cougars as they have success after success in the Western Hockey
League's divisional playoffs.
After grabbing the last spot they have just smoked the other
teams as they passed through the second round of playoffs, heading
for the top.
Here's to the Cougars and the great hockey mecca of Prince
George. I want to congratulate the Cougars organization, the
players, the coaches and the fans of Prince George.
Look out, Memorial Cup, here we come.
* * *
(1410 )
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, four Canadians
won the Victoria Cross at Vimy, three on the first day of battle 80
years ago today.
Private William Milne crawled on his hands and knees to reach
an enemy gun and took the post out. He then located a machine gun
in the support line and put the enemy out of action again. He saved
the lives of many of his comrades, but he was killed shortly
thereafter.
Sergeant Ellis Sifton charged a machine gun post single-handed.
Met by a small party of enemy soldiers, he held them off until our
men had secured the spot. He was shot moments after his relief
arrived.
Captain Thain MacDowell of Lachute, Quebec, entered an
enemy dugout and tricked 77 Germans into surrendering by
pretending he had a large force behind him. This force consisted of
two soldiers. Wounded, he held the position in heavy shell fire for
five days.
Private John Pattison jumped from shell hole to shell hole to hurl
bombs at an enemy machine gun. He then rushed forward and
overpowered his opponents. Pattison was killed two months later.
These are the brave Canadians of Vimy. We will remember them
always.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to remind the House that April is the Canadian
Cancer Society's fundraising campaign month.
The mission of the Canadian Cancer Society is to eradicate
cancer and to enhance the quality of life of people living with
cancer. The society, in collaboration with its research affiliate, the
National Cancer Institute of Canada, achieves its mission through
research, education, patient services and advocacy of health public
policy. These efforts are supported by volunteers in communities
across Canada.
Cancer takes an enormous toll and most Canadians have been
touched by cancer in some way. 1997 will see an estimated 130,800
new cases of cancer and 60,700 deaths from cancer this year. The
most frequently diagnosed cancers will continue to be breast cancer
for women and prostate cancer for men. Lung cancer remains the
leading cause of cancer death for both sexes.
Please join me in wishing the Canadian Cancer Society and its
many volunteers success in fundraising activities during the April
campaign month.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy
Ridge. This battle, involving over 97,000 Canadian volunteers, was
a turning point in the 1914-18 war and left an indelible mark on
Canada's history.
This, the first battle in Canada's military history, took the lives
of over 11,000 of our valiant soldiers. However, it served to instill
in Canada the notions of pride and belonging previously unknown
to it.
English and French Canadians discovered what bound them
together as they offered up their youth and their courage in the
Battle of Vimy Ridge. Neither time nor the vagaries of politics will
change the love they discovered for their country on the other side
of the Atlantic.
On behalf of the people of Brome-Missisquoi, I thank them for
what they did for our country, Canada.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, fate is
always kind, especially when it is given a helping hand. Thus the
polling firm of Angus Reid released on Monday, a few weeks
before an election is called, the results of a survey on Canada's
9480
image abroad commissioned by the government and paid for out of
the public purse.
Over the course of the election, the Liberal Party of Canada will
present this idyllic portrait to screen out Canada's reality: 1.4
million children living below the poverty line, 5 million poor
people, 1.4 million unemployed, native populations living in
squalor, francophones outside Quebec being assimilated by the
majority at a phenomenal rate, and the people of Quebec living
under constitutional law that was never approved by their National
Assembly.
This is the Canada the Bloc Quebecois will describe to
Quebecers during the election campaign.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals say they are going to win the election on their record. Let
us see how their record has served farmers.
When farmers and Reform MPs proposed amendments to the
Canada Transportation Act, the CN privatization act and the bill
eliminating the Crow benefit, all which affect grain movement, the
Liberals said no.
These amendments would have built a more competitive rail
system which would deliver on time. Reform amendments would
have put in place a system of incentives and penalties to encourage
on time delivery and a final offer arbitration process to give grain
shippers some clout. The Liberals said no.
(1415)
As a result, little grain has been sold. Ships are waiting and
farmers are paying demurrage. Customers have been kept waiting
and Canada's reputation as an unreliable shipper is being
reinforced.
Sales lag as prices drop. Farmers are squeezed once again as they
go hat in hand to bankers to get a loan to seed this year's crop.
When Liberal candidates ask farmers for their vote, farmers should
say no.
_____________________________________________
9480
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, every day, we get distressing news from Zaire. Because of
the civil war, the country is now cut in two, and thousands of
refugees continue to flee as the troops advance. The Zairian state is
on the brink of chaos.
This morning, for instance, we heard that President Mobutu just
fired his newly appointed Prime Minister, Étienne Tshisekedi, and
appointed a general in his place. Martial law has been proclaimed
throughout the country. In other words, Africa's largest country is
on the brink of anarchy.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us the official position of
the Canadian government on the situation prevailing in Zaire?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very concerned about
the situation in Zaire today, as it has been in the past months and
years. The situation has deteriorated even further today.
Canada believes that there has to be a peaceful resolution to the
chaos which exists in Zaire at this time, a situation which puts in
jeopardy the security of so many Zaireans and others.
We are asking for all parties to sit down and discuss a peacefully
negotiated resolution to this. We believe that the Africans
themselves must find a solution to this problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this morning we heard that the White House was urging
President Mobutu to relinquish his post and go into exile. This
would be essential to guarantee stability in Zaire.
Does the Canadian government also intend to ask President
Mobutu to leave his post and his country for the sake of his people?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is not
asking the president to leave the country at this time.
Canada believes that Africans have to resolve their problems.
Obviously western imposed solutions in this area of the world have
not succeeded in the past. We are trying to urge not just the
Zaireans to resolve the problem but with the help of regional
Africans to resolve this very serious problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, everyone agrees that the country is on the brink of
anarchy, and every day at least 120 refugees are dying in the camps.
Still on the subject of Zaire, my question is directed to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Considering that a
number of Zairian nationals have been ordered deported to that
country and that this may happen very shortly, will the minister
9481
declare a moratorium and suspend deportations to Zaire,
considering the situation prevailing in that country?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official
Opposition must have missed the news. Deportations to Zaire have
been suspended.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs continued
to deny the democratic legitimacy of Quebec's National Assembly,
which was elected by the people of Quebec, anglophones and
francophones, and to require the agreement of certain pressure
groups before taking any action with respect to the linguistic school
boards issue.
Does the minister realize that, by setting himself up as the sole
judge of what constitutes a consensus in Quebec, he is confirming
that the 1982 Constitution did indeed undermine the authority of
Quebec's National Assembly and that it allows Ottawa to deny the
collective will of the people, as expressed by their government?
(1420)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is because of section 43 of the 1982
Constitution that it is even possible to make such an amendment
bilaterally.
Second, I am in complete agreement with the statement made by
my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, last February 12, and I quote: ``The
unanimity of the National Assembly in itself is not proof of
consensus, but it is certainly of more than passing interest''.
And he added: ``Consensus does not mean unanimity, I agree,
but it is obvious that the consensus must include the anglophone
community''.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would remind the minister that it is the Government of Quebec that
is responsible for finding a common ground with all stakeholders in
the education sector.
Why does the minister continue to refuse to recognize that the
only judge of what constitutes a consensus in Quebec is and must
be the National Assembly of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Because, Mr. Speaker, it happens that we too are elected
representatives of Quebec, because all elected representatives in
this House consider Quebec part of their country, and because this
is therefore a matter of concern to all Canadians and to all
Quebecers.
I believe I am defending a value of great importance to
Quebecers when I say that there should be no constitutional
amendment until we can be sure that there is a consensus that
includes the minority concerned, when the amendment concerns
the minority in question.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all week we have been listening to the justice minister try
to explain why he cannot enact the victims bill of rights. ``We have
already taken care of victims'', he said. ``It is a provincial
jurisdiction'', he said.
These excuses do not sit well with victims like Theresa McCuaig
or Debbie Mahaffy. They say the only thing that is holding up the
victims bill of rights is the minister's lack of political will.
Why will the justice minister not muster up the political will to
bring forward the victims bill of rights and let the House pass it
before the next election?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to the hon.
member opposite the government fully agrees that everything that
can be done should be done to improve the system to make it more
sensitive to the interests of victims.
It is for that very reason I voted in favour of the resolution to
send to the committee the suggestion that a committee of the House
look at a victims bill of rights. I voted in favour of that. Members
of the Reform Party on that committee know the committee has
been busy with work and is now addressing the issue.
I want to make it very clear that I am in full agreement with
anyone who says the system can be improved and should be
improved for the benefit of victims. That is what we are in business
to do.
The hon. member will find in this government people who are
prepared to make every effort to make the system more responsive
to the needs of victims.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the House will have noticed over the last three years that
this minister can handle academic questions on jurisprudence but
when the question calls for feeling and for practical action on
behalf of victims the minister does not have it.
If the justice minister were a man of action, if he believed in his
heart that victims need their rights respected, he would bring
forward the victims bill of rights for passage now before the next
federal election.
9482
When will the justice minister stop giving unfeeling, academic
answers to this question and bring forward a victims bill of rights
to the House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not mistake
dispassionate reasoned analysis for an unfeeling approach to these
issues.
The hon. member will find that this Minister of Justice more
than any other in the past has spent time with victims of crime, has
made it his business to meet with victims of crime, has listened
directly to their stories of tragedy, and as a result has acted to
improve the law of the country.
I have already made clear that in its dedication to improving the
system for victims the government takes a back seat to no one. We
are in favour of looking at a bill of rights. The committee is doing
that now at our request.
(1425)
We intend to build on what we have done through legislation so
far to improve the system of justice for the interests of victims of
crimes.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, victims do not want time with the minister. They want a
victims bill of rights.
A right is a right is a right. Victims have a right to be informed
about the judicial process. They have a right to have their voices
heard at all stages of that process and at parole hearings. They have
a right to know about potential plea bargains and other backroom
deals between lawyers. They have the right to be protected from
intimidation, harassment and interference.
Why does the justice minister not simply recognize these
fundamental rights now and bring forward a victims bill of rights
before the federal election?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will await the report of the
committee which is hard at work on that subject now.
Yesterday the committee heard moving and important testimony
from victims on what is needed. Let the committee report and then
the government will respond.
I will not allow the hon. member to challenge my commitment
or the commitment of the government to the interests of victims.
We sit in the House every day, most of us, and watch members of
the Reform Party shamelessly exploit the tragedy of others,
shamelessly exploit the sadness of victims. It is a sad and frankly a
disgusting spectacle.
We have shown by action over the last 3.5 years that we are
prepared to step up and act where necessary to improve through
legislation the justice system for victims.
Members opposite should bear in mind that we take a back seat
to no one when it comes to commitment to victims.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993, New Brunswick asked the Canadian government
to proceed with a constitutional amendment. At the time, the
official opposition in the New Brunswick legislature had voted
against the application. Nevertheless, the federal government
acceded to New Brunswick's request.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that, by
requesting legal or regulatory guarantees for Quebec's anglophone
minority, he is not treating Quebec the same as the other provinces,
as he knows perfectly well that the others would refuse to consider
such guarantees for the francophone minority? Does the minister
have the courage to rise in the House and admit that he is setting a
different standard for Quebec, yes or no?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be ashamed to rise in this
House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dion: In the case of New Brunswick, it was very obviously
an amendment that would expand the rights of the minority. All
parties in the provincial legislature were in favour: the Liberals, the
Conservatives and the NDP. The only party not in favour was the
COR, a party created especially to fight bilingualism. It is a sorry
sight to see the Leader of the Official Opposition rise in the House
as he did yesterday, and again today, to use COR as an argument in
this debate.
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, we do not talk about courage
or shame in this House. I would ask you not to use those words.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, apparently, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
continuing the work of his mentor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He keeps
trying to diminish the powers of the National Assembly by giving
the federal government the power to intervene directly in the case
of a reform made by Quebecers for Quebecers.
Does the minister agree that his approach, actions and words are
such that he is giving the anglophone minority in Quebec a right of
veto?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, did I understand correctly? Would Quebecers draft a
constitutional amendment affecting a minority on such serious
9483
issues as language, religion and schools without the support of that
minority? They would not.
