36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 185
CONTENTS
Friday, February 19, 1999
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-63. Second reading
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1010
1015
| Mr. John Duncan |
1020
1025
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1030
| Mr. Ted White |
1035
1040
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1045
1050
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| HARNESS RACING
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1100
| SKATING
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| CANADA 1999 WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| MATHIEU DA COSTA AWARDS
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
1105
| EAST TIMOR
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1110
| UNITED NATIONS BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| EMERGENCY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| MENTORPRISE
|
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1115
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1120
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1125
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1130
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1135
| EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1140
| SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1145
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Mr. Ted White |
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1150
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1155
| MINING
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| PORT-CARTIER PENITENTIARY
|
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| TRANSFER PAYMENTS
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1200
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1205
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Industry
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| PETITIONS
|
| Human Rights
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Banking
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Property Rights
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1210
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Trade
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| The Family
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Immigration
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1215
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
|
| Bill C-63. Second reading
|
| Mr. Keith Martin |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1220
1225
1230
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1235
1240
| Division on motion deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion
|
1245
1250
1255
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
|
| Bill C-49—Notice of time allocation
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1300
1305
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1310
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1315
1320
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1325
1330
| Mr. John McKay |
1335
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1340
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 185
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, February 19, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to oppose Bill
C-63, the government's proposed changes to the Citizenship Act.
My constituents and I are well aware, as are many Canadians
across the country, that our immigration and refugee system is in
bad shape. In this legislation the government has chosen to deal
with issues concerning Canadian citizenship instead of the
serious flaws in our immigration and refugee system. This is
mismanagement by the minister. She is mismanaging her
priorities. Canadians want her to work on our broken refugee and
immigration system.
We should welcome genuine refugees. They deserve our
protection. In his December 1997 report the auditor general said
that the current process does not quickly grant Canada's
protection to claimants who genuinely need it.
The Liberals have no political will to improve the situation.
The Liberal members on the immigration committee even refuse to
study in the future business of the committee the abuse of our
immigration and refugee system by drug dealers, terrorists and
other criminals.
Imagine one morning waking up and seeing someone sitting in your
living room. You wonder how that person entered your home. No
bells rang. You had not let anyone come in. Eventually you find
that while the front door was closed the person had no difficulty
using the back door. It had been left wide open. After dealing
with the person, would you not make sure to keep the back door
closed? Then the next time someone rang the bell you would know
who your visitor was and you would have the opportunity to show
the courtesy of welcoming the guest in and making him or her feel
at home.
In our immigration system the front doors are closed or
partially closed. But the back doors are wide open and the
government is keeping it that way. In our refugee process and
system the back door is abused by criminals. Drug dealers come
here to sell drugs to our children.
Canada is a country of immigrants. Genuine immigrants should be
welcomed through the front door. Their cases should be processed
as quickly as possible without any harassment or unnecessary
court expenses.
The Liberal government has no political will to fix the system.
Rather, it wants to make patchwork changes to the Citizenship
Act. The auditor general cautioned the government against making
patchwork changes. He indicated that the problem is complex and
that there is a need to conduct a total review of the refugee
claim process. It is four and a half years—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
We are supposed to be debating an act respecting Canadian
citizenship. What the member is talking about has nothing to do
with the citizenship bill. He is talking about a piece of
legislation that will come to the House in good time, which is
the review of the Immigration Act.
This has been happening continually from that side of the House.
They have not been talking about the citizenship—
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We have been through this a number of times now. Our colleagues
have a right to come into the House of Commons and speak directly
to a bill in any fashion they wish if they think they can get
their point across. If the Liberal government members do not like
it, that is just too darn bad.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Standing Order
101(2) speaks to relevancy. Relevancy in committees of the whole
is very strictly applied. Relevancy in debate is not as strictly
applied.
It has been the decision of the Chair during the course of this
debate that relevancy would be applied but not strictly applied
as it would be applied in committee of the whole.
1010
I accept the admonition of the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I think it is valid.
