CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
Bill C-404. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9701
Bill C-55. Report stage 9702
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9708
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9709
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9713
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9718
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 9720
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 9720
Division on Motion No. 3 deferred 9720
Division on Motion No. 4 deferred 9720
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas: 36;Nays: 172 9720
Motion No. 5 negatived on division Yeas 40; Nays 168 9721
Motion for concurrence 9723
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9723
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 136; Nays, 72 9723
Consideration resumed of motion for concurrence 9724
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 168; Nays, 40 9724
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading. 9725
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 204; Nays, 4 9725
(Motion agreed to and bill read the third timeand passed.) 9726
Bill C-93. Considered resumed of motion. 9726
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 136; Nays, 72 9726
(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.) 9726
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.) 9726
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotion No. 1 9726
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 37;Nays, 171 9727
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 33;Nays, 175 9728
Motion No. 3 negatived on division: Yeas, 72;Nays, 136 9729
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 176; Nays, 32 9730
Bill C-82. Motion for third reading 9731
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9740
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9741
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9741
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9742
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9742
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9742
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9742
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9743
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9743
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9744
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9744
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9744
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9745
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9745
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9745
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9747
Bill C-82. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 9749
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 125; Nays, 66 9756
(Bill read the third time and passed) 9757
Bill C-55. Motion for third reading 9757
Motion M-260. Consideration resumed of motion 9765
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 173; Nays, 0 9765
Bill C-44. Consideration resumed of report stage 9766
Motion No. 1 agreed to on division: Yeas, 179; Nays, 7 9766
Motion No. 2 negatived on division: Yeas, 29;Nays, 157 9767
Motion No. 67 negatived on division: Yeas, 67;Nays, 119 9768
Motion No. 68 negatived on division: Yeas, 60;Nays, 126 9769
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 36; Nays, 149 9770
Motion No. 76 negatived on division: Yeas, 1;Nays, 184 9771
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 2; Nays, 183 9772
Motion No. 102 agreed to on division: Yeas, 154;Nays, 30 9773
Motion No. 3 agreed to on division: Yeas, 184;Nays, 0 9774
Motion No. 5 agreed to on division: Yeas, 156;Nays, 28 9775
Motion No. 6 negatived on division: Yeas, 8; Nays 176 9776
Motion No. 7 agreed to on division: Yeas, 126;Nays, 58 9777
Motion No. 15 agreed to on division: Yeas, 146;Nays, 37 9778
Motion No. 26 negatived on division: Yeas, 31;Nays, 152 9779
Motion No. 28 agreed to on division: Yeas, 116;Nays, 67 9780
Motion No. 19 negatived on division: Yeas, 37;Nays, 146 9781
Motion No. 128 agreed to on division: Yeas, 148;Nays, 35 9782
Motion for concurrence 9783
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 37 9783
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9786
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 9787
9701
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
The House met at 10 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
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 17 petitions.
* * *
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts, I am pleased to present the seventh report of the
Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Our committee examined chapter 23 of the report tabled by the
Auditor General of Canada in November 1996, dealing with
materiel management in the federal government. The report
contains eight recommendations.
I merely wish to draw your attention to the following paragraph
which, I think, accurately reflects what we wanted to say. The
procurement and use of materiel is one of the federal government's
costlier activities. It is therefore of vital importance that this
activity be properly managed in order to keep costs to government
and the taxpayers who fund it to a minimum. At the same time,
these resources have to be intelligently managed in order to ensure
that they deliver maximum value.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts is asking the government to table a comprehensive
response to this report.
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th
report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order of reference made on April 10, 1997, the
committee approved 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, and agreed to report it as amended.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-404, an act respecting conscientious
objection to the use of taxes for military purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce this private
member's bill known as the Conscientious Objection Act. The
purpose of the bill is to permit individuals who object on
conscientious grounds to paying taxes that might be used for
military purposes to direct an amount equivalent to a prescribed
percentage of the income tax they pay in a year be diverted to a
special account established by this bill.
(1010 )
The bill would not constrain in any way the ability of
government to spend tax dollars as it sees fit.
In introducing this bill I would like to pay special tribute to
Conscience Canada Inc., particularly Orion Smith and Kate Penner,
to the Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
or Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee and the Conference
of Mennonites, et aussi, Nos impôts pour la paix.
A great deal of work and thought has been put into this bill. I
hope it will commend itself to members of the House and that it
will be adopted in this Parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
9702
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition sponsored by the Canadian Automobile Association
concerning the federal gasoline tax for cars. The petitioners want to
see that money used for the rebuilding of national highways.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three petitions to present. The first petition comes from
people across British Columbia and states that the undersigned
bring to the attention of Parliament the fact that British Columbia
has a senatorial selection act which allows for the election of
British Columbia senators.
They also draw attention to the fact that the British Columbia
Senator Len Marchand will resign his seat in the Senate shortly.
Therefore, these petitioners call on Parliament to urge the
Governor General to appoint a duly elected person according to the
forthcoming vacant British Columbia seat in the Senate of Canada.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition from concerned citizens across British Columbia
contains 138 signatures. The petitioners believe that the existing 7
per cent GST is unjust taxation of reading materials and they urge
the government to demonstrate its support of education and literacy
by eliminating sales tax on reading materials.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present the following petition from constituents in my
riding of Comox-Alberni. It contains 2,400 signatures and brings
the total number of signatures from my riding to over 10,000.
The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens
to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration
of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to advise that Question No. 106 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 106-Mr. Milliken:
How many inmates were double-bunked in correctional facilities as of December
31, 1996?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): As of
December 31, 1996, there were 4,445 inmates in federal
institutions who were double-bunked (two in one cell) out of a total
inmate population of 14,264.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9702
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-55, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons
and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General
Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Copies of the ruling are available at the
table for Bill C-55.
There are four motions in amendment standing on the Notice
Paper for report stage of Bill C-55. Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be
grouped for debate but voted on separately. I will now submit
Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-55, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 3 with
the following:
``752.1 (1) Where an offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury
offence defined in section 752 and, on application by the prosecution, at any time
during the time the offender is serving the sentence imposed for the offence, the
court is of''
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-55, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 40 on page 4 the
following:
``(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an offender has been convicted of a
serious personal injury offence defined in section 752 and has previously been
convicted of such an offence, the court shall find the offender to be a long-term
offender without an application being made in that regard.''
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-55, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 28 on page 6
with the following:
``fend if the offender has been convicted of
(
a) an offence under section 151 (sexual interference), 152 (invitation to sexual
touching) or 153 (sexual exploitation), subsection 173(2) (exposure) or section 271
9703
(sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual
assault);
(a.1) an offence under subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of or by child),
section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity), 171 (householder
permitting sexual activity by child) or 172 (corrupting children), subsection
212(2) (living off the avails of prostitution by a child) or 212(4) (obtaining sexual
services of a child);
(a.2) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section
155 (incest) or 159 (anal intercourse) or subsections 160(1) and (2) (bestiality and
compelling bestiality);
(a.3) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section
144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female) or 156
(indecent assault on male) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised
Statutes of Canada, 1970, as they read immediately before January 4, 1983; or
(a.4) has engaged in serious conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of
another offence of which the offender has been convicted; and''
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-55, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 12 with the
following:
``fifteen years from the day on which that person''
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss more criminal justice
matters, specifically Bill C-55 and the need to toughen the law
when it comes to release of offenders and the designation of certain
offenders, especially violent offenders.
There is no question we need some substantive changes in the
sentencing procedures as well as in the area of incarceration.
(1015 )
In a way prisoners have it too good on one side and on the other
the line is not clear, if they step over it, on what should happen to
them or what could happen to them. As a result there is a certain
arrogance that has developed within the prison population of those
who are bent on committing a lot of crime. There is no punishment
within the correctional system. It is obvious this attitude would
manifest itself in the lives of so many offenders and so few have
their attitudes corrected in the system as it exists.
That has been evident to me as my colleagues and I have
travelled across the country and have stopped in at various prisons
in Canada. Some of us have been to the United States and looked at
some of those prison procedures and methods of incarceration, but
we are talking about Canada and the attitude of prisoners in
Canada.
Are the politicians of the day doing what is best not only for the
country, for the community, for the innocent, but also for the
prisoners themselves? For the most part I would have to say a
resounding no, the politicians of the day and the government of the
day, the Liberal Party, certainly are not doing what they should be
doing to curb the attitude of the criminal.
In response to their view of what should be done and to the
outcry from the public, the justice minister brings forward Bill
C-55. When we look closely at the bill it appears to be doing the
right thing. It is incremental in its scope as far as change is
concerned but ultimately it is not really coming close to what has to
be done when we look at the rate of victimization in the country
from the hands of those who are constantly reoffending.
My first motion seeks to deal with the dangerous offender
application and to bring about the provision that would allow the
crown to give notice at the time of conviction of an application
review. What we are seeking to do is have that review take place at
any time during the offender's release.
I have had an opportunity to look through some of the more
recent convictions of offenders who have been released. After they
have served their sentence or a portion of their sentence they have
been released. All the reports clearly point to the fact that they are
going to reoffend. Yet because of the present provision the law does
not allow for a dangerous offender application to go forward after
they have been incarcerated. It has to be done at the time of
sentencing.
That is an injustice because so many times offenders are released
back into society they immediately reoffend and are put back into
the system again. That is at a great cost to the taxpayer, but then an
unnecessary victimization is taking place because the crown or the
government, corrections Canada, has chosen not to make that
application at the very front end. There should be a provision to
make an application of dangerous offender at any time during the
incarceration of that offender.
I looked at some offences that took place in my own riding. I am
going to make mention of one in particular, a fellow by the name of
James Tocher, a pedophile. As far as I am concerned a pedophile is
a dangerous offender, but there is no provision for that
classification in Bill C-55 presented by the justice minister.
The justice minister for one reason or another has failed to
expand this whole area of dangerous offender.
(1020)
Mr. Tocher has been charged on numerous occasions with
pedophilia. The last account was for three young boys he attacked
in Calgary this year. He is subject to sentencing. He is a former
hockey coach and he made these attacks, these manipulations, very
carefully. Unfortunately pedophiles are very devious people in the
sense that they manipulate their way so that they can get a hold of
children almost at anytime.
9704
Since 1984 Tocher has been in and out of prison. He would spend
a few months in prison, be released for a few months more after
reoffending and then be released and reoffend. He has been before
the courts five or six times and all basically relating to the same
thing.
After the second time I would suggest that this man should not
walk the street, and yet this is the case. He has been in and out, in
and out, and no application made. It is often the case that the crown
will not proceed in that fashion because it costs too much. The cost
of victimization and revictimization is much higher than what
dollars and cents would be to hear the case and make an application
for dangerous offender.
A man like Tocher should be classified as a dangerous offender
right off the bat or at anytime during that first sentence served.
Once he has served his sentence and it is clear that he is going to
reoffend the application can be made again and his time extended
and extended if necessary.
That is one of the other provisions that we had made in our
review of this legislation, as an amendment, that after 15 years if it
is clear that this person is a dangerous offender and is going to
reoffend then at that time there would be an opportunity for review,
not in the short order provisions that have been placed by the
justice minister on Bill C-55 where he has extended it from three
years to seven years. We would like to see the review take place
after fifteen years of time served.
I have colleagues who are going to speak to this area to a much
greater degree. My colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley will certainly do that.
A third point that we feel is very necessary and again dealing
with dangerous offenders is the sentence served upon second
conviction of a personal injury offence would be an indefinite one.
The subject has not learned his lesson the first time. By being
subjected to a second offence and through the court hearing it
would be an automatic indefinite sentence and a minimum service
of time of 15 years. We are designating that as two strikes and you
are out. In California is a law where there is a three strike provision
which has certainly targeted a small element of the criminal
society. It has put them under a restraint that takes any violent
offender out for life. This is one area that we would like to see
extended into our provisions in the Criminal Code. Here is the
opportunity for the Liberal government to do exactly that.
I want to quickly point out that when it comes to long term
offenders we would like to see that list of offences include many of
the sexual offences and especially sex crimes against children.
Those are our four amendments. My colleagues are going to deal
with each one of those in a broader context. I am trusting that the
Liberal government and those in this House will take consideration
of what has been provided for here and vote in favour of the
amendments.
(1025 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to respond to the motions which have been put forward by the
hon. member. I wish to address these amendments as a group. I
believe that would be the appropriate way to deal with them. They
are all amendments to the dangerous offender and long term
offender components of Bill C-55.
A new long term offender procedure which targets sex offenders
is central to Bill C-55. Equally important are the changes that Bill
C-55 proposes to the existing dangerous offender procedure. I
suggest that Bill C-55 significantly increases the ability of
prosecutors to obtain very long sentences against sex offenders and
of course gives the courts the authority they need to impose these
long sentences.
Bill C-55, in its present form, has received widespread support
from victims rights groups, from prosecutors and from the police
community. Many of the witnesses before the standing committee
said that Bill C-55 is a major improvement.
What the amendments which the hon. member proposed try to
do is expand the dangerous offender and long term offender
procedures, but they do so in a simplistic way and in a way which
would distort these carefully crafted measures and potentially
lessen their impact.
Let me give an example. One of the amendments would
postpone the initial parole review of a dangerous offender until 15
years into the sentence. Bill C-55 sets the date at seven years. The
current law is three years. In other words, the government has
found a middle ground between the Reform Party amendment and
the status quo. There is good reason for this.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a parole review is
especially important when we lock someone up for an
indeterminate period. What is a reasonable period to make the
offender wait before the initial parole review? In fact, no one gets
out after only three years. Not very many get parole after seven
years either. This is comparable to the waiting period for parole
eligibility of sentences for very serious violent offences. That is
why the government chose to set parole ineligibility at seven years.
The courts would not allow a waiting period of 15 years. It
would be struck down as conflicting with the charter of rights.
Let us examine another of the proposed amendments. It proposes
that an offender convicted of a second serious personal injury
offence or perhaps even a broader list of offences would
automatically be found to be a long term offender, without any
special application being made. In other words, it would be two
strikes and you are automatically out.
9705
The Reform Party has taken the well designed, long term
offender procedure in Bill C-55 and undermined the entire
structure of this measure in an effort to get its cherished two
strikes and you are out law on the books.
Let us spend a moment on the long term offender concept so that
we can all understand the importance of this amendment. First, the
idea came from a report by a federal-provincial task force on high
risk offenders which federal and provincial justice ministers
endorsed. The long term offender concept is a way to get at serious
repeat sex offenders. It allows the court to add up to ten years of
intensive supervision to the sentences of sex offenders. Moreover,
if the crown does not get them with a dangerous offender
application, it would probably succeed in getting a long term
offender designation. Indeed, Bill C-55 gives us a double barrelled
weapon against sex offenders.
The long term offender concept has also been seen as involving a
special process, a special application, a thorough assessment of risk
and an intensive hearing that goes beyond the normal sentence
hearing. We need this special process partly because there is the
prospect of locking this offender up for a very long time.
We also need to have a detailed assessment of risk. The long
term offender rules allow a 60 day assessment by a range of
experts. We need to have this special hearing so that the pattern of
offending can come out in court and so that the extent of the
offender's criminality can become fully evident.
(1030)
The amendment in question does violence to the very nature of
long term offender procedure by making everything automatic.
Every offender would be subject to a long term offender
designation without distinction. The pattern of past offending
would not come out and the court would lack the information it
needs to judge risk and impose the appropriate long term
supervision period.
An automatic long term offender finding is so unselective as to
be arbitrary in its use. It would encounter serious charter problems.
The long term offender procedure as set out in Bill C-55 is
structured to work hand in glove with the dangerous offender
option.
If the criminal is not found to be a dangerous offender, in many
cases he can easily be designated a long term offender in the
alternative. I prefer a double barrelled effective option to the
Reform's scatter gun ineffective approach.
Let us call the proposed amendment the son of Bill C-254. It
would allow a dangerous offender application to be brought at any
time during the sentence of an offender. This is very close to a
recent private member's bill by the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley. It was examined in parallel to Bill C-55 by
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
It is safe to say that Bill C-254 received absolutely no support
from the two dozen witnesses who appeared before the committee.
Unlike Bill C-55 it was defeated in committee for very good
reason, I might add. Allowing a dangerous offender application to
be brought years after the offender has been sentenced is
unconstitutional.
Bill C-55 creates a six-month window of opportunity beyond
sentence whereby the crown, having given notice to the convicted
person, can reserve the right to seek a dangerous offender ruling
within a few months of conviction. It can only do this when new
evidence comes to light.
By contrast, the Reform Party amendment would wreak all kinds
of unconstitutional havoc. Offenders would be sitting around for
years wondering if the dangerous offender application might be
brought against them, even though according to the charter of
rights everyone has the right to know what the penalty will be for
the crime.
The courts will not allow the criminal justice system to
resentence offenders for the same conduct. The four amendments
are not helpful. Together they seek to widen the net of dangerous
and long term offender measures and in so doing weaken both.
If implemented, the amendments would catch small fish in the
net and lessen our ability and our resources to deal with the most
serious offenders. The government has taken an extensive and
profound amount of time to get Bill C-55 right. I wish the Reform
Party had done the same.
It is very typical of Reformers to bring forward amendments to
legislation, to promote legislation in public which has no hope of
meeting the tests of constitutionality. If they brought forward the
amendments they talk about, there would be serious violent
offenders and serious sexual offenders taking advantage of
unconstitutional laws and wasting court time. There would be no
effective measures to use against them in the end.
In contrast, the government is bringing forward measures that
are effective, enforceable and constitutional as another part of the
package to ensure safe homes and safe streets.
As has been said on many occasions, the government has acted
forthrightly and sternly to bring forward amendments to the
Criminal Code. More amendments or more changes to toughen up
the criminal law have brought than in the history of the nation in
the last 3.5 years.
We have seen the results. A reduction in the crime rate is one. It
is also a result of taking a broad based approach to social justice
and jobs, in addition to measures in the criminal law to bring about
a decreased crime rate.
9706
I urge the Reform Party to look at the results and to promote
laws that are constitutional.
(1035)
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for allowing me to speak at report stage of Bill C-55.
The members for Prince-Albert-Churchill River and Calgary
Northeast have raised interesting arguments. We will be looking
primarily at Motion No. 3, which warrants particular attention,
because it aims at amending section 753.1 of the Criminal Code,
and more specifically subsection 2.
The section concerns applications for declarations of long term
offenders, that is, people presenting risks. I do not think that, in its
bill as presently worded, the government goes far enough when it
sets the criteria the court is to decide on to determine the risk of an
individual's reoffending.
Thus the government says that the court shall be satisfied that
there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend, if:
-the offender has been convicted of an offence under section 151 (sexual
interference), 152 (invitation to sexual touching), or 153 (sexual exploitation),
subsection 173(2) (exposure) or section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault
with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault)-
or has:
-engaged in serious conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of another
offence of which the offender has been convicted.
I consider the bill falls particularly short where it says ``engaged
in serious conduct of a sexual nature''. I think the terms should be
clarified. In this regard, Motion No. 3 before us goes a lot further,
because it defines in large part and limits the entire notion of the
conduct of a sexual nature the court may consider serious.
Thus Motion No. 3 would oblige the court to consider the
behaviour of a sexual offender serious when the person has been
convicted of an offence under
-section 151 (sexual interference), 152 (invitation to sexual touching) or 153
(sexual exploitation), subsection 173(2) (exposure) or section 271 (sexual assault),
272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault).
or has been found guilty of
(a.1)-an offence under subsection 160(3) (bestiality in presence of or by child),
section 170 (parent or guardian procuring sexual activity), 171 (householder
permitting sexual activity by child), or 172 (corrupting children), subsection 212(2)
(living of the avails of prostitution by a child) or 212(4) (obtaining sexual services of
a child).
(a.2) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section
155 (incest) or 159 (anal intercourse) or subsections 160(1) and (2) bestiality and
compelling bestiality).
(a.3) an offence involving a person under the age of eighteen years under section
144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female) or 156
(indecent assault on male)-
At the end is added, and that the person: ``has engaged in serious
conduct of a sexual nature in the commission of another offence of
which the offender has been convicted''.
So, as we can see, the list proposed in Motion No. 3 is much
more comprehensive than what constitutes a serious offence of a
sexual nature, since the list is not limited to the three or four
offences identified in Bill C-55 at the moment.
(1040)
Committing bestiality or compelling children to do so seems to
me to be extremely serious conduct of which the court must take
account, and the present wording could allow an argument to the
effect that it was not so serious, since it is not so described in the
bill's proposed wording of section 753.1.
The official opposition and I feel that Motion No. 3 greatly
improves the guidelines that will be used by the courts to determine
whether a person is an offender requiring supervision. In this sense,
we must strive for precision in our criminal law, in our Criminal
Code, in order to ensure uniform application of the law throughout
Canada.
We do not have the time to wait for the Supreme Court to rule, in
five, six, seven, eight or ten years' time, that such delinquent
sexual conduct is highly unacceptable conduct that should
normally be taken into account by a lower court.
We can determine right here in the House of Commons, the ideal
forum in which to do so, what we consider to be serious delinquent
conduct of a sexual nature that must be taken into account by the
court. We can do this here, without leaving it up to the courts to
decide, as the present wording of section 753.1 would have us do.
The definitions of delinquent sexual conduct, as proposed by the
hon. member for Calgary Northeast, are therefore a step in the right
direction for counsel and also for the courts called upon to enforce
these provisions following royal assent and passage of this bill. The
official opposition will therefore be voting in favour of MotionNo. 3.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to speak to Bill C-55,
although I feel the government's response to dangerous offender
legislation falls far short of what it should be.
In my 3.5 years in this place I have concentrated a great deal of
my time and energy in looking at dangerous offender legislation, its
shortcomings, and ways we could improve upon it. I introduced a
private member's bill to the House in the first session in April
9707
1994. It passed unanimously at second reading and then was buried
in committee by the Liberal government for over two years before
it was dealt with when Bill C-55 came into play.
The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River made
some inaccurate statements in the House earlier when he said that
none of the witnesses at the committee studying both Bill C-55 and
Bill C-254, my private member's bill, supported my bill. He is
correct in that the Liberal members of the committee did not
support any element of it. They completely gutted it and refused to
bring it back into the House for consideration.
There were witnesses that did support it. I would like to give
representation from the committee that studied the two bills. I
quote Chief Julien Fantino of the London Police Force who said
that Bill C-55 and Bill C-254 were a significant steps in the right
direction and that high risk offenders must be differentiated from
the rest of the inmate population and handled accordingly.
He went on to say:
If a person is deemed to be so high risk, so dangerous and so likely to reoffend, I
quite agree there ought to be some state imposed controls and conditions, some
governance of such an individual, to the point where communities are absolutely
guaranteed that person will not constitute a risk to anyone.
I will share some evidence from Professor Hart and Professor
Hare from Simon Fraser University and the University of British
Columbia who are experts on violent offenders. These men have
spent their careers studying dangerous offenders and psychopaths. I
will share some of the comments of Professor Hare to the
committee. He stated: ``The evidence was very strong that the
psychopathic offenders in fact did not follow the pre-release plans.
They did not follow the rules and regulations of the program. They
were violating them all the time''.
(1045)
Professor Hart went on to say: ``-psychopaths commit
significantly more violence overall, but they actually commit very
different kinds of violent offences as well-psychopaths tend to
make decisions quite quickly to commit violent crimes that are
instrumental for economic gain or other reasons. It's not simply a
result of strong emotional arousal or things like that-you find they
are actually much more violent and violent in a different way''.
Professor Hare goes on to say: ``Their violence is predatory,
planned, premeditated, dispassionate and cold-blooded when
compared with the intense emotional arousal that often leads to a
violent act for the rest of the offenders''. They are speaking about
the 15 to 20 per cent of the population that can easily be assessed as
psychopaths.
I want to go on to what the victims of violence groups have to
say. Mr. Sullivan stated: ``It is unfortunate that the committee
could not have dealt with the bill sooner,'' speaking of Bill C-254.
``It would have been very valuable had the committee dealt with
that two years ago rather than waiting for Bill C-55-Bill C-254 is
not whether or not it is a good idea. I hope we can all agree that it is
a good idea. Strictly on a public safety platform this bill would save
lives. Make no doubt about it, this bill would save lives''. He is not
talking about Bill C-55. He is talking about my private member's
bill C-254.
He goes on to talk about the charter. He talks about who the
charter is protecting, the victims or the offenders and took very
great exception to the argument that Bill C-254 would not survive a
charter challenge.
It was very clear from the testimony of many of the witnesses
that they fully supported an attempt by this government or any
other government to identify-and they can be easily
identified-those 15 to 20 per cent high risk offenders who do not
respond to treatment, who are not likely to be able to go back into
society and lead meaningful lives. One of the experts in these
matters said that you can detect with the same accuracy a
psychopath as you can that treatment for a heart condition is going
to relieve angina pain. I would suggest that heart patients are not
going to refuse treatment, the angioplasty or whatever, if the high
percentage of them know that it is going to help them.
The witnesses supported this government or another government
taking a much stronger stand in keeping dangerous offenders, the
15 to 20 per cent who are a high risk of reoffending, off the streets;
not long term offenders, not giving them an extra six months after
the time of sentencing, but when they are identified right up to the
last year of being released from prison, of being designated or of
allowing the system to keep those high risk offenders off the street
to protect our society from people who have been tested and who
have been selected as individuals who cannot be treated, who
cannot be trusted to not reoffend.
When questioned by the committee on how reliable was the test
and when can we start using it, we were told that it is very easy. The
success rate for juveniles age 13 and 14 is just as great as it is with
adults. The testimony of the expert witnesses suggested that you
have a much greater chance for treatment of a juvenile who has
been assessed than you do with an adult and that rather than
wasting the resources on trying to change the behaviour of an adult,
where you are not going to succeed, those resources should be
placed where they can do the most good.
There is no question in my mind that the government, as with
many other pieces of legislation, has taken the easy road. The
legislation is not prepared to do what it should to protect society.
9708
(1050)
The government is fooling itself when it claims to be making all
these substantive changes in the justice field, for example, in the
Young Offenders Act and the areas of sentencing and high risk
offenders. It is fooling itself if it thinks those changes will make a
meaningful difference in society.
In the next few weeks and months people will have to make a
decision. They will have to decide whether the government's weak
approach to all these issues is what they want or whether they want
a government that is solely committed to the protection of society.
Unless I am naive, I thought that was what government was all
about. I thought government was governing for the people, that it
would make sure the majority of the people in society were being
cared for and provided for and that their protection was being
guaranteed to them.
I did not come to this place thinking we were here to make sure a
few people were going to get preferential treatment, that the
offenders were going to get better treatment than the victims, that
high risk offenders were going to be put back out on the streets to
reoffend, to cause more grief and heartache for innocent victims in
society. I assure the House that is not why I came here. That is not
why I have spent three and a half years trying to get the government
to understand the concerns of Canadians.
Canadians want somebody to be concerned about them. They
want a government that will look after them, their wives, their
children, their families, not the 15 per cent to 20 per cent high risk
offenders who have committed violent, vicious acts, sometimes
murder, sometimes not. The emphasis of government should be on
the protection of society.
This legislation needs to be amended. If the amendments we are
presently dealing with at report stage will help in any way to add
some weight and protection to society, then members should
consider them. The government had an opportunity three years ago
this month to deal with this issue but it chose to sit on it for over
two years before it brought in other legislation. It did this in order
to take credit for being concerned about the needs and the
protection of society.
This is a joke, the government is a joke and the people will have
a chance to change that in the next coming months.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate this morning on Bill C-55 which
deals with high risk offenders. In preparing to do so I was struck
with the fact that if we had tougher laws and if we had dealt more
seriously with violent offenders earlier, many of them would not be
in the position they are in today.
While Bill C-55 has some improvements, it is really a
half-hearted response to the demands of the Canadian people for
tougher action on criminals. When I hear the response of the
government about its concern for legislation that will pass the
charter, it is saying there is more concern in that area than there is
for the safety of Canadians.
I know the government has to be aware of the consequences of
any legislation but nevertheless the message that is going out is that
it is giving the benefit of the doubt to criminals rather than to
law-abiding citizens. That is the environment or the thinking that is
evident on the other side when it is preparing legislation to deal
with changes to the criminal justice system.
This is a major concern of Canadians. Next to unemployment,
Canadians are concerned about safety in their homes, in their
streets and in their communities.
(1055)
I recall in my home city of Barrie during the 1993 election
campaign that three residents in my community were murdered.
The impact that it had back then was very significant. As a matter
of fact, an accused is now just being brought to trial. That
reinforced the fear that exists not only in my community but all
across Ontario and Canada for the safety of law-abiding citizens.
The government is failing in what is a major responsibility to our
people, that of protecting the life and property of law-abiding
citizens. Should these citizens ever become victims they discover
to their horror that they are failed again. They discover the
difference between their rights and the victim's rights. I applaud
my colleague from Fraser Valley West who has put forward his
private member's bill dealing with the rights of victims, something
that is long overdue.
Earlier I said that this bill was a half-hearted response by the
government to deal severely with violent offenders. If we want to
look at a half-hearted response I do not think there is any better
example than Bill C-45. It dealt with violent people in our
communities. The lack of commitment to deal with violence is
shown in that bill, which is really the bill that introduced two-tier
killers. If you are convicted of first degree murder of one person
you are eligible for parole but if you kill more than one person you
are not. That is not what Canadians are looking for. If you take a
life, whether it is one life or more, you should do your full sentence
of 25 years.