(1430)
It is very sad to see the Bloc Quebecois make such statements on
behalf of Quebecers. Quebecers are tolerant. They will never go
along with this.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have been asking the Minister of Justice all week about victims
rights. He said that bills like Bill C-41, which introduced
conditional sentences, help victims.
Darren Ursel in my riding trapped a young single mother of two
in a car and took a racquetball racket handle to her after ripping her
clothes off. Luckily she escaped after 90 minutes of torture. The
judge said Ursel was tender at times and was sorry, so he gave
Ursel a two-year conditional sentence with no time in jail.
Does the justice minister think there is any time in Canada where
a female can be raped and sodomized and the perpetrator should
not receive time in prison?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is doing what he does
best, which is to take fact out of context, exploit the pain and
suffering of others, politicize personal and difficult events, and
wrap it in some sense of self-righteousness in an effort to persuade
others that he really cares.
Day after day the people of Canada must watch the spectacle of
this hon. member and his colleagues wringing the pain out of the
justice system and putting it in front of the House for cheap
political points. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself.
The Speaker: I would urge members to be very judicious in
their choice of words, as I mentioned a little earlier. Just go nice
and easy.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was a disgrace we heard in the House of Commons.
That young lady lives in my riding. The Minister of Justice tells
us he cares about victims. The victim of Darren Ursel was sexually
abused beyond anyone's understanding in this room and Darren
Ursel got no time in jail, thanks to the government's Bill C-41 and
conditional sentencing.
Again, does the Minister of Justice and the Liberal government
believe it acceptable that any female in Canada can be raped,
beaten, humiliated, and the criminal receive no time in jail? Is this
what he calls victims rights?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for as long as there has been a
justice system and for as long as we have had politics there have
been people like the hon. member who is prepared to do what he is
doing. The responsibility of those in government is to rise above
this sort of ploy, to remember what is in the public interest and to
remember what is responsible government.
The hon. member did not tell the House that the case in issue has
gone to the British Columbia Court of Appeal which will have an
opportunity to consider all the circumstances of that case, and it
ought not be discussed here.
I want the House to note that the hon. member and his colleagues
pretend to have a monopoly on concern about victims. The reality
is that they talk and we act. We have done more for victims over the
last 3.5 years through solid legislation than any other government
in history.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the exchanges that often follow questions and answers
during this period, the Minister of Human Resources Development
said that it was wrong that the Quebec government was getting
ready to take away rights, this was very definitely what he said,
from the anglo-Quebec minority.
I ask him what rights, in his view, the Government of Quebec is
getting ready to take away from the anglo-Quebec minority in the
reform of school boards? And if that is not what he is saying, then
he should tell us that the Quebec government is not taking any
rights away from the anglo-Quebec minority in its planned school
board reform, because it is one or the other.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat what my counterpart, Mr.
Brassard, said about the consensus having to include Quebec's
anglophone community.
With a bit of good will on both sides, if the Government of
Quebec made a few conciliatory gestures toward the anglophone
community, a consensus could undoubtedly be arrived at, and in
very short order this amendment could be supported, so that
Quebecers could organize their school system. That is the objective
of this government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, knowing that the Government of Quebec's plan respects
section 23 of the Constitution and that Quebec's anglophones have
many more rights than francophones living outside Quebec, some-
9484
thing the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is aware of, I
imagine, I ask him to tell us whether, in his view, anglo-Quebecers
are represented neither by the Parti Quebecois nor by the Liberal
Party of Quebec, and whether only the federal Liberals are in a
position to represent Quebecers? Is that his version, as it was for
Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the past?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when a constitutional amendment is being
contemplated that clearly concerns a minority, I think everyone
will agree that two fundamental questions must be asked.
First: Is the objective a valid one? As the century comes to a
close, the Government of Canada has said that, yes, linguistic
school boards are entirely valid.
Second: Is there sufficient support in the society in question,
including within the community? That is what must be determined,
and it is up to the Government of Quebec to do so because this is its
plan and its jurisdiction and it is the one in a position to make
amendments and provide assurances that will make it possible, in
effect, to modernize Quebec's school system. That is everyone's
objective.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Monday
I pointed out that the chairman of the Labour Relations Board had
been abusing his expense account. On Tuesday I pointed out that he
was in a conflict of interest by wining and dining executives of CN
and CP while adjudicating on an issue involving the railroads.
The government has referred the issue to the auditor general who
will not be able to report back to the House until the fall.
Does the Minister of Labour think that Mr. Weatherill's ethics
are higher than the government's, which is why he has not been
fired yet, or will the minister stand in the House now to tell us that
person is gone today?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from the first moment that we read the article in the
Citizen we acted and we asked the auditor general to look at those
claims.
We are also looking at whether there was any bias according to
what the member reported yesterday and what was in the
newspaper this morning before the government took any action.
We cannot only act on information that we see in the newspaper.
We have to make sure that all the facts are clear and checked and
then we act.
We are not a lynching party like the Reform would like to be. We
will take the necessary time to make sure all the facts are there and
are real. Then we will act.
(1440)
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we thought
this government was in charge; not waiting until it reads it in the
newspaper to find out what it should be doing.
The government has had this guy's expense accounts on its desk
for years and it has done nothing until it showed up in the
newspaper. Now it says it has to check it out. This guy has to go,
and I want to know if he is going today.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is interested and he really wants to
have this gentleman go, why does he not support Bill C-66,
probably this afternoon, so that we can have a new board as soon
possible?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Recently, Pierre Dagenais, the Director of the Société de
développement économique de la région de Sherbrooke,
condemned the federal government because its transition job fund
was available only to regions with more than 12 per cent
unemployment. It seems that the Sherbrooke region, with its 11.5
per cent unemployment rate, is not entitled to this form of federal
assistance.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to
us how the Sherbrooke region can be excluded from such a job
creation program, when it ranks fourth poorest of 25 major
Canadian cities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the question
from the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. The
transition job fund is, of course, one of the accomplishments of
which this government is very proud. It is part of the employment
insurance reform.
What we are doing is this: to assist people who are without jobs,
in areas where there is more than 12 per cent unemployment, we
help people create jobs. We are partners with other levels of
government or with the private sector who are prepared to create
jobs.
9485
We have put $300 million into this fund. More than 30 per cent
of it will, moreover, be invested in Quebec businesses in the years
to come in order to create jobs. I admit, the 12 per cent criterion
is merely an arbitrary figure. The main thing was to invest these
funds in regions with the greatest need. We chose 12 per cent as
the cut-off level.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister will be in Sherbrooke tomorrow. I
am anxious to hear what he will have to say in response to the
questions from stakeholders in the region who want to know why
the Sherbrooke region is disadvantaged by this program, and is
placed in direct competition with all of the cities in Canada, and of
course all of Quebec.
Is the Minister of Human Resources Development telling us with
this response that the Sherbrooke region ought to import
unemployed people from elsewhere in order to be eligible for some
consideration by this government?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member had
better stay on the opposition side; he would have a lot of trouble on
the government side, because with economic judgment like that,
one does not go very far.
The Eastern Townships are divided into two zones: in one,
unemployment exceeds 12 per cent, in the other, it does not. What I
would like to tell the hon. member is that the Quebec Minister of
Employment is so proud and enthusiastic about this program that
only yesterday she announced six job creation projects with which
my department will be involved in the coming weeks-for, as you
know, we hold consultations with the Government of Quebec for
each Government of Canada transition fund in Quebec, in order to
respect its priorities.
I would like to say that I shall be in Coaticook in the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead tomorrow, where I shall have the
pleasure of announcing an investment by my department of
$250,000 in the hon. member's region, which will make it possible
to create 100 jobs in the Eastern Townships.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of Canadians who worked in the United States and are
now retired were shocked to find over a year ago that the United
States government was deducting a 24.5 per cent non-refundable
tax from their social security cheques.
The Minister of Finance promised constituents in Windsor and
Essex country that he would fix this problem.
(1445 )
What has the minister done so these Canadians are not subject to
this American tax grab?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a question that has been of considerable concern to the
members from Windsor and to members in a great number of
communities right across Canada.
As the House knows, we have been deep in discussion with the
United States on this matter for some time now. When I was in the
Philippines this past weekend for a meeting of APEC I discussed
the issue again with my counterpart, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Robert Rubin.
I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister announced today that
Canadian and United States officials have today initialled an
agreement to modify the Canada-U.S. tax treaty.
Once it is formally signed and ratified, today's agreement will
bring much needed tax relief to thousands of Canadian seniors and
persons with disabilities. Because at modest levels of income
Canadian tax rates are much lower than the withholding tax the
U.S. could apply, thousands of Canadians-
Some hon. members: Order.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, this is something
that is of considerable importance to a lot of Canadians. The Bloc
has supported it. The Liberals have supported it. The least they can
do is be happy for a lot Canadians.
The Speaker: I know the Minister of Finance is going to wrap
up.
[Translation]
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, once the
agreement reached today has been formally signed and ratified,
Canadians will no longer be obliged to pay American income tax
on their social security benefits.
[English]
Let me be very clear. Under this agreement Canadians will not
be liable for U.S. social security tax payments.
I would like to thank the members of the House on this side and
on that side for the support they have given.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's health
police are taking away many Canadians' opportunities for natural
herbs and vitamins without any evidence of their harm.
I would like to ask the health minister if he could reverse the
onus so that his health police would have to produce evidence of
harm before they take away those products that Canadians want.
9486
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): No, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a typical flippant
answer from this minister, but let us talk about melatonin. This is a
natural hormone produced by the body. The health police have
decided it is to be banned in Canada. Here is the interesting part.
We can still buy it for personal use from the U.S. Strange, is it not?
(1450)
If melatonin is harmful, produce the evidence and it should be
banned. However, if there is no evidence, why not let well
informed consumers decide for themselves here in Canada?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
through you to the hon. member, if my answer appeared to be
flippant, I wish to apologize to the House and to the hon. member. I
clearly tried to say no.
I think the member has the answer backwards that I provided in
view of the suggestion by the hon. member. The onus is on the
importer and on the manufacturer of the product to prove to
Canadians and to the regulator beyond a shadow of a doubt that the
product to come on the market is safe.
That is the fundamental raison d'être of Health Canada, to ensure
that all products that come on the market are safe for Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In light of the statements by the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice the day before yesterday on Bill C-369
respecting casinos on international cruise ships on the St.
Lawrence, it seems that, once again, the Liberal government has
decided to go against the wishes of the Government of Quebec, the
municipalities in the Quebec City region, the Montreal region and
the Bloc Quebecois.
Nearly two months ago, the minister said he was discussing the
matter. Could he himself today confirm his refusal to amend the
Criminal Code to permit cruise ship gambling on the St. Lawrence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Consultations are continuing.
We have to consult everyone affected by the issue, that is, the
provinces, the industry and business people in order to establish the
merits of such a program. We have a consultation document that we
will soon be releasing and we intend to look at the whole issue in
order to determine the best approach to take.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the Bloc Quebecois succeeds in
introducing a bill to amend the Criminal Code, does the minister
not recognize that, with the resources available to him in his
department-hundreds of lawyers and tens of millions of
dollars-he should have tabled amendments, or at least, revealed
his intentions in this matter. What are his intentions?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know of the hon. member's
interest in this subject. There are many members on this side of the
House who are just as interested who see in cruise ship gambling
the opportunity for employment and for economic activity in a
variety of places throughout Canada.
I want to assure the hon. member and all members of the House
that we are looking seriously at the prospect. We have a
consultation document that is about to be published to go to the
industry, to the governments involved and to other stakeholders to
see their views.
We believe, unlike the Reform Party, that we should take into
account the views of others before acting. That is exactly what we
are going to do.
I assure the member that we are treating it seriously and I will
keep him abreast of developments as consultations go forward.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill
C-216, a private member's bill to outlaw negative option billing,
has now completed study in the other place and will be reported
back to this House shortly.
As it is the heritage minister's area of responsibility, could she
advise the House whether she is in favour of this bill, yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The United Way in Winnipeg released a study the other day
which shows the incredible pressure that social agencies are under
as a result of government cutbacks at various levels and the
deteriorating social conditions that are also a result of many of
these government cutbacks.