During debate we do have to be germane to the issues at debate.
However, in the debate on citizenship and immigration the two
very often overlap from both sides of the floor. We need to give
each other a little elbow room.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am debating Bill C-65
and I was on clause 2(1) under interpretations. I am
discussing—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The
bill is Bill C-63, not Bill C-65 or any other bill the hon.
member would like to talk about. It is a citizenship bill.
Twenty-seven million people in this country are Canadian
citizens. They were born here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has made his point.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am debating Bill C-63
which is in my hand. I have read every page of it thoroughly.
This is an act respecting Canadian citizenship. I was on clause
2(1) under interpretations. I am discussing the definition of
citizen and citizenship and also in clause 6 and clause 8 which
state “The minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to
a person who”. I am talking about the person who, which is very
much relevant and I am sure that the member will let me proceed.
It is four and a half years since the Liberal dominated
committee presented its report but we have yet to see any action
from the government. That is why it does not want to listen to
what I am saying.
In my constituency a genuine refugee has been waiting for over
five years and still has not been granted this status. He was
tortured for his religious beliefs. After he arrived in Canada,
his brother was tortured and killed by the police. Now his wife
and children are being harassed and tortured. His family cannot
reunite until he is granted this status in Canada. A day is too
long for him to wait. My constituent is under tremendous
pressure and mental torture.
Why is it this way? Who is responsible? The Liberal government
is responsible for this mess. That is what we are talking about
today.
As Canadians we want to welcome genuine refugees to our country.
We want to help those people who need the help. Our refugee
system is so full of flaws that it does not grant quick
protection or provide protection for those who genuinely need it.
Instead of fixing our broken immigration system, the Liberals
have us debate changes in the Citizenship Act, Bill C-63.
The auditor general deplores the fact that it takes on average
more than two and a half years to settle a refugee status claim.
The average processing time went from seven months in 1993-94 to
nearly 13 months in 1996-97. It almost doubled in two years.
This same period saw a sharp increase in the backlog of claims
waiting to be processed, from approximately 17,500 to 29,000. A
person claiming refugee status can count on staying in Canada for
more than two and a half years.
Over the past several years, close to 60% of claimants have
presented themselves to Canadian officials without a passport,
personal identification or even travel documents. This makes the
refugee determination process longer and makes it extremely
difficult to remove failed claimants.
The auditor general says that out of 20,000 persons ordered
deported, the department could act on only 4,000 cases and the
remaining 16,000 are consumed in the system. If that is not a cat
and mouse game being played by the department, then what is it?
The Immigration Act requires airlines to ensure that their
passengers are properly documented.
These very same concerns were addressed nearly 10 years ago by
the auditor general. The Liberals continue to make Canadians
wait for changes.
It is essential that the realistic expectations for the speed
and efficiency of claims be set out.
1015
It is also important that federal agencies respond to these
expectations within well defined parameters. There is need to
ensure the integrity and efficiency of the refugee determination
process. Fairness and efficiency are legitimate and important
objectives. The Liberal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
is choosing not to do anything about the problem. Instead we are
going back to changes in the Citizenship Act.
Let us look briefly at the conditions of granting citizenship as
proposed in Bill C-63. On presence in Canada, clause 6(1)(b)
proposes to define the term “permanent resident” more concisely
than does the current act. Bill C-63 calls for 1,095 days of
physical presence in Canada in the five years preceding
application for citizenship. However, Bill C-63 does not provide
any mechanism for determining when the applicant arrives in
Canada or when the applicant leaves Canada.
On penalties for bureaucratic delays, the current act allows
individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved
to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of
application as a half day toward the total needed for the
citizenship application. According to this act, applicants will
now be penalized for the system's bureaucratic delays.
Similarly in the case of adoption it is left up to the minister
to define the parent-child relationship in cases of adoption. In
defining family, clause 43 gives the minister the power to
redefine spouse, marriage, family and family relations. She will
not consult Canadians. She will not consult parliament. She
will decide herself.