It raises the question: Who do we work for? Are we here in the
House of Commons to represent our voters? Reformers are. We are
here to represent our voters. We ask our voters questions and we
listen to what our voters say.
I want to share the voice of my riding of Simcoe Centre. I want
to share the responses to the householders I have sent out with
questionnaires dealing specifically with the criminal justice
system. The first was a survey dealing with section 745 of the
Criminal Code, the faint hope clause. I did this survey in the spring
of 1995. Section 745 of the Criminal Code allows convicted first
degree murderers to apply for early release after serving only 15
9709
years of their life sentence. I asked: Do you believe this section
should be eliminated? Of the 1,645 who responded, 85 per cent said
yes it should be removed, 9 per cent said no and 6 per cent were
undecided.
On the question of capital punishment, in the fall of 1995 I
asked: Do you support the holding of a binding national
referendum on capital punishment? From almost 1,600
respondents, 78 per cent said yes, 15 per cent said no and 7 per cent
were undecided.
In the spring of 1995 I asked my constituents about Bill C-68 and
gun control. I asked: Where should the primary emphasis in new
legislation be placed? The use of firearms in criminal acts and
firearms smuggling or additional restrictions on legal gun owners?
Of the responses to that survey 87 per cent said that the primary
emphasis should be on firearms used in criminal acts and firearms
smuggling and only 4 per cent said there should be additional
restrictions on legal gun owners. There were 1,645 responses to
that survey.
(1100)
The last question dealing with criminal justice was on the Young
Offenders Act. That was in the fall of 1994. The question I asked
was: ``Do you believe the Young Offenders Act should be changed
to ensure more adequate punishment of young offenders?'' There
were 2,200 responses to that survey. Ninety-seven per cent said
yes, 2 per cent said no, and 1 per cent was undecided.
The responses to the four questions I just outlined clearly
demonstrate the constituents of the riding of Simcoe Centre want
us to get tougher with criminals, particularly violent criminals in
society.
Let us take a look at each of the issues and the overwhelming
support that is evident in my riding. Section 745 is the faint hope
clause dealing with first degree murderers. There was a murder in
my riding. A young father by the name of Kaplinski was murdered
by Kinsella and Sales. I talked to the family. When we talk to the
families of victims we understand how tragic it is when they have
to relive the horror of the murder at a section 745 hearing.
My riding is very much in tune with what Canadians from coast
to coast want when it comes to capital punishment. I understand
that 76 per cent of Canadians support capital punishment. In
Simcoe Centre it is 78 per cent.
With Bill C-55 Bernardo will still be eligible for a hearing.
We had the gun control bill. The problem with the bill is that it
gave us a false sense of security. Many in society think it is the
answer to making their homes and streets safer, but it is not.
Where are the government's priorities when it would spend up to
$400 million for gun control to supposedly make society safer for
women and only spend $4 million on breast cancer?
Then we have the Young Offenders Act. The grandmother of
Sylvain Leduc visited Ottawa last week. He was murdered by
young offenders who showed no remorse. There was no apology.
There will be no deterrent and these young people will go on to a
life of crime.
Whenever groups of school children from my riding visit Ottawa
I meet with them. Many of these school children are victims of
young offenders. I asked them for a show of hands on what they
think about the changes we are proposing such as lowering the age
and identifying the young offenders. The majority of them said we
should be lowering the age and we should be identifying the violent
young offenders in our communities. Even our young people feel
that we should be getting tougher with young offenders.
We would like to see Bill C-55 strengthened with two strikes and
you are out. We do not believe violent offenders should have an
unlimited ability to reoffend. We should be able to designate
someone as a dangerous offender at any time during the sentence.
We should not be restricted to a six-month period. We should
broaden the definition of dangerous offenders to include
pedophiles and sexual predators.
Canadians will have an opportunity in a few weeks to voice their
concerns about the government's lack of desire to deal in a serious
way with what is a major problem for Canadians not just in my
riding but right across Canada. They want violent offenders to be
held responsible for their actions, particularly young offenders. If
we dealt with them in a more responsible way they would not go on
to a life of crime.
Their day is coming. It is only weeks away. It will be a major
issue in the election campaign. I am looking forward to Canadians
voicing their support for the only party that has a platform to get
tough with violent criminals.
(1105)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-55.
We heard a lot about dangerous offenders and some offences that
should be included in the dangerous offender category. I will try to
explain to the government the need to categorize and identify why
certain offences should be under the dangerous offender category.
Why is the public looking more and more to articulating why
certain offences should be categorized and why there is a lack of
trust the judiciary will actually call a spade a spade and give out a
sentence in proportion to the crime committed? In doing so I will
9710
try to explain why the judiciary is out of sync with society and why
victims today have lost confidence.
For instance, during the sentencing of a man who broke into his
estranged wife's home while on probation, Judge Louis Matheson
said that: ``I don't know whether it is your own fault or you happen
to have a very sensitive mate who is easily rattled''. Twelve days
later the man's girlfriend was shot to death and he was charged with
her murder. I raise this story to try to show why the system of
justice is out of sync with victims and those who may become
victims and their expectations.
During the sentencing of a man for sexual assault, Judge Louis
Matheson said that if the victims had been women instead of girls
he would have thrown it out of court. Can we imagine the logic
behind that statement?
Frederick Metcalfe of Oshawa was given a two-year less a day
prison term followed by three years of probation for grabbing a
three-year old boy and kicking him in the stomach in the house
Metcalfe shared with the boy's mother, his girlfriend. The blows
ruptured the boy's liver and pancreas. He also suffered permanent
brain damage that crippled him physically and mentally. He cannot
walk or talk and has lost vision in one eye.
Although Metcalfe was charged with aggravated assault, Justice
Sam Murphy was not convinced the brain damage the boy suffered
that night resulted from the attack. After one doctor testified the
boy could have suffered a brain aneurysm, Judge Murphy
convicted Metcalfe of a lesser charge of assault causing bodily
harm. He was given two years less a day for a savage attack on a
child who is now crippled for life.
These decisions in our courts are happening all the time. People
are sick and tired of them. People are apprehensive that there will
be real justice applied in a courtroom today.
Some wonder why we are demanding in Bill C-55 that certain
types of offences be included in the dangerous offender category.
The reason is that we cannot any longer trust the decisions of those
who should be making them.
Not too long ago in 1989, to show how consistent things are
because I can give some very recent situations, Douglas Schwartz
raped and maimed a 7-year old girl very close to my riding. He
raped her so savagely that her vagina had to be surgically
reconstructed. As a result of an appeal in 1991, not so very long
ago, Judge Allan McEachern reduced Schwartz's prison sentence
for that attack from nine to five years because he said there was no
evidence that Schwartz was either sexually deviant or a risk to the
community. These are facts I am talking about here.
(1110)
He concluded that Schwartz's thinking was impaired by drink
when he assaulted the child. The magnitude of the chief justice's
error of judgment became apparent when Douglas Schwartz was
found guilty in the Supreme Court of British Columbia of sexually
assaulting a woman six months after his early release from jail.
That is what we are talking about, yet the House wonders why we
are asking for these kinds of offences to be included in dangerous
offender status.
They are not made up stories. They are errors in judgment. They
are loopholes in the laws of the country. They are problems that can
be resolved in the House of Commons, but they are not being
resolved.
The folks over there can say that Reformers are some kind of
group of extremists.
Mr. Fewchuk: You belong to the cult.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I hear the member. People
who live in Ontario, Atlantic Canada and other places are getting
ready to vote. I can assure Canadians that the members sitting here
are very close to their communities. They see these kinds of
situations day in and day out. These real horrors are happening
without the government being accountable.
I heard the Minister of Justice say in the House: ``This person
just got a conditional sentence. I know he raped and tortured this
young lady, but it is going to an appeal court''. I say: ``You
spineless creature''. It is in appeal court because he did not have the
courage of his convictions in the first place to exclude serious
offences from conditional sentencing. That is the problem.
We have debated this point until we are sick and tired of debating
it. Now we are dealing with Bill C-55 and we are telling the
government that included in the list of dangerous offences should
be a whole bunch of other offences that have been left out.
What will the government do when we have a repeat of the
Darren Ursel situation in British Columbia, when these same kinds
of offenders offend women? What will the government do when we
stand here and tell it to look at what it has done? The government
will say that it should have gone to appeal court, that it should be
appealed, that more money should be given to the lawyers to appeal
it.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The member says: ``Hear,
hear''. They agree with it.
The government will say that we should leave the decisions with
the judges of the land who are well known to make abysmal
decisions in some cases.
(1115)
I hear decisions like sexual assaults ``occur when the woman is
drunk and has passed out, and the man comes along, sees a pair of
hips and helps himself'' from a judge.
9711
This country cannot afford to have a government in place that
does not have the courage of its convictions and will not legislate
law. It cannot afford to have the judiciary-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the member's time has
expired.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are debating yet another of the bills the justice minister is
trying to rush through the House before an election call at the end
of the month.
Suddenly the justice minister has decided that he should look
like he is doing something to give justice to Canadians. That is
good. One wonders why it has to happen just before an election,
before the justice minister is going to the voters.
In any event, here we are debating the fourth or fifth justice bill
that is supposed to go through the House in a very short period of
time. Bill C-55 is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect
to high risk offenders.
If there is a high risk that a criminal or an offender, if released
back into society, will harm or violently reoffend, then this bill is
supposed to protect society from that person by ensuring that he or
she is not released back into society until no longer a high risk
offender.
The original Bill C-55 was not very effective in this, therefore
the justice minister is trotting up once more to strengthen it. It
would be good if he succeeded. Unfortunately, as usual, a timid
half measure is being trotted out, is being aggressively sold and
marketed as a substantial move forward to give Canadians the
protection that our society needs and is not getting.
It is up to Reform, as usual, to point out how misleading and how
ineffective these measures are. It becomes a marketing battle where
the Liberals and the justice minister say ``we sure got tough on
crime, you are a lot safer with us''.
It is up to the opposition to point out how ineffective and how
unsubstantial these changes are that are being sold as the real
goods. As a well known commercial says, where's the beef? There
is precious little in so many of these measures.
Yet if we do not support them, the minister then turns around and
in a very politically crass way writes letters to the newspapers
saying Reform has voted against his wonderful measures to protect
people, failing to mention that these are not wonderful measures at
all and do not deserve anybody's support at least not most
Canadians'.
Here we are with Bill C-55. It is very interesting because Bill
C-55, as members know from some of the speeches and
interventions of my colleagues, does not apply to a whole list of
violent criminals and certain people who are dangerous to society.
Specifically, it does not apply to those who prey on our children,
who are sexual predators and who are pedophiles. This is a very
interesting omission because it could so easily not have been an
omission and because our debate on this bill follows very closely
on the heels of our debate yesterday on Bill C-27.
(1120 )
Bill C-27, as is so typical with Liberal bills, puts a lot of hearts
and flowers into the preamble, which of course has no legal effect
but always plays the violin as to how the Liberals are so concerned
about the safety of Canadians. Then the measures that follow do
little or nothing to really follow up substantively on that concern.
In the preamble to Bill C-27 the first two paragraphs provide a
general context and affirm Parliament's concern about violence
against women and children in the areas addressed by the bill,
acknowledging children's heightened vulnerability to and greater
need for protection from exploitation and abuse.
Paragraph 6 of the preamble recalls Canada's undertaking in
ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
to protect children from and prevent their sexual exploitation and
abuse.
Paragraph 8 of the preamble expresses Parliament's wish in the
interest of promoting the life, liberty and security of women and
other victims of criminal harassment to strongly denounce that
offence by strengthening the law in relation to it.
Here we have some nice Liberal rhetoric about the need to
protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. What do we
have the very next day? We have a bill concerning criminals who
are known sexual predators, who are dangerous to the safety of our
children, who could be kept indefinitely out of society to protect
our children, and these people are totally missing from the list of
offenders who can be designated dangerous offenders under Bill
C-55.
We have to ask why that would be when there is a lot lip service
paid to protecting our children. In the very next bill that could
protect our children from sexual predators and from people who are
very likely to reoffend, and since we know that individuals falling
into this category are a danger to our children, why on earth does
Bill C-55 fail to ensure that these individuals can be kept out of
society and protect our children from them? I have been told, and I
am sure Liberal members and the Liberal justice minister know,
that there is no known cure for pedophilia.
Not only does the bill omit that category of offender, but we have
introduced an amendment to correct this oversight. That is very
kind of Reform, I would say. It is doing our job in a constructive
way to make sure that the stated objectives of the Liberal justice
minister and the Liberal government to protect society are actually
carried out. We have done the responsible thing.
9712
I would like Canadians to watch very carefully when it comes
time to vote on this amendment to include sexual predators and
those who exploit our children in the list of people who can be
kept indefinitely incarcerated under the dangerous offender
provisions of Bill C-55. I am willing to bet that the Liberals will
not put that in the bill. They will vote against the Reform
amendment. But during the election they are going to play the
violin and say ``boy, do we ever care about protecting children''.
When push comes to shove and they could protect children, that
is not in the bill and they will not even support an amendment
to put it in.
I get pretty tired of seeing letters like the one printed in the
Richmond News on March 23 where the justice minister has the gall
to say: ``We're really trying to protect this society but Reform
won't support us''. I guess not with this kind of hypocrisy and
nonsense.
The hearts and flowers, the preamble, the nice stuff that is
written at the beginning of these bills everyone would agree with.
What Canadians need to do is look at the substance of these bills
and see if there is any beef in them. Nine times out of ten there is
none.
(1125 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55 and to speak
specifically about the amendments we propose to bring this bill
into line with reality.
This bill has generated a lot of interest for people in my riding.
One of the reasons for this interest is a couple was murdered at
Valleyview 10 years ago by a fellow who is serving some time in
one of the penitentiaries. He is due to be released by May 1. I want
to use that case to illustrate how badly this Liberal government has
handled the whole criminal justice issue. It will also illustrate how
our amendments to Bill C-55 will help to correct some of that
imbalance.
In the last few weeks we have seen the justice minister
scrambling to shore up support. He knows he will be in grave
trouble during the next election campaign. The Liberal government
is in grave trouble because it has mishandled the whole criminal
justice issue during the past three and a half years of its mandate.
This government should not be returned to office because it is not
reflecting the concerns of Canadians.
Let me give this example of what has been happening. The case
of Rod Martineau is a classic example of what is going on all across
the country. it clearly illustrates the effects of this bill and the
importance of change. Rod Martineau is the 27-year old man who
assisted in the murders of two Valleyview, Alberta residents, Les
and Ann McLean, on February 6, 1985.
On that day both he and Tremblay went to the McLean home
with the intent to rob. Seventy-year old Les McLean was the only
one home at the time. The men held him at gunpoint and waited for
his wife Ann to return home. Patrick Tremblay, Martineau's
partner, then shot both of them in the back of the head. The very
day this happened, Rod Martineau had just been released from a
young offender facility in Grand Prairie. One of the case workers
had driven out to Valleyview to be released.
The two men murdered this couple because they were looking
for some money from their business. Martineau was only 15 years
old at the time. He had spent quite a bit of time in institutions.
According to the son of Les and Ann, Rod Martineau could have
fled the scene at any time of the impending crime while his partner
perpetrated this crime. Instead he helped to hold the two people at
gunpoint while he waited for the murder to take place, and he
assisted.
Martineau first appeared in youth court but was then transferred
to adult court. He was subsequently charged with second degree
murder but this conviction was overturned by the supreme court,
another example of our Liberal justice system. He was then
sentenced to six years in prison after pleading guilty to
manslaughter, robbery with violence and possession of a weapon.
He was considered violent and an escape risk.
The son of the victims says that at no time has Martineau shown
any remorse at all for his crimes. He has not accepted rehabilitation
while serving his sentence, yet we are still letting him out on
statutory release. I think he has had three releases to this point.
He was to be released the first time after serving only two-thirds
of his sentence. How is this possible? We have our current justice
minister to thank for this. Bill C-41, which the justice minister
introduced a short time ago in this Parliament, allows for six types
of conditional release. Martineau, a convicted killer, qualifies
under the statutory release portion. This is an automatic release.
The parole board has no say in it. All it can do it set conditions and
return the individual to the penitentiary if, and in this case when,
the conditions are violated.
As most people in the Peace River constituency expected, within
a few short weeks of Martineau's being released under that
statutory condition as given to him by the Minister of Justice, he
was back in jail. That was no surprise. The correctional service
says that half of all Canadian cons freed under the statutory release
portion flunk out and are reincarcerated.
Although 30 per cent are rearrested on technical violations such
as drug charges and abuse of alcohol, a full 20 per cent of those
who are out on statutory release commit new crimes. Yet a
spokesman for Correctional Service of Canada said that all it can
do is its best to make the transition to the community as smooth as
possible for those who are let out on statutory release. The law is
the law, after all. Who do we have to thank for that law? The
current justice minister and his Liberal justice system which is
failing Canadians. Canadians are upset. They are angry. I hope
9713
they will make a strong case in the next election to correct this
problem.
(1130)
Since the first statutory release Martineau has been released
twice. After all, the poor guy has to have a chance to get back into
society. Even though he has a drug problem, has never shown any
remorse for his actions and has never accepted any rehabilitation,
the poor man has to have a chance. On October 3, 1996 and on
February 21, 1997 he was released. Both times he violated the
conditions of his release almost immediately and was returned to
the slammer within days.
This man will be back on the streets on May 1. His sentence is
up. He is the type of individual who should be held in prison
because he is a danger to society. Although it is clear to the people
working in the penitentiary that Martineau is likely to reoffend, he
will be released. They have no say in it because the justice minister
has converted his sentence to a conditional one and his time will be
up.
Given the lack of remorse and his drug problems, surely he
would qualify if Bill C-55 was amended to reflect the concerns I
have addressed. Specifically Bill C-55 should state that any
individual who can be determined to be a danger to society should
not only be assessed during the first six months of the sentence but
at any time during the sentence. If there is any belief that convicted
killers or persons who committed a serious crime can be
rehabilitated, surely the assessment should take place near the end
of their sentence, within the last six months.
The current legislation states that we can only determine if a
person is a dangerous offender within six months of sentencing.
That does not make any sense. Our justice critic, the member for
Calgary North, suggested an amendment to the legislation. As my
colleagues who have spoken before me have stated, the chance of
the Liberal government accepting an amendment to Bill C-55 to
allow an assessment to be made at any time during a sentence is
about nil.
We have to wonder what is the motive. We have seen a lot of
window dressing in the House on criminal justice issues. The gun
control bill is a perfect example. Bill C-68 was modelled on the
handgun registration system that has been in place since 1935. It is
a poor model to use. We have more crimes being committed with
handguns now than we had before in spite of the fact that there is a
registration system. Now farmers, ranchers and other law-abiding
people who use guns in a responsible manner will have to register
their rifles and shotguns.
Most people see the bill for what it is. It is window dressing,
looking like something is being done about criminal justice. It is a
disservice to Canadians who want some real action on law and
order and a stronger criminal justice system. It does not mean
harassing farmers, ranchers and hunters. It means attacking the
real problem with the criminals.
On the other side the justice minister brought forward
conditional sentencing in Bill C-41. He suggested that if people are
to be designated violent offenders they can only be assessed during
the first six months of their sentence.
Does that make any sense? Does the government believe in
rehabilitation? Obviously that is not the time to do the assessment.
The assessment should be done at any time during the sentence. It
would make more sense if it were done closer to the end of their
sentence when we could see whether or not they were still a danger
to society, have shown remorse for their action or have accepted
rehabilitation. Things that make common sense do not seem to be
the way the justice minister proceeds.
(1135)
Members opposite will have a chance to vote on the amendment
of my colleague from Calgary Northeast on Bill C-55 which states:
That Bill C-55, in clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 3 of
the following:
752.1 (1) Where an offender has been convicted of a serious personal injury
offence defined in section 752 and, on application by the prosecution, at any time
during the time the offender is serving the sentence imposed for the offence, the
court is of
I challenge members opposite to vote for that amendment.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-55. I congratulate my
colleague from Calgary Northeast on the work he has done on this
important issue.
For 3.5 years members of my party have continually fought for
the rights of Canadians to live in peace, free from being abused by
criminals and free of criminal acts. The government has repeatedly
watered down any solutions put forward. In the view of many
Canadians and many members of the House it has not done the job
it should have done in trying to protect Canadians. It should have
made the protection of innocent civilians the number one priority
of the justice department. The government continually pursues the
theory that the most important aspect is the protection of the rights
of criminals instead of the rights of innocent civilians.
I will deal with a few issues in Bill C-55 and some of the things
suggested by members of my party. One of the most egregious
occurrences throughout the tenure of this Parliament is that
criminals who have been proven to be dangerous to Canadians,
pedophiles, sexual predators and people who simply cannot control
their violent tendencies, go into the cycle of crime, punishment,
incarceration and release. The real victims are Canadians who are
subjected to their violence.
9714
I remember working in a jail some years ago. I was called to
the jail one Sunday night to visit an individual who was to be
released. I was the doctor on duty at that time. When I started
to examine the individual he attacked me and the guards who were
with me.
When I looked at his rap sheet of violent behaviour that was
longer than my arm. He had a psychiatric problem. It was not his
fault. He was to be released into the public the following Monday.
As sure as the sun rises in the east, he will commit another violent
offence and hurt another innocent civilian.
I spoke to the head of the jail. In my naivety I asked how an
individual who both he and I knew would hurt somebody else could
be released. His response was that it was the law and he could
nothing about it.
It is one of the reasons I am sure many of my colleagues and I
got involved. We have seen examples of situations where patently
violent people are being released into the public. A person who has
committed a violent offence may have a psychiatric problem, may
be paranoid or a paranoid schizophrenic and may need medication
and an environment where he can be treated. It is not fair for him to
be released. Certainly it is not fair to the public that will be
subjected to his behaviour.
Once again the government had three years of ideal opportunity
to do something about the matter but it has done nothing.
Furthermore it has done nothing to address the precursors to crime.
(1140)
Another tragedy occurring throughout the country is the
movement of psychiatric patients into the community at any cost.
Some of them ought to be moved into the community and will
function very well there. Some however do not.
We need not look any further than at the streets in the downtown
core of large urban centres to see many patients who are living in
conditions of squalor and abuse because some bright light in some
ivory tower decided they were better off in the community than in
an environment where they can be taken care of, medicated and
live safe and productive lives.
A silent epidemic is occurring in our communities across the
country. Unfortunately the government has again chosen not to
work with its provincial counterparts to try to deal with the issue.
All of us in this room know of individuals who have psychiatric
problems. Some of them function very well in society but a small
segment of them do not. It is high time we realized that some of
them need to be in a care giver environment where they can be
medicated appropriately and taken care of. This subgroup of
individuals cannot take care of themselves. They do not deserve to
be wandering around the streets, living in squalor and not being
medicated.
I put forward a private member's bill 2.5 years ago, the three
strikes and you are out bill. It said that any individual who commits
three violent offences should be put in jail. People who have
demonstrated that they are a danger to society should be put in jail
for 25 years. The government refused to make it votable and hence
it died on the Order Paper.
My colleague from Calgary North repeatedly fought for the
same issue. Again it was stonewalled by the government. Why has
it stonewalled the Reform Party? Why has it repeatedly
stonewalled my colleagues from putting forth constructive,
sensible solutions to keep individuals who are dangerous offenders,
a harm to society and a harm to innocent civilians off the streets?
My colleagues have made reasonable suggestions. They asked
that the dangerous offender designation be expanded. I ask the
public to listen to members of my party who wish to expand the
designation. We wish to extend the dangerous offender designation
to individuals who commit sexual interference crimes, people who
obtain sexual services from a child, people who corrupt children,
people who commit sexual exploitation of children and sexual acts
against children under the age of 18 such as incest, sexual assault
and sexual assault with a weapon.
How could the government argue with a party that wants to
protect children from being subjected to individuals who find it
acceptable to rape children and commit sexual assaults on them?
Furthermore my colleagues raised solutions that would make it
an offence for anybody to commit rape, attempted rape or indecent
assault on a male or female under the age of 18 years. They are not
misdemeanours. They are serious offences and acts of violence.
These solutions have been put forward by them in an attempt to
protect innocent civilians from violent offences and assaults.
Can we imagine a woman, a man, a child or a teenager being
subjected to these offences? Can we imagine the people who
committed the offences being free to go wherever they wish? Can
we imagine the sheer, stark terror in their minds? They are
innocent. They do not deserve to live like that. All members of the
House have constituents who have written to them detailing very
poignantly and passionately the fear in their lives after being
subjected to these atrocities and what comes after. They are the
victims who pay the penalty and will for decades to come. Most of
them never, ever get over it.
(1145)
With respect to the issue of prevention, the Minister of Health,
the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of
Justice need to address the precursors to crime. There is a need to
tap into some of the very good ideas in our country to address the
precursors to crime. It does not involve counselling when a person
9715
is 20 or 30 years of age. It involves dealing with children at the
ages of four and five and their families.
Only by addressing family circumstances and some of the
terrible violence, sexual abuse, neglect and assault that some
children endure, will we be able to truly stop the growing tide of
youth crime later on. Only by dealing with these children and their
families will there ever be a possibility to stem the tide of crime,
particularly violent crime in our society.
In closing, we have laid down our gloves and have challenged
the government. My colleagues have put forward constructive
solutions. We now challenge the government to amend the bill to
make it more fair and to protect Canadians from coast to coast.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-55 is an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding high risk
offenders, to amend the Correctional and Conditional Release Act,
the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and
the Department of the Solicitor General Act. It takes in a lot.
I ask the question: Does the Reform Party believe in tightening
up our laws concerning criminal justice? The answer is absolutely.
Then the question comes from across the way: ``Then why does
Reform not support specific bills such as C-55 which is before us
today?'' The answer to that is because such bills are inadequate and
the Minister of Justice will not listen adequately and make the
changes that are needed.
In fact, Minister Rock has gone on a bit of a counteroffensive-
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask all members not to refer to
their colleagues by their surnames, but by their constituency or
ministerial title.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the Minister of
Justice, who has launched a bit of a counterattack which really tries
to finger Reform.
He says in the excerpt which I will read from this column:
``Rather than working constructively with the government, Reform
has repeatedly voted against key government initiatives designed
to protect victims rights''. The reason we do that is to try to get the
Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation that is meaningful
to Canadians as well as to criminals who we should be attacking.
I guess the perfect rebuttal to the Minister of Justice has to come
from some of the victims of crime. I have in front of me a statement
from Gary Rosenfeldt, the parent of one of Clifford Olson's
victims.
(1150 )
Mr. Rosenfeldt writes:
As a parent of one of Clifford Olson's victims, I am shocked and dismayed that
Justice Minister Allan Rock and the government of Canada would state that
members of the Reform Party are exploiting us in giving Clifford Olson a platform''.
This victim's father, who is a victim himself, goes on to say:
The exact opposite is true. John Nunziata's bill to repeal section 745 passed
second reading in the House in December, 1994, despite active opposition by the
Liberal cabinet. I know, I was in the House that night and I watched the proceedings.
The government then stalled the bill in committee and failed to introduce its own
legislation until the last moment in June of 1996, immediately before the summer
recess. The bill was not able to be passed because the government did not give it a
high enough priority and thus required all party consent.
That is what we are going through here over and over again with
more and more legislation.
Mr. Rosenfeldt goes on to say:
It is unconscionable to suggest that a government with a 50-seat majority should
have to rely on the consent of the opposition to get its legislation passed. The bill
failed to pass because the Government of Canada and its justice minister failed
victims' families and all Canadians in its priorities. At that time, Mr. Rock tried to
blame the Bloc. Today he tries to blame the Reform Party. If Mr. Rock is looking for
responsibility for the Olson hearing proceeding, he need only look in the mirror. We
are confident that all Canadians will remember that Clifford Olson's platform was
built and maintained by the Liberal Party of Canada.
We are going through the same thing on Bill C-55 as we went
through on the legislation I just mentioned and even on legislation
that is coming up. The Minister of Justice has failed to act in a
timely manner.
The Canadian Police Association has taken the unusual step of
taking out a full page ad in yesterday's Hill Times, the paper of
April 14. In it, the Canadian Police Association is taking issue with
DNA legislation that the minister is perhaps going to bring
forward.
What they say in this full page ad open letter to all members of
Parliament is that although they want this DNA legislation, and
they want it as bad as the Reform Party wants it, they have
reservations about it.
They say: ``It is difficult for us as the association which has
initially and vigorously promoted the need for an effective DNA
data bank system to write to you now urging rejection of this bill as
currently drafted''.
No doubt, the Minister of Justice will counterattack the
Canadian Police Association for doing this. However, the Canadian
Police Association is talking, as the Reform Party is talking,
saying: ``For goodness sakes, you have had three years and more to
wrestle with these things. Why have you not put in the amendments
that we and others have suggested?''
The Canadian Police Association goes on to say: ``In the press
conference held last week to introduce the bill, Justice Minister
Rock reflected that it is important that we get the DNA data bank
correct the first time. We could not agree more. We think, all of us,
especially Canadians and you as their elected representatives,
9716
deserve better than what has been thrown together in these dying
days before an election lest we suffer under it for years to come''.
(1155 )
That association has put quite clearly what are the issues. The
issues are inadequate legislation and the attitude of the Minister of
Justice toward legislation that he proposes which is counter
proposed by members in this House. I am afraid the minister has
far too liberal a view of what we think is needed.