9487
Does the Minister of Finance not realize the incredible position
these various social agencies are being put in by government
cutbacks and the incredible burden they are having to bear? Does
he really think that these voluntary and in many cases charitable
organizations, whether churches or other groups, can pick up the
slack which is being created by government cutbacks? They
cannot. What does the government intend to do about this very
disturbing fact?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no doubt that as a result of government cutbacks at all
levels, federal, provincial and even municipal budgets, social or
voluntary agencies have had to pick up a lot of the slack. One
certainly understands the pressure they are under.
In the last budget, in order to enable them to raise money, we
provided a number of tax credits so that they would be able to bear
a bit more of the burden.
Nonetheless, I think the member's question is very much to the
point. That is why right from the very beginning when we
proceeded to do the necessary clean-up of the nation's finances we
approached it in as humane a way as possible. In other words, we
left as much money in the hands of those government departments
that were helping people. The Minister of Human Resources
Development has brought in a number of programs to help poorer
children, and that is what the whole new child tax benefit is all
about.
I can assure the hon. member that this government will continue
to put its money where the greatest impact will be felt, the most
vulnerable in our society.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
all know that pure research is the foundation of the innovation
necessary for knowledge based economic activity, the kind of
activity we want here in Canada. We also know that pure research
takes place in laboratories.
What is the Minister of Industry doing to address the serious
problem of deterioration in our university laboratories?
Hon. John Manley (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.): Mr.
Speaker, going into this year's budget I would have said that one
priority we had for investing in science and technology which, as
the question indicates, is crucial to building a knowledge based
economy in the 21st century is the renewal of the networks of
centres of excellence, a unique Canadian program that has
benefited universities in every province and region of Canada. That
program was not only renewed but it was made a permanent
program at over $47 million a year.
Another thing we had to address was the deteriorating conditions
in research infrastructure in our universities, a responsibility
primarily of the provincial governments. We have created the
Canada Foundation for Innovation, the largest such foundation in
Canada and one of the 10 largest in the world, with $800 million of
federal government money to invest in a partnership basis in the
building and restoration of R and D infrastructure which will
ensure that Canada not only holds and attracts the best researchers
but builds the kind of economic growth that will create jobs in the
21st century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my one and only question is directed to the Minister of
Transport.
Yesterday, in his answer to a question asked by the Bloc
Quebecois, the Minister of Transport said, and I quote:
The decision made by the local authority in Toronto, the Greater Toronto Airport
Authority, to purchase the T-3 terminal was its decision. It will be funding that
through a bond issue. This is not a government decision but one of the authority
itself.
However, on March 25, a cabinet decision stated that the
Minister of Transport wished to provide financial assistance to the
Greater Toronto Airport Authority for carrying out a number of
projects designed to expand the airport's capacity.
Who is telling the truth? The minister in his answer yesterday or
the cabinet decision made on March 25?
(1500 )
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the response I gave to the hon. member yesterday was
entirely accurate. There is an agreement between the T-3
consortium and the Greater Toronto Airport Authority to purchase
the T-3 building and ancillary services for a total of $719 million.
That was a decision made by the parties.
If I could quote Mr. Turpen, the chief executive officer of the
Greater Toronto Airport Authority: ``Purely and simply, this was
my deal and this was a deal I wanted badly. The government was
not involved, didn't encourage, didn't cheer lead''. That was a
quote from the Globe and Mail, April 2, 1997.
The hon. member raised another matter, the forgone rent over the
next nine years for the Toronto authority. We have put that in place,
in keeping with the policy for all the other local airport authorities
which was set up by the previous government. Therefore, we put it
in to assist them in rebuilding the two firehalls and creating a new
9488
$40 million de-icing facility, completing the second north-south
runway, the cross wind runway-
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister and his department knew or should have known
that the Digby scallop fleet could not possibly survive on the
scallop beds in the Bay of Fundy alone. Corralling the inshore fleet
into this confined area would result in over harvesting and depleted
scallop beds. Atlantic groundfish, Pacific salmon and now
scallops-DFO's management record is a litany of failure.
Will the minister take immediate steps to ensure that a proper
management plan is put in place which will provide a long term,
sustainable fishery for the inshore scallop fleet.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there are two scallop fleets in the area of which he
talks in the Bay of Fundy, inshore and offshore.
An hon. member: He would know them well.
Mr. Mifflin: Yes, he would know them well. In 1986 an
arrangement was made and negotiated between these two fleets
that a line would be drawn from Yarmouth across the Bay of Fundy.
Each fleet would fish inside or outside the line, produce their own
conservation harvesting plan and their own fleet rationalization,
which was basically to have the right number of resources to match
the fish that are there and the boats.
This was actually held by the federal court 10 years later, last
year, to be legitimate when the inshore made an application to fish
offshore.
He spoke about the management plan. Last year, as a result of the
condition of the inshore fishermen, the management plan made an
allocation of 100 tonnes outside the line for inshore scallop fishery
on the basis that it was a one-time agreement and that the two fleets
would get together and sort it out in the future.
As we speak, the inshore scallop advisory committee is meeting
this week with a hope of perhaps meeting with the offshore
fishermen to come up with a plan that has always been good and
will continue to be good in the future.
* * *
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of order
is with respect to an answer given by the Minister of Finance to a
question.
I draw your attention to citations 348 to 352 of Beauchesne
which has to do with statements by ministers. What he gave was
primarily a statement by a minister and should have been so
directed.
Second, I draw to your attention citation 408 of Beauchesne in
which it states explicitly that questions should not require a lengthy
and detailed answer. Answers to questions should be as brief as
possible. Citation 410 states: ``Time is scarce'' and ``Brevity both
in questions and answers is of great importance''.
(1505)
It is quite obvious that the member asking the question and the
minister had communicated beforehand. This could have been done
in another venue and I object strongly to this.
The Speaker: Your objection is noted. I try as best I can in
question period to keep both the questions and the answers to a
reasonable length of time. I am sure all hon. members will want to
do that in the future.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my point of
order is somewhat similar to the point of order by the member for
Elk Island.
My reference is to Beauchesne citations 348 to 350 as well.
There is no opportunity during question period for either a House
leader or a member of this assembly to stand on a point of order or
raise a question at the point of time when what we felt was a
violation of principle occurred. That was very difficult. We were in
your hands at that point in time. We felt that the Minister of
Finance may have had a very important answer.
I know some of my colleagues reacted very strenuously and we
are not in character when doing that kind of thing. But under the
circumstances there was no other way that we could react to the
situation than to-
The Speaker: What am I going to say, that the answer was too
short? It was not. It got away and that is my fault. It was your
Speaker's fault. I am going to try to keep those questions and the
answers a bit shorter.
I would remind all hon. members that the question is the
question, whatever way you want to put it. As long as it is in order,
of course we are going to let the minister answer. But I would ask
you again, please, when you are putting the question, in the
preamble and in the question itself and also in the giving of the
answer that you give some consideration to the length of the
questions and the answers and I will try to be more vigilant. Today
it got away from me and that is the way it is. I am sorry.
9489
9489
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
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 34 petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in
both official languages, the fifth report of the Canadian NATO
Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the joint
meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly's Defence, Security,
Economic and Political Committees held in Brussels, Belgium,
February 16 to 18, 1997.
Mr. Speaker, I have another report. Pursuant to Standing Order
34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the
fourth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association
which represented Canada at the 1996 annual session of the North
Atlantic Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians held in Paris,
France, November 17 to 21, 1996.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 24,
1996, your committee has considered Bill C-205, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship
respecting a crime) and your committee has agreed to report it with
amendments.
* * *
(1510 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax
Act, the Income Tax Application Rules and another act related to
the Income Tax Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (for Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 1997.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Peters: I wish to advise the House that the government
intends to move that both of the bills just introduced be referred to
committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order
73(1).
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of Day.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I thought I heard two motions by the minister. First
he said that the government was going to move that the two bills
that have just been introduced be referred to committee before
second reading. Then he went into the second motion which you
have just read. Can you give us some clarification on the
disposition of the first motion that he read?
(1515)
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert has raised
the question of what happened to the first motion put by the
minister. The minister was just expressing an intent to refer the bill
to committee. If I heard correctly it was not a motion.
The second point raised by the member by implication was why
he was raising it here rather than as some other matter under the
daily routine. I am informed that this can be done. It has been done
in the past under all sorts of rubrics including the tabling of
documents and statements by ministers. There is no difficulty with
that.
Mr. Williams: It is not often that I am confused but I am
confused now. I recall the minister's words quite clearly. He moved
that the two bills be referred to committee under a section of the
standing orders. I want to ask a question of clarification.
Were the words of the minister an actual motion, or was he just
saying that under the standing orders the bill would be
automatically referred? I just did not quite understand. Perhaps,
Mr. Speaker, you could clarify that for me.
The Deputy Speaker: When the minister stood after the other
motions were dealt with, he indicated he had an intent to refer them
to the committee. Therefore it was not a second motion. It was a
notice of motion.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it was my understanding the wording that the hon.
member from the government side used was that he moved
9490
seconded by, which made it in the form of a motion whether
appropriate or not.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is essentially repeating
the point made by his colleague. If the member does not approve of
the matter he is certainly at liberty to vote against it.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1555)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 290)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Byrne
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Duceppe
Dupuy
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marchand
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Zed -148
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Gouk
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-36
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bonin
Caccia
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Gaffney
Harvard
Hopkins
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Murphy
O'Reilly
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
9491
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
_____________________________________________
9491
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1600)
[English]
The House resumed from March 11 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-66, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I)
and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and
passed; and of the amendment.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
like to know if my right as a member of Parliament to present
petitions has been taken away from me today?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will realize that the
effect of the vote is that petitions are not heard today.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak on Bill C-66 again, a revision to part I of the
Canada Labour Code.
Certainly revisions to the Canada Labour Code are past due
because there have not been any revisions to this part of the code in
the last 20 years. It makes one wonder why the government is in
such a hurry where this bill is concerned.
For the record I would like to clarify some allegations put
forward by the Minister of Labour in answer to my colleague from
St. Albert earlier today in question period.
When my colleague asked the minister why he was not removing
the chairman of the CLRB for his alleged extravagances on his
expense account, the minister asked why the Reform Party was not
co-operating and was filibustering this bill. I believe the record
should be set straight.
When this bill was brought to the House, the government asked
if the Reform Party would concur to send it straight to committee
before second reading. The Reform Party said it would be glad to
oblige. We went directly to committee, heard witnesses and applied
for some witnesses. We did not get every witness we would have
liked but we understood that it went with the territory of being the
third party in the House. However, we said that we would be
constructive rather than obstructive, but the minister says we were
filibustering.
Yesterday the minister alleged that we were actually
filibustering. I cannot understand how in the world agreeing on our
part to go directly to committee before second reading would be
filibustering. That is rather a leap of logic.
When the bill came back to the House at report stage, the chief
government whip asked if I would agree to extending the hours on
this bill. I asked him how long that extension would be. He said that
it would not be very long and so I and my party agreed. Again, how
can this possibly be construed as filibustering the minister's bill?
This is the second time we have bent over backwards to
accommodate the minister. Filibustering, my foot.
Accommodation.
The record will show that six members of the Reform Party have
spoken to this bill. This is an extremely important bill particularly
to western Canadians and to grain farmers in our area. It is not
exclusive to grain farmers but it is definitely an area in which grain
farmers are affected. Six of our members to this date have spoken
to this bill. This is hardly a filibuster, even by Liberal standards.
I find the comments by the minister irresponsible and flippant.
The comments by the minister have been extremely irrational. How
can the minister say they read all about this in the newspaper and
now they are going to check it out? Correct me if I am wrong but is
it not the minister's responsibility to check these things out on an
ongoing basis? Or does he not monitor the operations of his
department and the boards that operate in that purview?
(1605)
I certainly hope Canadians are paying attention today, the same
Canadians who watched the irresponsible display from the minister
during question period. I believe I have done my part to set the
record straight.
The bill we are talking about has no provisions for final offer
selection arbitration. True, it does have some provision for loading
the grain products that reach the coast on to the ships once they are
in the terminal elevator, but there is no dispute settlement
mechanism. If there is a work stoppage, whether a strike or a
lockout, in the grain handling system anywhere between the farm
gate and the terminal in the next week or so, the government's
reaction will be to enact back to work legislation. Part of that back
to work legislation would be the use of final offer selection
arbitration to bring the two sides together to solve the impasse.
If this tool is good enough to use in an emergency, on an ad hoc,
piecemeal basis, which seems to be the way the government likes
to run all its operations, why would it not be a good tool to have in
place at all times?