Let us look quickly at the four motions that this party is
proposing as amendments to Bill C-55. The first motion is an
attempt to strengthen the bill, to make it effective legislation. Will
the government listen? That is the question. Motion No. 1 proposed
by the member for Calgary North would allow the crown the right
to seek dangerous offender status for persons convicted of crimes
causing serious personal injury at any time during that offender's
penitentiary sentence. That is the nub of it. Bill C-55 as currently
proposed is inadequate. Reformers are saying we should be able to
seek dangerous offender status at any time during a sentence.
The next motion that we have moved to amend Bill C-55 would,
on conviction for two or more violent offences causing serious
personal injury, would automatically make any offender a long
term offender. It is easy to see why the Minister of Justice opposes
that. It is a little too strong. It is a little too hard hitting.
Motion No. 3 proposed by the Reform member for Calgary
North amends certain things. We believe that this list of Criminal
Code provisions does not go far enough in the legislation for the
purpose of assigning long term offender status to certain criminals.
This amendment would expand the list of offences used for
designating criminals as long term offenders to include a wider
variety of sexual offences, especially sex crimes against children.
Surely we need tough legislation in those areas, but we are not
getting it.
The final amendment proposed by Reform is Motion No. 4.
Under the current provisions of Bill C-55 there would be a review
of indeterminate sentences after seven years of custody rather than
three. That is going in the right direction. We propose that it would
be after 15 years. I see my time is up.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-55 dealing with high risk
offenders.
In a couple of words, this legislation is not enough. The
categories need to be expanded. My colleagues have given
numerous examples of the areas that need to be addressed.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is the 15 to 20 per cent of
high risk offenders, those who cannot be trusted not to reoffend, are
the ones who need to be dealt with and are not dealt with in this bill.
Once again we see the Liberals tinkering with the problem and
not really addressing it. We have seen that in the three and half
years that we have been in this House. I would like to go through a
number of these bills and show where the government has played
around on the edges and has not addressed the issue.
I will start with Bill C-68, gun control. Canadians want crime
control, not gun control. I have been a hunter for 25 years and I
wonder why I am the target of the Liberal legislation when the
criminals will not register their guns.
(1200 )
In my mind it is very much a tax grab. It is a $100 million
registration. It is more money into the coffers of this government
and the bottom line is that it will not solve crime. We would have
been behind Bill C-68 100 per cent if it solved crime but it does not
do that.
The government was very short in its thinking. About 25 per cent
of Canadians are gun owners. These people have long memories. It
is a rural versus an urban issue. It is not a party issue. As we saw
when the government was voting, a number of government
members who were largely from rural areas voted against this bill.
They represented their constituents and they were punished. That is
what happens to a Liberal member who votes for his constituents
against poor legislation. Reform will repeal this bill because we
want to deal with the crime aspects of guns, not implement a
registration system that does not work.
Another issue is victims rights. Over a year ago my colleague
from Fraser Valley West brought the victims rights issue to this
House. It was voted on and passed at second reading by this House
and then it sat for over a year in committee. All of a sudden we are
getting into an election, so what does this government do? It is
trying to rush through the victims right issue which will not pass
because there is not enough time. The government is trying to gain
ownership on an issue. It must have done some polling and
recognized that Canadians are fed up with a system that gives
rights to the criminal that are over and above the rights of the
victim.
My colleague was just commenting on the issue of the DNA data
bank. DNA is like a fingerprint. Every individual has a different
DNA imprint. Whether it is a bit of saliva, a drop of blood, a hair or
a drop of semen, the DNA imprint can be taken and placed in a data
bank. The government is now bringing this through at the last hour
knowing that it will not pass as full legislation. For the life of me I
cannot understand why a tool like DNA testing is not at the top of
the justice minister's agenda.
9717
Consider Bill C-41, conditional sentencing. My colleagues have
brought up many examples to illustrate that conditional sentencing
simply does not work. They are letting people out on the streets
who are reoffending. People are committing horrendous crimes and
they are not spending a day in prison. The judges are letting them
off. Conditional sentencing is not working.
On section 745 of the Criminal Code two words sum up the
Liberal justice program: Clifford Olson. The government had the
opportunity with section 745 to keep Clifford Olson behind bars
but it did not do that. In my mind the government is going to pay
for that come election day. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing
an individual who murdered at least 11 children playing and
tinkering with the justice system. He is using it and hundreds of
thousands of taxpayer dollars. He is laughing at each and every one
of us, which is absolutely wrong.
Reform would hold a binding national referendum on capital
punishment. Let Canadians decide. This is far too important an
issue for politicians. During the Mulroney era, 80 per cent of
Canadians said that they wanted the return of capital punishment.
What was the Tory answer? Canadians do not really know, they do
not really understand the issue. The Tories would not bring it in.
Let Canadians decide. Hold a binding national referendum on the
return of capital punishment for first degree murder.
This is a long list of legislation the government has brought in.
The Young Offenders Act is another example of where the
government has tinkered with the edges but has not dealt with the
problem. There must be accountability in our youth. Young people
who commit crimes must be accountable, as must their parents.
That is not happening. Their names have to be disclosed. The
community should know what these young people have done. They
are laughing at the system. They know exactly how far they can go.
My 17-year old son will tell me exactly what goes on in school.
The kids sit and talk about it. They know where the limits are. The
ones who want to break the law play the system.
(1205)
The justice system is in a mess, from the Young Offenders Act to
the judges to the parole system to plea bargaining. The government
is not addressing the issue.
Canadians are tired of seeing offenders walk free, victims being
abused and a government that does not deal with this issues. These
will be election issues. Gun control and the Young Offenders Act
will come back. The government will have to account on election
day for its poor performance.
Bill C-55 concerns high risk offenders. It is another example of
the government not going far enough. We need to go further.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-55 deals with serious offences and the consequences that
should be the result of engaging in behaviour which can be
described adequately by two adjectives, heinous and repulsive. We
find these offences difficult to express and difficult to define.
The proposals which have been made by my colleague would
add at least ten to those which I am prepared to read into the record
this morning. They have been listed, but I want to review briefly
the things that are being discussed.
Serious offences should include sexual exploitation of others,
bestiality in the presence of children or insisting that a child
commit bestiality, a parent or a guardian who procures sexual
activity from a child, living off the prostitution of a child, obtaining
sexual services from a child, incest, sexual assault, sexual assault
with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, and
rape.
Any one of those is extremely serious. Not only are they a
violation of the person, the consequences to the victim are
automatic, immediate and very often permanent. Yes, the
individual may learn to adjust. Yes, the individual may go on with
their life. Yes, the individual may draw a line and say they will
forget the incident and move on. Inevitably and invariably the
victim of these kinds of behaviour says that it does not go away.
The healing process which is essential in order to carry on normal
activities and have a normal lifestyle is very difficult. Very often
we do not deal with these offences with the sincerity and
seriousness which which they ought to be dealt.
There is a provision in clause 15 which gives me cause for grave
concern: ``If the long term offender expresses the interest in being
supervised in an aboriginal community, that community must
receive notice of the supervision order and have the opportunity to
propose a plan for the release and integration into the community''.
That is a very good provision. However, it would appear to be an
example of the Liberal government's decision to treat some
Canadians differently than others and bring about inequality.
(1210 )
Aboriginal communities will have the right to a notice of the
release of a high risk offender into their community and the right to
become involved in planning for their release. Other Canadians do
not receive this notice or opportunity. That is a very difficult
situation.
We need to know that this kind of provision ought not to exist.
The offender is as dangerous in one community as in any other
community. The issue has to be laid to rest once and for all. We
have enough distinction and separation among Canadians. The time
has come to build a united country, a country in which individuals
are equal, where provinces are equal and where we can look
forward to equality before and under the law, before and under the
9718
Constitution and under every piece of legislation in this country.
Notwithstanding the comments that are being made from across
the way, every one of us should be equal and we should all be
treated equally before and under the law.
The time has come for us to recognize that we have to do that. I
would suggest that the hon. member who is making some
comments should check his facts to see that we do subscribe to and
recognize the equality of individuals before and under the law. We
need to be factual and honest in our situation.
I want to go on to another thing here, victims. There are two
kinds of victims. I talked about the first set of victims, the ones
against whom rape is committed and against whom all kinds of
influences are brought to bear. Those are the direct victims. There
are indirect victims as well. These indirect victims are the families,
associates and friends of the victims who suffered directly.
The mother of a child who has been raped suffers seriously, not
in the same way her daughter or her son did, but suffers
nevertheless. We identify with our children and our partners. Mr.
Speaker, I cannot imagine what kind of an impact it would have if
your wife were raped. If the Minister of Justice would have that
kind of experience in his family he would not treat this in quite the
same way as it is being treated at the present time.
Those are not the only indirect victims. The other set of indirect
victims are members of society.
Not too long ago Mindy Tran was killed in Kelowna. Still today
young children on their way to kindergarten are saying to their
parents ``mommy, should we not stop that person over there, she is
walking alone?'' They are afraid. This young person who is going
to kindergarten and who said this did not know Mindy Tran and the
anguish and agony that was created in the family, but she did
understand that there is danger out there. If that kind of danger is
allowed to go on unhampered and unhindered by the kinds of things
we do to serious offenders, we as a society are in trouble.
There are the direct victims but there are also the indirect
victims. There are some who would argue that this whole business
of punishment really does not deter anyone. In a sense that is true. I
remember having a bit of a discussion not too long with a young
fellow who said that fines deter. He said when he drives he slows
down when he sees a policeman. I said ``After you have passed the
policeman you speed up again, right? Are you breaking the law?
You broke the law before and you broke the law again after so you
paid the fine. Have you sped since you last paid your fine?'' He
said yes. Fines do not deter.
In some cases where people are a threat to reoffend in a similar
way, we have to make sure that society is protected to the degree
possible so that the offence does not again take place in that
society. Something has to be done that will protect the rest of us.
(1215)
I want to go beyond this point and indicate that we need to get
into the business of preventing crime in the first place. It starts at
home with an individual sense of what is right and what is wrong.
Actions begin with thoughts. If we think right we act right. If we
think wrong we act wrong. If we do not have a good governor of
what is right and what is wrong in our conscience we will do what
is wrong.
If we want to engender in our communities, our people or our
citizens a sense of justice and fairness, we must also build in a clear
understanding of what is right and what is wrong. That means
strong families where values can be transferred from one
generation to another and where the parents exemplify and
demonstrate in their day to day operations how they can actually
live in a just, fair and upright society.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening to the debate all morning. It is
passing strange that Reform members are the ones who seem to be
concerned mainly with justice issues. It is very strange we are the
only ones who are critiquing the bill. There are other opposition
parties in the House. Why are they not addressing it?
I attended the NDP national convention in Regina this week. It
did not convert me. I am still a Reformer. In fact I am probably a
much stronger Reformer than before I went there. It was interesting
a party that claims to be a national party did not mention justice
issues at its convention. Somehow they were forgotten. There was
no mention of unity issue other than a mention that social programs
would keep Quebec in Canada and democratic issues were not
important to Canadians. I beg to differ.
The NDP claims to be a grassroots party. It neglected the
important element of making sure its constituents were
represented. To omit that subject in a national convention was a
gross oversight.
Members of the NDP did not talk about the Young Offenders
Act. In the province of Saskatchewan crime is a major problem.
People will commit crimes, wreck vehicles, do all kinds of things
and write on the windshield of vehicles: ``Thank God for the Young
Offenders Act''. We have a huge problem. They openly hide behind
the legislation. That should have been mentioned at the NDP
convention.
They forgot to talk about capital punishment, something that 80
per cent of the people would like to see come back. Of all things
they omitted discussion on gun control. I wonder why. I guess there
is a big split between the national NDP and the provincial NDP on
the issue so they do not want to talk about those things. The forgot
to talk about consecutive sentencing.
Many issues need to be discussed, but let me come to my
primary point this morning. What is the primary purpose of
government? We should be dealing with that fundamental issue.
Everyone in the House will agree the primary purpose of
government is to provide for law and order in society, to protect
citizens,
9719
to protect the weak and vulnerable and to protect those at risk from
the criminal element taking advantage of them. That is
fundamental. That is foundational. That is what we should be
doing.
The purpose of government is to restrain evil within society so
that we can continue to enjoy freedom, move about freely and
pursue various things in our lives that we think are important. The
government must provide for that and it is not happening the way it
should. Bill C-55 is a very good example of a Liberal government
half measure to control crime.
(1220)
I have no illusions about the limits of government. To some
extent we can pass the best laws in the country and it may not
change people. We can pass laws. We can enforce them. We can
control evil to some extent. However we cannot make people good.
Reformers recognize the need for strong families in society to
allow for the transmission of values, for cohesion and stability.
Families are the basic building block. Without strong families all
the best laws in the world will not do any good.
That is why the third part of our election platform deals with that
important aspect. We need that balance. Much of what government
is doing is eroding the emphasis on the value of family in society.
We need that.
How important is the issue of justice? Let me give an example
from my experience in my own town. My children have all
attended the local high school. They describe to me what it is like
to sit and listen to young offenders who return to school the next
morning and boast about what they did the night before, the
exploits for which they received no punishment. They mock the
justice system. They laugh at it. They openly ridicule it.
How serious is that? It affects good children in the school.
People who respect the law and are trying to do their best begin to
say that it does not matter what they do. They ask why they should
try to do their best, study or do well at their jobs. They see justice
not being enforced and the law being openly disregarded and
mocked. That is why government has to do its job. That is why I am
addressing this issue.
Let us look at some of the problems. I have a whole series of
articles on problems within the system that directly relate to Bill
C-55, the half measure the Liberals are trying to push through in
the dying moments of Parliament. It is a piece of legislation that
needs to be fixed.
One headline ``Deviant Justice: He raped, served his time and is
coming to a neighbourhood near you''. Violent sexual offenders are
being set free in society. No wonder people are questioning what is
going on. No wonder they are asking why the government does not
do more to control crime? We need to do more. Bill C-55 is a half
measure. Criminals still have more rights than their victims. That is
a serious problem.
I sat beside Marie King Forest during the parole hearings of
Darrell Crook a couple of months ago. She could not understand
why the justice minister allowed the man who had murdered her
husband to continue to torture his victims by coming before a jury
and appealing his sentence to reduce it to 15 years. She could not
understand the pain and agony that the justice system puts the
victims through. It is not acceptable.
(1225 )
Mr. Crook was able to talk to the jury openly and to explain what
a wonderful person he had become. The victims could not speak
openly to the jury. What they had to say was censored. They had
statements they wanted to read and those statements were
censored. Why? It was because criminals have more rights than
victims. Mrs. King Forest's son could not read his statement
because the judge said it might influence the jury in its decision.
For Heaven's sake why do we have these hearings? I cannot
understand. There is something seriously wrong with our justice
system when criminals have more rights than their victims. It tears
my heart out to see the pain and agony the victims of murderers
have to go through when they attend parole hearings and listen
every couple of years. There is something seriously wrong and we
need to correct it.
Many more topics need to be dealt with. The fundamental
problem is that government is not doing its job. It is not protecting
the citizens. It is allowing violent rapists and murderers to be on the
street. I hope at some point we address this matter further.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The question is on Motion
No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
9720
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The recorded division on
the motion stands deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): A recorded division on the
motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
[English]
At the request of the chief government whip the vote on the
motions before the House will be deferred until 12.30 p.m.
In light of the time, I wonder if members would agree to calling
it 12.30 p.m. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 12.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the taking of the various deferred
recorded divisions on the report stage of this bill and any others
that may come up.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:
(Division No. 296)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-36
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
9721
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fucas
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-172
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1
lost.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous
vote to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's note: See list under Division No. 296.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 3
lost.
(1300)
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote yea on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 297)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
9722
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-168
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
Motion No. 5 negatived on division: Yeas: 40; Nays: 168
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 5
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: New Democrats present vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote nay, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 296.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 2
defeated. The next question is on Motions Nos. 4 and 6.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might ask the consent
of the House to apply the result of the previous vote to the motion
now before the House and the one that would follow. In other
words, apply the vote on Motion No. 2 to report stage MotionsNos. 4 and 6.
9723
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motions Nos. 4
and 6 defeated.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 296.]
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-82 be concurred in at report stage.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I say yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 298)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-136
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -72
9724
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time?
[English]
Pursuant to order made Thursday, April 10, 1997, later this day.
The next recorded division is on the Senate amendments to Bill
C-5.
* * *
(1305)
[Translation]
The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion
on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-5, an act to amend
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): We will now proceed to
the taking of the deferred division on the motion.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent for members who voted on the previous motion
to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I say yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 299)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-168
9725
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-40
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-17, an act amend the Criminal Code and certain other
acts, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next recorded
division is on the third reading stage of Bill C-17.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will also vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes unless instructed otherwise by their constituents.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present vote no
on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I say yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 300)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
9726
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-204
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie
Riis
Robinson-4
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find there is unanimous
consent for members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote nay.
[English]
The House resumed from April 14 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The next recorded
division is on the referral to committee before second reading of
Bill C-93.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Yea, Mr. Speaker.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 298.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing
Committee on Finance.
(Motion agreed to, and bill referred to a committee.)
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: The members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote nay,
Mr. Speaker.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 298.]
(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-55, an act to amend
the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons
and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General
Act as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now
proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on Bill
C-55. The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
9727
(Division No. 301)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-171
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 1
lost.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members vote
yes.
(1310)
The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote against Motion No. 2.
9728
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, I vote in favour of the
motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 302)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Bernier (Beauce)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-33
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-175
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 2
lost.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the consent of the
House to apply the result of the previous vote to report stage
Motion No. 4.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Is there unanimous
consent to apply the vote taken on Motion No. 2 to Motion No. 4?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9729
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 302.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 4
defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 3.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois members will
vote in favour of Motion No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats vote yes on this
motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Mr. Speaker, the member for Beauce
votes nay.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 303)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -72
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-136
9730
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare Motion No. 3
lost.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will be voting yea.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, new Democrats vote yes.
(1315)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 304)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
Malhi
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-176
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ramsay
9731
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-32
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I declare the motion
carried.
When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of
the House.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-82, an act to amend certain laws relating to
financial institutions, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present
Bill C-82 for third and final reading. The legislation before us has
three main objectives: to strengthen protection for consumers of
financial services, to ease the regulatory burden on financial
institutions, and to fine tune certain provisions of the financial
institutions statutes.
This bill is the product of extensive consultations. We started our
review of the financial institutions legislation in 1995 by
consulting with a range of stakeholders, including consumer
groups, industry representatives and other interested parties.
In June 1996 we released a consultation paper entitled ``A 1997
Review of Financial Sector Legislation Proposals for Changes''.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and the
Senate standing committee on banking, trade and commerce held
hearings on this paper last fall. Their views and the views of other
stakeholders are reflected in the measures in the bill before us
today.
Since we tabled Bill C-82 on February 14, we have received
comments from interested parties imposing some modifications. In
addition, the House of Commons finance committee has conducted
a clause by clause study of the bill and passed amendments. As a
result, there have been several modifications to the bill since
second reading. They are largely technical, mostly helping to
clarify the language contained in provisions. As a result of the
review, the legislation we have before us will ensure that the best
interests of consumers in the financial sector are served.
I would like to elaborate on key measures in the bill. I will begin
with a subject of tremendous importance to all of us and that is
consumer protection measures. There are several.
First, consumers have made it clear they want better privacy
protection in their dealings with financial institutions. Accordingly,
the bill before us provides authority to require that financial
institutions establish procedures governing the collection,
retention, use and disclosure of customer information, implement
complaints handling procedures and report annually on complaints.
Once the legislation is passed, regulations will be introduced to
implement these requirements.
Following up on the recent federal-provincial agreement to
harmonize the cost of credit disclosure regulations, the bill
enhances the disclosure provisions of the financial institution
statutes. As a result of these changes in similar amendments to
provincial statutes, disclosure practices will be improved and made
uniform throughout the country.
Hon. members on all sides of the House are aware of the
concerns about the potential for financial institutions to exert
undue pressure on consumers when selling financial products. The
government takes these concerns very seriously and is taking
preventive action. Bill C-82 includes an amendment to the Bank
Act to prohibit coercive tied selling. The government intends to
bring the amendment into force on September 30, 1998. But before
that date, the government wants to see two things achieved. First, it
wants all financial institutions to adopt a policy on tied selling.
(1320 )
Under the policy, financial institutions will be expected to ensure
that their staff clearly understand and do not engage in
unacceptable sales practices. The policy would seek to maintain
high customer and staff awareness of procedures for reviewing tied
selling complaints. These procedures must be transparent, timely
and fair if they are to be effective. In the case of the major banks,
they have internal ombudsmen, all of whom will deal with and
report on tied selling complaints.
Second, the government will be seeking guidance from the
House finance committee. That committee has been asked to
review tied selling concerns across the sector and the progress of
financial institutions in addressing concerns through their policies.
The committee will also consider how to differentiate between
beneficial and anti-competitive forms of tied selling. The
government has also asked the Senate banking committee to
undertake a similar review of the tied selling matter. This process
should enable the government to assess how the self-regulatory
procedures have been working.
9732
In the consultation paper, the government resolved to work with
financial institutions and consumer representatives to improve
access to basic financial services for low income Canadians and
information about fees for all Canadians.
While the government is not proposing legislative changes in
these areas, the major banks have made a number of commitments
to address consumer concerns. For example, to improve access
they have agreed to ensure that only two pieces of signed
identification will be required to open accounts or cash cheques.
This is decreased from the current requirement of three.
Also, employment will not be a requirement for opening a bank
account and staff will be trained to follow these policies and be
sensitive to the needs of low income people. The banks will also
ensure that clear and understandable information about products
and services, including low cost banking options and ways of
minimizing service fees, is readily available in publicly accessible
areas in branches.
Moreover, the banks are working with Industry Canada using
Industry Canada's Internet site to provide information to help
Canadians choose the right financial services for them, minimizing
costs.
During the consultation process we heard convincing testimony
about regulatory burden. We want to act on what we heard. Bill
C-82 contains important changes for foreign banks, changes that
will lower costs and improve operational efficiency which will
benefit many Canadians. In particular, regulated foreign banks
which own a schedule II bank will no longer be required to hold
other financial institution subsidiaries through a schedule II bank.
The bill also proposes changes to ease regulatory requirements
for near banks. Near banks are those entities which do not generally
take deposits, that are not regulated as banks in their home
jurisdiction, but do provide one or more banking type services.
The approval requirement for near banks will be reduced. Once
they receive an initial approval to enter the market, they will not
need further approvals. The condition is that their unrelated
activities not include taking retail deposits.
In addition, the government plans to develop a new framework
for the entry foreign banks, including a new branching regime. This
regime will encourage new banks to enter the Canadian
marketplace and allow existing foreign banks greater opportunity
to compete. It should be noted, however, that this latter initiative
will continue on a separate track from the legislation before us
today.
Until the new entry framework is developed, foreign companies
offering a limited range of financial services and now operating
unregulated in Canada as well as new entrants that meet certain
criteria will be allowed to continue operations as unregulated
financial institutions.
Another element of the bill recognizes that banks are not all the
same. Some do not need the retail deposit insurance offered by the
CDIC. This is the case for banks which deal mostly in the
wholesale market. The government will permit banks that do not
take retail deposits to opt out of CDIC coverage, provided they are
not affiliated with another CDIC member. This will reduce their
costs and streamline regulatory requirements.
The bill extends the in house powers of financial institutions.
Currently financial institutions can engage in certain types of
businesses only through subsidiaries. After reviewing the types of
business that must be carried out through subsidiaries, the
government has decided to permit financial institutions, with the
approval of the Minister of Finance, to carry on both information
processing and specialized financing activities in house. These
changes will reduce the operating costs associated with those
activities by promoting effective management. Furthermore, the
increased flexibility for specialized financing activities will
improve access to venture capital for Canadian small businesses.
A number of changes are proposed to streamline the self-dealing
regime. This regime implements control over transactions between
financial institutions and persons who are in positions of influence
over or control of the institution.
(1325 )
While the government believes that the basic framework
remains sound, certain provisions of the regime impose
unnecessary costs. Bill C-82 therefore streamlines the operations
but the conduct review committee narrows the range of related
parties and allows subsidiaries of the federal financial institution to
transact with each other.
These are all important initiatives aimed to cut down regulatory
burden. The initiative before us does not stop there. We are
proposing to fine tune legislation.
Changes have been introduced in the area of corporate
governance to encourage financial institutions to adopt appropriate
processes to manage risks. For instance, the duties of the audit
committee will be clarified. The rights of policy holders of
insurance companies will be enhanced. For example, the bill
proposes to reduce the number of policy holders' signatures needed
to allow for a proposal nominating directors to be circulated in
advance of the meeting.
Regulatory adjustments will be made to provide more flexibility
to financial institutions seeking to enter into joint ventures. These
adjustments will enhance the ability of financial institutions to
make alliances, enter new markets and compete more effectively at
home and abroad.
The legislation also includes a number of amendments to
enhance access to capital for mutual insurance companies. First,
such companies will be permitted to issue participating shares and
second, flexibility will be added to the demutualization regime and
it will be extended to apply to all mutual life companies, not just
9733
the small ones. It should be noted, however, that a large mutual
insurance company will be required to remain widely held once it
is converted into a stock company.
[Translation]
A few days ago, the opposition raised the issue of transferring
policies. This is an important issue and I would like to say a few
words about it.
A solution to this problem will require more studies and
consultations. The mechanisms of supervision and the contractual
rights of those insured must both be taken into account.
Consultations are already under way between representatives of the
federal government and of the Province of Quebec. Following
these consultations with the provinces concerned, we will be able
to arrive at a satisfactory solution in the near future.
But I must add that Bill C-82 contains a great number of
favourable measures. All major stakeholders and myself want to
see this bill passed as quickly as possible.
[English]
There you have it, Mr. Speaker, a pretty significant package of
changes, important to the well-being of consumers of financial
services and that is just about all of us. It is important to the
financial sector and this too is significant for all of us because this
vital sector underpins the whole economy.
I urge the House to move quickly to pass this important
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I debate this bill at third
reading. I am also very disappointed by the results of the vote held
a few minutes ago in the House.
Let us begin with the few positive notes to be found in Bill C-82.
The official opposition is happy to have helped remove two
important sectors from this revision of the financial institutions act.
The first of these sectors is the sale of insurance through
chartered banks. You will recall that about two years ago the banks
asked the federal government, specifically the Minister of Finance
and the secretary of state responsible for financial institutions, to
allow insurance products to be sold by chartered banks, thus
creating undue, not to say unfair, competition with insurance
brokers and underwriters in Quebec and in Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois fought very hard to have this provision
dropped from the bill before us, and we won. It is, in our view, one
of the great victories of the official opposition and of the Bloc
Quebecois since the beginning of this term of office.
The second sector of Bill C-82 where there is some cause for
satisfaction is the leasing sector.
(1330)
Once again, the Canadian chartered banks claimed, a few years
ago, to be accredited to offer car leasing arrangements to
consumers. Car dealerships in Quebec, as in Canada, rose up in
opposition to this. The Bloc Quebecois took up arms over this both
in the House and in the finance committee on their behalf, and we
won the day.
Why did we share the dealers' opposition to the banks' offering
car leasing? Purely and simply, because the dealerships did not
have the guarantee of the financial institutions, nor of the federal
government and the Minister of Finance, that the banks would be
prevented from owning fleets of automobiles.
The second major reason for our opposition, and that of the
dealers of Quebec and Canada, was competition-related. Let me
explain. The banks lend money to dealerships, and if they were also
involved in selling car leasing services, the free play of
competition would be somewhat distorted.
The banks would have had a major lever for unfair competition
with dealers; for instance, they could have cut back on their lines of
credit. We had no guarantee on this, and that is why we did not
hesitate in the least, right from the first weeks, to support the car
dealerships in Quebec and in Canada that were calling for these
guarantees, before the banks could be allowed to offer leasing. So
those are the two good things about Bill C-82.
On the down side, I have just referred to the vote taken in this
House a few minutes ago at the report stage, when the three
amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were defeated by the
Liberal majority-by the Reformers as well, but that is less
important. The Liberal majority defeated our three amendments.
And what were those amendments? The first one objected to a
provision in Bill C-82 under which financial planning, which is
strictly a provincial matter, will be regulated by federal legislation
through the chartered banks.
In other words, the banks may offer financial and financial
planning services, which come under provincial jurisdiction, and
those which offer these services will not be subject to Quebec law
or Ontario law or any other provincial legislation. However, those
which offer financial planning services through bank branches will
be subject to federal legislation.
This is the kind of intrusion we always felt was entirely
unacceptable. In our amendment, which was defeated unanimously
by the Liberals, we suggested a form of opting out.
9734
When provincial laws to that effect exist in a province, the
provincial legislation applies to financial planning services offered
through banks and other institutions. Where such legislation does
not exist, the federal legislation applies.
From the outset, the intent of our amendment was to provide for
opting out, so that provincial jurisdictions would be respected. The
Liberals turned down a reasonable proposal. They said no and
preferred to add to the regulatory burden.
From now on, in Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces, there
will be not one legislation to regulate financial planning services
but two. We have become accustomed to this tendency which,
instead of removing or relieving the burden on the financial sector,
favours adding more regulations, resources and all manner of
things which, in the final instance, merely increase inefficiency and
create uncertainty, which includes passing this kind of legislation
and turning down reasonable amendments that allow for opting out
in areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.
(1335)
The second amendment we proposed concerns tied selling, in
other words, putting pressure on the consumer to buy services in
addition to those he is seeking from a financial institution. In fact,
the issue of tied selling comes under the Consumer Protection Act.
The Consumer Protection Act is provincial and covers an area
under provincial jurisdiction.
Once again, the Liberals preferred to drop our amendment which
suggested opting out as a possibility where the provincial
legislation provides adequate protection for the consumer.
I think our colleagues opposite and this government generally do
not know the meaning of exclusive. Exclusive jurisdiction means
there is only one player, not two or three. Instead of abiding by the
definition given in the dictionary, they prefer to add more
bureaucracy. They go overboard on regulating, protecting and
developing the system, wrapping it in the Canadian federalist flag.
Federalism, according to members opposite, is supposed to be
synonymous with greater efficiency, certainty and stable markets.
When we talk about the financial sector, stability is important.
Instead, in the past two years, and especially in the case of this bill,
the government has proved the very opposite is true by trespassing
on provincial jurisdictions and adding new levels of regulations.
The federal regime is synonymous with overlap, inefficiency,
duplication, over regulation, uncertainty and instability. So much
so that the players in the financial sector-and, as finance critic for
the past two years I have met people in the financial sector in both
Quebec and Canada-do not know whether they are coming or
going. They sometimes wonder what sort of crazy world they are
in, since everywhere else there are two watchwords: deregulation
and performance.
What we have seen in the financial sector for two years is over
regulation, administrative sluggishness and reduced ability to
compete among the businesses in the various sectors, including
finance. Speaking of competition, and the competitive strength of
businesses operating in the financial sector, this was the focus of
our third amendment, which was roundly defeated by the
government for no apparent reason.
I have so much to say, and since you are giving me the time to
say it, I must be able to get out my arguments. I was saying that
there is a third amendment concerning competitiveness, the ability
of a company operating in the financial sector to compete. Under
Bill C-82 and federal legislation on insurance companies, which we
thought this bill was amending, a provincially chartered insurance
company cannot acquire either all or part of an insurance company
that is federally chartered.
I will give the example of Quebec, because we have a blatant
example of companies being blocked from becoming fully
competitive. A Quebec insurance company operating in the Quebec
insurance market cannot acquire blocks of insurance policies from
another company that is also operating in the Quebec market, if the
latter company is federally chartered.
(1340)
On the brink of the 21st century, when we should be talking
about unrestricted competition, free markets and efficiency, this
provision in Bill C-82, uncorrected in federal legislation on
insurance companies, is incongruous to say the least. I would say it
runs counter to the spirit of the North American Free Trade
Agreement, which talks of unrestricted competition and economic
and financial integration.
It is also contrary to the spirit of the last treaty, in 1993, of the
World Trade Organization, which already contained provisions to
liberalize the financial sector internationally and which is
continuing-starting a few days ago in Geneva-to talk about
greater liberalization, a more permissive environment if you like,
with respect to international financial transactions, regardless of
their nature or the country of origin of businesses operating in the
financial sector.
We have here an obvious case of barriers that are not
commensurable with the effective operation of the insurance
market. It is something that is a bit strange and that has the effect of
making it easier for foreign companies-French, Brazilian,
German, Italian, Norwegian, Finnish, you name it-to buy
operations, in whole or in part, from Canadian insurance
companies, something that provincially chartered insurance
companies in Quebec are not allowed to do. It is complete
craziness.
9735
Like most branches of insurance companies operating in
Canada, branches of foreign companies are federally chartered.
Federal legislation therefore makes it easier for them to do
business in Canada and in Quebec than for Quebec entrepreneurs.
This state of affairs is quite simply unacceptable.
I will take the example of L'Entraide. This is a company whose
head office is located in Quebec City. It is average in size. It hopes
to take advantage of the development of the insurance market and
the great rationalization now taking place. It wants to grow and
improve its performance and its presence, and it has the chance to
do so by buying up a block of insurance policies from a federally
chartered company, whose clientele is located entirely in Quebec,
for $1.3 million.
This may sound like a huge amount to taxpayers listening today,
but in the field of insurance, where certain transactions run in the
billions of dollars every week, it is not all that much. Compared to
the transaction we saw last weekend in Les Affaires, this is not
going to shake up the insurance sector. We will come back to the
other acquisition I mentioned, which appeared in Les Affaires.
So the insurance company L'Entraide, a Quebec company with a
provincial charter, wants to acquire a block of $1.3 million of
insurance in order to expand, to enhance its efficiency and
competitiveness in the broadened North American and
international markets. The federal government says it is not
allowed to do so. It is not allowed to do so because it is a
provincially chartered company, and a provincially chartered
insurance company is not allowed to purchase, in whole or in part,
the activities of a federally chartered insurance company. Even if
this federally chartered company is involved in the Quebec market,
has Quebec insurance policies, the provincially chartered company
it is not entitled to acquire those $1.3 million in insurance blocks.
That is utterly unacceptable. That is discrimination, pure and
simple.
(1345)
This is all the more discriminatory in that most insurance
companies, which are Quebec subsidiaries of foreign companies,
are federally chartered. The four major Canadian insurance
companies, with head offices in Toronto, are federally chartered.
So, by continuing this discrimination and rejecting the
amendment we proposed at the report stage, the government is
offering the insurance companies and subsidiaries of foreign
companies an opportunity on a silver platter to expand in the
Quebec and Canadian market, to increase their profits, and their
shareholders' dividends, through policy holders in Quebec and
Canada.
Moreover, the four major Toronto-based federally chartered
insurance companies are allowed to expand in Quebec by acquiring
blocks of insurance, and they are entitled to do so because of their
federal charters. Yet a Quebec insurance company operating within
Quebec cannot do the same. If being ridiculous were fatal, there
would be no one alive on the other side of the House. It is a mental
aberration to maintain such discriminatory treatment toward
Quebec insurance companies.
We heard all manner of things during the debate on continuation
of this restriction. One of the arguments presented by the
government-I was going to say the opposition, since they are the
opposition as far as our amendment is concerned, you understand
what I mean-one of the major arguments presented by the
Minister of Finance, by the Secretary of State responsible for
financial institutions, by the assistant to the Minister of Finance as
well, was that consumer protection came first and foremost.
Consumers would not be sufficiently protected if provincially
chartered insurance companies were allowed to acquire blocks of
insurance from federally chartered companies. They are more
protected when the one acquiring such insurance holds a federal
charter, even if it is a subsidiary of a foreign company with its head
offices way off in God knows what country. In that case, the
consumers are properly protected.
On the other hand, if the acquiring company is a Quebec
insurance company, regardless of how good the consumer
protection is, no way. But the Minister of Finance, the secretary of
state and senior officials go into a blue funk when you mention
anything that would promote the expansion of the Quebec
insurance sector.
Whether they operate under a provincial or federal charter,
insurance companies in Quebec must apply annually for a licence
to the inspector general of financial institutions of Quebec. Every
year, the inspector checks the solvency of all insurance companies
operating on Quebec soil before issuing a licence that must be
renewed every year. federal body.
Second, the inspector general of financial institutions requires
all insurance companies, under provincial or federal charter, to be
members of the Société d'indemnisation d'assurance de personne,
which is also involved in providing maximum protection for the
consumer.
When we have a situation like this where we are watertight as far
as solvency is concerned, whether the charter is provincial or
federal, and where plenty of checks and balances are provided by
the inspector general of financial institutions and the Société
d'indemnisation d'assurance de personne, using consumer
protection as an argument no longer makes any sense.
If that is the main objection, it no longer exists because whatever
their charter and whether they operate in Quebec or Canada,
insurance companies cannot be faulted on consumer protection.
9736
(1350)
Consumers can depend on the system, and policy holders are
protected on the Quebec market by the inspector general of
financial institutions and within the Canadian context by the
Société d'indemnisation des assurances de personne. So what is the
problem? Why are they so reluctant to move? They are in such a
funk that a golden opportunity was missed for a company like
L'Entraide d'assurance-vie du Québec to acquire a block of
insurance worth $1.3 million.
They are so reluctant to move, although they have run out of
arguments to prevent this kind of company from expanding, from
becoming more efficient and a bigger player in a very competitive
insurance market and even more so with the liberalization of the
financial sector throughout the world.
On the weekend, I read an article I mentioned earlier, in Les
Affaires, which said that Royal Life Canada had acquired an
interest in Gerling Global. For your information, Mr. Speaker,
Royal Life is a branch of a British insurance company. Gerling
Global, which sold the blocks of insurance, is a branch of a German
company. On the weekend, these two branches of foreign
companies operating on Canadian soil, both under a federal charter,
concluded a transaction in which Royal Life acquired part of the
life insurance portfolio of Gerling Global for $12 billion. Twelve
billion dollars, Mr. Speaker.
Two companies, subsidiaries of foreign insurance companies,
one British and the other German, were allowed to acquire a block,
to carry out a transaction involving a transfer of $12 billion worth
of insurance business. Federal legislation permitted this, but it does
not permit Entraide, a Quebec insurance company, to buy a $1.3
million block of insurance policies from a federally chartered
Canadian company. That is ridiculous.
On the other hand, we keep hearing that we must look out, that
there are consumer protection problems. My eye, Mr. Speaker. On
April 8, I wrote the Minister of Finance to remind him that there
was a problem here. The Quebec minister of finance has also said
there was a big problem in this area. I think the government's
inertia is hiding something.
It is not that this is a complex issue. It is straightforward. The
government had only to accept our amendment today instead of
rejecting it, and the matter would have been resolved. The problem
is one of pure discrimination against Quebec insurance companies.
It is so discriminatory that the Quebec minister of finance even
offered to amend the Quebec law on trusts and savings companies,
which discriminates to some extent against federally chartered
trust companies. But he was turned down.
Mr. Landry said he was prepared to amend the Quebec law on
trust companies so long as the federal government were quick to do
the same thing to legislation on financial institutions to enable
provincially chartered insurance companies to acquire blocks of
insurance from federally chartered companies. The Minister of
Finance turned up his nose at this attractive proposal, made in the
spirit of free trade and aspirations for the future of the financial
sector in Quebec and Canada. He preferred to continue to
discriminate against Quebec insurance companies.
(1355)
Two questions arise: First, is this not a way of eliminating
provincially chartered companies? Second, is this not a way for the
federal government to say: ``It is true that insurance comes under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, but we want to change
that''.
And the backhanded way to change things is perhaps to make it
increasingly less profitable to have provincially chartered
companies. Insurance companies will need federal charters in order
to benefit from globalization, in order to achieve a more
competitive position in the insurance market.
Is that it? If so, let the federal government tell us they want to
restrict us in a field that supposedly comes under our exclusive
jurisdiction, according to the Canadian Constitution that the
members opposite say they respect and that they ignore every day.
If they want to take this field of jurisdiction away, let them come
right out and say so, because that is what it looks like.
But if that is not the case, what is behind this sullen attitude of
the government and of the Minister of Finance toward an
amendment that is and should have been logical, if the members
opposite had indeed been logical?
We think there is perhaps another explanation. I was speaking
earlier about the four or five Toronto-based Canadian insurance
companies that dominate the market. I would remind members that
these companies all have federal charters. The top four companies
are being left lots of room so that when another insurance company
wants to cease operations they can buy up insurance policies and
continue to grow, to make profits and to pay dividends to their
shareholders, while our provincially chartered insurance
companies in Quebec cannot do what they wish in their own market
with respect to Quebec policy holders.
We sometimes wonder if it is not these very companies, Canada
Life, London Life, Sun Life Insurance Company of Canada and
Manulife Financial, all great contributors to the coffers of your
charming Liberal Party to the tune of $50,000-not bad as
contributions go-that the government wants to help in future and
for which it wishes to maintain privileges that are unjustified and
9737
discriminate against Quebec's provincially chartered insurance
companies.
The opposition is sorely disappointed with the government's
attitude on this matter, but is, in a way, pleased that the Minister of
Finance has, at least, agreed to meet the key shareholder of
L'Entraide, the official opposition critic-myself-and a
representative of the Government of Quebec, next Thursday in his
office for a discussion of this matter.
It is most unfortunate, however, that our amendment, which
would have settled this question for once and for all, has not been
accepted. Our expectations of the meeting with the Minister of
Finance this week, after the rejection of the official opposition
amendment, encompass two possibilities.
The first is that he will assure us that he will be prompt in
introducing a private member's bill from his department to remedy
the injustice and discrimination being experienced by Quebec
insurance companies. The second is that he will announce that he
will be shortly tabling a notice of a ways and means motion clearly
setting out his intention to move quickly, when we are back after
the coming election, to pass a bill amending Bill C-82, to ensure
that this discrimination toward provincially chartered insurance
companies no longer exists, as it does in the current legislation on
insurance and the current bill.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, it being nearly 2 p.m., I
wonder if you would consider resuming your speech after oral
question period, when you would again have the floor.
Mr. Loubier: I was just winding up, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Very well. You have about 15 seconds.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that it is a sad thing to
have to face the music, but I hope that the government will listen to
common sense and that, starting Thursday, provincially chartered
insurance companies will be allowed to do exactly the same as
other insurance companies, that is to have a certain latitude in their
areas of jurisdiction and to be able to hold their own in an
increasingly competitive field.
_____________________________________________
9737
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently members of the American Congress from both Democratic
and Republican ranks spent a weekend together, the objective being
how to do their political business and be civil to each other at the
same time.
I am not advocating a weekend getaway but there are two
important points in all of this. First, other legislative bodies are
aware of behavioural problems and, second, they are attempting to
do something about it.
Canadians do not want near fist fights or porcine comparisons in
the House. They want debate and ideas presented in an atmosphere
of civility.
Before Barnum and Bailey take possession of this place, we of
whatever political stripe should stop, look and listen, just like those
much younger than us, before we engage in classroom antics.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as this is
my last member's statement I would like to mention things I
remember as the MP for Calgary Centre.
It was a chance to get to know MPs from all across Canada; to
listen for the melancholy bells which bring us into the House to
vote; to play musical chairs in the House of Commons; to work on
my tan while playing football on Parliament's front lawn; to be
affectionately referred to by the Liberals as the $150,000 man; to
have the Speaker rule my definition of a bribe out of order; to need
an extra two minutes to finish a 40-minute speech; to refuse, along
with 50 of my colleagues, to take the gold plated pension plan as a
display of leadership by example; and to represent and vote the
wishes of my constituents as opposed to always having to vote the
party line, proof that free votes work.
Finally, I will always remember the phrase I used when I was
Reform Party whip.
[Translation]
``Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party vote yea, except for
those who wish to vote otherwise''.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today on the occasion of National Volunteer Week to
pay tribute to the millions of women in Canada who volunteer their
time and energy to help others and to support causes dear to their
hearts.
[English]
National Volunteer Week was first proclaimed in 1943. The
leadership role that women's organizations such as the Women's
Voluntary Service played back then can still be felt today.
[Translation]
In Montreal, the Centro Donne Italian women's centre continues
to work hard. Happily, we are seeing more and more men joining
women in volunteer activities, as can be seen from their presence
9738
in organizations such as Moisson Montréal, the Ahuntsic-Sud
volunteer centre, the Ahuntsic Lions' Club and the Knights of
Columbus.
[English]
Let us applaud the efforts of these women and men for the
contributions they make to the well-being of our country.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April 9 marked the 80th anniversary of the battle of Vimy Ridge.
Following extensive planning and training the Canadian corps
achieved victory where other armies before it had failed, but did so
at a cost of 10,000 casualties and 3,600 dead.
The battle was a defining moment for the Canadian army but
more particularly for Canada as a nation.
This past weekend CFB Shilo opened a special Vimy exhibit at
its Royal Canadian Artillery Museum. At this time I salute all
veterns of World War I but in particular three western Manitobans
present at the ceremony: Bill Henton, Rosewell Mellick and Fred
Burguess.
* * *
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have been asked to present a paper to the North Atlantic
Assembly this spring raising awareness of the worldwide problem
of land mines. It will highlight the growing technological gap
between land mines and the methods currently available for
clearing them.
With 119 million anti-personnel land mines in 71 countries all
over the world, 20 are being put in place for every 1 removed. Land
mines prevent the reconstruction of basic infrastructure, keeping
these countries dependent on foreign aid.
Canada has one of the most advanced technologies in mine
detection and removal in the world and a foreign affairs minister
who has been recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for
his leadership in this area.
I thank David Saint, Major Harry Burke and Lieutenant-Colonel
Normand Levert at the Department of National Defence and John
Evans at DRE Suffield for their enthusiastic assistance in the
preparation of the report. I also thank Susan Howell and Eric Walsh
in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Canada must continue to lead the way in this subject.
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as is true for the most beautiful sites in Quebec, l'Île aux
Basques has always been a source of inspiration, both for those
who aspire to be poets and for those who have already attained that
stature.
The Société Provencher d'histoire naturelle du Canada, which
owns this enchanting island, has shared the island's beauty and
charm with visitors. The large numbers of people who have been to
l'Île aux Basques consider it a place of magic. This island's
capacity to captivate and attract is truly magical. It takes visitors
back to basic values such as simplicity, sharing and friendship.
The Société Provencher wanted to mark the 75th anniversary of
its founding in a special way by publishing a book about the island
it has protected so carefully since 1929.
On the occasion of the 300th anniversary of Trois-Pistoles, I urge
the public to pay a visit to this historic and stimulating site.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in 1988 the governments of Canada and British Columbia
signed a memorandum of agreement for the protection of what has
since become Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve or Haida
heritage site and for the proposed establishment of an adjacent
marine protected area in the Pacific Ocean.
This is a magnificent part of the world. The islands and waters of
Gwaii Haanas have been home to the Haida people for more than
10,000 years and continue to sustain their contemporary culture
today.
Last month a very important step was taken toward the creation
of this national marine conservation area. It would be the first
national marine conservation area on Canada's west coast. Four oil
companies made a donation of mineral permits, the largest
donation of mineral permits in Canada's history, to advance this
important project.
Today I urge the Government of Canada to move quickly to join
in the partnership among the Government of British Columbia, the
Haida people and others to make this magnificent national marine
conservation area a reality.
9739
As Paul Pearson of the Haida nation said, the Haida people have
always sought to protect the Haida Gwaii for all generations. I
hope the Government of Canada will move it forward.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the riding of Matapédia-Matane is a popular tourist destination.
Today, I wish to congratulate several people whose contribution
to the tourism industry was recognized at the gala evening for the
Grand Prix du tourisme. Pierrette Molaison, owner of Éditions du
Flâneur, a company in Matane, won two awards at the gala evening
on the weekend.
Bertrand and François Rioux, also from Matane, are active
promoters of the tourism industry in the region. They founded the
Riôtel hotel chain which now includes a number of local tourism
establishments. Their contribution was also recognized at this gala
evening.
Finally, during the same evening, the Camp théâtre de l'Anse de
la ville de Maria was honoured for its excellent work. The Comité
du centenaire de Causapscal won the grand prize for the event of
the year.
Congratulations to all.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as this is my last member's statement let me give thanks
to my constituents for their trust; thanks to my effective riding
association directors, especially President Brice Macdougall, Keith
Bower and Bob Drummond; thanks to Lynda MacKay and Anita
Brent who ran my offices with great efficiency and to Greg
Haymes, my able researcher; thanks to all my caucus colleagues
who put up with me and taught me a lot; thanks to the chair and
members of the finance committee who made hearings an almost
enjoyable job; thanks to all elected members who have remained
civil during the political battles; and thanks to my wife Helene for
her support and love through all the trials of the last three years.
I say thanks to them all. It has been a great privilege and learning
experience.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Mr. Tom Dykes and students from Notre Dame Secondary School
in Burlington met with the Prime Minister to promote the Toonies
for Canada campaign which focuses on the sale of a poster
containing the lyrics of the bilingual song ``Unity''.
Copies of the poster have been distributed to 3,500 high schools
across Canada encouraging councils to order and sell the posters. I
am most pleased to support this national unity campaign initiative
which in P.E.I. would raise funds for a Joe Ghiz memorial
scholarship fund.
(1410 )
Given the commitment and dedication of our former premier to
the unity of Canada, I can think of no greater tribute to his memory
than the contributions of funds from this campaign to a scholarship
fund in his name.
I congratulate and thank Mr. Tom Dykes and all the students in
P.E.I. and across Canada for their contribution to national unity.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this coming September will mark the opening of the Beijing
Concord College. This unique institution on the outskirts of
China's capital city will open its doors to Chinese and Canadian
students who will earn diplomas recognized by both Canada and
the People's Republic of China.
The New Brunswick department of education and the founders
of this college have collaborated to create a visionary institution
that will become an educational bridge between our two countries
fostering understanding and opportunity.
The language and business skills learned at the college will give
future graduates the foundation to develop joint ventures and trade
opportunities between Chinese and Canadian businesses and will
build on the $8 billion of bilateral trade already benefiting both
countries.
I congratulate the province of New Brunswick and the founders
of the Beijing Concord College, especially Mr. Francis Pang, for
their global vision and foresight in developing this landmark
educational partnership between Canada and China.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has spoken about investing in future
industries. Last November the Prime Minister visited one of those
industries, Ballard Power Systems. The government has invested
$30 million in that company which is looking into new types of
energy resources.
The government is going in the right direction because yesterday
German transportation giant, Daimler-Benz, the maker of
Mercedes Benz, and Ballard Power jointly announced three deals
worth a total of $508 million to develop Ballard's fuel cell
9740
technology which can power energy efficient vehicles without
combustion.
It is clear that B.C. is leading Canada in the development of
clean energy resources. We welcome Ballard Power's growing
influence in the research and development of new forms of
transportation.
We recognize that it will be a good investment in future jobs that
will be created in the next century.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of
l'Éveil du printemps inc., a maple bush owned by Vallier Robert.
Located in Auclair, east of Lake Témiscouata, this new business
is developing new, high quality products. It manufactures four
alcoholic beverages using maple sap. Mr. Robert said we had to
look for ways to breathe new life into the maple sector and should
realize there are no limits to the ways in which we can tap the
resources of our forests.
In fact, this young maple tree farmer initiated a research and
development project focusing on maple tree farming and regional
development, in partnership with the National Research Council of
Canada, the purpose being to diversify the use of maple sap and add
to the value of our regional products.
Mr. Robert is one of those young people who are blessed with the
kind of initiative and ambition of which their family, their region
and often even their country can be proud.
Congratulations, Mr. Robert, and the best of luck.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
members of the Reform Party wish to announce that a continental
breakfast will be served by Reform Members of Parliament to all
non-partisan staff and the pages of the House of Commons who
wish to visit any time between 7.30 and 9 tomorrow morning, April
16, in room 200 in the West Block.
This gesture has never before been extended to Hill staff, to our
knowledge. It will be our pleasure to serve them breakfast, a cup of
coffee and offer a sincere thanks from MPs to the employees of the
House of Commons, people who work so faithfully all year round
to support all members of the House, regardless of their political
persuasion, in the service of the country.
I speak for all members of the House when I say that House of
Commons employees are unfailingly courteous and efficient and
quick to perform their duties thoroughly, with a smile thrown in for
good measure. Without these qualities the House would not
function and the people's business would be left undone.
A heartfelt thanks to all of them. We will see them tomorrow
morning.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
rather than take pleasure in the Government of Canada's
investment of $950,000 in the renovation of the Sherbrooke airport,
the Conservative leader, blinded by political partisanship, made the
following statement in the daily,
The Tribune: ``The federal
government is doing this for political reasons. For election
purposes, it is going to lose the $100,000 the Government of
Quebec promised the City of Sherbrooke''.
(1415)
He is off the mark. The member for Sherbrooke's logic takes
some real mental gymnastics to grasp.
I suggest he be happy at the investment in the Sherbrooke
airport, and I thank the mayor of Sherbrooke and the airport
authorities for the words of praise they had for the federal
government and the member for Brome-Mississquoi for having
made this a success.
What we need in the Eastern Townships are Liberal members.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, her colleague the
Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development
and the mayors of the cities of Montreal and Lachine yesterday
announced a major project to repair the Lachine canal.
This project, estimated at over $82 million will be carried out
over five years and mean the creation of over 4,000 jobs during the
construction stage. The Lachine canal, which was at the heart of
Canada's economic development, will come to life again with this
project. An estimated 1.2 million visitors will use the canal
facilities once the work is completed.
Our government is proud to be a partner in the reopening and
revitalization of the Lachine canal. This is further proof of this
government's commitment to support Montreal's economic
development.
9741
[English]
The Speaker: It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy
has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Jack Iyerak
Anawak, member for the electoral district of Nunatsiaq, by
resignation effective April 15, 1997.
[Translation]
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act,
I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the
issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
_____________________________________________
9741
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, in Toronto, Brian Mulroney was asking Canada
to make new offers to Quebec to make up for the constitutional
insult it suffered in 1982. According to the President of Treasury
Board, however, Ottawa has kept its promises, there is no problem,
everything is fine, Constitution-wise.
Because it is totally incapable of any solution whatsoever, the
Liberal government is quite simply denying persistently that a
flagrant injustice was done to Quebec in 1982.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his Quebec lieutenant that
everything is settled, that there is nothing serious about the fact that
no Quebec government whatsoever, whether federalist or
sovereignist, has agreed to sign the Canadian Constitution in the
past 15 years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the House of Commons has taken steps concerning this
matter. We held a vote in this House in which we voted for distinct
society.
We passed legislation making it clear that there will be no
constitutional change without Quebec's consent. We have made
considerable progress in such areas as mining, forestry, tourism,
spending powers and social housing. It would appear that we are on
the verge of signing an agreement on manpower, an issue that has
been around for a very long time. As we have said here in the
House of Commons, changing the Constitution requires the consent
of the Government of Quebec.
If the hon. member wishes to have constitutional changes, let
him tell his head office to vote in favour of distinct society and of a
veto for Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, like the official opposition, the Government of Quebec
does not consider that Quebec is a distinct society. We consider it to
be a distinct nation.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: A people.
Mr. Duceppe: The Minister of Immigration ought to realize
that, if she sat in the National Assembly, perhaps that is because
there is something called the Quebec nation. Otherwise we would
have called it the ``Societal Assembly''.
While the President of Treasury Board states that everything is
settled, his colleague in Intergovernmental Affairs admits that
nothing has been done by the Liberals on the constitutional issue,
and that he accepts Canada as it is. He therefore admits that the
promises made at Verdun have been trampled into the ground, that
they were nothing but smoke and mirrors.
(1420)
I ask the Prime Minister how he can reconcile these two
statements. Has everything been done, or nothing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in October 1995 at Verdun, the Liberal Party and I made a
promise, saying that we had been in favour of the distinct society in
the past, and still are in the present, and we came to this House in
December 1995 to vote in favour of distinct society, which the Bloc
Quebecois voted against.
We said at Verdun that we were in favour of giving Quebec and
the other regions of Canada a veto. A bill was passed by the House
of Commons, as well as by the Senate, but the Bloc Quebecois
voted against a veto for Quebec.
What happened, each time we tried to take to meet Quebec's
traditional demands? We got blocked by the Bloc.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, if we blocked them, it was because this government, and
this Prime Minister in particular, has always had a block where
Quebec is concerned.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, we are not the only ones saying this;
the federalists in the Quebec National Assembly are not in
agreement with the Canadian government either.
Yesterday, we saw this Prime Minister shaking hands with Guy
Bertrand; a few months ago, it was Howard Galganov. We also
9742
remember the accolade to Clyde Wells after the failure of the
Meech Lake accord.
Every time anyone takes a stand against Quebec or the National
Assembly, the Prime Minister allies with him.
By denying the importance of the constitutional question, is the
Prime Minister not in the process of admitting that he has nothing
to offer Quebecers, whether they be sovereignists or federalists?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a great deal to offer to Quebecers. What we have
to offer is the best country in the world: Canada.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said yesterday that
Canada would never have been able to patriate the Constitution
without Ontario's agreement. This patriation, as we know, was
carried out despite the opposition of all political parties in Quebec.
And the 15th anniversary of this event next Thursday will be a dark
day for Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister agree that, in the end, there is no
difference between Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself and the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs? That the Liberal Party has not
altered its position on this issue one iota in 15 years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very surprised to hear that the official opposition
would have liked us to remain a legal colony of Great Britain. We
patriated the Canadian Constitution and, in so doing, gave all
Canadians a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we included as
part of the Constitution that Canada had two official languages,
French and English.
But the people who live in the past would like us to remain
forever a colony of Great Britain.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the
Prime Minister, it was the 1982 Constitution that was the future.
We can see that.
Does the Prime Minister realize that there is a consensus in the
rest of Canada regarding Quebec's status within Confederation,
that Quebec was put in its place in 1982, and that there is no
question of this changing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the House of Commons we voted in favour of distinct
society. We gave a veto to all regions, including Quebec. We sorted
out the problems of duplication with respect to the environment.
We resolved the problems that existed concerning forestry,
tourism, mining and social housing. One would have to be blind not
to see the progress we have made.
(1425)
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, April is
tax month and Canadians are getting a first hand look at what three
and a half years of Liberal government have done to their pay
cheques.
Since the Liberals came to power in 1993, the average Canadian
family has suffered a pay cut of $3,000, thanks to the government's
high tax policies. We are getting letters from seniors on fixed
incomes who are having to pay taxes for the first time in five years.
How can the government claim that it has not raised taxes when
older Canadians on fixed incomes are having to cut a cheque to the
tax man for the first time in years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
every time the Reform Party stands up and cites numbers, what it
has to do, unfortunately for it, is to go back to the Tory regime. In
order to compensate for the good numbers that the government has
brought in, it has to bring in the bad numbers that the Tories had. It
will not work.