An hon. member: It makes too much sense.
Mr. Johnston: Far too much sense. With this bill the
government and the minister have tried to placate the labour
movement and the labour representatives in the Bloc and the NDP
by bringing in back door anti-replacement worker legislation. It is
neither fish nor fowl. It does not allow replacement workers and it
does not
9492
disallow replacement workers. It left to the discretion of the board;
discretionary powers again.
Every piece of legislation we have seen in the House allows the
minister and the governor in council discretionary powers. Here is
a piece of legislation that allows the Canadian industrial relations
board the discretionary power to rule whether replacement workers
are an undermining factor to the existence of the union or whether
they will be allowed and in what situations. Here we have another
piecemeal situation where neither labour nor management has a
clear cut definition of the status on replacement workers.
It has been pointed out many times before that we are talking
about roughly 700,000 employees who come under the jurisdiction
of the federal government, people in the transportation,
telecommunications and banking industries primarily.
It should be noted that this is not legislation that covers all other
organized labour in Canada. There are roughly 700,000 people
employed in Canada who will be affected by this bill.
Final offer selection arbitration is the one tool that we feel is
very useful to both management and labour. It can be equally used.
I have explained the mechanism in the House before but I do not
mind doing it one more time for clarity. Anything this good bears
repetition.
(1610)
The bargaining process would go on as usual. We all know that
in the transportation sector, in particular the railroads, the grain
handling industry and the longshoring industry, labour and
management do not seem to have much incentive to come to an
agreement expediently. I say that because if there is an impasse
both labour and management seem to take the position that it does
not really matter how earnestly they bargain because if they come
to an impasse the government will legislate them back to work. The
stoppage, whether a strike or a lockout, will be of short duration.
Where is the incentive for them to bargain in earnest?
I believe final offer selection arbitration would encourage them
to go through the bargaining process. If they could not find a
solution the onus would be on them to name a mutually agreed
upon arbitrator, to list the areas in which they agree, to list the areas
still in dispute and to present their final positions on those items
still in dispute to the arbitrator for a decision. The arbitrator would
not say that these are the two positions and he will make his
judgment somewhere in the centre. His obligation would be to take
all of one position or all of the other position; final offer selection.
That is an incentive. That is the incentive for them to say they do
not really want to use an arbitrator and get down to brass tacks and
settle this thing themselves.
I am not singling out labour and I am not singling out
management as being at fault. We have seen as many lockouts
disrupt grain shipments as we have seen strikes disrupt the grain
industry. This is not simply a plea for the farmers in my area. We
are talking about a lot of other goods like potash, coal and even iron
ore.
Speaking strictly for the farmers, not only is it an economic
hardship to the farmers but it is an economic hardship to the entire
country. When we cannot ship our grain to the west coast, get it on
the ship and get it to our customers, not only are the farmers the
losers but Canadians in general are the losers.
I talked to one of our colleagues the other day who said that
while in China they were asked if Canada still produced grain. This
was a shocking question. Of course we produce grain. We do not
produce enormous quantities but we produce excellent quality
grain in malting varieties, milling varieties, pasta varieties; all
kinds of grains and oilseeds. The retort was ``you would never
know it because nobody comes over here to sell the stuff to us''.
Canada has a lot of work to do as far as its reputation as an
international reliable supplier of a quality product. We have no
problem whatsoever with the production of grain. We could
produce more grain if there were a market for it. Profit is not a
four-letter word. Profit is what among other things keeps this place
operating. It is what greases the wheels of industry. It is what puts
people to work. It is what pays taxes.
(1615)
If we cannot continue to be a reliable supplier of products, if our
reputation is damaged to the point that buyers of grain in China
think that Canada no longer supplies the stuff, our credibility as an
international supplier is severely damaged. It is high time we did
something about it.
Bill C-66 has provided us with one study after another. We had
the west coast ports inquiry. We had the Sims report. I was
fortunate to make presentations to both those task forces. I
recommended to the Sims inquiry that the final offer selection
arbitration be included in the recommendations to be included in
the bill. During the Sims inquiry hearings I suggested that the
10-year appointment of the chairman of the CLRB was too long
and should be reduced to five years. Perhaps, as it is coming to
light, even five years is too long.
I return to my original point. I am appalled at the position the
minister takes when he is questioned by my colleague with regard
to what he will do about the chairman of the CLRB and his
ridiculous expense accounts.
The most recent west coast ports strike in 1994 was estimated to
cost around $125 million just in port costs. The indirect costs were
said to be in excess of $250 million. Perhaps we have threatened as
much as a half a billion dollars in future grain sales.
9493
I have quite forcefully made the point that harmonious labour
relations in Canada are certainly important. The bill does not do
a lot to improve labour relations in Canada. It might do something
to improve relations between the government and the Bloc
Quebecois. I am not sure of that but it might. I do not think it
gives labour and management the tools they need to resolve their
differences.
Perhaps I should make it perfectly clear that we are not
advocating government interference should be a factor in settling
labour disputes.
(1620)
We are making the point that final offer selection arbitration
used to the ultimate would be not used at all. In other words, if
labour and management did not reach an agreement among
ourselves, they would say final offer selection is what the
legislation obliges them to do. Therefore the onus would be
entirely on us and agreement would be achieved between the two
parties. That is always the best deal. A negotiated deal is always
better than an imposed deal. The ultimate winners in this entire
scenario would be the Canadian people.
We are considering the bill at a time when the Canadian
economy can ill afford any more blows. We are considering it at a
time when there is a high unemployment rate. Unemployment has
been in the double digit range for the last 75 or 76 months. It is
almost impossible to compare today's situation with what it was in
the 1930s. I hope that we never get to that situation again. What is
comparable is that at no other time in Canada's history other than
the great depression in the thirties did unemployment remain at
such unacceptably high levels for such a long period of time.
Anything this place can do to ensure that labour and
management are a bit more harmonious or a lot more harmonious
would certainly be welcome in the Canadian economy.
I see that my time is quickly drawing to close. I appreciate the
opportunity of speaking once again to this important piece of
legislation. It has a couple of redeeming factors, but it would have
been nice if more members of my caucus could have had an
opportunity to express their views.
I conclude by saying once more the co-operation we have shown
to the minister in the processing of the bill can hardly be construed
as filibustering.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague. He
brought forward his ideas on how labour disruptions could occur
much less often and be solved much more quickly. I agree with his
ideas about final offer arbitration.
As I was listening to his speech I recalled a couple of years ago
in the House at the time of the last major work disruption in grain
shipments on the prairies. In my riding and province farming or
agriculture is huge. It is the biggest industry in Moose Jaw-Lake
Centre.
In thinking back to how the government handled the disruption
at that time, I remember the government bringing in back to work
legislation which the House was called back on a Sunday to pass.
Since then I have been on radio shows a couple of times with the
member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who accused the Reform Party
of not caring about western farmers because we did not show up on
a Sunday to support the back to work legislation.
(1625 )
First, we supported the legislation because it was the best thing
we had at that time.
Second, we asked for pre-emptive legislation prior to the strike
so that it could not happen. Of course the government in its wisdom
saw fit not to do it.
Third, the member for Lethbridge put forward a private
member's bill on final offer arbitration, which was not passed,
shortly before the strike.
On three occasions the government had the opportunity to stop a
major labour disruption but saw fit to do nothing and to let it run its
course.
There are something like 27 unions between the farm gate and
the ports. Any one of the unions or any one of the management
companies could either strike or lock out its workers. Something
like 54 organizations could disrupt grain movement from
Saskatchewan, from the farm gate to the ports. It is unacceptable
that 54 groups could tie up the whole agriculture industry. When
the big boys play, the farmers pay. That always happens.
Is my colleague convinced that final offer arbitration would
solve and put an end to these labour disruptions in the future?
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's
question.
I do not know that any legislation could be a 100 per cent cure.
There may still be some margin for error. However this will go a
long way to settle the disputes my colleague talked about.
To put it in the farming vernacular, owners of livestock are
obliged to keep them off the road so the public can travel without
fear of running into livestock. They are supposed to use reasonable
care and precautions to keep livestock from getting on to public
highways. They put up fences which 99 per cent of the time keep
the livestock in. There is no way under the sun they can ensure
livestock will be in all the time. There is no way under the sun they
can satisfy all demands of labour and management at all times.
Labour and management would be far better served by final offer
selection arbitration than by back to work legislation after a work
disruption takes place. That is basically equivalent, to use the farm
9494
analogy again, to maintaining a proper fence or chasing livestock
up and down the road trying to get them back in.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting the government claims Reform was not
here on that weekend to support its back to work legislation. I was
here. I spoke for the full time I was allotted by the government.
Many of my colleagues were here as well, notwithstanding the fact
that we came from the farthest part of this great country to make
our speeches. It was a very catastrophic time for a lot of people: for
the rail companies, the farmers, the grain people and everyone else.
The member from Moose Jaw previously questioned my
colleague. He pointed out that we tried to bring in pre-emptive
legislation which would have prevented the strike but the
government refused to it. We tried to get something done when CP
Rail went on strike. Again the government did not do anything. It
did not do anything until CN Rail went on strike.
There is a well substantiated rumour that the government was
intentionally waiting until CN went on strike so that it could bring
in legislation with a different type of arbitrated settlement and
impose the kind of settlement that would enhance the viability of
selling CN Rail so the government could look good. If something
like final offer selection arbitration had been brought in, the
government would have lost an opportunity.
(1630)
Has the hon. member heard such rumours? Does he put any stock
in them? Would he like to see something put in place to protect the
workers of the rail companies with grain handling, all the people
who are involved in such a nefarious plot by this government?
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, certainly my learned colleague, the
transportation critic, has had his ear to the ground. Far be it from
me to impugn the motives of the government but at the same time, I
take great stock in the advice of my colleague, the transportation
critic.
He asked specifically whether I would like to see protection in
place for the workers. Absolutely. Protection is of ultimate
importance. Workers have rights and they should have protection
against such alleged manipulation for the sake of creating a certain
political climate or saleability or non-saleability.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to speak to Bill C-66 and put a few things straight on the record.
First, as members may recall, the Minister of Labour at least
twice this week has accused the Reform Party of filibustering this
bill. I do not know whether it is because spring is coming or an
election is coming, but the accusation by the government that
Reformers are filibustering the bill is absolutely false and cannot
be justified under any circumstances whatsoever.
This bill has been around for a long time. The hours of the House
were extended one day so that the bill could be debated. The
minister twists the record, falsifies the record of the Reform Party
which has been willing to work with the government to ensure that
legislation is passed.
The House did not start until two o'clock this afternoon. We have
a short day on Wednesdays because the House is only open in the
afternoon but under the House rules. This is deemed to be a whole
day's debate even though it is only an afternoon's debate.
The government, for about the 38th or 39th time or whatever
number of times it is, introduced time allocation and shut down
debate on the bill. Not only that, but it had the gall to bypass part of
routine proceedings so that the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley could not present her petitions.
Canadians cannot be heard. Private Members' Business, if there
was any to be presented, was bypassed so that other members, apart
from government members, could not be heard.
The minister of state for financial institutions got his motions on
the books. He was able to refer his ways and means motions to
committee. From that point on, when it came to the opportunity for
the rest of the members, indeed the rest of the people in the country,
to be heard the Liberals moved to government orders of the day,
wasting time and preventing the Reform Party and the other parties
from debating this bill.
Where are they? They are sitting quietly hoping that we will
walk away and let this issue die. Then they can get on with the
business and get it through the House. They can be off to an
election a year and a half before they are supposed to go.
These are rather unusual times. The Minister of Labour is
making these types of accusations. Today during question period,
the Minister of Finance was up making a ministerial statement,
taking away time from question period.
(1635 )
The Prime Minister is in Washington visiting our neighbours.
When he was asked a question on illegal drugs, he thought it was
good for trade. He has to pay attention. Not only should he be
paying attention down there, he should start paying attention to
what is going on in here. If he is out talking to the people around
the country pretty soon at election time, he may find out what he
thinks he is going to hear is going to be totally different to what he
actually will hear on election day.
Bill C-66 deals with the labour code and the Canada Labour
Relations Board. I have been having a debate with the Minister of
9495
Labour during question period about the chairman of that board
who I have said, on more than two occasions in the House this
week, has to go. The Minister of Labour has said we should pass
Bill C-66 in order for him to do his job and get rid of this fellow as
the chairman of the board.