We are responsible for that which happened since we took office
in 1993. Since that time, disposable income and family incomes
have stabilized. For the three years prior to our taking office they
had worsened. We have stabilized them. Virtually every economist
in the country now projects that those numbers are going to get
better.
It is particularly ironic that the hon. member stands up and talks
about seniors pensions, given the fact that her party in their original
budget recommended that seniors pensions be cut, that they have
fought protecting of the Canada pension plan, that they have fought
every measure this government has brought in to take care of our
senior citizens. The Canadian people are entitled to a little
consistency.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party has said and always says that the Canadian pension
plan as it is now is a farce. There is going to be nothing there for
young people when they get to be seniors.
The one pension plan that we did want to cut was the MP
pension, yet the people across the way would have no part of that.
High taxes mean high unemployment. The government is
collecting more in taxes than any other government in the history
of the country and it has the worst string of jobless numbers since
the great depression. That is no coincidence and it is certainly
nothing to brag about.
9743
If the Liberals were serious about dealing with the 1.4 million
Canadians unemployed they would be offering Canadians a
balanced budget soon and tax relief through smaller government.
Since the Prime Minister has made it clear that he has absolutely
no intention of giving Canadians tax relief, just where in the world
are these real jobs going to come from?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member must understand that when she stands up and cites
numbers in her preamble, she must be prepared to defend them.
She talked about what the government has done in pensions. Let
me quote: ``In the Reform Party's taxpayers budget it is projected
that spending on seniors' benefits in 1997-1998 would be $17
billion''. They have come in at $22.3 billion. The Reform Party has
recommended a $5 billion cut in seniors old age pensions.
Second, the hon. member has complained about the 9.9 per cent
premium that has been arrived at by the federal government and the
provinces, provinces representing every region of the country. The
hon. member's numbers come out, by almost anybody's
calculation, at 13 per cent. If those are not the right numbers, would
she stand in the House now and tell us what her premiums will
cost?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
number in the taxpayers' budget that the finance minister refers to
were 1994 numbers and a lot of projections have changed since
then.
The Prime Minister's idea of job creation is building canoe
museums, hotels and now armouries in his riding. That might
improve the Prime Minister's chance of re-election but it is not
going to give real sustainable jobs to Canadians across the country.
(1430 )
Mr. Speaker, 1.4 million people are unemployed, two to three
million people are underemployed, 800,000 people are
moonlighting to try to make ends meet and one in four Canadians
are worried about losing their jobs.
Members can cackle and crow all they like across the aisle, but
that is such a poor record that the government ought to be ashamed
of it. What it is trying to do is run away from that record in the next
election.
Instead of doling out patronage appointments and money in
Shawinigan, why will the Prime Minister not just give all
Canadians tax relief and help create some real jobs across the
country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
draw to the attention of the House that the hon. member was given
an opportunity to say what her party's Canada pension plan
premium or super RRSP premium would do. She did not take that
opportunity. Do I now understand that she accepts the number that
most economists have said? In fact, it is 13 per cent, 4 per cent
higher than what we and the provincial governments have arrived
at.
Let me go on. The hon. member wants to talk about tax cuts. She
says that her party will bring in tax cuts. Let us take a look at the
tax cuts that she would bring in.
The Reform Party will bring in, for a single parent with two
children earning $30,000 a tax cut of $175 per year. If people want
to know where their constituency lies, under the same program,
under the same budget, a one-earner couple earning $250,000 with
two children will get a tax cut of $6,700. That is what they are
trying to protect.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health.
We just heard that the Minister of Health will not extend the
mandate of the Krever inquiry, contrary to a request by the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court.
How does the minister explain his decision to ignore the request
made by Chief Justice Lamer?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the preamble of the hon. member's question is completely and
unequivocally false.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to hear from the minister whether they will really extend the
mandate of the Krever inquiry, as requested by Chief Justice
Lamer.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has quite incorrectly interpreted the comments of
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada made a comment and an
observation in terms of providing sufficient time for Justice Krever
to make his report.
It has been the position of the government, it has been the
position of ministers of health across the country, that we would
wait to hear the full report of Justice Krever before making final
recommendations as they relate to a national blood authority.
I have asked through the appropriate channels, through PCO,
that we go to Justice Krever to try to get an interim report with
regard to the issues of governance of the blood system.
9744
Justice Krever did that with regard to an interim report for the
safety of the blood system. I asked Justice Krever, on behalf of
Canadians, on behalf of consumers, on behalf of health ministers,
that we have that kind of information in order that we may take
the appropriate action on behalf of all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this government
has a spending problem. The Liberals spend millions on their
buddies for patronage, MP junkets, gold plated MP pensions and
even caviar receptions in the case of the heritage minister.
Meanwhile, I just had a letter from a 74-year-old senior. She
writes that for the first time she has to pay $1,100 in her year end
income tax bill when her gross income was under $18,000. This is
robbery of seniors and the poor.
Can the government explain why this senior is having her pocket
picked to fuel the wasteful habits of the heritage minister and her
big spending colleagues?
The Speaker: My colleagues, words like robbery and have their
pockets picked are a little strong. I would ask hon. members to be
very judicious in their choice of words.
(1435)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.
member made certain claims about what he alleged to be a very
exclusive reception.
The reason I answered about the reception in the House is
because the reception I attended was the same kind of reception
that we have held for Olympic athletes ever since we have been a
country and entered the Olympics.
I have here a partial list of the over 600 Canadian athletes and
their families who attended. From the province of New Brunswick
selected by the provincial government, Lynsey Bartlett; from the
province of Alberta, from Blairmore, Gail Bigcharles. We had
14-year-old wheelchair basketball athletes. We also had a team
from the city of Montreal. They are so committed to the Olympic
process that to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Montreal
Olympics they cycled from Montreal to Atlanta. Yes, they too were
invited to this very exclusive reception.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we are
concerned about is careers, not caviar. We are concerned about
jobs.
The government's spending problem has led to enormous tax
rates that are killing jobs and destroying hope for unemployed
young people. I have three children, all of them university trained.
All of them had to leave the country because of the government's
record.
Why is the government through its destructive tax policies
giving our young people the choice between no hope for a job or
reaching for their passports? Is that the Liberal solution for job
unemployment for the young?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the course of the show
of appreciation by the country for our Olympic and Paralympic
athletes we have had three receptions: one for the Olympic and
Paralympic athletes here on the Hill, another one in Atlanta, and
there is going to be a third reception next week to honour the
athletes from the Special Olympics.
I was thrilled that at the last event held on the floor of the House
of Commons, all members from all sides of the House were thrilled
to participate with Olympians. I happen to have a picture of the
hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who was very happy
not only to go to the reception but to have his picture taken with the
athletes.
I would say to members of the Reform Party that please, you
can't have it both ways.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would caution all hon. members about using
props. We would not want question period to become a show and
tell.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Last Friday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, in response to a
question from the deputy leader of the official opposition, that he
was misinformed and that the government intended to co-sponsor
the Danish resolution on human rights in China.
(1440)
What explanation does the minister have for his about face
yesterday, when he announced the government's refusal to
co-sponsor the Danish resolution at the UN human rights
commission?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the decision we announced yesterday is part of an
assessment we made. It was a tough judgment to make but it really
came down to what we thought would be the most effective way of
trying to broaden and pursue an agenda of human rights.
We held discussions with Chinese authorities, enabling us to
develop a new set of initiatives. We felt that because the resolution
9745
of Geneva had already been substantially weakened by the
withdrawal of support by a number of countries, the most effective
way that we could advance the cause of human rights in China was
to pursue this new agenda.
I would be very glad to brief the hon. member on the kind of
measure because I am sure the hon. premier of Quebec when he
goes to China would like to support us in that initiative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a sad
day indeed. The government has just abdicated its responsibility
and betrayed the Pearson legacy which made human rights a
priority at one of the world's most important political forums on
human rights.
Would the minister agree that his government should be
ashamed of letting China pressure and blackmail us into let money
prevail over human rights?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reverse is true. The history of Canada's legacy in this
respect has been to pursue the most effective ways to develop
respect for human rights throughout the world.
In this case, we have developed a program of initiatives to
promote rights in China, to guarantee the development of the
civilian society and to engage the Chinese in a unique multilateral
dialogue on human rights.
I believe that in the circumstances, this will offer the most
effective opportunities for developing a reaction. If there is no
favourable reaction in the next few years, we will re-examine
Canada's position and support the resolution in Geneva.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have watched the justice minister in effect deny Canadians a
national victims bill of rights. I have watched the justice minister
refuse to amend his conditional sentencing law that allows rapists
to serve no time in jail. I have watched the justice minister use a
letter solicited by him from a victims group to convince us that his
position is a good thing for Canadians. Last week he categorically
denied that he or his office solicited that letter.
Is the justice minister prepared to apologize to Canadians for
disregarding the needs of victims in using them in a letter solicited
by his office?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what a sorry spectacle it is, a party
without ideas, a party without policies, a party with nothing to
offer, driven in desperation to now a daily ritual of exploiting the
pain of others in an effort to hang on to its few remaining points in
the polls. It is a sad spectacle. It is difficult to watch and abide. It is
hard to listen to.
I offer the same answer as I have offered on days in the past. The
hon. member knows nothing of what he speaks. He asked for a
victims bill of rights without knowing that most of the provinces
have already taken steps to do exactly what he is asking for.
That party has been driven to a point where it is now exploiting
crime to protect its impossible position.
(1445 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is really a disgusting spectacle from the justice minister. The
justice minister is really the managing partner in the worst law firm
in this country. That is what he is.
I think he should check with Derek Kent of his office. He should
check how he wrongfully solicits victims. If he has no idea what is
going on in his own office, is it any wonder why he is out of touch
with this country, out of touch with victims?
Can the minister check with his office to determine if the
bureaucrats will allow him to amend conditional sentencing to
exclude violent offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not only feeling
desperation but by now he must be feeling acute embarrassment.
Here he has paraded himself on the national stage day after day,
pretending to be the champion of victims, attacking this
government for having done nothing, and yet to his acute
embarrassment he must confront the letter from CAVEAT, a
national organization of victims, signed by the president, Priscilla
de Villiers.
This is important. The hon. member may wish to listen: ``Three
years ago CAVEAT presented a petition to Allan Rock on behalf of
2.5 million Canadians. It called for far reaching measures to
improve public safety and the treatment of victims. Since then
significant steps have been taken to address some of these
concerns. Although much still needs to be done, this government
has shown a willingness to listen and to act''.
That is the truth.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week the United States and the European Union concluded an
agreement on their dispute over the Helms-Burton law.
9746
This agreement provides for a relaxed application of this law
in exchange for the suspension of the proceedings instituted by
the European Union with the World Trade Organization and the
establishment of global rules preventing investment by companies
in properties expropriated by other governments.
My question is for the Minister of International Trade. As the
Liberals' record says that Canada was the force behind
international opposition to the Helms-Burton law, could the
minister explain how it is that Canada is not a signatory to the
agreement reached last week by the European Union and the United
States?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been in ongoing consultations with the
United States on this issue. The Americans know of our strong
opposition to it and we will continue to have those consultations.
The idea with the European Union was to get it into a new forum,
away from the World Trade Organization, in which the U.S. said it
would not participate, to the OECD where it will participate. I think
that is a useful move because Canada has hit the table in those
discussions on the multilateral agreement on investment. In fact,
Canada first raised the issue with respect to extraterritoriality and
the Helms-Burton law. We will continue to pursue it.
In terms of the other measures with respect to Helms-Burton,
nothing was really gained. The president had already indicated that
he was deferring for six months at a time the title III provisions on
lawsuits. On title IV we have been told that they are not looking at
any other Canadians and that they would not make it retroactive
with respect to those already on the list.
Canada continues to present its case and will continue in
consultations. I am delighted to know we will have an opportunity
to bring the United States to the table so we can talk about our
grievances about Helms-Burton and the whole broader concept of
extraterritoriality.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for a
year now, the minister has been waffling and for a year he has
followed in the wake of the European countries.
Given that the minister is still refusing to fight the Helms-Burton
law under NAFTA and given that there is no guarantee the OECD
negotiations will lead to an agreement, could the minister tell us
what is preventing him from filing a complaint under NAFTA?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I expect the OECD will reach an agreement. I
do not think it is going to come in the short run. It will be sometime
in 1998, but it is a matter that will get full discussion at that level.
In terms of the NAFTA, we have the possibility of doing that. If
the talks stall, if the U.S. refuses to talk about Helms-Burton and
these kinds of unilateral measures, then we will use it.
I am happy that we are making some progress in terms of these
discussions. I think international multilateral forums are the best
place for it.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in Windsor and Essex County, the home of the
International Joint Commission, the Great Lakes Institute and the
Essex Region Conservation Authority, we really care about the
quality of Great Lakes water. Can the Minister of the Environment
tell us whether the quality of the lakes is improving and whether we
can count on this great legacy of fresh water for our children and
grandchildren?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank the hon. member not so much for her
question but for her interest in terms of the quality and condition of
the Great Lakes.
Today marks the 25th anniversary of former Prime Minister
Trudeau's signing with the United States a Great Lakes quality
agreement. Not only has the agreement worked well, it has been
held up as a model on how to manage not only shared waters
between two countries but waters which represent one-fifth of the
world's fresh water supply.
Last week when the Prime Minister visited Washington the two
governments signed a new agreement to extend that success story
to those toxins which are the most threatening and the most
dangerous and to ensure that we have another success story for the
next 25 years.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two months ago when I asked a question about
modern war criminals in Canada the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of immigration stated: ``Action is being taken. These
people will be removed. They will not be allowed to stay in this
country''. We now learn that when Canada generously opened its
doors to genuine refugees from the war in Bosnia a number of
suspected war criminals were accepted as refugees.
Can the minister inform the House what action is being taken
against those suspected war criminals and when they will be
removed from Canada?
9747
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be made very clear that
Canada did play a role in resettling refugees from the former
Yugoslavia and that, true to Canada's tradition of generosity, we
have indeed welcomed refugees who were being persecuted or
living in difficult conditions due to conflicts in their country of
origin.
Every one of these refugees we have welcomed has been
accepted in a spirit of openness. To date, there has been no
indication of what the hon. member from the Reform Party raised
just today involving any of the more than 19,000 refugees we have
welcomed in our country since 1993.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting because her department
came up with 250 suspected modern day war criminals, and
representatives of the Bosnian government have stated that
Canadian officials did not consult their list of suspected war
criminals before accepting refugee claimants from Bosnia.
Now that some of these individuals have been identified as being
in Canada, it does not appear that they will be brought to justice
soon because of the lack of an extradition treaty with Bosnia.
Will the minister assure the House that action will be taken
immediately by the government, or is the government prepared to
repeat the five decades of embarrassment Canada experienced with
the handling of Nazi war criminals?
(1455)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the
Reform Party should at least have the honesty to say that the
prime-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask the hon. minister to
please withdraw the word ``honesty'' from her answer.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member from the
Reform Party would have the courage to say-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, honesty or courage cannot be
called into question. You can answer, but please choose your words
carefully.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Speaker, we hope the members of this
Parliament will recognize the actions taken by this government.
This country is a world leader in the fight against modern day
war criminals. In many respects, even our court decisions set a
precedent worldwide.
It is very clear that we have a plan of action-
An hon. member: Oh, really?
Mrs. Robillard: We do, and it is to take action against those
individuals who may be living in Canada.
Regarding the former Yugoslavia, Canada even helps
international courts prosecute anyone who may have committed
crimes against humanity.
How can the hon. member from the Reform Party stand in this
House and say otherwise?
* * *
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
In spite of a NAFTA ruling supporting Canada's position
regarding the tariffs on our eggs, dairy and poultry products, the
U.S. trade representative, Charlene Barsketsky, indicated a few
weeks ago that this issue was a priority for her country and that she
would fight to the end to eliminate these tariffs.
Can the minister assure us that he will be firm and will not start
negotiating with his American counterpart to eliminate our tariffs,
contrary to what has already been done by the Liberal government
in the case of wheat and softwood lumber? The Bloc Quebecois
would never accept such a move.
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said in 1993 that we would
fight very hard to defend the interests of Canadian farmers in the
final round of the GATT negotiations, and we did that.
We said following 1993 that if the United States should
challenge us under the NAFTA we would defend our supply
management system, and we did that.
Farmers in Canada may rest assured that this government stands
firmly behind them in every set of trade negotiations.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever
commission on tainted blood is supposed to be about health but it is
tied up again by lawyers.
We want to find out who is in charge on this issue. Is it the Red
Cross lawyers, is it the supreme court lawyers or is it our weak
health minister lawyer?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is the supreme court.
9748
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Apparently the Organization for Economic Development and
Co-operation is proposing a multilateral investment agreement
which, if signed, would not allow Canada to set job creation targets
or set conditions on future foreign investments.
Can the minister confirm that Canada will not sign the proposed
agreement unless such restrictions are removed?
(1500 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, negotiations on the multilateral agreement on
investment at the OECD are at a very early stage. As I indicated in
answer to a previous question, they are not likely to be concluded
this year but probably next year.
There is no agreement. Proposals are on the table but no
agreement has been reached on the issue. Canada's sovereignty will
not be undermined. As in the case of NAFTA, we will look for
exemptions for our cultural industries and the right to review
sensitive foreign investments.
Furthermore, Canada will not sign an agreement that inhibits its
ability to link the granting of investment incentives to job creation.
What we do see though as an advantage when eventually we do find
the right terms is the greater access of investment for Canadians in
foreign markets and a more appealing access into our market for
foreign firms.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is a supplementary to that issue. When the minister says that
Canada's sovereignty will not be undermined that is exactly what
the proponents of NAFTA told Canadians.
Considering the implications of this proposal that are now being
carried on in high level secret negotiations, is it not time that
Canadians know what is being negotiated? Should they not know
what some of the issues are before the election or at least promise
to raise it during the election so Canadians can evaluate this and
make a judgment call themselves?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is on the table in the MAI is substantially
what is already in the NAFTA agreement and that is very public
information.
It is at a very early stage in the discussions. Canada has not
agreed to anything and Canada will not agree to anything that is not
in its interest. If we can get further access to markets, fine.
However, we want to make sure that we can continue to create jobs
in this country. That is what Canadians want and we are not going
to give that away.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Donald David Gay, MLA, my brother
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have two points of order which I will entertain.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from a
response I gave yesterday in question period.
I was asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West whether I
had solicited a letter from CAVEAT that has been referred to in the
record. I said I had not, nor had I instructed anybody to do so on my
behalf.
I did undertake to check the facts. The hon. member or other
members might have concluded from my response that the letter
had not been solicited. Last night in discussion with my staff I
learned that a member of my staff, in speaking with the president of
CAVEAT last Thursday, had asked that the thoughts she had
expressed be put in writing and that she communicate by letter.
That was done. That is the letter that I read from, freely sent by
CAVEAT.
I answered yesterday to the best of my ability and I put on the
record today the facts I have discovered in the interim.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, during question period you asked
the minister of immigration to withdraw certain words. I would like
to draw the Speaker's attention to the point that these words were
withdrawn conditionally.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne requires that anyone
who is asked to withdraw unparliamentary language do so without
any conditions whatsoever. I would like to draw to your attention
that the minister did attach conditions. I ask that the record be
corrected by requesting her to make an unconditional withdrawal
now since she is still in the Chamber.
9749
The Speaker: I will undertake to review the blues and Hansard
but my recollection is that there was a straight withdrawal with
no conditions attached. Should that not be the case I will return
to the House if it is necessary.
_____________________________________________
9749
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-82,
an act to amend certain laws relating to financial institutions, be
read the third time and passed.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I continue the debate on Bill C-82, an act to
review the legislation regarding certain financial institutions.
Before I get into the other part of my remarks, I wish to reply to
certain statements that were made by the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Finance. In particular, he said that the clauses
dealing with tied selling would not be proclaimed until September
1998. It was almost a sanctimonious kind of concession that
suggested that this is such an important issue that it will be put into
the legislation but the government will not proclaim it until
September 1998.
This was put under the rubric or in the context of saying that it is
in the interests of the consumer and that the government is looking
after the interests of the consumer.
I wish to point out as I go through the various remarks that the
very amendments dealing with tied selling in the proposed Bill
C-82 are not in the interests of the consumer. I will move into that
with some dispatch at this point.
First of all, may I draw members attention to it not being in the
interests of all categories of consumers. That is the individual
consumer, that is the large business corporation, the small business
corporation, the partnership, the medium sized corporation. All
these people use in various shapes and forms and at various times,
in larger or smaller amounts, with different degrees and conditions
of repayment and rates of interest the function of the bank as it
lends money to these various ventures.
Every Canadian who borrows money is affected by the
provisions in proposed Bill C-82. These are loans that can be of
short term, of longer term, of flexible interest rates or of fixed
interest rates. It has to deal with bridge financing, if that is the
instance, or it may deal with lines of credit. It deals with first
mortgages and second mortgages, whatever the case might be.
What is the issue in this matter? The issue is that it will give to
the banks increased power to do things that otherwise are not
available to other financial institutions. How do I come to this
conclusion? It comes from the two subclauses that are presented in
clause 55 of Bill C-82. They refer to section 459.1 of the Bank Act.
How does this affect the consumer? I wish to read the sections of
the bill so that we are each clear on what exactly it is that we are
talking about. I want to go on record with this because the day will
come, I am convinced, when a lot of Canadians will ask themselves
why the government passed this legislation.
In order to put this into the appropriate context, we need to
recognize that section 459.1 reads as follows:
459.1 (1) a bank shall not impose undue pressure on, or coerce, a person to obtain
a product or service from a particular person, including the bank and any of its
affiliates, as a condition for obtaining a loan from the bank.
(1510 )
Every consumer listening to this would say that is good and I
agree. However, the bill does not stop there. It goes on to subclause
(2) and (3). It is in subclause (2) that we need to read as follows:
For greater certainty, a bank may offer to make a loan to a person on more
favourable terms or conditions than the bank would otherwise offer to a borrower,
where the more favourable terms and conditions are offered on the condition that the
person obtain another product or service from any particular person.
It is very clear that a preferred rate may be given on the
condition that the borrower obtain insurance from a particular
person, which could be a subsidiary of the bank or any institution
with which the bank has an agreement.
Let us read subclause (3). It is in effect the mirror image of
subclause (2) but written in a different way. It begins with the same
words:
For greater certainty, a bank or one of its affiliates may offer a product or service
to a person on more favourable terms or conditions than the bank or affiliate would
otherwise offer, where the more favourable terms and conditions are offered on the
condition that the person obtain a loan from the bank.
According to the amendments to Bill C-82, those two clauses are
being used to replace the existing section 416 of the Bank Act.
Section 416 reads as follows:
(1) A bank shall not undertake the business of insurance except to the extent
permitted by this act or the regulations.
(2) A bank shall not act in Canada as agent for any person in the placing of
insurance and shall not lease or provide space at any branch in Canada of the bank to
any person engaged in the placing of insurance-
(4) Nothing in this section precludes the bank from
(a)requiring insurance to be placed by a borrower for the security of the bank; or
9750
(b) obtaining group insurance for its employees or the employees of any bodies
corporate in which it has a substantial investment pursuant to section 468.
(5) No bank shall exercise pressure on a borrower to place insurance for the
security of the bank with any particular insurance company, but a bank may require
that an insurance company chosen by a borrower meet with its approval, which shall
not be unreasonably withheld.
That is the part that works today and that is what Bill C-82 states
shall not longer be the case.
I submit that is operating not in the interest of the consumer but
in the direct beneficiary interest of the bank itself.
Having set the context, we need to ask ourselves how this can
affect the consumer. First, we need to recognize that in 1992 the
four pillars of the financial institutions were collapsed. They do not
exist any more. Those four pillars constituted insurance companies,
investment dealers, trust companies and banks. They are no longer
in existence.
With the destruction or the elimination of the barriers between
these four pillars of finance went competition and came the
exchange of information between these various aspects. What does
this mean in practical terms? It means, and has in practice turned
out that way, that banks today may own insurance companies.
There is a whole variety of different kinds of insurance companies.
They may own life insurance companies. They may own health
insurance companies. They may own property and casualty
insurance companies, automobile insurance companies or trust
companies. The experience now is that 80 per cent of the
investment dealer business is done by the banks through its
subsidiaries.
Under the umbrella of a single board are contained all four of
these that were before distinct and separate financial functions.
(1515)
Let us take a look at a couple of scenarios on how this would
work in the individual case, how it can work and how it has
worked. There has been the greater consolidation of information
under one umbrella. There are instances where a bank can own a
life insurance or a health insurance company. When a life insurance
policy or a health policy is issued a lot of very personal information
is collected.
Let us take a person who owes $100,000 to the bank. The loan is
there. Lo and behold the bank recognizes that a set of claims has
been issued against its insurance company by the individual with
the loan. The bank may now very easily project forward and ask
under what conditions or how favourable is the repayment
possibility of the loan.
I presented this example to the finance committee when the bill
was up for discussion. The president of the Canadian Bankers
Association appeared before the committee. This is not a
recollection from my memory but an exact quotation of what Mr.
Protti said:
First, our privacy codes do not permit the sharing of information on health issues
across subsidiaries. It doesn't happen.
That is very interesting. One bank, a member of the Canadian
Bankers Association, sent a policy statement sent to clients of a
subsidiary of the bank, an investment dealer subsidiary, which
stated:
Its officers and employees must scrupulously observe in letter and spirit all laws
governing business and securities activities. Its officers and employees must deal
fairly, honestly and in good faith with clients-The confidentiality of client
information is a fundamental principle of our firm. No employee may release
confidential client information unless required by law or with the client's consent.
I will refer to this point later when we go through the policy
statement. It further stated:
The misuse of confidential information or misuse of any inside information not
generally disclosed for personal gain or for the benefit of anyone else is prohibited
and grounds for immediate dismissal of an employee.
What is the nature of the bank and its relationship with a
subsidiary? The subsidiary is a wholly owned subsidiary of the
bank and the bank guarantees all the liabilities of the subsidiary.
What about the sharing of private information? The subsidiary
may give confidential client information to the bank. This type of
information includes a client's name, address, phone number,
income, assets, debts, investment objectives and financial plans.
The bank may use this information for the following purposes: to
sell its services to the client; and to survey the relationship between
its subsidiaries and their clients. It is the beginning of a sharing of
information among subsidiaries. It may use it to determine the
amount of debt one has outstanding to the subsidiary and to the
bank. The comes the catch all phrase. It says:
This information may be used for any other purpose about which the subsidiary
will inform you, the client, in writing.
Earlier it stated that the bank would not disclose the information
unless it was required to be shared by law or without the consent of
the client. Before an account is opened with the subsidiary there is
a client consent statement which reads:
By opening an account with this subsidiary you are consenting to the bank's use
of this information.
It does not say how. There are no conditions placed on it. It is
simply an agreement that the bank may use the information. If a
client wants to end the consent written notice must be given to the
subsidiary and addressed and delivered to the subsidiary's branch.
Notice would be in effect when a written acknowledgement from
the subsidiary is received. Should a client wish to close an account,
9751
the subsidiary would give at least 30 days written notice before
doing so.
(1520)
Who is closing the account? The client chooses to close the
account. If the client does so or if the client will not give
permission to send the information, the subsidiary may close the
account without any further consultation with the client. The bank
is virtually guaranteeing the information will be made available to
other of its subsidiaries and that the client, in order to keep the
account, must give consent to the sharing of that information with
the various subsidiaries. It is not far fetched that the information
could be used by the bank in its decision making process.
Scenario No. 1 depicts a situation where a particular piece of
personal information may be used to make a decision against
clients or change their financial status.
Let me move on to another scenario. This time it is implicit
rather than explicit. We will consider the following. A business has
a loan. The bank advises that it is a big loan and asks about it being
paid back by the business going public.
We all know what going public means. It means issuing shares
which allows the public to buy parts of the business through the
purchase of shares. Lo and behold the bank also has a subsidiary
which deals in securities. One of the functions of a securities dealer
is to underwrite new stock issues, which would be the case in this
scenario.
First we had a private company that went to the bank and, in
order to pay its loan, went to the public market to sell equity shares.
Now the bank suggests to the individual to keep a bit of the loan on
which it will give a preferred rate on the condition, according to
subsection (2), the underwriting service of its subsidiary is used.
On the other hand it says the company can go all the way with the
underwriting and will be given a preferred rate but the underwriting
has to be done through our subsidiary. The rate will only be given
on the condition that if in the future the company needs to borrow
money it will borrow it from the bank in question.
One could argue that is good business. However, when a person
is in trouble it is tantamount to coercion. It is certainly tantamount
to undue pressure. It is not good business. That scenario is not far
fetched. It is a very real possibility.
I will outline a third scenario. This one concerns a business
which at this point in time is in serious trouble. Under the umbrella
provision it has given the bank all its business. The company
pension plan, mortgage, personal RRSPs and home mortgage are
all with the bank, in one place. The bank has knowledge of the
affairs of the business, its proprietor, its family and its members. It
knows the business is in trouble and that even if the company
pension, the group RRSPs, the individual RRSPs, the house and
the other mortgages were liquidated, there would not be enough
money to cover the debt.
(1525 )
By consolidating everything under one roof the bank has an
unusual power and a coercion possibility that otherwise would not
exist. That is dangerous and imprudent. It should not be considered
prudent management of financial affairs if all products or services
are subsumed under one bank or one financial institution.
Who benefits from all this? It is the bank that benefits. If we take
the first scenario, the information is given by the client to the bank
and shared with the subsidiary to the advantage of the bank and not
of the client.
In the second case the banks underwrite through its subsidiary
the share issue. The subsidiary gets the underwriting fees for
writing the share issue. Its brokers collect the fees from the
distribution of the shares to the general public. It also gets an
overriding commission. Then there is the continued trading of that
set of securities. The company, which was previously private, now
has the additional difficulty of having to meet all obligations a
public company has to meet. These are substantial. In all three
instances the bank is favoured rather than to the individual.
I will review exactly what we have done so far. Bundling it all
together, as the hon. parliamentary secretary said, will somehow be
to the benefit of the consumer. By bundling all these products and
services we can offer either a preferred rate on the loan or a
preferred rate on services or products being purchased.
What is not in the act is important. The act does not require the
bank to disclose the prices of these component parts or whether the
specifications of the component parts would have been the same
before they were bundled together.
There is no protection. It may not even be the same set of
products the customer thought he was buying. Tied selling is a very
dangerous.
What do other people have to say about this section of the act?
Members have heard my interpretation. Let me read what Mr.
Yakabuski, director of government relations of the Insurance
Bureau of Canada, had to say in his brief to the committee:
If there is an area where the committee may choose to make Bill C-82 an even
better piece of legislation, it is with respect to the tied selling provisions proposed
under section 459.1 of the Bank Act.
Our view is that subsections 2 and 3 have been worded too broadly and may in
fact permit the bundling of certain bank products and other financial services in a
way which may not be beneficial to the consumer.
9752
Mr. Yakabuski added to that section of his brief by saying:
With respect to those proposed subsections it seems perfectly absurd to us that the
government would decide to put into law definitions regarding some things that
might be good for consumers and some things that might not be good for consumers
when everyone knows that it is not an exhaustive list. That is precisely why you have
proposed section 455.5, which we support, which gives the governor in council the
ability to make regulations determining exactly what is and is not beneficial for
consumers.
We recognize that some bundling of products can be good for consumers, but why
should you want to restrict the regulation making power now?
That is at the heart of the issue. That is what the insurance bureau
had to say.
What did insurance brokers have to say? A letter to Mr. Frank
Swedlove of the Insurance Brokers of Canada stated:
We believe that there is a cause for concern regarding the proposed amendments
to the Bank Act and in particular section 459.1. In our opinion subsections 2 and 3
may limit the regulation making power of the Bank Act. To remove this potential
problem it may be preferable to delete subsections 2 and 3. This can be done, if you
agree, during the parliamentary review of this legislation which is expected to
resume as early as this week.
(1530 )
That did happen but the government chose not to agree with that.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you and to this House that the day will
come when we will ask ourselves, and the government will ask
itself, why we did not do that? If the people of Canada elect a
Reform government then that will be looked after and consumer
interests will be preferred. They will be balanced off against the
powers of the banking and financial institutions. That is what we
need to do.
This same Madam Brown who wrote the original letter that I just
read also said this at the committee: ``There are other angles to tied
selling that I think we overlooked. They are not just simple ones.
We can tell you that favourable tied selling clauses that are in
proposed subclauses 459.1(2) and (3) will be unenforceable''.
What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker?
The supervision of these activities will be almost impossible
because we go through this ourselves now in the business of tied
selling. This is not some amateur making this observation. This is
someone who is in the business of insurance brokering. This is
someone who understands property and casualty insurance in great
depth. She says that it will be unenforceable to do something like
this.
Why then does the government insist that this legislation be
passed? Last Thursday we presented amendments. This afternoon
we voted on those amendments and the government voted them
down. What did those amendments say? They said to keep what
exists in legislation now and make tied selling illegal.
Why did the government not accept those amendments? Why did
the government bring to this House legislation that it has stated will
not be proclaimed until September 1998 until the committee has
had a chance to study it?
Let the committee study it. Let the issue come forward strongly
and clearly and then make the appropriate changes to the
legislation as necessary, but do not anticipate what the committee
might find, or pass legislation which will not be promulgated until
some time in the future. It is absurd.
There is more. This point has to do with some very significant
issues. So far we have seen that the proposed amendments invite
imprudent consolidation of various aspects of a business. It makes
possible the sharing of information that is personal and private. It
does not deal with the conflicts of interest between a subsidiary and
the lending institution, the bank. It is silent about complete
disclosure on price and specifications of elements of products and
services that may be bundled together.
I cannot help but read into the record a case where the
individuals in question were a hardworking couple in Ottawa. Over
many years of hard work and perseverance they took themselves
from the proverbial rags to riches. They were diligent about
keeping their financial records in order. Their relationship with
their bank was top-notch. So sound was their financial record and
their relationship with their bank that written in their files were the
words ``no collateral required''. No collateral was required by the
bank whenever the couple needed to get a loan.
In keeping with their practice of fiscal responsibility, the couple
planned for their retirement by investing in gas and oil stocks, but
somewhere along the way a substantial stock certificate went
missing. This discovery was made just as the couple was getting
ready to retire and turn their family business over to their son.
The wife worried for months over the missing stock certificate
she had so carefully placed in her safety deposit box. It was gone.
The bank took no responsibility for it and insisted that the couple
must have misplaced it. Only because of the diligence of a loyal
daughter, often in the face of great adversity which included veiled
threats from the bank, did the story begin to come together.
(1535 )
The missing stock certificate was in the possession of the bank
during the entire time. This stock certificate had been removed
from the couple's safety deposit box without any authorization
from the couple, an illegal manoeuvre by the bank.
Despite reporting this to the bank manager, the bank president,
the inspector general of banks which today is the of the Office of
9753
the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Minister of
Finance at the time, nothing was done.
The bank refused to admit that it was at fault, claiming that the
stocks had been taken as collateral for a $15,000 loan. These were
customers where no collateral had been deemed necessary. They
were stocks that the bank had no knowledge of unless it had
illegally entered into the couple's safety deposit box.
The result took a grave toll. The father died before the matter
was ever resolved. The mutual fund froze the couple's investment,
meaning that the mother never saw a dime before she passed away.
Because of the bank's refusal to own up to a mistake, this hard
working, honest family suffered.
More important, the relationship between this family and the
bank has been marred for good, which means that the relationship
between the bank and all of us has suffered to some degree. The
bank did not live up to its fiduciary responsibility.
Despite an investigation that ruled in favour of the family, the
bank has not compensated the family for the value of the stocks, the
loss of the retirement funds and the time in personal sacrifice it
cost.
To this day, the bank in question refuses to accept full
responsibility for its mistake. Small amounts of compensation have
been offered which neither reflect the dollar value of the family's
financial loss or the value or their personal loss. The amounts, in
the form of cheques, are offered on the condition that the family
speak not another word of the injustice levelled against them by the
bank. Needless to say, the cheques have not been cashed because
they refuse to allow themselves to be muzzled this way.
I have been asked to tell this story to warn Canadians that it is
unwise to fully trust an institution with such power to always act in
their best interest. It is a warning, too, that legislative powers do
not necessarily protect the consumer.
In 1979, in 1980 and in 1982, this case was raised again and
again in this House. Neither the then Minister of Finance nor the
inspector general of banks, now the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions, did anything to ensure that the bank took
responsibility for its mistake.
Banks in this country are powerful, indeed, more powerful than
our elected government. That is precisely the reason why we
should not allow clause 55, section 459.1(2) and (3) to stand as is.
Can we be assured that the banks will not unduly pressure or
coerce consumers? I submit no, we cannot. That is why we must be
diligent in protecting the interests of the consumer and the small
business person against the ultimate power exercised by financial
institutions. We can never take for granted that the consumer will
be protected or the small business person treated fairly. We have
heard too many cases where it has not happened.
There is going to be, I am sure, some people saying: ``But Mr.
Schmidt, that is one case''. Yes, that is one case but it is an example
of many other cases.
Does this mean that banks deal this way with most customers?
Of course not. That is not the point I am making. We ought not to
create a situation where it is always a predetermined condition
where the bank may do this kind of thing with impunity. That is the
issue.
I remember one bank that is proud of itself. In fact, it had a
national advertising campaign. One of the characteristics of that
advertising campaign was that it said it had become the largest
bank in Canada one customer at a time. It is one anecdote at a time
that has brought this kind of thing to pass.
As legislators we need to have the interests of the consumer at
heart first and foremost. We need stable and solid financial
institutions. Our banks are second to none in the world but that
does not mean that we have to keep expanding their power. That is
the issue.
The point has come where we need to balance the power of all
our financial institutions, not just banks. They are not the only
institutions that do these kinds of things. There are other groups
that do this. Credit unions do this kind of thing. Trust companies do
this kind of thing. The insurance companies who are opposing this
legislation do some of these kinds of things. The issue is one of
fairness. The issue is one of adequacy. The issue is one of justice.
That is what I am concerned about. That is what we should all be
concerned about. It can be done.
(1540)
I am sorry the amendments were not passed, but surely to
goodness before this legislation is promulgated we will at that time
come to a clear understanding that these kinds of provisions cannot
be allowed to continue to stand in the Bank Act as it exists in our
legislation today.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
your usual non-partisan manner you announced that very well. I
always enjoy working with you in your new role. I am sorry to see
you muzzled, of course, of your former ability to parry and thrust in
the debate in the House. Still, you are doing a fine job there and we
appreciate your work.
I want to talk for a few minutes today about the financial
institutions act, in particular because it is one of the areas that the
Reform Party says that the federal government needs to be
9754
involved in very aggressively if Canada is to have that common
economic union that will strengthen the nation.
We have suggested that in our vision of what Canada should look
like. There are some areas from which the federal government
should dissociate itself. For example, the federal government
should not be involved in tourism. That should be a provincial
jurisdiction. Manpower training should be a provincial jurisdiction
and all provinces should have responsibility for that. Municipal
affairs is something best left with the provinces and the
municipalities. Things such as housing, language and culture
should be left with the provinces. The provinces and the
municipalities are much closer to the needs in their regions and
they will do much better job of managing things than will the
federal government.
In our fresh start document we detail the areas that we think
should be handed off to lower levels of government. It goes so far
as to say that municipalities should be officially recognized as the
level of government closest to the people and they should be
included in federal-provincial arrangements such as the
infrastructure programs that are being announced here on the cusp
of the election. Once again, it is the municipalities that are going to
have to contribute a third of the money in these infrastructure plans
and they getting in on the deal after it is completed.
I can say from the last infrastructure deal, where about 82 to 84
per cent of the money went to ridings controlled by provincial
MLAs in the NDP government of British Columbia, there was a lot
of dissatisfaction with the fact that municipalities are treated as the
weak sisters, or the poor brothers or whatever they can be called,
but they do not have the influence on policy that they should have.
All that said, one of the things that should not be weakened in the
federal government is regulation of financial institutions. That
forms one of the 10 main areas where the Government of Canada
should concentrate its efforts.
I should read those areas into the record. They include defence,
foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulating financial institutions,
the Criminal Code, facilitating national standards, equalization,
international trade, domestic trade and reform of national
institutions such as Parliament. On the last point I know, Mr.
Speaker, as the co-author of a report that talks about reforming the
national institution of Parliament, even going so far as
recommending that the position that you now have be given to one
of the opposition parties, for example, you would be, as many
others are as well, in favour of reforming national institutions here
in Parliament.
The reason that these 10 areas need to be emphasized is because
these are the 10 areas of commonality that I think all Canadians can
agree to and that all provinces can agree to, that if we are going to
have a nation we need to have these areas under the control of the
federal government.
(1545 )
There is no use in the power to regulate domestic trade disputes
being held within a province. Obviously one province could say it
is looking after its best interests so it will not give in or allow
another province to buy supplies or whatever it might be. This
cannot be and should not be.
In recent times the Liberal government attempted to put together
an internal trade agreement in Canada. Whole sections of the
internal trade agreement were left blank, including the section on
energy. It is a completely blank page because the provinces cannot
agree among themselves.
The federal government needs to step in more aggressively and
take control of the 10 areas that I mentioned. The federal
government should not acquiesce to any one province. It should
aggressively use its constitutional right to regulate financial
institutions and internal trade disputes and force them to a
conclusion. If one province does not want to sign on, it will have to
be pushed a little. One thing that makes a country is a common
economic market. By extension we also need a common monetary
policy. That is one thing a Reform government would stress. We
need the regulation of financial institutions. We also need control
of the Criminal Code and issues like international and domestic
trade.
It is important for people to realize that a decentralized
government or a rebalancing of the powers of the federation does
not mean the federal government will not have a lot to do. Our view
of what will happen under a Reform Party government is that some
$94 billion will be used on program spending. Those kinds of
dollars in 10 areas will focus our energies, limit the influence of the
federal government and allow it to have a substantial role so that
people are competent and know the roles. The provinces including
the province of Quebec will see where we are heading, what kind of
vision we have and so on.
Today in question period again I was a bit disappointed. The
Bloc Quebecois raised the idea of where the country was heading.
The Prime Minister was asked about a distinct society and what it
means. His response was that Quebecers would stay because we
have the best country in the world.
That is what he said during the last referendum campaign. The
gist of what he proposed was that no one would want to leave
because it was the best country in the world. I agree it is the best
country in the world, but it is not a vision for the country just to
repeat that ad infinitum. We need something to communicate to the
separatists in Quebec, to the federalists who are disenchanted with
the status quo and to others indicating that we have something
better, a third option.
9755
There is separatism, the status quo and a third option in the
middle. Reformers want to tell Quebecers we want them to stay
in Canada. They should know up front that the third option
includes strengthening some provisions of the federal government
to make them solid. It would also make many other things solidly
provincial.
When they are concerned about their culture, we could say that
by all means culture should be handed off to the provincial
governments, lower levels of government, private institutions,
individuals, private organizations and so on. There is a lot of
support for cultural activities in many provinces, regions, districts
and whatnot.
We want to make clear that we will give the provinces plenty of
powers which I believe are theirs constitutionally. The federal
government will hang on to certain powers. We are not prepared to
sell the country by diluting those powers.
(1550)
The reason the previous speaker spoke about financial
institutions in such detail is that a Reform government would
continue to regulate financial institutions. That mandate will not
reside with the provinces. The provinces need to know that. There
would be discussions with finance ministers, interest groups and
other parties, but the federal government, led by the Reform Party,
would continue to hold the trump card. Financial institutions would
not be given away to a lower level of government because they
come knocking on the door asking for it. They need to be regulated
by the federal government if a a common economic union is to be
maintained. That is something we need from coast to coast and we
want to emphasize.
I believe the Liberal government would agree with me that it is
obvious that a country must regulate the monetary policy of its
financial institutions. We are asking the federal government, in the
time remaining before the next referendum, not to play games like
the Prime Minister did today in question period. He said that
everything was good, that it was a wonderful country and that no
one would leave.
If we continue to use that argument heading into the next
referendum, it will be like going into a battle of wits unarmed.
When we say to people who are determined to leave that we know
they will not leave because it is a great country, they will say that it
is not working the way they want it to. They will ask: ``What is
your vision of the country?'' If the attitude is to stand and say it is a
great country and no one will leave, I am fearful we will lose the
country.
We need to indicate where we are, where we are going, a step by
step plan to take us there, and a vision of the country we can grab
hold of. If the Prime Minister could lay out the vision he holds for
the country, where he would like to take Quebec and the rest of the
country, what he is offering, the division of powers and his
constitutional proposals, Quebecers might grab it. If he continues
to keep the cards close to his chest, wait until a crisis and hope he
has the right card to play at the right time, it is a poker game he will
lose.
The separatists know exactly what they want. I do not agree with
them in any way, shape or form. The only thing they are countering
is more of the same. Brian Mulroney in his speech last night said
that we had to go back to offering them what he tried a couple of
times. I do not agree. There must be something in the middle, a
third option. The Reform Party has one. Maybe they do not like it
but at least it is an option.
The Liberals would be wise to come up with an option. They are
playing a dangerous game. They are going to court. They are
saying those people cannot leave, that it is the greatest country so
no one will want to leave. If those are the two arguments they are
using in the debate, I fear for the next referendum.
On the other hand the Liberals should say that the regulation of
financial institutions is a federal mandate and will remain a federal
mandate, and that is the way it will be. Canadians and Quebecers
want it that way. They want a common Criminal Code. They want
federal control over monetary policy, defence, domestic trade and
international trade. If a bunch of this other stuff is given in a third
option because the provinces deserve it, they have a vision to sell.
They have something to put out there. They cannot say that maybe
financial institutions are on the table. They cannot say that maybe it
is a provincial matter. Who knows? The liberals do not lay it out.
They come to the table with an uncertain list of things they are
dabbling with. The people who know what they want play them like
a fiddler plays a fiddle. They just play them along and ask what else
they will be given.
(1555)
The end result, as I mentioned earlier, is that we came within a
smidgen of going over the cliff in the last referendum. Mr.
Bouchard is rubbing his hands in glee at the thought of facing a
Prime Minister who does not know where he wants to take the
country. Unless he gets out of the mindset he came here with 30
years ago that playing along and hoping to get by will somehow get
us through the next set of crises, all it will take is one wrong step or
a misstatement at the wrong time and the 40,000 votes on the no
side last time will be on the yes side. Then what? Then we will have
a real battle on our hands, a real problem.
I am pleased to reconfirm for Canadians that some things under
the federal government need to be strengthened and maintained in a
federal Parliament. We cannot have a country unless there is a
strong central government on some issues.
The people of Quebec need to know that on many other issues
there is a party offering a third option. It does not have to stay the
9756
way it is. Quebec does not have to separate. The third option is a
clear division of federal and provincial powers. They take what is
constitutionally correct to take provincially and the federal
government keeps control of the things it needs to control to
maintain the country.
If Quebecers hear that option they will embrace it. The federal
government would be wise to put forward its vision of the country
rather than just say: ``I am okay, you are okay, everything is good''.
If the Liberals put forward their vision of the country maybe
Quebecers and the rest of Canada will say in the next election they
are willing to take a vote on it.
That is what the Reform Party will be doing. I challenge the
Liberals and any other party to come forward with a third option
that makes sense for all Canadians and certainly for Quebecers.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member over the
last few minutes speak on many issues. Sometimes he mentioned
the bill we were debating.
However one part of his speech concerned centralization and
decentralization. I understood the member to say there were things
the federal government should be involved in and some it should
not be involved in. We are talking about financial institutions in
this debate.
Could the member give his views on what the role the federal
government should play when dealing with provinces? What other
things should we give to the provinces? What areas should we deal
with in the governance of financial and other institutions?
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to check out the
literature we will be campaigning on. We go into some detail in the
document called ``The Fresh Start''.
We categorized the items we think the federal government needs
to strengthen and maintain. We will focus federal powers in the
following areas: defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy,
regulating financial institutions, the Criminal Code and facilitating
national standards. We have a group of proposals for increased
spending on health care, for targeting spending on advanced
education and so on. We have a group of items in the national
standards list such as equalization, international trade, domestic
trade and reform of national institutions such as Parliament.
In the 36th Parliament we will have plenty to do if we look after
those 10 areas and if we make the changes I think are starting to be
made now in this and in other bills. There is a lot of work to do in
those 10 areas, especially when we get into the social policy side
which I mentioned in those other areas.
We will eliminate the duplication and jurisdictional overlap
between different levels of government by giving those areas-
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): It being 4 p.m., it is my
duty, pursuant to the order adopted on Thursday, April 10, 1997, to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary
to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
[English]
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): Call in the members.
(1625 )
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 305)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Beaumier
Bélair
Bellemare
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Guarnieri
Harb
9757
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-125
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Jong
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-66
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent
for the House to now proceed to third reading of Bill C-55.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1630)
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (on behalf of the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada) moved that Bill C-55, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons
and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General
Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to thank the parliamentary secretary and member for Prince
Albert-Churchill River for agreeing to reverse the order during
the debate at third reading, since the subcommittee on national
security will meet at 4.45 p.m.
When Bill C-55, which amends the Criminal Code and several
other acts, was first introduced, the official opposition expressed
some reservations, particularly as regards new clause 810.2 of the
Criminal Code, as proposed at the time, and the clause dealing with
electronic surveillance.
I will get back in a few moments to these two clauses, which
seemed to present a problem at the time, to see how these issues
were solved.
Bill C-55 provides the Canadian justice system with the tools
needed to deal with a new reality, with a new approach towards
criminals and with changes to the criminals' behaviour, because the
traditional notion of what constitutes a crime has evolved during
the last few years and the last few decades in Canada.
Since this bill aims at keeping a closer eye on dangerous
criminals, at providing the justice system with the means to act in
9758
order to prevent dangerous offenders from being released, it is a
step in the right direction, because it gives us tools we did not have
before and without which we could not control, at the end of a
sentence, the behaviour of an individual who obviously is going to
reoffend.
Bill C-55 allows the government, through the courts, to act in
order to control dangerous offenders by giving indeterminate
sentences. It also adds a new category of criminals who will be
designated as long term offenders and it includes provisions that
make the release of some inmates subject to certain conditions,
where the inmates will have to report and guarantee that their
release will represent the lowest possible risk for society. We can
easily agree that we need to get involved in these matters, as we
mentioned at second reading.
That left us with the two obvious issues raised by section 810.2
and the provisions concerning electronic monitoring, which were
giving up some problems. By the way, these two clauses were
considered in detail in committee.
Section 810.2 as it was introduced in this House was totally
unacceptable. It meant to give the attorney general the power to use
an institution set up, according to our criminal law, to settle the
relations between individuals, what is called a ``peace bond'' in
English. This is a procedure created under British common law in
which the state or the crown does not interfere. The classic example
university students are given is that of a rejected lover who keeps
pursuing his old flame, who in turns asks for a court order in order
to get some peace, hence the term ``peace bond'', I guess.
(1635)
In the original bill that was brought forward, section 810.2
authorized the attorney general to request, on behalf of the state,
the issuance of a peace bond requiring the person against whom the
peace bond has been issued to comply with strict conditions.
The state was interfering with private relationships in criminal or
privacy matters, which seemed unacceptable to us when we studied
the bill, and at the second reading stage.
Things have evolved, and our position was strongly supported by
most witnesses who addressed section 810.2 specifically before the
justice and legal affairs committee. Almost all of them said that the
attorney general should not have the authority to request the
issuance of a peace bond against someone.
And we can see where the problem lies because we can imagine
a situation where a judge, having heard a criminal case, may very
well decide to acquit the accused on the basis of reasonable doubt,
but in the case of a request by the attorney general for the issuance
of a peace bond, the same judge having heard the same evidence
may say: ``I did acquit you on the basis of reasonable doubt, but on
the basis of the preponderance of evidence, I come to the
conclusion that you have committed the offence and that measures
must be taken to protect society against you''.
So there was a risk of having a grey category of people in
Canadian society. We would have had people who were guilty,
people who were innocent, of course, which is the vast majority of
Canadians, but also people against whom a peace bond had been
issued at the request of the state and who, having not been
convicted of any criminal offence, would have had to account for
their time and whereabouts to a probation officer or to the court.
We thought it was absolutely unacceptable.
In a free society such as ours where criminal law principles are
based on age old values, we cannot tolerate or accept a situation
where a person is in legal limbo, not knowing what his or her rights
are.
There are innocent people, and every citizen is presumed
innocent, and there are some who have been found guilty.
The amendments to section 810.2 mean that, henceforth, under
the wording as it now stands at third reading, following pressure
from the official opposition, following pressure from witnesses
who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs, section 810.2 has a new wording. I thank those who paid
attention to the representations made for having taken them into
account and given us a wording that now means that the peace bond
provided for in 810.2 again becomes an bond between two people,
to be used by an ordinary citizen against another person disturbing
his peace.
The only requirement that will be made under section 810.2,
which is certainly a rather special peace bond given the
consequences for anyone who violates it, is that an individual who
wishes to avail himself of these provisions must so inform the
attorney general.
I think it normal, in an orderly society, that the attorney general
responsible for the administration of justice under the provisions of
our constitutional laws be aware of what is happening before our
courts.
The amendment to 810.2 disposes of our first objection in a
positive manner. There goes one obstacle to our supporting Bill
C-55. The public's rights are protected, but so are the rights of
individuals, primarily the fundamental rights that are the heritage
of those who for decades, not to say centuries, helped construct our
criminal law, whether in the United Kingdom or in Canada. The
values passed down to us are the same.
(1640)
It would have been unfortunate if a section passed on the sly
challenged the very basis of what makes our criminal justice
system so rich, that is the presumption of innocence and the clear
distinction between the rights of individuals.
9759
Our second concern was about electronic surveillance involving
those famous wrist bands to monitor someone without having to
put him in jail. Was this appliance appropriate? One can still have
concerns about it.
Of course, at present, there is a considerable number of inmates,
probably even a critical mass, so to speak, who do not have to be
physically detained to be monitored. Those people represent a low
to moderate risk. Can we rely on a system whereby a person
wearing a wrist band will stay in contact by telephone with a police
station in order to allow it to monitor his presence inside a given
perimeter?
Our main objection concerned the effectiveness of such a system
and our capacity to apply it everywhere in Canada. Such measures
would probably be easy to apply in cities like Toronto, Montreal,
Quebec or Vancouver. However, in vast areas where
communications are uncertain, where distances are so great that
police stations that could act as headquarters for the monitoring of
a criminal wearing a wrist band are quite far apart, I suggest that it
would be difficult to implement such a system. Will inmates have
to move to be eligible to the electronic surveillance program? I do
not know.
I still have doubts, but some of my concerns were answered in
committee by some of the studies. They were answered, but we
should keep in mind that witnesses told us that in the United States,
for instance, field trials have shown that should the authorities lose
contact with an individual, the electronic bracelet could be
used-this is not in the bill-to inject a toxic substance causing
cramps, diarrhoea or other rather debilitating physical symptoms.
The loss of contact with the monitoring centre might be
accidental. One must realize that there are limits. Let us try out the
electronic bracelet. This piece of legislation could be revisited in a
few months or a few years if problems arise; however, we should be
aware that well organised groups, mainly south of the border,
especially in the United States, have done research, are ready and
have a technology that would make it possible to go much further
and take steps that are unacceptable in a free and democratic
society.
The reliability of an electronic bracelet system can also be
questioned. Will people lose contact with their monitoring centre
unexpectedly, by accident, through no fault of their own? False
alarms are quite possible in this area. This is probably a chance we
have to take, if we want to see how good the system is.
Of course, it will alleviate the problem of overcrowded prisons
by not incarcerating a number of people who should not be put in
jail and who are a financial burden first for the government, but
also in terms of human resources remaining inactive. One should
not think that keeping track from afar, by means of an electronic
bracelet, of an individual who should be monitored is a panacea,
the solution to all that ails us.
(1645)
But since the evidence presented to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs shows that the advantages are greater than
the disadvantages, we are ready to give it a chance and support the
present wording of Bill C-55, including the clause on electronic
surveillance of prisoners, subject to the earliest possible
reassessment.
There were some other points, such as accelerating the
rehabilitation of prisoners who do not belong in prison, or
penitentiary in the case of federal jurisdiction. We can also support
these measures.
In the end, after the committee review, our position changed
because the bill was amended. Clearly I always come back to
section 810.2, which was the main hurdle. Since it has been
amended, we no longer have any reason to object to the bill so we
will support Bill C-55 at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to address Bill C-55 as amended by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I trust that all members have noted the significant amendment to
the judicial restraint order provision, deleting references to
electronic monitoring.
I want to emphasize to members the crucial importance of this
bill. The Canadian public has told us without equivocation that it
wants the government to devote its attention to violent criminals, to
spend the criminal justice dollar where it will do the most good.
Bill C-55 responds to that demand by giving the police,
prosecutors and judges new tools for controlling violent offenders.
It might have been easier for the government to simply amend the
Criminal Code so as to lengthen sentences for every kind of
offence. For example, if we doubled prison terms for every offence
or imposed mandatory minimum sentences for every crime, it
undoubtedly would have an impact. Of course the courts would be
clogged with trials, are penitentiaries would be bursting at the
seams and federal spending on corrections would expand almost
endlessly.
I do not believe that Canadians want such sweeping, unselective
measures. They have told us they want well targeted laws that get
tough with violent offenders.
The public response to Bill C-55 has been very positive. The
government supports the new long term offender concept which, in
combination with the existing dangerous offender law, gives
prosecutors another way to achieve long sentences for sex
offenders.
I would like to briefly list the major innovations contained in
Bill C-55. Each of these changes improves the criminal justice
system's ability to target high risk offenders. Along the way I will
9760
mention three of the amendments contained in the standing
committee's report.
Bill C-55 improves the dangerous offender procedure contained
in part 24 of the Criminal Code by requiring that a judge impose an
indeterminate sentence in each case where a dangerous offender
finding is made.
Previously it was possible in exceptional circumstances for the
court to impose a limited period of incarceration, although such
sentences were rare. In foreclosing that option we are not really
limiting the alternatives available to the court. An indeterminate
sentence is fully justified when we consider that the prosecution
will have proven in a special hearing that the offender has shown a
pattern of repetitive behaviour and the likelihood of causing death
or injury to other persons or causing severe psychological damage
on other persons through failure in the future to restrain his
behaviour.
Bill C-55 also changes the date of the initial parole review of a
dangerous offender from the third year of incarceration to the
seventh year. It is important that offenders be eventually
considered for parole. The fact that we are locking these offenders
up indefinitely does not remove the need from a legal perspective
for having a review of their dangerousness, but there never was any
magic in conducting the first parole review after only three years.