I cannot imagine why the minister would want to wait until Bill
C-66 is passed. As we know, it is going to pass today because time
allocation states ``that is it, it is a done deal, stop, no more, vote''.
Since the Liberals have a majority it is a done deal.
I do not know what his excuse is going to be tomorrow when Bill
C-66 is passed, because they have used the government majority,
and Mr. Ted Weatherill is still chairman of the board. The minister
will not be able to stand up in this House and tell us: ``If we pass
Bill C-66 I will be able to get rid of the chairman''. By that time
Bill C-66 will be passed.
I was reading in the Ottawa Citizen today on the front page
``Weatherill accused of bias in dispute. Reform charge comes on
top of expenses saga''. As members know, this person who has
gone into the public trough in excess. He is in over his head. He has
jumped in all the way. He is swimming in it. This is a guy who
spent $148,000 wining and dining around the world the last eight
years. This is a guy who spent $440,000 of Canadians' money on
an expense account because he did not really have to account for it.
He was given the privilege of having an open-ended expense
account and said: ``Boy, am I going to have a good time''. He did
have a good time: $733 dinners for two in Paris. That is more than
the average family spends on groceries and more than many
Canadians earn in a month. That person has the gall to think that he
can justify spending that kind of money on dinner for two because
he happens to meet somebody who he is impressed by, some
professor from the Sorbonne University in Paris. Well, see if I am
impressed. I am not.
This guy is the chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations
Board. Members may find a hint of contempt in my voice when I
talk about this gentleman because the Canada Labour Relations
Board is a quasi-judicial body. It is governed by the rules of the
courts. Mr. Speaker, you were a lawyer in a past life and you know
about the courts. The rules of the courts state that you are impartial.
Not only are you impartial but you must be seen as being impartial.
Let me quote from page A2 of today's Ottawa Citizen:
At least three members of the board, including the chairman, must be present at
hearings. The chairman is, in effect, the chief judge of any dispute.
Although he is not called a judge, the chairman, because of the powers conferred
upon him, is bound by judicial protocol, including the bias rule.
I thought this was an intelligent fellow. The article goes on to
state:
An arbitrator or a board chair or a judge in the middle of a case should never, ever
go out with one of the parties without the other being there.
This was said by Mr. Levitt. We are not talking about something
that is controversial. It is very basic. It is not controversial and it is
that obvious.
``Going out for dinner with one side and not the other isn't right,'' said Mr. Levitt.
``Bias, in the judicial context, is not just a fact of bias-it is a reasonable
apprehension of bias.''
And a reasonable apprehension of bias would occur, he added, even if a
quasi-judicial board chair takes out one side of a dispute on one occasion and
follows it up the very next day with a meeting with the other side.
(1640)
Have you ever heard of a judge doing something like that,Mr. Speaker? I have not.
He continues: ``Even that is totally improper''. Reading on, we
find out that:
Mr. Weatherill presided over the hearings and deliberations. During that period he
held the following meetings in Montreal:
This was a dispute between CN and CP on one hand and the
unions on the other. I am going to start quoting again:
Nov. 7, 1990, Mr. Weatherill and CN's senior counsel John Coleman share a $213
dinner.
Feb. 7, 1991, Mr. Weatherill attends a reception for Don Fraleigh, CN's assistance
vice-president, human resources.
Feb. 21, 1991, Mr. Weatherill and CP vice-president Robert Colosimo share a
$227 dinner.
May 22, 1991, Mr. Weatherill shares a $164 lunch with CN's senior counsel John
Coleman.
Nov. 14, 1991, Mr. Weatherill spends $264 to dine with CN's Coleman again-
In July 1992, the labour board ruled that the unions be disbanded and replaced
with the CAW.
The minister has the gall to stand up and say today during
question period: ``I see it in the papers, but I was not aware of what
is going on''. Treasury Board knew what was going on. He, as the
minister in charge, should have known what was going on. The
government has been paying the bills and the minister says he does
not know what is going on and he has to check it out because he has
read it in the newspaper. This is the government that says it is in
control. Have you every heard anything like that, Mr. Speaker?
What do the people think? I turn now to page A15 of the Ottawa
Citizen:
The depredations of the notorious English highwayman, Dick Turpin, pale by
comparison to the plunder of the public purse by Ted Weatherill. If ever the
expression ``Swilling at the public trough'' has literal application, this is it.
Leo M. Bereza, Ottawa
9496
How about another little short one? The whole page is of letters
related to Mr. Weatherill.
Congratulations to the Citizen staff. You caught the ``rat'' in the food trap; this is
good ``gut'' instinct reporting. With an election coming up, the taxpayers are soon
going to be sold the fiscal restraint bill again. Public servant double-dipper Ted
Weatherill positively sickens me. Out-of-control bureaucrats should all be given a
season's pass to McDonalds's where the rest of us have to eat.
Robert Beck, Carp
How about this one entitled ``I am not amused''.
In common with thousands of other Canadians this is the time of year that I have
to rework my finances to ensure I have funds available to pay my income tax. How
appropriate then that we are all treated to the smiling face of Ted Weatherill along
with his evasive responses to any questions that might justify his personal expense
claims over the last number of years.
As I look at his photos one more time I am convinced that this man is not smiling
at all. He is laughing at me-and I am not amused.
Don Ferguson, Nepean
The whole page is full of articles on this fellow who happens to
be sitting in a high position with a $120,000 to $140,000 a year
salary. He ran up $440,000 of expenses in eight years. He spent
$148,000 on meals in eight years. He compromised himself. He
compromised the board. He compromised the rulings of the board.
He stays there and I wonder why.
(1645)
The Minister of Labour says that he just read about it in the paper
and he has to check it out. His department has been overviewing
these expenses and paying the bill. It is absolutely shocking.
Is that all? I publish the waste report. It gets a bit of press around
the countryside periodically. Last January when I brought out a
waste report I pointed out the illegal tax scams carried on by
political patronage appointments.
While the government would not give me the names, I was able
to find out that a board member-and as far as I can tell it was not
Mr. Weatherill but another board member-was getting a tax free
allowance on top of his salary which is not covered off in the
Income Tax Act. It is illegal that he should be getting that money
tax free. I reported the information to the Minister of National
Revenue.
That was not the only one. I listed eight or ten different people,
all patronage appointments, who were participating in the illegal
tax scam where they are claiming travel allowances, moving
allowances, transitional allowances and apartments in a different
town.
The Commissioner of Official Languages gets an apartment in
town courtesy of the taxpayer. Everybody else has to pay tax. He
seems to be exempted because the government says it does not to
play by the rules it writes because it is above them.
The Minister of Labour is prepared to tolerate a chairman who
thinks he is above the rules and has compromised himself in every
which way. He sits there smiling in a photo on the front page of the
paper and saying: ``I m not going to quit''. He is challenging the
Minister of Labour and saying ``fire me''. I hope the minister fires
him. It is long overdue and we have only known about it for three
days.
The minister sweeps it under the table by referring it to the
auditor general. He stands pleased as punch and says that when he
found out about it he immediately referred it to the auditor general.
The auditor general reports to the House. He will not be able to
report back until the fall. If the rumour mill is right the election will
be long over by then.
It is just like the Somalia inquiry. Let us bury it during the
election time. Let us bury Mr. Weatherill during the election time
and see what happens in the fall. That is not the way to govern.
The Liberals want to go to the people of Canada during an
election and say they deserve their vote to continue. How could
they look people in the eye? They have swept the garbage under the
table so that Canadians cannot smell it. They will bring it out like
dirty linen in the fall after they have been comfortably voted us
back into office. How can they do it? It beats me.
We know the Liberals. They have been around for a long time.
They seem to be able to do that with a smile. I am quite confident
they will try to do it again. The point is that they can only deceive
some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time.
Perhaps this time they will find out they did not deceive very many
people.
I cannot imagine why the Minister of Labour is hanging on to
Mr. Weatherill. I have been on talk shows across the country
regarding this man. No one is prepared to stand up and defend him.
The expenses are bad enough. However he cannot understand the
situation of compromising his position, compromising his rulings,
compromising his colleagues or compromising the government. It
is documented. When we phoned CN and CP all they would say is
no comment. They did not deny it. The minister stands by him and
says that they have to wait until the auditor general reports some
time in the future and at that time perhaps they will take action.
(1650)
They have all the documentation at their fingertips now. They
have had the information at their fingertips all along. They have
known for years this guy went way overboard all the time, every
time. He has never forgotten to claim even a two-bit cup of coffee.
9497
He takes his common law wife with him and thinks we will pay for
that as well. There seems to be no limit to what he will do. There
seems to be no limit to the way he has compromised his position.
Yet the Minister of Labour stands by him.
If this fellow is not gone in the next couple of days, at election
time I will be asking why he is still there.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for St. Albert.
Not only on this bill but on many bills he has been very
concerned about and very watchful of waste in the House. I am sure
he finds it as galling as I do when members on the other side, the
Minister of Labour and others, have the audacity to come into the
House and claim that Reform is responsible for holding up the back
to work legislation during the national rail strike. They claimed we
would not come in on a weekend to assist in getting the bill
through.
As I mentioned before when I rose in response to our labour
critic's statements, we tried to prevent it from ever happening.
Once the back to work legislation finally came forward we
supported it. We were anxious to move it through because a lot of
people were being hurt by the strike: workers, farmers and all
others.
Consideration of the back to work legislation in the House
extended into the weekend. I understand it cost many tens of
thousands of dollars an hour to operate the House, money that came
out of the taxpayers' pocket. As if everybody else was not hurt
badly enough, the taxpayers were dragged into it as well. It cost the
government money which it does not seem to mind.
Reform was supportive. We were here supporting the legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois was holding up the bill, denying it swift
passage.
As the hon. member is very involved and our watchdog on
government waste, does he have any comments on the unspeakable
bad taste of the government that came into the House and suggested
Reform was holding it up when we were doing everything we could
to assist in the passage of something that should have been passed
long before. The problem was with the government's buddies in the
official opposition who were objecting to the legislation being
passed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke is absolutely correct. We are accused by the
government of holding up legislation.
This is a place of debate for the people of Canada. This is not an
institution that runs on efficiency. The Minister of Labour accuses
us of filibustering a bill, holding up the proceedings. He gave us
approximately an hour and a half to debate the bill at third reading.
It is preposterous. With an hour and a half or maybe two hours to
debate third reading of the bill it is unimaginable we would be
accused of holding it up.
We could look at the way the Liberals treat this place with
contempt. I ask, Mr. Speaker, for a quorum count of the number of
people in the House at this point to see the contempt. I only see
three Liberals in this place at this time.
(1655)
The Deputy Speaker: Yes, the member is correct. We will ring
the bells.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There is now a quorum.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the contempt
with which government members hold this venerable institution.
They were sitting in the back lobby enjoying the comforts of this
institution with their feet up. Maybe they were wining and dining
with Mr. Weatherill. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
We in opposition are entitled to a reasonable amount of time to
debate the issue. For us to be accused of filibustering is
preposterous. The Liberals made this place sit over the weekend
because they did not have their act together and the Labour
Relations Board could not resolve disputes regarding strikes. They
had to bring in emergency legislation and spend more money for us
to sit all weekend. Perhaps it is because they do not have any
confidence in the chairman of the Labour Relations Board. We do
not know but we sure know the guy was not too competent in doing
his job. Maybe that is why we had to end up spending more money
to sit all weekend.
The member is perfectly correct and the government should take
heed.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was
sitting in my place when the member called for a quorum count. In
defence of my colleagues who are also doing duty here, the
member well knows that members have an opportunity to follow
the debate.
The premise of the member's remarks is that members have not
been allowed enough time. Anyone who has followed the debate
would clearly know the gist of the intervention of the member has
been complaining that there is no time rather than addressing the
substance of the bill.
If the member feels it is important enough for us to move
forward with legislation, possibly he would rise now to indicate
that the Reform Party is prepared to close the debate now. Let us
move to the vote on this important bill. The member should tell the
House now whether it is his intent to support Bill C-66.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, it is not whether or not I support the
bill. This is a House of debate where opinions and views are heard.
We are being accused by the government of filibustering. Yet we
are given an hour and a half at third reading. We extended the
hours to facilitate its agenda. Yet we get accused of filibustering. It
9498
rejects our amendments. It does not listen to us in any way, shape
or form because it uses its majority to say no. The whip cracks the
whip and whatever we propose they oppose.
We have supported some of its legislation because we think it is
good. When we make what we think are intelligent and good
amendments to its legislation, because it comes from this side of
the House they are automatically shut down. That is an abuse of the
trust and the power the government has been given. The Liberals
will have to explain that to the people at election time.
Almost 40 times they have introduced closure in the House in the
time I have been in Parliament. It has now become a common
occurrence. It is not even reported in the media any more.
(1700)
When it was first introduced in the House it almost brought
down the government. Then it sat latent for a number of years and
was picked up again in the fifties and used on very rare occasions.
Mr. Trudeau used it, I believe, about 10 or 15 times. Mr. Mulroney
used it a few more times. This government has surpassed every
record.
Mr. Gouk: The cumulative total of all past governments.
Mr. Williams: We heard the member. This government in three
and a half years has exceeded the cumulative total since 1917 when
it was first introduced.
This is no longer a House of debate. This is no longer a House of
the people. The government has abused the trust and privileges of
the House. The government does not want to hear what the
representatives of Canadians have to say. It does not want to listen.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I will again ask the member whether it
is his intention to support the bill. If it is, I will assume it is on the
basis that he has already made a full assessment of all the relevant
factors to-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I hate to create suspense, but I know
that we are going to vote on this later today.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bourassa,
Immigration.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to be on the record with respect to Bill C-66, which is proposed by
the Minister of Labour. This is the third reading of an act to amend
the Canada Labour Code, Part I, and the Corporations and Labour
Unions Returns Act, and to make consequential amendments to
other acts.
Being a member of the government and having followed the
debate this afternoon I thought it important to address one of the
issues raised by the previous speaker. The issue has to do with the
process used by the government to pass this legislation.
Earlier this day, during Routine Proceedings, the government
was forced into the position of putting forward a motion to ensure
that this bill came to the floor of the House for debate. This is one
of the subtleties of the operation of the House which the Canadian
public does not recognize. It is very likely that we would not be
debating this bill today if the government had not put forward the
motion to move from Routine Proceedings to Government Orders.
The daily routine of business includes matters such as the tabling
of documents, statements by ministers, presenting reports from
inter-parliamentary delegations and reports from committees. I
recall that on a number of occasions members of the Reform Party
rose in their places during Routine Proceedings to move frivolous
motions which were debatable by the rules of this place, which
meant that the House would continue to debate frivolous motions
and frustrate debate on government bills and private members'
bills.
It is important that Canadians know about the committee work
which has been done, as well as the work which has been done by
the Minister of Labour. The preparatory notes contained excellent
background material. In fact, Canadians will see when the vote is
taken later this day that the House will support this very important
legislation.
(1705)
Therefore I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour who has
earned the respect and admiration of the different parties who
played a role in this process.
It is encouraging to see management and unions agreeing on this
matter. That is a very significant point that should be noted. We
have to underline that management and labour are now in
agreement on the principles brought forward in the bill.
A tremendous amount of work has been invested in producing
this agreement. Bill C-66, first and foremost, is fair and balanced
legislation, as members have now discovered from the debate in
this place and through the work in the committee. It is the product
of consultation on the whole process.
Members from every party fully appreciate the importance of
that consultation process. These consultations included a task force
of labour relations experts, a working group of management and
labour organizations and a series of meetings involving the
9499
Minister of Labour and representatives of labour and management
as well as other interested parties which is a very important aspect
of any legislation before this place.
The task force was chaired by Mr. Andrew Sims, an Edmonton
labour lawyer specializing in arbitration and dispute resolution. He
was admirably supported by two experienced colleagues: Toronto
based labour arbiter, mediator and fact finder, Paula Knopf, and
Quebec labour arbiter and professor at Laval University, Rodrigue
Blouin.
The task force received numerous written submissions and met
with labour and management delegations and with members of the
academic and legal communities in the various locations across the
country over this overall consultative process. It also invited labour
and management organizations whose members are subject to the
Canada Labour Code to set up a working group to discuss and
endeavour to reach consensus on many important issues.
When the task force submitted its report entitled ``Seeking a
Balance,'' it reflected the consensus reached by that
labour-management working group in a number of important areas.
In addition to its findings and those of the working group, the
Sims task force also took into account the recommendations made
by the west coast ports industrial inquiry commission which had
issued its own report in December 1995.
It is quite an accomplishment that both labour and management
have expressed support for the overall balance of the task force's
recommendations. The consensus reached is an illustration of what
can be accomplished by working together in the spirit of good faith
and mutual respect. Members, even of the Reform Party,
acknowledged that with regard to Bill C-66.
On several key issues, Bill C-66 reflects the consensus reached
by labour and management. With these amendments, the
government has acted as a pro-active catalyst for change. We are
proposing strategies that will modernize the code and we are
encouraging parties to suffer their differences in a less adversarial
fashion.
The amendments proposed include, first, the establishment of a
new representational Canada industrial relations board composed
of a neutral chairperson and vice-chairpersons and equal numbers
of members representing employers and employees. This board
will replace the current non-representational Canada Labour
Relations Board.
Second, the new board will be given greater flexibility to deal
quickly with routine or urgent matters.
Third, the board's powers will be clarified or extended to ensure
that complex industrial relations issues such as those arising from
the review of bargaining units or sales of business can be fully
addressed and to provide appropriate remedies in the case of unfair
labour practices such as failure to bargain in good faith.
The next point is that the bill will bring in the federal mediation
and conciliation service, which will continue to be part of the
labour program of Human Resources Development Canada. It will
have its third party neutrality enhanced by defining its role by
statute. Defining the role of the FMCS underlines that the dispute
resolution and prevention programs are a vital component of
Canada's collective bargaining policies.
(1710)
A further point is that there will be a replacement of the current
two-stage conciliation process by a single stage with a choice of
procedures to take no more than 60 days. The right to strike or
lockout will be subject to the holding of a secret ballot vote within
the previous 60 days and giving a 72-hour advanced notice.
Parties involved in work stoppage will be required to maintain
services necessary to protect public health and safety. All members
of the House certainly recognize the importance of that issue.
Services affecting grain shipments will be continued in the event
of legal work stoppages by any third parties in the ports.
There will be no general prohibition on the use of replacement
workers. However, if they are used for the purposes of undermining
the union's representative capacity, the board may declare their use
as an unfair labour practice and order the employer to stop using
them for the duration of the dispute.
Finally, the employees will be entitled to insurance and benefit
programs during work stoppages.
As members can appreciate and see from this variety of points,
some very important issues have been addressed and dealt with by
Bill C-66 as a result of the excellent work that has been done by the
Minister of Labour and his department officials.
The amendments will also confirm the rights of employees in the
bargaining unit who were on strike or locked out to resume
employment following the end of a work stoppage instead of any
persons hired to replace them. The list I have just recited is quite
long yet it only begins to outline what Bill C-66 will accomplish.
It is fitting that the government is moving forward with these
amendments at this time. After all, the Canada Labour Code has
not been subject to this kind of comprehensive review since the
early 1970s. As members know very well, the world has changed
since then. Trade liberalization, globalization, privatization,
deregulation, and corporate and economic restructuring have
placed significant pressures on employers and employees and
hence the industrial relations system as well.
9500
The new global economy in an increasingly competitive
marketplace dictates change in the existing industrial relations
environment.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the hon.
member who is now speaking was very diligent in asking questions
earlier, I wonder if he would agree to yield the floor so that
questions may be put to him before time runs out.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga South
has the floor.
Mr. Szabo: As I was saying, the new global economy in an
increasingly competitive marketplace dictates change in the
existing industrial relations environment. Measures that help
resolve labour disputes in a more positive environment are good for
employers and workers. Hence, co-operation will lead to improved
productivity, better job security and increased worker participation
in the workplace decisions.
The proposals we are debating today represent a fair and
balanced approach that will reduce conflict and lead to quick
resolutions of differences. At the same time, the legislation
responds to the changing needs of many workers and workplaces,
including the increasing number of people working in the home.
In closing, I would like the House to remember that the Sims
task group report was entitled ``Seeking a Balance''. In my opinion,
Bill C-66 strikes the appropriate balance between the rights and
responsibilities of employers and unions and underlines the
important role that government plays as a facilitator and catalyst
for positive change.
I know I have taken some time to deal with a very important bill
but Canadians will realize, even from touching very briefly on
some of the many issues that I have raised and listed in this speech,
that there are many points that have been dealt with
comprehensively throughout the process. I am very pleased to have
had the chance to rise in my place and speak on behalf of the
Minister of Labour and Bill C-66.
The Deputy Speaker: There are 20 seconds left. The hon.
member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): That is a
real challenge, Mr. Speaker, a 20 second question.
I wonder if the hon. member would make a comment simply on
the question of final offer selection arbitration as an alternate
dispute settlement mechanism.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired, unfortunately. It
being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, March 17, it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill
now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(1740 )
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 291)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mayfield
Ménard
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-61
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
9501
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-113
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bonin
Brien
Caccia
Cauchon
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Gaffney
Gagliano
Harvard
Hopkins
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Murphy
O'Reilly
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated. The next
question is on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with the Liberals voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against
the motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no on this motion.
(1745 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 292)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gallaway
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Harb
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-113
9502
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mayfield
Ménard
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-61
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bonin
Brien
Caccia
Cauchon
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Gaffney
Gagliano
Harvard
Hopkins
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Murphy
O'Reilly
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
Mr. Gouk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Liberals
asked for applied votes you went to the Bloc and to the Reform
Party but you did not go to the NDP. I wonder if you would clarify
its vote.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Chan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was late coming
into the House but I would like to be recorded as voting on the side
of the government.
The Speaker: The record will show the words that you uttered
today.
Pursuant to order made Tuesday, April 8, the House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Motion
No. 267.
_____________________________________________
9502
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 8 consideration of the motion,
the amendment and the amendment to the amendment.
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment to the
amendment.
(1755)
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 293)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Graham
Grubel
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mayfield
Ménard
Meredith
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Peric
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-65
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
9503
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Easter
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Godfrey
Guarnieri
Harb
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jackson
Karygiannis
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Minna
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
Pagtakhan
Patry
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Zed-95
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bonin
Brien
Caccia
Cauchon
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Gaffney
Gagliano
Harvard
Hopkins
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Murphy
O'Reilly
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
defeated.
The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will please
say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(1805)
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 294)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Bachand
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Duncan
Easter
Epp
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Graham
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Marchand
Mayfield
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
Ménard
Meredith
Mitchell
Nunez
O'Brien (Labrador)
Paré
Penson
Peric
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Steckle
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Wappel
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-99
9504
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Augustine
Baker
Barnes
Bélair
Bellemare
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Chan
Clancy
Collins
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Finlay
Flis
Fry
Godfrey
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marleau
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Murray
Pagtakhan
Patry
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Sheridan
St. Denis
Stewart (Northumberland)
Thalheimer
Vanclief
Volpe
Wells
Whelan
Zed-48
PAIRED MEMBERS
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bergeron
Bonin
Brien
Caccia
Cauchon
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Gaffney
Gagliano
Harvard
Hopkins
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Loubier
MacAulay
Murphy
O'Reilly
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Young
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion as amended. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Speaker: Carried on division.
It being 6.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.) moved
that Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trespass) be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is definitely a privilege to begin the
debate on my private member's Bill C-247 dealing with amending
the Criminal Code with respect to trespassing. This is a time when
the average Canadian gets to speak, for my measure comes from
them.
In my three and a half years as a member of Parliament I have
had only two bills drawn for debate. Unfortunately this is the way
the old system works. I think every member will agree with me that
it is difficult to bring a concern from the riding and change a statute
based on that concern.
As the member for New Westminster-Burnaby, I have done
much to bring concerns forward in order to make a difference in
our community. After all, this is a large part of the job. Canadians
count on each and every one of us to be fully accountable to their
concerns. There is no question that Reform has been the most
significant party that truly puts the constituent first. And while
Reformers may be able to pat themselves on the back for this
achievement, it is also sad to see in contrast how many Liberal and
NDP MPs have treated their constituents.