In fact, experience has shown that dangerous offenders are never
released after such a short time.
(1650)
A review at the seven year point seems more reasonable and
more in line with the parole eligibility of violent offenders who
otherwise receive long sentences of fixed duration. By the way, Bill
C-55 would continue the provision for subsequent parole reviews
every two years.
Another innovation created by this bill is the extension of the
period during which the crown may bring a dangerous offender
application. The proposed section 753(2) will allow the prosecutor
to give notice to the offender of a possible intention to make a
dangerous offender application within six months. It is quite
possible that new victims or witnesses may come forward after trial
who will show the true extent of the offender's criminality and
whose evidence can fully establish the pattern of past brutality
required to meet the dangerous offender standard. This new clause
gives the crown the flexibility it needs to put together its case in the
aftermath of a trial and sentencing.
A balance has been struck by the drafters of this provision. We
have heard proposals to amend the Criminal Code to allow the
dangerous offender application at anytime during the sentence or
perhaps during the last year of sentence. Quite simply these models
would not survive a constitutional challenge, a charter challenge,
but this new window of opportunity is workable. It applies for six
months beyond the conviction and sentencing.
It is circumscribed by rules that respect the rights of the
defendant. For example, the prosecution must show that the new
evidence has emerged that was not reasonably available at the time
of sentencing and thus the crown has to exercise due diligence in
the first place in marshalling evidence. Only when new relevant
evidence appears can the delayed dangerous offender application
be launched.
Bill C-55 also removes the requirement that two psychiatrists
testify at every dangerous offender hearing. A few witnesses before
the the standing committee criticized this change in the law as
though it somehow impinged on the rights of the defendant or
reduced his ability to defend himself. This change does not reduce
the ability of the defendant to introduce expert evidence and call
evidence. The Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act
continue to apply. All this amendment does is avoid the
requirements for two psychiatrists to appear at every hearing.
Unfortunately there is a shortage of qualified available forensic
psychiatrists in some parts of Canada. In fact, in many dangerous
offender cases both sides end up agreeing that one psychiatrist
should testify.
The long term offender sentencing category is at the centre of
Bill C-55. This is a new measure. It not only enables the
prosecution to seek extended controls over various kinds of serious
sex offenders, but the procedure set up by Bill C-55 is linked to the
dangerous offender process so that in many cases a long term
offender finding may result as an alternative when a dangerous
offender application does not succeed. It is worth taking a moment
to explain the interaction between the two procedures.
Let us assume that we are dealing with a case of aggravated
sexual assault involving an offender with a history of violent
offending. Upon conviction for the individual offence of
aggravated sexual assault the crown can seek from the court a
remand for assessment by experts. This assessment with serve both
purposes, either a dangerous offender application or a long term
offender application. Hopefully the assessment will invoke the
skills of psychiatrists, criminologists and others who can come up
with a sophisticated assessment of the risk posed by the offender.
(1655 )
Once the assessment report is filed the prosecution can then
decide which kind of application to make, but the crown has
flexibility. This is the important point. Even if a dangerous
offender application fails, the court can still find the offender to be
a long term offender, provided of course that the criteria are met. In
effect the court can say that the threshold for a dangerous offender
finding is not satisfied but the same evidence supports a long term
offender finding.
9761
Alternatively, the court can move quickly to bring a second
hearing on top of the long term offender issue and accept more
evidence.
I would like to highlight one of the amendments contained in the
standing committee's report. The Criminal Code already provides
for input by victims of crime in criminal proceedings, either by
personal testimony or through victim impact statements. It will
certainly be important to hear from victims during the dangerous
offender hearing. However, as I mentioned, when a dangerous
offender finding is not made the judge may proceed with a second
hearing on the long term offender issue. This could impose a
hardship on crime victims if they have to testify again at a second
hearing. Therefore the amendment explicitly states that any
evidence already given by a victim or a victim's family at a
dangerous offender hearing is also deemed to have been received at
the subsequent long term offender hearing.
The long term offender idea has received broad support. During
the standing committee hearings it was supported by the Canadian
Police Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police,
the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian
Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and the victims rights group
CAVEAT, among others.
It targets sex offenders. It essentially goes after that group of
offenders just below the dangerous offender level. These are sex
offenders who are likely to receive serious prison time but who
perhaps do not warrant an indeterminate sentence.
Under Bill C-55 proposals they will indeed get their usual
sentence of incarceration but in addition, and when found to be
long term offenders, the court will order up to ten years of
additional supervision in the community. Only when the offender
has completed his penitentiary sentence, including parole, will the
long term supervision period begin.
The long term offender criteria requires on the one hand that the
court find that there is a substantial risk that the offender will
reoffend, on the other that there is a reasonable possibility of
eventual control of that risk in the community.
Are we trying to be optimistic and pessimistic at the same time?
Let me point out again that the offender will get the usual sentence
for imprisonment for his crime. The additional long term
supervision period allows the national parole board and the
correctional service to control the offender's gradual transition
back to community life. The provision is intensive and the long
term offender who breaches any of the conditions of the court's
order can be pulled back into custody, not to mention charged with
the newly created offence of breach of a long term supervision
order.
The third pillar of Bill C-55, which is admittedly controversial,
is the new judicial restraint order to be added to the Criminal Code
as section 810.2. I remind my colleagues of the purpose of this new
measure. This restraining order is modelled on the existing section
810.1 which was designed to prevent offences against children.
This new order is designed, somewhat more generally, to prevent
serious personal injury offences. Despite the controversy swirling
around this measure, its underlying principle has been clear from
the beginning. The goal has always been to prevent violent
incidents, to establish in a court of law the risk presented by certain
individuals and to command those individuals to keep the peace
and be of good behaviour; in other words, to meet the standard of
conduct that is expected of them as participants in society.
Conditions may be attached to these orders in much the same way
that conditions are attached to probation orders or to other peace
bonds.
(1700)
A lot of newsprint has been devoted to the question of electronic
monitoring in section 810.2. The original bill envisioned electronic
monitoring controls being imposed as a condition attached to the
judicial restraint order but only where the court thought it would be
appropriate and where such programs are available. In case some of
my colleagues think that electronic monitoring is an abstract idea
or science fiction I invite them to look at the facts. Several
Canadian provinces use electronic monitoring in conjunction with
supervision to manage probationers and other offenders.
British Columbia, for example, has 350 offenders in its program
at any one time. These programs are expanding. Call it what you
want, a control mechanism, a monitoring device, a crime
prevention tool, electronic monitoring programs have their place.
However, concerns have been expressed about the capacity of
the criminal justice system to use the technology appropriately and
with sufficient moderation in the context of restraining orders. The
most common use of technology has been to ensure that the
offender remains in his or her home and only leaves the premises
according to a set schedule.
We are all familiar with the concept of electronic bracelets being
applied to offenders. The standing committee, after hearing a
number of witnesses, concluded that we should be cautious in the
use of such technology in situations that are entirely preventive. In
other words, electronic monitoring, as presently used by Canadian
provinces, curtails liberty to some extent. We should be careful in
applying it where the subject is not actually convicted of any
offence.
The reprinted bill deletes all explicit references to electronic
monitoring in connection with the proposed judicial restraint order
and I believe that this significant change should satisfy the critics
of the legislation.
To summarize, Bill C-55 as amended, delivers on the
government's commitment to strengthen the law to control sex
offenders. It is solidly based on three years of work by the
federal-provincial
9762
task force. It is supported by the provinces which ultimately have
the responsibility of prosecuting these offenders.
Police support this bill. The standing committee supports it and
has introduced amendments to improve it. I commend this bill to
my colleagues.
I just want to add that the bill presents another significant step
forward in the efforts of the government to make our streets and
homes safer places to be. The Minister of Justice has introduced
significant reforms to criminal justice. As well, the Solicitor
General has introduced a number of reforms. More reforms have
been introduced to the criminal justice system, more steps have
been taken to toughen up the criminal justice system than have ever
been taken by any single government in the history of our nation.
This is something of which we can be very proud. This particular
effort is the result of collaboration between the federal government,
the provinces and hearing submissions from the many interested
parties. I wish to thank all those who have been involved in the
process.
As a number of commentators have indicated, the bill is the most
significant improvement and change in the Criminal Code in
dealing with violent offenders that has been introduced in decades.
Of that we can be very proud. I commend the Minister of Justice
for his efforts, those on the standing committee who have put
forward some intelligent, common sense amendments and for all
the hard work that has been put into this bill, a lot of people deserve
credit. We commend it to the Canadian people.
(1705 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
that is the best this government can do, no wonder the country is in
trouble. If that is the best bill the justice minister can come up with
to deal with violent offenders, no wonder there are so many victims
out there. It is going to continue because the bottom line is that
violent offenders will still be released back out into the community.
The checks and balances are neutral when it comes to dealing with
the most violent offenders in our society.
Let us look at some statistics. These are from the parole board.
This data from the board deals with violent and serious offenders. It
states that only about one-half of a violent offender's sentence is
served. I would assume that includes murderers. Attempted
murderers, for example, serve an average of 48 months when the
courts have really sentenced them to 94 months. That is only
one-half of the sentence. The parole board is releasing violent
criminals after they have served one-half of their sentence. In the
cases of manslaughter, the actual time served by the offenders
averaged 44 months when the original court sentence was 84
months.
Finally, with respect to people who have committee aggravated
assault or rape, the average offender was released after having
served 49 months, 4 years, of a sentence of 79 months. This bill
does not address any of that other than the fact that the government
insists on releasing the violent offenders back out into the
community.
What are the answers? I think there are answers. First, we have
to start looking at what is happening in our courts. A sentence
given is not served any more, as I have stated. Approximately
one-half of the sentence is served. It is high time we went back to
truth in sentencing. The rehabilitative model that is touted on the
government side has been a dismal failure. Truth in sentencing
laws would bring some sort of balance back into the system.
If a rapist received a 10-year sentence, which it is unlikely, he
would then serve that sentence. That is what we and the people of
this country are looking for and want. People want to have a
measure of safety in their communities. Unfortunately many
people are not feeling that which will be very evident in the next
election.
Just going door to door in my riding I am picking that up at the
door. I know that the members across the way are also picking that
up. In fact, there are some people in the lobby right now visiting
from British Columbia who are picking it up because they have
been personally hit by crime as victims. Apart from that, the
average person feels very uneasy and unsafe on our streets right
now.
We talk about truth in sentencing and about a sentence given
should be a sentence served. In other words, life should mean life
with no eligibility for parole. Why should a first degree murderer
get out on the street at any time? There is no reason for it. Why
should a man who has taken another man's or woman's life get out
on the street?
If we look at the statistics on first degree murderers we see that
out of the 46 who applied for early release up to mid-1995, 11
killed women: their wives, girlfriends or people they knew. They
received early release. I would say that a murderer would definitely
fall into the classification of a dangerous offender. Yet those who
have been convicted of that heinous crime are being released on to
the street.
(1710)
Eight of those 46 killed policemen. That is a deliberate act. No
mistake can be made that it was other than the intention of killing
the police officer, the person in authority.
Three of those murderers who obtained early release killed
children. I am sorry but I do not see this bill addressing any of that.
The sentence given by the courts is being chopped by the parole
board and by applications for early release. Now other provisions
under section 55 allegedly restrain them further but I do not see
9763
where the restraint is. Violent offenders are still getting out on our
streets. Bill C-55 does not stop it.
The parliamentary secretary spoke of indeterminate sentencing,
that a court will decide whether or not the offender will continue to
serve his time. That may be well and good but it is also putting it on
the shoulders of the courts. The court's dealings with those types of
offenders has not been very good.
I have an individual in my riding by the name of Tocher. I
mentioned him the other day. Since 1982, he has been abusing kids.
He abused three boys in the last set of offences. Now he is in court
and has been given a short sentence again, something like 18
months. He has been doing that since 1982. He has been in and out
of the court system five times for similar types of offences. What
good are the courts doing? He has never been declared a dangerous
offender. That available to the courts at the time. What is going to
change? It is just going to be business as usual.
The answer to the alleged crowding problem in our prisons is to
release him into the community. I do not see Bill C-55 changing a
whole lot.
How can we have a guarantee that the message is going to get to
the criminal? What is the guarantee? The criminal has to
understand that if he steps across the line that this will happen to
him. The sentence, the incarceration and the place where he spends
it will not be pleasant because he stepped over the line.
We put an amendment forward on this bill. It was called a two
strikes amendment. In other words, if someone commits a violent
offence, and serves the majority of the time, the message would be
sent to that offender that if he committed a second offence, he
would go away for an indefinite period of time. The sentence will
be a minimum of 15 years if he commits another violent offence,
perhaps even longer, maybe even life.
That message has to be sent to the offender. It is a revolving door
in our prisons. It is a well known fact that 70 per cent of those
serving time have served time before.
There is no reason why the government could not send that
message to a criminal. The criminals are getting arrogant because
they know they can get away with too much. They are getting
arrogant when they pick on our kids. They do it time and time again
because nothing happens to them. They are not treated like
criminals. Sure, they are restrained from moving around for a little
while but everybody rushes to protect them and support them.
Some say that it is society's fault. Unfortunately it is their fault
because they are the ones who chose to commit the crime that put
them in jail.
(1715)
I have said these things in public before. There is no reason I
should not have said them. I think the majority of people want to
see stiffer penalties for prisoners.
I paid a visit to the Bowden Institution, a prison in Alberta. The
prisoners heard that I was coming and circulated a petition about
my anticipated arrival. Many of those serving time look at me as a
threat because I tell them that they should be working for a living.
Even if they are behind bars they should be productive. The
productivity rate inside our prisons is a dismal shame. If prisoners
are not unemployed in prison, the majority of them are
underemployed by far. Part of my theme was that they should be
working for a living.
Activist prisoners within the prison system circulated a poster
that said: ``Art Hanger is coming to threaten the inmates of
Bowden. Art Hanger wants you to have no temporary absences or
parole''. They are absolutely right. I do not want them to have a lot
of temporary absences or parole. Why should they have? They are
serving time for committing the crimes that put them in there. They
should be paying society back for their crimes. They should be
doing something instead of being out on parole. The parole system
is obviously not working.
The poster also said: ``Art Hanger wants you to be involved in
slave labour''. I do want them to work, absolutely. Why should
they not work? They call that slave labour. They should be doing all
kinds of things. Maybe they should even be earning a wage and a
portion of it could go to support the victims they victimized. They
could pay for their room and board. Then maybe they could keep
some of the money left over as a stake for when they get out.
There is another nonsensical part of the Correctional Service of
Canada's policy. Inmates are only allowed to accumulate $80.
When they walk out the door of the prison they have no money in
their pockets. They have barely enough to survive for a night. They
should at least be earning minimum wage but they should be
productive. They should be doing something.
The poster goes on to say that I want them to have no recreation.
The riot in Millhaven was a result of change in routine. Inmates felt
they should have more recreation time. To get their point across
they killed a man. They wanted to tell management they were
unhappy because they were not getting what they wanted, more
recreational time or a return to the old routine. There is something
wrong with that mentality.
The poster goes on to indicate that I want them castrated and
tortured. I do not want them castrated or tortured. Nor has Reform
ever said that in any of its policies. This is their concern. I
understand why they may have that concern in that 70 per cent of
the inmates in the Bowden Institution are sex offenders.
9764
There is something wrong with the attitude of the offenders in
our jails today. It has been nurtured by the corrections policy and
supported by government sanctioned rights. There is something
wrong.
It went on to say that I wanted them locked up for 24 hours. I
want them locked up for 24 hours. In fact I want them locked up
until they serve their entire sentences, as do most people in the
country do. The violent offender should not get out until he has
served his sentence. The violent offender should stay in there and
work to pay for his keep.
(1720)
The poster summed up their list of complaints about me in the
following statement: ``Art Hanger wants you dead''. I do not want
them dead. I want them to correct their behaviour and I see that the
present system is not helping them do that. It is creating arrogance
among the prison population. They know they will not be punished
for what they do. They will be detained for a while, but everybody
rushes in to protect them, to help them and to counsel them. There
is no punishment. from the viewpoint of those inside that is what
our system is all about. I might add that is shared by prisoners in
other prisons. I have talked to enough prisoners to know.
There is also something wrong on the management side, the
policy makers. Along with two other members I had an opportunity
to go to Edmonton maximum security in December 1995. There
was a lot of snow on the ground. It was much like northern
Saskatchewan where the parliamentary secretary to the justice
minister lives. The prison houses approximately 400 prisoners. The
warden heard we were coming. He wanted to make sure the staff of
the prison knew we were coming. He sent out a memo which
happened to get into the hands of the press and of the Reform Party.
This is what it stated:
The members for Calgary Northwest, Fraser Valley West and the member for Wild
Rose will be visiting us on December 1, 1995. These gentlemen are known to be
ardent critics of CSC and are quite vocal in expressing their views.
I want to ensure that Edmonton Institution is at its best, giving very little reason
for criticism. Therefore this institution will be spotless. Areas needing paint will be
painted. Inmates will be visibly at work during their tour (as they should be anyway)
and programs will be in full swing. This includes the protective custody unit.
I do not want to see inmates lying around doing nothing (not that this would
happen anyway). I have not seen a lot of activity that involves inmates shovelling
snow. The walks should not be cleared with snow-blowers. Push shovels are more
appropriate. Buy them if you need them.
For what? The message was just because we came to visit them.
They wanted to have the appearance that everything was okay and
that everyone in the prison was working. There is something wrong
with a policy that allows things like that to happen in our prison
system.
As a result Bill C-55 is an attempt to sound like something is
being done. What is being done? Nothing. There is no punishment
in the present correctional system. There is no accountability as
there should be. It is a revolving door.
We would like to see accountability. We want to see sentences
delivered by our courts fully served, especially those of violent
offenders. We want to see two strikes legislation. Why should a
person after being released once and committing another violent
offence have the same opportunity to serve another short sentence
and be back out on the streets to do it for a third time? Why should
that happen? No wonder the list of victims and victims groups is
growing. It will continue to grow because violent offenders are still
being released into society. Their behaviour has not been corrected
in spite of all the programs and the case management reports.
(1725)
I thought of another case management report directed to the
killer of a policeman. A fellow, Craig Munro, allowed a police
officer to bleed to death after he shot him and held him hostage.
Now he is applying for early release. He is a shooter. The man
should not even have an opportunity to make application. Yet the
government is insisting on leaving that provision in there. It is
insisting on turning violent criminals back out on to the street
under Bill C-55.
I turn to one of the most significant devastating crimes in this
decade and in the ones coming up. I am referring to the area of sex
crimes, pedophilia, and crimes against children. It already is
extensive. If we talk to the sex crimes and child abuse units in any
police department, we find they cannot even handle the number of
complaints they get. They have to refer them to social services. The
cases they are referring are becoming more and more intense,
difficult and substantive. The police cannot keep up.
How will we handle pedophiles? Long term offenders provisions
will not do it. The parliamentary secretary to the justice minister
should explain how that will happen. It will not going to happen. It
will be status quo court decisions and status quo incarceration for
very short periods of time.
I just finished relating the story of Mr. Tocher and the number of
times he has been in and out of the prison system. He kept going
back and forth over the last 15 years. He is victimizing our kids. Is
it any wonder parents complain when they see somebody hanging
around a playground zone such as happened in Calgary? Parents
complained about a adult male hanging persistently around the
playground zone. They were frightened and the police could not do
anything about it. He had a record as a pedophile and the police
could not do anything about it.
9765
I said I would do something about it. They organized and
protested in and around the park until the police went in there and
laid some charge on him. It is awareness. Parents are concerned
about their kids and the long term offender provisions in Bill C-55
will not touch them. Most police officers, most prison staff and
even psychiatrists say that pedophiles cannot be cured. What can
we do? We should keep them in prison for a long, long time.
It should be on the shoulders of the psychiatrist and whoever else
signs the document that releases a pedophile to guarantee he will
not reoffend. If he does they should pay the consequence.
Somebody has to be held accountable and that is not happening in
our present system.
Many provisions in Bill C-55 sound like they are doing the right
thing. Pedophilia is inadequately addressed. The Criminal Code
should be expanded to address the impact which pedophilia has on
kids.
I have not addressed the judicial restraint provision which, as the
parliamentary secretary stated, will be in section 810 of the
Criminal Code. That provision will be extremely difficult to
enforce.
The Reform Party will vote against the bill, in part because the
government did not accept the amendments put forward by
Reform. Those amendments would have made the bill much
stronger.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Davenport-the environment; the hon. member for
Chicoutimi-social housing.
_____________________________________________
9765
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from April 11, consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order
made Friday, April 11, 1997, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion M-260, under
Private Members' Business.
Call in the members.
(1750)
Before the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division will be taken row
by row starting with the mover.
(1800)
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 306)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
9766
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-173
NAYS
Members
Nil/aucun
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the
House that if I had been here for the vote, I would have voted yes. I
would like my vote to be registered for the next divisions.
_____________________________________________
9766
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from April 14 consideration of Bill C-44, an
act for making the system of Canadian ports competitive, efficient
and commercially oriented, providing for the establishing of port
authorities and the divesting of certain harbours and ports, for the
commercialization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and ferry services
and other matters related to maritime trade and transport and
amending the Pilotage Act and amending the repealing other acts
as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) from the
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote
on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 30, 50 to 57 inclusive, 60,
63, 82 and 113.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the House
would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that
members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having
voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members
voting yea.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The problem is that everybody voted yes
last time. Apparently we will need one more vote.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I understand that some members may
not have voted on the previous motion. It might be worth our time
to have one vote to identify the full participation of the members
presently in the House. Then, hopefully we will have the
co-operation required to apply the vote. I would suggest that we go
ahead with the vote as you had planned.
(1810)
[Translation]
(The House divided Motion No. 1, which was agreed on the
following division:)
(Division No. 307)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
9767
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-179
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie
de Jong
McLaughlin
Riis
Robinson
Solomon-7
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 carried.
Consequently, I declare Motions Nos. 30, 50 to 57 included, 60, 63,
82 and 113 also carried.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you apply the results of the vote just taken on the
following items: Motions Nos. 94, 80, 24, 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 58,
107 and 123.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 307.]
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, I declare Motions Nos. 94,
80, 24, 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 58, 107 and 123 carried. By implication
Motion No. 41 is also carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also
applies to Motion No. 84.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay with the
exception of the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon under whose
name the motion stands.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois will vote no on
Motion No. 2.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members
present will vote no on Motion No. 2.
(1815 )
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 308)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Comuzzi
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-29
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
9768
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-157
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I that you apply the results of the vote
just taken to report stage Motion No. 65, report stage MotionNo. 66 and report stage Motion No. 110.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 308.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 65, 66 and 110
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 67. A vote on this motion
will also apply to Motions Nos. 69 and 77.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay with the exception of the hon. member
for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote
yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democrat members present
will vote yes on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 67, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 309)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Comuzzi
Crête
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
9769
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-67
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-119
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 67 defeated, as well
as Motions Nos. 69 and 77.
[Translation]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken on Motion No. 18.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 309.]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Therefore I declare Motion No. 18
defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 68.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay with the exception of the member for
Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote
yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present will
vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 68, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 310)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Comuzzi
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
9770
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-60
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-126
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 68 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 70. A vote on Motion No. 70
will apply to Motions Nos. 71 to 75 and Motions Nos. 78, 79, 81,
83, 85, 93 and 96.
(1820)
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 70 obviates the necessity of
putting the question on Motion No. 94. A negative vote on Motion
No. 70 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 94.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay with the exception of the member for
Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote
no, with the exception of the member for Roberval.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will vote yes on this
motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 70, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 311)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Comuzzi
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-36
9771
NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-149
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost. Accordingly,
Motions Nos. 71 to 75, 78, 79, 81, 83, 85, and 93 to 96 are also lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 76. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motions Nos. 86 to 92.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting nay with the exception of the member for
Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote
no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no. I am just wondering if the chief government whip would
like to apply some of the votes on Motion 70. We have a bunch we
can apply on that.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party members of
Parliament will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I should wait until we have
the result of this vote and then I will come back.
(The House divided on Motion No. 76, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 312)
YEAS
Members
Comuzzi-1
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
9772
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-184
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 76 lost. I therefore
declare Motions Nos. 86 to 92 also lost.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I propose that you apply the results of
the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 95, 4, 9, 8 and 11.
(1825 )
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to apply those
motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 312.]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 20.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, we would have an affirmative vote on
Motion No. 20 by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
(The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 322)
YEAS
Members
Bryden
Comuzzi-2
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
9773
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-183
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House I would
like to return to the result of Motion No. 70 and that we apply the
vote of Motion No. 70 to Motions Nos. 99, 100, 104, 105, 106 and
109.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 311.]
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, Motions Nos. 10, 12, 13,
14, 16, 17 and 31 are also lost. Motions Nos. 99, 100, 104, 105, 106
and 109 are lost, and the same vote applies to Motions Nos. 101
and 108.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 102. A vote on this motion
also applies to Motion No. 115.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to alert the House of the
absence from this vote and possibly for the rest of the votes the
member for St-Laurent-Cartierville.
[Translation]
You will see that the House would give its consent that members
who voted on the previous motion, with the exception of the
member whom I just mentioned, be recorded as having voted on
the motion now before the House, with Liberal members being
recorded as voting yes.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc members will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote
yes on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on this
motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 102, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 313)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
9774
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
NAYS
Members
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-30
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 102 carried. I
therefore declare Motion No. 115 also carried.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think there is unanimous consent that
you apply the results of the vote just taken to the following
motions: Motions Nos. 36 and 59.
(1830)
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 313.]
The Deputy Speaker: I therefore declare Motions Nos. 36 and
59 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 3.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Bloc members will vote yes, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House of
Commons will make it unanimous. We will vote yes too.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 314)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
9775
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-184
NAYS
Members
Nil/aucun
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 3 carried.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you apply the result of the vote just taken to the
following motions: report stage Motions Nos. 112, 64, 111 and 103.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 314.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 112, 64, 111 and
103 carried. Therefore, Motions Nos. 114, 117, 125, 97 and 98 are
carried as well.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will see that there is unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous question be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House with
the Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members will vote
yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members of Parliament will
vote yes on this motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 315)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
9776
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-156
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-28
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 5 carried.
The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay with the
exception of the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: No, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House this
evening will vote yes on this motion.
(1835 )
(The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on
division:)
(Division No. 316)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Blaikie
Comuzzi
de Jong
McLaughlin
Riis
Robinson
Solomon-8
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
9777
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-176
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 6 lost.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: report stage Motions Nos. 21 and 34.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 316.]
The Deputy Speaker: Therefore Motions Nos. 21 and 34 are
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with all Liberal members present voting
yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members will vote no on
this one.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will vote yes
on this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 317)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
9778
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-126
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-58
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 7 agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 15.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by drawing
attention of the House to striking the name of the member for
Ottawa West from this votes and others.
If the House would agree I would propose that you seek
unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote yes on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members of Parliament vote
no on this motion.
(The House divided Motion No. 15, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 318)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
9779
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-37
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 15 agreed to.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you apply the results of the vote just taken to the
following items: report stage Motions Nos. 25, 42, 49 and 124.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 318.]
The Deputy Speaker: Motions Nos. 25, 42, 49 and 124 are
therefore agreed to.
The next question is on Motion No. 26.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay with the
exception of the member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois will
vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, on Motion No. 26 Reform Party
members present will vote no.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members of Parliament will
vote no on this motion.
(1840)
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 319)
YEAS
Members
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Comuzzi
Crête
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
9780
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-31
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 26 lost.
Consequently, Motions Nos. 27, 29 and 118 to 122 are also lost.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent to apply to Motions Nos. 23, 45, 61, and 62 the results of
the vote just taken.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 319.]
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 23, 45, 61 and 62
lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 28.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea with the
exception of the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will vote no on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote no on
this motion.
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would
like to join my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth on the vote
he just cast.
[Translation]
(The House divided Motion No. 28, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 320)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
9781
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-116
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brien
Bryden
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Comuzzi
Crête
Cummins
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Jacob
Johnston
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-67
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 28 carried.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House would
give its consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members being recorded as voting no.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we consent, and members of the Bloc
will be voting yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members present
will vote on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members will vote yes on this
motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 19, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 321)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-37
9782
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-146
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 19 lost.
(1845)
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe there would be unanimous
consent to apply the result of the vote just taken to MotionsNos. 33, 35, 44 and 46.
The Deputy Speaker: Do we also include Motion No. 22?
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, the result of the vote also applies to
Motion No. 22.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 321.]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motions Nos. 22, 33, 35, and 44
defeated. The next question is on Motion No. 128.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc will vote yes.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present will
vote no on this motion.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House this
evening will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 128, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
(Division No. 323)
YEAS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Canuel
Chamberlain
9783
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
de Savoye
Debien
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Fewchuk
Fillion
Flis
Fontana
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
Wood
Zed-148
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams-35
PAIRED MEMBERS
Nil/aucun
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 128 carried.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved
that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc will vote no.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for Reform Party
members present to vote yes to get this over with.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members in the House vote no
on this motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 324)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Bélair
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Cannis
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Epp
Fewchuk
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
9784
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
Malhi
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Wood
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Blaikie
Brien
Canuel
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
McLaughlin
Mercier
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne-37
PAIRED MEMBERS
Adams
Asselin
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bergeron
Bertrand
Clancy
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Dubé
Graham
Lefebvre
Paré
Richardson
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of
the House.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9784
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
(1850)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend Section 108.1 of
the Canada Labour Code to include a provision that would permit employees to vote
on any restructuring offer put forward by their employer.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to allow me to split my time with the hon. member for
Prince George-Peace River.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent for the member to split
his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move MotionNo. 308 today, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend Section 108.1 of
the Canada Labour Code to include a provision that would permit employees to vote
on any restructuring offer put forward by their employer.