In British Columbia the issue which seems to be on everyone's
mind is criminal justice. British Columbians are completely fed up
with the many loopholes in our statutes and what they provide.
Last month thousands protested in Vancouver when Clifford
Olson issued a notice that he would seek parole through a section
745 hearing, probably one of the most significant loopholes in the
Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice and local Vancouver
Liberal MPs sloughed it off by saying ``do not worry, Olson will
not get paroled''.
It is impossible for these bleeding heart Liberals to say he will
not get out on parole because statistics clearly show that the
accused usually has an excellent chance of being released early.
The issue here is the symbolism of that offender. The symbolism
that this offender can mock a community through our justice
system is unacceptable.
9505
Reformers are not going to give up the fight on section 745 and
we are definitely not going to give up the fight in trying to cure
the loophole disease, as I call it, that is plaguing the way justice
is administered in this country.
I mentioned at the outset that I have had two private member's
bills drawn in this Parliament. The other bill was Bill C-323 which
dealt with amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Approximately two years ago a constituent approached me with
a concern that a loophole in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
was enabling violent offenders to be released from their
commitment to pay civil court judgments. It was a loophole that
was causing innocent victims unnecessary suffering.
Last year I saw an article in the Vancouver Province about a
woman who was awarded $200,000 in damages for sexual abuse by
her stepfather. Her stepfather was ordered after a civil court trial to
make payments of $500 a month. According to the article, he made
one full payment of $500, four payments of $100 and then filed for
bankruptcy. He got off. It was easy. That was the end of it.
It was clear from my research and from speaking with
constituents that a simple amendment to the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act would eliminate the possibility for a person to use
personal bankruptcy to escape from any owed damages awarded in
civil court.
If we look at the way the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act reads, a
bankrupt person cannot be relieved of paying, for example, any
traffic fines, alimony or child maintenance payments, yet they can
be relieved of paying damages for something like sexual assault, a
great inconsistency. I found it amazing that no government had
ever changed such a very simple clause.
After I introduced Bill C-323, the Minister of Industry
introduced Bill C-5 which amended the section that my bill did.
However, their amendment was fairly weak in content. What
ensued were negotiations to have my private member's bill
included in Bill C-5, which is now close to receiving royal assent.
The exercise proved not only that an individual MP can have a
direct influence on how legislation is drafted, but it proved that
MPs should be open to all concerns and suggestions brought
forward to them by their constituents. In this rare instance the
government listened and I also found a sympathetic minister.
That brings me to the discussion surrounding Bill C-247, what
we are debating today. In coming up with my bankruptcy and
insolvency bill one constituent contacted me to get me going down
the road of investigation.
Now on the issue of trespassing I have received numerous
complaints from police officers, regular patrons of shopping malls
and public library workers. The complaint was the sheer frustration
that persons are trespassing on property, causing a public
disturbance and destroying a sense of community and livability for
children and yet are unable to be removed for any significant
amount of time.
(1815 )
We all know malls are popular places for youth to hang out. If
members have teenage sons or daughters as I do, they will know
that one of their favourite congregation points is the mall, usually
the food court. Perhaps it is because there is food around or perhaps
it is because there are tables to lounge on and places to sit.
The security personnel in the malls consistently have a difficult
time in maintaining civility and the chief reason is that they have
little if any authoritative jurisdiction. If the security staff of a mall
is forced to remove a problem person, that individual can simply
re-enter the mall within minutes and start the whole scenario all
over again.
There is no place in the Criminal Code that states that the
trespasser must stay off the property for any amount of time. The
only way the person can be charged is by resisting removal from
the property. Therefore, if the person never resists, the act could
continue over and over, which in some cases it does as a specific
plan.
Federal government officials too often forget that teenagers are
extremely street smart. I served on the House Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs when we dealt with the Young
Offenders Act. A witness wanted me to believe that most young
offenders have no idea of the penalties they will receive if they
commit a certain crime. At the time Reformers were calling for the
YOA to be strengthened in order to deter young offenders from
committing crime. Offenders seem all too aware of how soft the
system is.
Before I became a member of Parliament I served as a court
officer in the attorney general's ministry in British Columbia. I
spent a great amount of time dealing on a one to one basis with
young offenders. After a while one understands very clearly what
they are thinking. Many offenders know exactly what they are
doing when they calculate committing an offence. Many know
exactly how to beat the system. If there is a loophole in the system
a teenager will find it, and the word quickly travels the streets.
For the past three and a half years, Reformers have been
attempting to amend the justice system by closing these loopholes
one loophole at a time. I recently went on the Internet to see what I
could find if I typed in the words ``trespassing in Canada''. Several
items came up and most were of no use. One site did appear in the
search, a CBC site for the television show ``Street Cents,'' a show
geared toward teenagers interested in consumer-based issues. The
title of the site was ``How does the law affect you in common, legal
9506
situations, if arrested, kicked out of a mall, asked for ID or if
someone is threatening to search a locker''.
Whoever was doing the research for this question interviewed
the Public Legal Education Society of Nova Scotia, the Nova
Scotia Human Rights Commission and a Halifax lawyer. This is
what was said at this site about trespassing in a mall or hangin' at
the mall: ``Provincial laws like the Protection of Property Act give
mall owners and store owners the power to post signs like no
loitering or only two persons at a time allowed in the store. The
signs are a restriction on people's freedom of movement as defined
by the charter of rights, but so far the charter's rules only apply to
the federal government and federal institutions like the CBC.
``The Protection of Property Act gives property owners the
power to control how their property may be used so long as they
publicly post these conditions. No smoking rules are an example of
how this power may be used.
``Provincial health and safety laws are responsible for a bunch of
other sign restrictions like no bare feet, no pets you often see in
malls. If you break any of these rules posted on signs it means mall
security can simply usher you out of the mall and they don't need to
give a reason. You're ushered and you're toast. It's a powerful
statute.
``Some malls do not post signs forbidding loitering so hangin'
out indefinitely may be just fine where you live, it depends.
However, most provincial protection property laws, the dreaded P
of P, do empower mall security to move on or forcibly remove
persons who are in a mall and causing a disturbance. In the
province of Nova Scotia the guard can even ban you from the mall
or store from which you've been hurled for up to six months. It has
happened. If you break the ban police can be called and you can be
charged with trespassing. Heavy.
``In the case of young people swearing or physical horseplay,
wrestling or hackie sac might be interpreted by some as causing a
disturbance. There is a range of behaviour by individuals malls will
tolerate. When it is groups of teens the range seems to narrow
down. Some malls might even argue a large group of exuberant
young people cause a disturbance to other customers or merchants
just by their very presence. This is an area of common
misunderstanding''.
Every province seems to have a different way of dealing with
trespassers. In British Columbia the trespassing laws are weak.
Something has to be done with this most serious issue. With the
provinces doing very little to remedy this situation, something
should be done to amend the Criminal Code to provide a reasonable
national standard of peace and order.
The amendments I have made in Bill C-247 would strengthen
section 41 of the Criminal Code. Subsection 41(1) states:
Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property,
and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in
using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real
property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is
necessary.
(1820)
That is the law the way it is now.
I am proposing an amendment to section 41 of the Criminal
Code, making it a mere summary conviction for a person who has
already been lawfully removed from real property or a dwelling
house not to be able to lawfully return for 24 hours. The reason for
the 24 hours is to provide adequate time for the person to cool off.
It is amazing how attitudes change in 24 hours.
Perhaps I could put my proposed legislation into a hypothetical
situation. A teenager is removed from a shopping mall for
offensive, rude, loud conduct. The teenager must then stay out of
that shopping mall for a total of 24 hours. If that teenager decides
to re-enter the mall within that 24 hours, he or she can be charged
with trespassing on entrance and may be guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction. They would be issued a ticket,
a summons to appear in court.
Additionally, as the section in the Criminal Code deals with a
dwelling house, my amendment also deals with it. As a family
court counsellor I was often made aware of domestic situations
wherein disrupting behaviour which disturbed the peace for
children in the household was a problematic situation.
For example, sometimes police are called to a residence to assist
in the removal of a drunk, unwanted, former boyfriend of a young
mother. Perhaps in this situation the matter is dealt with
successfully by the officer on the scene, assisting in the removal of
the person from the dwelling house. Subsequently, at the curb, the
policeman may decide to release the individual, being that the
temporary co-operation of the person appeared to have solved the
situation. However, the offender may return some time later after
having consumed more alcohol and start the process all over again.
In this case the perpetrator could temporarily co-operate in view
of the officer. However, an hour later he might reappear at the door
and start conversations or hassle again and again.
Legally the second or third appearance on the property is a
separate event which would have to be dealt with by an attending
officer as a legal, separate incident on a new complaint being made.
My bill would solve that special set of circumstances and perhaps
bring much peace into estranged domestic situations where
restraining orders or no contact orders are not available or not
workable.
General community order would more likely be provided if the
perpetrator knew that he or she could be charged summarily if he
or she reappeared on the property with 24 hours of being lawfully
removed. The deterrent effect would be great and would likely
9507
result in more non-justice system solutions with voluntary
co-operation.
My amendment makes common sense, but of course I do not
expect to get much help on that score from the House when the
committee did not make my bill votable. I spoke yesterday, albeit
briefly, on the general reputation of the government on the
administration of justice. It just does not represent mainstream
Canadian values on protecting the public.
I know that in this Parliament my bill will not see the light of day
past this one hour. However, I hope that my Criminal Code
amendment will be drawn to the attention of government lawyers
in the Department of Justice whose jobs it is to make the criminal
justice system more loophole free. I have personally drawn my
private member's bill to the attention of the justice minister and so
far I have had no response.
The bill is straightforward common sense. Its practical
consequence is prevention at the street level, rather than enlarging
the net. I hope this reasonable measure will find support in the
House.
With the unanimous consent of the House, I would now like to
move a motion. I move:
That my private member's bill be made a votable item.
Will the House accept my motion?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal
Code with respect to trespass.
The bill proposes to amend section 41 of the Criminal Code by
adding a new subsection (3), which would carry a summary
conviction offence in the case of subsequent trespass.
(1825 )
The bill would therefore create a specific offence that would
apply whenever a person trespasses on any property after having
already been lawfully asked to leave or prevented from entering
less than 24 hours before. This subsequent trespass would occur
with respect to residential property or any other kind of property.
I believe the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby is
trying with this bill to stem a problem that occurs in his
constituency and which may be taking place in a number of urban
areas across the country. The problem is essentially one of people,
particularly young persons, who may hang out at shopping centres
and at times to some degree make a nuisance of themselves. These
young people are often asked to leave by a security guard or a shop
owner but they keep coming back, sometimes day after day.
I agree with the hon. member that sometimes such behaviour can
be annoying. However, I have problems with the remedies
proposed by the hon. member. I believe that the proposed remedy is
not in line with the principles that govern the current trespass
provisions in the Criminal Code.
Section 41 of the Criminal Code provides that a person who is in
peaceable possession of a dwelling house or real property is
justified in using reasonable force to prevent a person from
trespassing on the property or to remove the person from the
property. Trespassing itself does not constitute a criminal offence.
A criminal offence would be committed only if there were physical
resistance of one sort or another to the removal that could be
considered an assault.
Under the current law no offence is committed when one leaves a
place without resistance when asked to do so. The change that the
hon. member is proposing is to make it an offence to return after
one has been asked to leave once and has left the place peacefully.
My first comment is that the bill appears to create a somewhat
odd situation. The oddity would come from the face of the bill that
makes it an offence to trespass in a certain place when one does it
for the second or subsequent time but when the same act done for
the first time is not an offence. I find that a little odd.
Another concern is that the bill would make it an offence to
trespass on not only private property but even in a public place. The
bill would apply not only to persons doing subsequent trespassing
on a dwelling house but also to persons doing subsequent
trespassing on any real property, including places considered
generally open to the public.
There are some instances where trespassing is a criminal offence
under the Criminal Code provisions. For instance, trespassing at
night is an offence. Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it an
offence to loiter or prowl at night on the property of another person
near a dwelling house situated on that property. Trespassing at
night is an offence punishable by summary conviction.
Clearly there is a big difference between trespassing at night,
which has sinister connotations, and the kind of trespassing that
Bill C-237 is aiming at.
While I agree that teenagers hanging out at the mall can annoy
some shop owners and clients, this behaviour does not in general
have a sinister characteristic that trespassing at night could have.