This motion came about because of the Canadian Airlines crisis
late last year. The House will recall that on November 1 the
president of Canadian Airlines International announced that his
company would run out of money by the beginning of the year. To
save the company and the jobs of 16,000 employees, the company
developed a last hope restructuring plan that required $70 million
in wage rollbacks from the unions, as well as major concessions
from creditors and the American parent, AMR Corporation.
Before the November 26 deadline, four of the six unions agreed
to participate in this plan. The holdouts, however, were the
Canadian Auto Workers, which represented 3,700 ticket agents,
and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represented
2,600 flight attendants. The CUPE representative was obviously
swayed by CAW's attempt to negotiate a government bailout, so
9785
both refused to allow their membership to vote directly on
Benson's plan.
The union members held rallies demanding the right to vote, but
their cries fell on the deaf ears of their union bosses, who held out,
waiting for the government to come across with moneys and/or
concessions.
History has shown that in situations like this the federal
government usually comes in like a white knight and offers a
taxpayer-funded bailout. This time, having just awarded
Bombardier a sweet $87 million interest free loan, the Liberals
sensed, and quite rightly so, that there would be no public support
for such a bailout.
The president of the CAW and CUPE were not employees of
Canadian Airlines so their jobs were not on the line. With no real
personal stake in the fate of Canadian Airlines, they were willing to
take the risk of the company's bankruptcy and the loss of 16,000
jobs. If the airline collapsed, at least they had served notice to the
government that they were ready to play hard ball and this would
ultimately benefit future negotiations involving much larger
companies in which they represent the unions.
The employees had a democratic right to be heard. Throughout
the crisis the Reform Party called on the government to ensure that
the democratic rights of the workers were upheld. Time and again
government ministers said: ``Yes, but the rules do not allow it''.
The Reform Party opposes bailouts, but it also opposes inaction.
The government did have an option which would not have cost the
taxpayers a cent.
The member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Reform
Party, asked the Minister of Labour on November 28 if the
government would ``be willing to introduce forthwith an
amendment authorizing the Minister of Labour to direct an
employee vote on restructuring offers such as that being put
forward by Canadian Airlines to its own employees''. To this query
the labour minister replied: ``It is up to management and the unions
to decide and find the necessary procedure to have a vote on this
matter''.
(1855)
The human resources development committee was meeting that
same day to review the government's proposed amendments to the
Canada Labour Code known as Bill C-66. I moved a motion in that
committee that read: ``Due to the critical situation at Canadian
Airlines, this committee undertake to enter an immediate review of
section 108.1 of the Canada Labour Code to permit employees to
vote on any restructuring offer put forth by a company''. The
motion was defeated by the government MPs on the committee and
by their friends in the official opposition. In fact, the parliamentary
secretary went so far as to say that even considering giving
employees the right to vote on any proposal was in his words ``a
waste of the committee's time''.
This was the opportune time to open the issue for discussion and
come up with a permanent solution so that workers would never
again find themselves in this predicament. By its actions the
government told the 6,300 employees in those two unions, and
unionized workers in all federally regulated industries, that their
government was not prepared to waste its time ensuring that their
democratic rights were upheld.
I believe that there is a fundamental problem with the Canada
Labour Code when employees are not given an opportunity to save
their own company. Employees deserve that right and the Reform
Party stands firmly behind their right to an open, democratic
process. The government was not swayed by the Canadian
Airlines' employees who pleaded for the right to vote because they
needed those jobs and feared that prolonged uncertainty would
irreparably damage the company. The government got lucky when
the flight attendants came on side.
Now with five of the six unions on side, Canadian Airlines' fate
was in the hands of CAW President Buzz Hargrove who steadfastly
refused to allow the 3,700 ticket agents to voice their opinion.
Christmas was coming, a spring election was looming and
Canadian Airlines was facing imminent disaster. The Government
of Canada refused to act until the 11th hour. After telling Canadians
for weeks that the rules did not permit government intervention, the
Minister of Labour suddenly invoked an obscure clause in the
Canada Labour Code to order a vote. This is not a new provision in
the Canada Labour Code. It was there all along.
I want to make it clear that what we are advocating is giving
employees the right to vote on their futures. We would not want to
be so presumptuous as to predict the outcome of such a vote. All
Reform asked in this case, and similar situations that are bound to
arise in the future, was the assurance that each employee be given
the option of voting on restructuring proposals. Did the
government initiate action that would benefit all workers? Not at
all. It was too afraid to make any meaningful changes. This is yet
another quick fix, another one time only solution, more crisis
management.
Once again the government proves it lacks vision. The changing
workplace is more than just a name of another government task
force. It is reality and it is time that the government shed its out of
date approach to industrial relations. Workers, employers and
union reps all need a level playing field. They all have the right to
know where they stand and that they can rely on the Canada Labour
Code to promote and protect their democratic rights.
9786
Mr. Speaker, you have often heard me say in the House that
the Reform Party recognizes the rights of workers to organize
democratically, to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. We
stand by that statement. But what we are also seeking for
unionized workers is the right to be counted when there is a
restructuring plan on the table that determines whether or not their
company stays in business, and ultimately whether they would
continue to be employed in that enterprise or seek jobs elsewhere.
(1900 )
Some employees, when faced with the proposition of a company
being on shaky financial ground, may say it is time to cut their
losses and seek greener and more secure pastures. That should be
their decision. It should not be part of a power struggle between
union bosses who have little or no personal stake in the outcome.
As it turned out in this case the 2,600 CUPE employees voted in
favour of the proposal by 87 per cent. Some 81 per cent of the 3,700
CAW workers voted to accept the company's restructuring plan. At
least in the end the decision was the employees to make.
As legislators it is our duty to ensure that all employees who fall
under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code are assured this
democratic right.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening to briefly
address Motion No. 308 in the name of my hon. colleague from
Wetaskiwin which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend section 108.1 of
the Canada Labour Code to include a provision that would permit employees to vote
on any restructuring offer put forward by their employer.
This is a very worthwhile motion. If it leads to the necessary
amendment and is passed, it would certainly be a step in the right
direction of ensuring that democracy truly rules in all corporations
that are restructuring.
It is a privilege for me to set the record straight. One thing of
concern to a number of Reform members and Reform supporters
across the land was the virtual exclusion by the national media of
Reform bringing forward the issue when the Canadian Airlines
story was foremost in the media and in the minds of many people
early in the winter.
If we were to check Hansard we would see a series of questions,
statements and speeches were made in this place on behalf of
Canadian Airlines employees by Reform members of Parliament.
We led the story in the House of Commons day after day. However,
because the national media did not pick up on our involvement in
the story, we were continuously asked why we were ignoring it
when in fact we were not.
I thank my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin for putting forward
the motion. It allows me to briefly set the record straight.
As the member so eloquently outlined during his remarks, two
primary issues prompted him to bring forward the motion. The first
was the fundamental issue of a level playing field. We were the first
voices to push for the removal of the federal fuel tax on aviation
fuels. This would allow Canadian Airlines and all other Canadian
air carriers to compete internationally on a level playing field with
their foreign competitors. I certainly give credit to my hon.
colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for pushing that in the
House of Commons before anyone else had brought the issue to the
forefront.
(1905 )
The primary focus of the motion is to ensure all Canadian
employees of companies and corporations have the opportunity to
vote when the future of the company and thus the existence of their
jobs are at stake. As my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin stated so
well, we have to ensure that true democracy is paramount.
That brings us to the whole issue of democratic reform. In the
few minutes I have left I would like to speak to the need for
democratic reform, a fundamental issue that attracted me to the
Reform Party of Canada.
If there is anyone who knows how badly we are in need of
democratic reform, it is the MPs who speak on a daily basis, not
just Reform ones. We hear cries for democratic reform and true
free votes in the House of Commons from other political parties.
I am reminded of what led us to this point. A couple of members
of the Conservative Party were trying to accurately represent their
constituents on an issue as important as the GST. They were thrown
out of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I well remember as a farmer watching the news on a farm outside
Fort St. John and seeing the arrogance of then Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney, a political leader whom we had the good fortune or
otherwise to witness yesterday on national television. He was
bragging to Canadian people that he had thrown those two
backbench members out of his party because they dared to vote
against his party. I thought there should have been a rising
sentiment from the Canadian public expressing that it had simply
had enough. Recently we saw the same thing happen with the
Liberal Party when the member for York South-Weston voted
against that party.
There is a fundamental need for democratic reform, for true free
votes in this place. There is a need for recall of members who do
not accurately represent their constituents.
9787
Private member's Bill C-210 of my hon. colleague from Beaver
River would accomplish that if it were supported by the
government side of the House. The old parties are resistant to
these types of democratic changes, although I hasten to add not
all of their members are. Many members recognize a growing
awareness among the public of a need for democratic reform of
government institutions.
The Reform Party and I have pushed for referendums on subjects
such as capital punishment. We will continue to expound upon the
use of referendums, national binding referendums for Canadian
people to direct this place to enact laws supported by the majority.
I would be remiss in the minute or so remaining if I did not speak
about a certain democratic reform that has been part of the Reform
Party's blue book of policies and principles from the very
beginning, the support of Reformers of fixed election dates.
The people of Canada will have the opportunity to voice their
concern about that plank and a host of others as we move into the
federal election that is expected to be called as early as 11 days
from now. I suspect Canadians will be well aware of that plank in
our platform. We believe there should be four-year terms so that
everyone knows when an election will be called.
Those are some of the democratic changes the Reform Party of
Canada and I support. We are looking forward to the next
campaign, as we have the last two campaigns, to present to
Canadian voters a clear alternative for democratic renewal and
democratic reform of government institutions.
(1910)
I would be remiss if I did not mention the other place and the
need for a triple E Senate. Unlike some parties we do not believe in
the abolition of the upper chamber. We believe in reforming it to be
a true triple E Senate: elected, equal and effective.
I will close by saying that I support my hon. colleague for
Wetaskiwin in bringing forward Motion No. 308. It gave me the
opportunity to speak briefly about the need for democratic reforms
not only of the Canada Labour Code but of many other things.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to say that when I was nominated recently in my
riding, between 130 and 135 people came to the meeting. I would
like to start by thanking these people who may be listening at
home. It was March 25, which happened to be the first anniversary
of my election win last year.
This year has been filled with a lot of emotion, a lot of
experience and a lot of learning. As I look back, I think I can be
satisfied with this first year. I think the record for the first year is
positive. From the outset, learning the ropes was not easy, but I
managed to adjust. I even initiated a number of projects in my
riding and I am pleased with the results. I hope I have a chance to
keep working on these projects.
As I said, since I entered politics, I often saw things that were
rather extraordinary. This afternoon I was listening to the whip for
the Reform Party who said that the third party option was probably
the one with the best prospects, in that it was more attractive to the
rest of Canada and Quebec.
When I look at the motion presented by the Reform Party today,
I am afraid I do not quite agree. Clearly, the Reform Party is on the
far right, while we tend to be more to the left or the centre.
In any case, let me explain this motion on labour disputes. We
are of course against the motion, and I will tell you why. If I may
summarize the motion, basically it concerns the unions, labour
disputes and relations between employers and the unions.
Unions were originally formed by groups of employees who got
together to fight for better working conditions and to have more
clout when facing their employer. That is pretty clear.
The motion by the Reform Party suggests that in certain labour
disputes the Minister of Labour would have his say, this in any
dispute where we have the employer's position on one side and the
employees' position on the other side, represented by the unions. In
many cases these labour disputes can go on for some time. And that
is because there is a disagreement.
In this motion, the Reform Party suggests giving more power to
the minister to intervene in any labour dispute across the country.
He could come and give his opinion and tell the parties to stop. To
the extent that employees would be able to vote in favour of an
agreement without going through the unions.
(1915)
We believe strongly that the minister's powers must not be
increased, but rather decreased. The debate of a few years ago gave
rise to the Sims' report. I will read a few extracts.
On page 167, the Sims report discusses the administration of the
Canada Labour Code. It provides, and I quote: ``Management and
labour run labour relations, not government''.
The authors of the report continue a few pages along with the
recommendation that: ``The Minister's current powers under
sections 57(5), 59, 71, 72 to 82, 105 and 108.1(1) should be vested
with (or amenable to delegation to) the Head of the FMCS''. This is
completely contrary to today's motion.
Secondly, the report recommends: ``The section 97(3)
requirement for Ministerial consent to file complaints to the Board
should be repealed''.
9788
We must remember that, after people were brought together to
consider the situation, they concluded that the minister should
have fewer powers. Today, however, the Reform motion is
proposing to give the minister more power. It is like putting a
bandaid on a sore. Could you listen, please.
The Reform Party has a lot of supporters in western Canada. We
will recall the recent labour dispute between the employees and
management of Canadian airlines. There were a number of unions
in Canadian, including one that turned a deaf ear to management
proposals. That extended the dispute, because the unions
representing the employees thought that was the best thing to do.
So the Reform Party, a party of the right, hoping perhaps to come
up with some votes, is proposing the motion we are considering
this evening.
Furthermore, this motion is pro-management, because the
minister could always go over the heads of the unions to find out
and interpret for himself the intent of a firm's employees.
So the unions' powers are being cut, and, what is more, they are
saying the minister should have the power to circumvent the
powers of the union. Yet these unions were born of a need. Today
they are saying there is no longer a need.
So even though this motion is not votable, we oppose it, as the
bias in favour of the employers is too strong. I have nothing against
them and I also do not want to favour unions over management. I
am trying to favour a good relationship between the parties, but this
evening's motion smells too much like an election ploy. However,
we will see what our colleagues have to say.
That concludes my remarks on motion M-308.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the
motion put forward by the member for Wetaskiwin.
Canadians have many things of which to be proud and our labour
relations history is just one of those things. In my short time as
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour I have seen
many aspects of our labour relations that are truly quite impressive.
We have achieved a system that balances the rights of workers
and employers and that recognizes both the importance of labour
and the right of management to conduct business.
(1920 )
Keeping this balance takes adjustment as times and needs
change. That is what the government is doing. Last week, with no
thanks to the third party, of course, Bill C-66 passed third reading.
The amendments contained in Bill C-66 will improve the Canada
Labour Code far more than what my colleague opposite is
proposing in his motion.
I will be talking about those shortly, but first I want to address
Motion No. 308 and explain why something that sounds so sensible
at face value in fact threatens the very delicate balance on which
Canada's industrial stability is based. Motion No. 308 proposes
that employees be permitted to vote on any restructuring offer put
forward by the employer.
Technically, of course, they already have that right. A union can
always present a restructuring offer to its members. What the
member for Wetaskiwin seems to find objectionable is that this
vote is called by the union rather than by some other body.
He may mean from the literal words of the motion, that even
non-unionized employees will have the right to reject restructuring
packages. We must presume that Motion No. 308 is meant to
encourage governments to over-ride unions and bring restructuring
packages to a vote no matter how much the union may object to the
package.
In last December's crisis at Canadian Airlines, this may have
seemed like a power that government needs. However, as the
minister showed, there already exists a similar power. Granted, it is
not as high-handed as what we are presented with here today but in
fact the Canada Labour Code has several provisions that already
allow the Minister of Labour to intervene in exceptional
circumstances. Under section 105, the minister can appoint a
mediator. Under section 106, the minister can order an inquiry.
Under section 107, the minister can secure industrial peace by
referring a question to the Canada Labour Relations Board.
[Translation]
Last December, five of the six unions representing Canadian
International employees decided to accept a restructuring offer put
forward by the employer.
The sixth union, the Canadian Auto Workers, was not in
agreement and, for a few tense days, there was fear that their
opposition would cost 16,000 workers their jobs.
[English]
Members of the House may remember that it was section 107 in
Part I of the code that the Minister of Labour invoked but later
withdrew when the Canadian Auto Workers and Canadian Airlines
reached a deal. It just goes to show that even in those exceptional
circumstances, dramatic measures like these may not be necessary.
Muddying the collective bargaining waters with arbitrary
government actions jeopardizes the very stability of the system we
should prize. Used too often, it says that a collective agreement, a
signed agreement made by both sides in good faith, is worthless if
9789
a company can convince the Minister of Labour that it should be
over-ridden.
Such an atmosphere would certainly be corrosive for labour
peace. If a company could freely ignore a union and, in effect,
renegotiate terms with individual workers, then we have made a
mockery of the collective bargaining system.
We have created a situation where powerful companies can
threaten workers with lay-offs, where they can scare workers into
shredding the agreement their unions bargained very hard for. If the
bargaining agent is no longer the exclusive bargaining authority, if
the union duly elected by workers is no longer allowed to represent
those workers, then we have put an end to a system that has worked
so well for so long.
I am sure that the hon. member across the way would not want to
see that happen. Moreover, we have added the complication by
mixing apples and oranges. Section 108(1) talks about unions being
asked to take an employer's final offer back to union members.
That is a powerful tool already, but today's motion would
drastically increase that power by tossing in the unrelated question
of restructuring packages. Surely it belongs in an act dealing with
restructuring rather than in an act dealing with collective
bargaining.
Just how exactly does the hon. member propose to define
restructuring proposals? Will it be a sincere attempt to reorganize
the company's structure and function or is it simply a way to claw
back wages and benefits gained through collective bargaining?
(1925)
That is not to suggest in any way that the Canada Labour Code is
perfect. Unfortunately, very few things in this world are so.
However, Bill C-66 will improve and modernize the Canada
Labour Code so that it continues to ensure stability, fairness and
balance.
Bill C-66 is heavily influenced, as was said earlier, by the Sims
task force. The Sims task force travelled the country, listening to
the best ideas from labour, business and other interested parties.
When the subject of section 108.1 came up, all unions wanted it
repealed. Employers wanted it modified to require a last offer vote
on the employees' request. As the title of the Sims report says, it
was seeking a balance. It saw no convincing evidence to change
section 108.1 either way. What the task force did do was to suggest
a broad range of amendments which would greatly improve and
modernize the Canada Labour Code.
Time does not allow me to go into Bill C-66 in any detail, so I
will simply pick one aspect of it. Bill C-66 speeds up the
bargaining cycle, improves flexibility and allows disputes to be
settled more quickly. It does this by extending the notice to bargain
period.
Bill C-66 also replaces the two-stage conciliation process with a
single 60-day stage.
The code will now expressly recognize the right of parties to
agree to submit collective bargaining disputes to any kind of
binding settlement.
There is much more to Bill C-66, but I have given the House a
taste of how carefully considered amendments can do more good
than the single heedless motion we have today.
I urge the House to soundly reject Motion No. 308. The motion
would tilt the balance of power too far toward one side of the
collective bargaining equation. It would encourage the reckless use
of a provision of the code that should be and has been rarely used. It
is in sum a hasty reaction to a problem that Canada simply does not
have.
Just as the CAW and Canadian Airlines resolved their
differences, a stable labour environment encourages even the
bitterest of opponents to trust each other's word.
Canada's labour relations environment is too valuable to toss
away for the sake of a quick political point.
Mr. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I listened with extreme interest to
my colleagues, and certainly to the member of the Bloc who alleges
that the Reform Party is an extreme right wing party. That is
laughable. These things have to be looked at in degrees. To my
colleague from the Bloc, perhaps Karl Marx would be one of those
extreme right wing people.
I do not see that there is any conflict here as far as the operation
of unions is concerned. What we are talking about are democratic
rights. The rank and file members of both the CAW and CUPE
wanted an opportunity to vote on their employer's restructuring
proposal.
Ultimately, it is in the best interests of Canadian travellers to
have an option when they fly. There are beginning to be more
competitors on the scene, but for a considerable length of time
there have been two major air carriers in Canada, which is a
situation that I want to continue. I would like there to be
competition between the two airlines. I would not want to have the
situation where we would not have a choice and would be
compelled to run with one air carrier.
My Bloc colleague talked about too much discretionary power
being in the hands of the minister. I agree with him. He is right on.
(1930)
However my motion does not put extra discretionary power into
the hands of the minister. If he had been listening to what I had said
during my opening remarks, he would have learned that I object to
the way the minister handles or addresses these situations on a
piecemeal basis.
9790
We are asking for legislation that would actually put labour and
management on an even footing so they would know what the
rules are when entering the game. Management could put up a
restructuring proposal and if there is nothing to compel the rank
and file people from supporting the restructuring proposal they
could vote against it.
The way it is now they do not even have the option to reject the
offer. The parliamentary secretary says we have to assume that it
will be abused by management. We are talking about 700,000
people in industry and services regulated by the federal
government. It is not an across the country widespread labour
management issue.
We should not assume, as the parliamentary secretary seems to
have done, that management will abuse it and every time it wants to
roll back wages it will put a restructuring proposal to its
membership. Let us for the briefest of moments go along with the
parliamentary secretary and say some management people put
forward a proposal like that, a proposal that was not a bona fide
restructuring proposal. The membership would have the
opportunity to vote against it.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): And reject it.
Mr. Johnston: And reject it. The parliamentary secretary is
assuming members would have to vote in favour of the
restructuring proposal. That is nonsense.
In summary, although the motion is not votable and therefore not
binding, it seems rather fruitless to address the issue. On the other
hand I appreciated the opportunity to bring these thoughts to the
House of Commons. I thank the members, particularly my
colleague for Prince George-Peace River, who joined in the
debate on short notice.
I think there is room for improvement in this area. Not only the
travelling public but the 16,000 employees with Canadian Airlines
will succeed and thrive. I very much hope they do. This would be of
benefit not only to the users and the employees of the airline but to
the Canadian economy in general.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no further members rising
for debate and the motion not being designated a votable item, the
time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9790
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
evening, I would like to come back to the question I asked recently
concerning social housing.
At that time, I asked the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services about the progress of negotiations now under
way between the federal government and the Government of
Quebec concerning the role she had in mind for Quebec with
respect to social housing.
The presence of the federal government in housing, an area
under provincial jurisdiction, means that for 30 years there have
been two administrative structures, that of the federal government
and that of the Province of Quebec.
(1935)
This situation naturally leads to unnecessary and very costly
overlap. We also note that, of the $2 billion spent annually by the
federal government on housing, Quebec receives only 19 per cent,
a percentage much lower than the percentage of households in need
of social housing in Quebec and also very much lower than
Quebec's demographic weight.
This has been a matter of very great importance for Quebec since
the federal government announced these negotiations. What is at
stake in this transfer is the recovery of the responsibilities now
assumed by the federal government over Quebec's territory.
Overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities would thus be
eliminated and the effectiveness of government intervention in the
housing sector would be improved.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you exactly what Quebec is
asking for in these negotiations. The one thing Quebec does not
want is to be reduced to dispensing services for the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Quebec wants to recover full
responsibility for social housing, which is now assumed by the
federal government.
It also wants to obtain fair and equitable financial compensation
that will cover the shortfall in federal spending in the social
housing sector in Quebec over the past several years and that will
ensure continuity of funding in the long term, in the form of the tax
points that go with these transfers.
In return, the Government of Quebec would be given
responsibility, through a service agreement with the federal
government, for managing the present activities of the Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, be they mortgage insurance,
mortgage backed securities guarantees, social housing research or
statistics.
There could then be an agreement between the two levels of
government, with the Government of Quebec, through the Société
d'habitation du Québec, becoming the single service point and sole
9791
stakeholder for citizens and partners with respect to all housing
activities throughout Quebec.
Quebec should therefore be made the sole point of service for
social housing. Later on, with the help of people in the sector and
through a partnership with the community, RCMs and community
organizations, we could certainly provide better service to the
people who must take advantage of these measures. The people
who must take advantage of them are those in need, the
disadvantaged. I therefore submit this point of view for your
attention.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to respond further to the question raised by my
colleague regarding the important negotiations between the federal
government and the provinces concerning housing.
(1940 )
The federal government has offered to the provinces and
territories the opportunity to take over the management of the
existing federal social housing resources, with the exception of
housing in Indian reserves, provided federal subsidies continue to
be used for housing and are targeted to low income households.
These negotiations are aimed at simplifying the administration
of social housing by eliminating overlap and duplication and by
providing clients one-stop shopping.
We have already signed agreements with some provinces,
including Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, and will be signing
with other provinces shortly. Negotiations are continuing with the
remaining provinces and territories.
Let me assure my colleague that national principles and a
rigorous accountability framework will govern the agreements and
provinces and territories will have to agree and respect these
agreements. The federal government is not withdrawing the
financial support it provides to low income Canadians with housing
needs. We will continue to meet our financial obligations related to
the existing social housing portfolio which is currently about$1.9 billion a year.
The Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. member for Davenport
begins his remarks, I understand that there has been some
misunderstanding and the parliamentary secretary is not here. The
hon. member has an option. He can either speak today or he may
wish to arrange another time. If he prefers we can do the statement
and possibly the parliamentary secretary could give a reply on
another occasion. I would appreciate the advice of the hon.
member.
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your offer. I
would be glad to accept your option to proceed with the statement
now if it is all right with you.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 3 I asked the Minister of Natural Resources, in connection
with the issue of climate change, what she plans to do to meet both
our carbon dioxide reduction commitments under the climate
change convention signed in Rio and the carbon dioxide reductions
promised in the red book.
It is acknowledged that voluntary efforts to control carbon
dioxide emissions are insufficient and that Canada, unfortunately,
will not stabilize emissions by the year 2000 or meet the red book
commitment to reduce emissions 20 per cent by the year 2005.
We have a long way to go and the climate change problem is
getting more and more serious. For example, the Mackenzie valley
impact study completed in 1996 measured the impact of climate
change on that valley. It predicts lower water levels in northern
lakes, increased thawing of the permafrost and the likelihood of
increased forest fires.
These changes have not gone unnoticed by Canadians. A recent
poll by Inside Canada Research found the vast majority of
Canadians surveyed were increasingly concerned about the
government's inability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to
meet its international commitments to stabilize greenhouse gases at
1990 levels by the year 2000.
Therefore, to resolve this problem, a growing international
consensus seems to be emerging. It is felt that binding timelines are
needed to ensure carbon dioxide emission reductions be achieved
in future.
Not only has the voluntary approach to carbon dioxide
reductions proven to be insufficient, the Department of Natural
Resources now estimates that we will be 9 per cent above
stabilization by the year 2000. While emissions continue to grow,
we make it more difficult to resolve them with new tax incentives
for the production of oil from tar sands, an extraction, as members
know, that produces 10 times more carbon dioxide per comparable
unit of energy than crude oil from conventional light sources.
What are the answers? They are not easy but they are necessary.
First energy efficiency and conservation programs need to be
implemented. Well researched programs were released last fall
which outline the benefits gained through energy efficient
retrofitting of commercial, institutional and residential buildings.
Retrofitting is a labour intensive enterprise that pays good
dividends by creating more jobs per dollar invested than
conventional energy production. Consequently, this makes
Canadian industries more competitive.
9792
Second, our large reserves of natural gas allow Canada to shift
gradually to natural gas which emits less carbon dioxide than
petroleum.
Finally, we have renewable sources of energy which are badly in
need of being given a further boost by government. Over time
renewable sources of energy and natural gas could become the
backbone of the energy industry of the future.
Against this background I ask the parliamentary secretary
whether the minister intends to take new measures to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions in Canada. If so, what will they be? On the
international scene will Canada move to support the European
Union's position, which now calls for a greenhouse gas reduction
of 15 per cent by the year 2010?
I appreciate the fact the parliamentary secretary might wish to
reply tomorrow.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services will give the reply.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for providing this opportunity to further
explain the approach and actions the federal government is
employing to achieve further CO2 reductions.
First, with regard to approach the government is committed to
working with provincial governments and major stakeholders to
achieve these reductions.
The government is also committed to employing those policy
instruments that can offer the lowest cost and most flexible
methods of achieving further reductions. This includes energy
efficiency regulations, voluntary initiatives, technological support,
public education and tax changes to encourage investments in
energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Actions to date under the national action program on climate
change have helped to lower projected emissions from 13 per cent
to 8 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000.
With respect to specific actions the federal government
announced 45 new or expanded initiatives in December 1996 to
help lower emissions in most sectors in our society.
Among other initiatives there is a strengthened focus on
renewable energy and an increased support for green power pilot
projects to supply electricity to federal departments.
National climate change outreach initiatives seek to engage
educators and different stakeholders to develop ways and means of
better informing Canadians about climate change.
In the residential sector the federal government will work to
adopt and apply the national energy code for houses to federally
owned and leased houses, as well as to produce a home energy
efficiency rating system for homebuilders, renovators and buyers.
There will also be an expansion of energy efficiency regulations
to include a number of energy using products in the commercial,
residential and industrial sectors.
Further, the federal government in co-operation with provincial
governments and the private sector will be strengthening the
voluntary challenge and registry program, VCR.
Meeting our country's commitment on schedule will not be easy.
While we are achieving progress through improvements in energy
efficiency and energy substitution, this progress is being offset by
our increased population and strong economic growth.
In spite of these challenges I emphasize that Canada has been
making progress on reductions. Moreover, the new and expanded
initiatives promise further carbon dioxide reductions. We have the
initiatives and momentum in place for further progress.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. The House is adjourned until
tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 7.47 p.m.)