The behaviour considered in Bill C-237 is nowhere near as serious
9508
as what is considered to constitute a trespassing offence under the
Criminal Code.
What we are talking about here is more like what is referred in
common parlance as loitering. I would like to point out that
loitering in a public place and obstructing persons who are in that
place is already a summary conviction under section 175(1)(c) of
the Criminal Code. A person or group of persons hanging out at a
shopping centre may fall within the ambit of 175(1)(c) if they
obstruct persons such as shoppers or shopkeepers who are in that
place.
I believe that the offence of loitering in section 175(1)(c) would
make sense precisely because of the conduct of obstruction, that
which causes inconvenience or harm to other people. However,
young people who simply hang out at their local shopping mall are
not causing any obstruction and are not committing any actual
misconduct, nor are they doing any direct physical harm to anyone.
(1830)
Creating a Criminal Code provision aimed at alleviating this
type of situation is like swatting a fly with the proverbial sledge
hammer. The hon. member indicated that in many areas these
situations can be remedied by either municipal bylaws or
provincial law. It seems a long stretch to use the most severe
legislative sanction that can be drawn, that is the Criminal Code,
the criminal law of the land.
The hon. member wants to make it an offence just to be in a
place that is not necessarily a private residential property or some
place of a private nature. He wants to make it an offence to be in a
public place such as a local shopping mall. I am concerned about
the potential for abuse by the owners or tenants of these public
places and perhaps by security guards or law enforcement
authorities.
I strongly believe it is not appropriate to create a Criminal Code
offence that would criminalize acts that can be seen as trivial in
comparison with what is normally the domain of the code, more so
since these acts often involve young people.
In addition, I do not believe it is necessary since there are
already provisions in the Criminal Code that would allow
authorities to deal with cases that do constitute a nuisance. As I
indicated previously, when serious actual acts which harm or could
harm either shopkeepers or clients to public places are taking place,
the Criminal Code already has sanction for these more serious
activities.
I cannot support the bill because the type of problem the bill is
dealing with is not the type of problem that would appropriately be
dealt with in the Criminal Code. This is a type of problem, as I
indicated, that could very easily be dealt with by municipal bylaws
and provincial statutes and regulations.
Unless we are dealing with serious matters we should allow our
provincial municipal authorities, those closer to the scene of the
problem, to make legislation that fits in their circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak to a bill introduced by a
member who has taken the time to move amendments to the
Criminal Code. The bill clearly reflects the concern of the hon.
member for a problem he has encountered in his riding or a
problem experienced by his constituents.
However, I will say right away that I cannot support this bill. I
cannot support the bill introduced by the hon. member of the
Reform Party, and I will explain why, very briefly.
First of all, I will quote the text of this amendment to section 41
of the Criminal Code:
Every person is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction,
This indicates right away the intent to criminalize a certain
activity.
who (a) trespasses on a dwelling house or real property; and (b) has, within the
previous twenty-four hours, been lawfully removed from, or prevented from
entering, that dwelling-house or real property.
This section might have two different applications. We have to
look at the context. The hon. member on the government side gave
a good example, the one about young people loitering in a shopping
mall or on the sidewalk, and the owner of the mall or the merchants
want them to leave. There is also the somewhat more serious case
of quarrels between neighbours or members of the same group,
when the court is asked, because such procedures exist in the
Criminal Code, to prohibit this man or this woman from entering
certain premises. In such cases, the judge will make the following
order: he will prohibit a person, because he had previously uttered
threats or been otherwise troublesome, from being on the other
person's property.
(1835)
The Criminal Code already contains provisions to deal with any
breach of such orders. This aspect that may be affected by this
amendment is already covered by the Criminal Code. So something
else would be added, since when an order is breached, the person is
brought before the court and then has to suffer the consequences of
his actions.
In the other case, someone mentioned earlier the example of
loitering in commercial buildings or even in front of a private
residence or elsewhere. I think I agree with the government on that
9509
score. This kind of behaviour should not be criminalized, and as a
member of the Bloc, I think we should look at the broader context.
I think it is more a municipal problem than anything else. It is a
problem that local authorities, in other words, municipal
councillors and mayors of municipalities, can deal with by passing
appropriate bylaws on loitering.
As far as I know, many municipalities in Quebec and across
Canada have already passed bylaws in their municipalities to
prevent young people from making a nuisance of themselves one
way or another in public places or in front of private residences.
My point is that the hon. member was probably well intentioned
when he decided to propose this amendment to the Criminal Code,
but an amendment has to add something new, it has to fill a void. At
the present time, I think that our municipal bylaws, the Criminal
Code and other appropriate legislation already deal with this
problem and that it is unnecessary to amend the Criminal Code by
adding an additional paragraph as proposed by the member of the
Reform Party.
This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are not in favour of Bill
C-247.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
add a few words of what I hope will be considered common sense
to the debate. The bill which my hon. colleague has put forward has
a lot of common sense at a very elementary level.
The bill simply deals with refusing to allow a person re-entry
who has been already illegally evicted from a premise. Let us stop
to think about it from a very practical point of view. There is not a
merchant in the country who will kick his customers out if the
customers are good for business. It also makes a lot of sense to
consider if he or she is encountering interference by people on the
premises who are preventing other people from coming in or even
making them uncomfortable because of their antics. If there is
adequate reason to remove that person lawfully, which is the first
part of the bill, why should there not also be a simple provision that
says the person may not come back? Perhaps 24 hours is not
enough.
That is what the motion is stating. A person can be kicked out of
a place, walk right back in, do the same thing, be kicked back out,
come back in, do the same thing and on it goes. There is no remedy
to that situation. It can be repeated over and over.
My hon. colleague is simply saying that we should give that
individual a chance to stop and think about it and give the involved
security people or the police staff the opportunity to say to the
person: ``You are out of here for 24 hours. Stop to think about what
you are doing. Maybe you will correct yourself''.
(1840)
At the time of the initial eviction, especially with young people,
very often there is a little element of peer pressure. They just want
to prove a point and maybe have a bit of fun. That would break this
up and solve the problem. We in the Reform Party are very
interested in preserving the rights of law-abiding citizens.
In this instance we are taking people who are pushing to the limit
the rights and the privileges of others. We are saying that for a short
time their right to enter the premise will be suspended. It is just a
very gentle way of correcting them instead of digging them into a
big hole.
There is always the debate on whether this is a provincial matter.
We have heard that a lot this week in the debates on justice issues. I
suppose one could argue that almost everything is provincial in the
sense that almost everything is given in the Criminal Code to the
provinces to administer. There is a national Criminal Code, the
Criminal Code of Canada. Within that code are these articles of
trespass and other provisions. Why not strengthen it so that it could
be made to work more smoothly?
One of the last things I would like to see happen is our security
people or those working on police forces wasting their time
frivolously putting people out and allowing them back in because
they have to under the present provisions without there being a
remedy.
Now it is suggested that every municipality could have a
regulation in this regard. Why should we ask the thousands of
municipalities to deal with the issue and to include it in their own
provisions? That would result in a lack of uniformity and an
inefficiency in terms of the use of legislators' time when we could
have a national law in the form of a change to our national
provisions which would solve the problem?
In conclusion, it is unfortunate the way this place works. The
member from the Bloc who spoke said: ``I and the members of my
party will not be supporting this provision''. In other words he is
the justice critic. He comes in here. He looks at it and says: ``That
is the end of it. Our guys will not be supporting it''.
The parliamentary secretary already made the decision on behalf
of the Liberal Party. This is a private member's bill. Of course we
have free votes. Instead of a carte blanche that says we will not
support it and thereby have everybody jump into line, perhaps it
would be better if the leaders in their respective caucuses would
challenge their people to think about the matter and to make their
decision individually.
They should talk to the people in their ridings as my hon.
colleague has done. His motion is a direct result of representations
to him by people involved in these kinds of things. He has talked to
the police who actually have a suboffice in the shopping mall. They
have a problem where their time is being wasted by having to
repeatedly put people out. They have no legal provision to tell
them not to come back.
9510
That is all that is being asked here. It makes a great deal of
common sense. As I said in the beginning, it is perhaps a little too
elementary for members opposite to realize, but I plead with them
to consider the matter carefully. Let us allow the legislative process
and the Liberal red book commitment to more free votes to apply.
Let us deal with the issue rather than simply have one person say:
``We will not support it because it is a Reform motion'' or for
whatever other reason.
I am thankful for the opportunity to participate. I hope I have
added value to the debate this evening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Member's Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9510
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
February 11, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a
question about unacceptable delays in processing files at the IRB.
(1845)
When the Liberals were in opposition, they often criticized these
delays. Now, they are in power and the problem has become worse.
Right now, there are over 30,000 files awaiting a hearing or a
decision, over half of them in Montreal. Even the IRB thinks there
should be no more than 15,000 files to process at any given time.
On average, refugee status claimants must wait 15 months for a
decision, and often two, three or four years.
These delays are extremely costly for the federal government, to
which the IRB reports, and for the provinces, which must pay the
cost of welfare, and of health and other social services. These
delays also have serious consequences for an individual seeking
asylum, who lives in uncertainty and alone, separated from his
family. Only if there is a decision in his favour can a refugee bring
his wife and children over.
When I asked my question, I also denounced the government's
systematic patronage in its appointment of IRB commissioners.
During the election campaign we will be criticizing the government
for adopting the same patronage practices that it itself denounced
in the past.
Amnesty International recently criticized the Canadian
government for being more or less indifferent to the fate of
refugees and for imposing new restrictions on their entry. Last
March, this organization launched a campaign in Montreal in
support of refugees that is being held simultaneously in all
countries in which Amnesty International is present.
Only 10 per cent of refugees have access to industrialized
countries. Only those who can afford the trip, by plane or ship, are
able to take refuge in the West.
It should be pointed out that relatively few people seek asylum
here. Canada ranks 17th in absolute terms and 46th, if the number
of refugees is compared to the GNP. In addition, Canada is the only
country in the world to charge refugees and their dependants a
settlement tax of $1,475 per adult and $100 per child.
Last April 3 in Montreal, I met with a group of leaders from
Quebec's Zairian community headed by Tshibuy Mulay Dyany, a
constituent in my riding. The group included a number of people
seeking asylum who complained about the IRB's lengthy delays.
They thanked the Bloc Quebecois and particularly the critic for
citizenship and immigration for their efforts to help Zairian
refugees.
Today, we learn that there is widespread chaos in this country
with the advance of Kabila's troops. I think that the dictator
Mobutu should step down and leave the country immediately in
order to facilitate a peaceful return to democracy. For 35 years now,
the Mobutu regime has systematically violated the most
elementary human rights.
At my nomination meeting last Sunday, which was attended by
Gilles Duceppe, Bernard Landry, Henri Massé, Bernard Daoust, a
number of MPs and MNAs and 300 Montrealers, I appealed to the
Government of Canada to come to the assistance of tens of
thousands of Zairian refugees. Many are dying there daily through
illness or starvation. Today, I repeat this request to the government
to be sensitive to the needs of Zairian refugees.
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the daily management of Canada's refugee status
determination system is the responsibility of the chairperson of the
immigration and refugee board.
It seems to me the hon. member is suggesting that we rush cases
through in order to do away with this backlog. This is a reckless
and irresponsible suggestion. There needs to be proper attention
given to each and every case.
Every aspect of the board's work touches on the lives and
liberties of the people who appear before it. We need to take the
time required to ensure that people receive a fair and equitable
hearing. Often people's safety and security depend on it.
9511
This does not mean to say that the government is not dealing
with this backlog. Measures have been taken to address the
increase in workload and to improve the board's efficiency and
speed. Both the IRB and citizenship and immigration have been
working hard to improve the system.
Last December, for example, the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration signed an administrative framework agreement with
the board. This agreement is designed to increase co-operation and
information sharing, which should assist greatly in the process. It
also commits the two bodies to find ways to introduce and share
advanced technologies which will enhance operational efficiency.
Bill C-49 is another example. The bill is currently before
Parliament and contains two provisions which will reduce the
refugee division panel from two members to one. This legislative
change will improve the efficiency of the IRB while reducing the
processing time required to identify refugees needing our
protection.
There is a great deal being done. I appeal to hon. members of the
House to support this bill. Its swift passage will help alleviate the
backlog.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)