There are many things I wanted to say about patronage
appointments, about the language requirements and about the oath
which was designed by the minister and not by parliament.
We are seeing Liberal arrogance and a lack of respect for
parliament and the people of Canada. The minister's first
legislation should have been aimed at fixing a failed immigration
system rather than citizenship. There is no political will to do
anything about these problems.
I predict the government will not attempt to change the
immigration and refugee system in the immediate future. It is
already too late for many of those who are victims of crime. The
minister has been in her portfolio for three years. She should
have addressed the serious problems of our immigration and
refugee system before tinkering with the Citizenship Act.
Therefore I will be voting against the bill on behalf of the
people of Surrey Central and many more Canadians who are looking
forward to changes to this act. We have been terribly let down
and disappointed by the government's lack of action in addressing
the serious problems in the immigration and refugee system.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about immigration and citizenship from a
historical perspective because I think it helps us to understand
something about ourselves and about how we got to this debate on
Bill C-63. Everyone needs a history reminder once in a while.
Immigration to Canada is very much based on the Canadian dream
of upward mobility. A fascinating book was published in 1988
called The Chinese in Canada by Peter S. Li. Being from
British Columbia, the story in this book is of strong interest to
me. As of the 1981 census about 75% of Chinese origin Canadians
resided in B.C. and in Ontario. I have no reason to believe this
has changed significantly.
Aside from our native population it is commonly held that no
other racial or ethnic group has experienced harsher treatment
than the Chinese in Canada. The Government of Canada passed the
first anti-Chinese bill in 1885. It is no accident that this
coincided with completion of the CPR railway.
Fifteen thousand Chinese labourers worked on the B.C. section of
the CPR between May 14, 1880 and July 29, 1885, saving the
company millions of dollars.
1020
The 1885 bill brought in a poll tax put in under the
Conservative government of the day, a poll tax being a head tax.
The Liberals increased this poll tax to $100 in 1900, a hefty sum
indeed in those days, and then increased it again in 1903 to
$500.
In 1923 the Liberal government passed the Chinese Immigration
Act which suspended Chinese immigration until 1947 when it was
repealed. Chinese Canadians refer to the passing of the 1923 act
as humiliation day. Between 1923 and 1947 essentially no Chinese
were allowed to immigrate to Canada and those already here were
denied many of their civil rights.
The 1885 to 1947 policies resulted in few women Chinese
Canadians. Prior to 1923 Chinese immigration was usually
arranged by contractors or with individuals and voluntary.
Typically, as a consequence of the head tax which was a cost for
bringing wives or parents to Canada, men arrived single and lived
as bachelors in Canada. In 1931, for example, out of a total
Chinese population of 46,000 in Canada, less than 10% were women.
The 1885 to 1923 migrants were largely men and then essentially
all Chinese immigration was stopped for a period of 24 years.
This bachelor society inhibited a second generation of Chinese
Canadians and the population of Chinese Canadians shrank
dramatically between 1923 and about 1950. It was only post-World
War II that family reunification and new immigration brought
normality to Chinese immigration and family relationships in
Canada.
Structural racism in Canadian immigration gradually disappeared
after 1947 due to a combination of court challenges and
government initiatives. In 1957 a major event occurred with the
election of Douglas Jung as a Conservative MP in Vancouver, the
first Chinese Canadian member of parliament. We all know of the
valued contribution of the Chinese Canadian community in Canada
today.
As distasteful as the story is of how government handled Chinese
immigration to Canada, there are lessons for us all. The story I
have told is to demonstrate that government has discriminated
against racial groups in Canada and it is important to design our
immigration and citizenship rules in such a way that this
discrimination does not occur.
Canadian citizenship is an enviable status in the world
community. Canada must set the rules and we must do so in a way
that is fair to legitimate aspirants who match Canada's needs,
that offers fair opportunity and that penalizes those who want to
impose their priorities on the country by queue jumping or
abusing Canada's hospitality.
Some of the provisions in Bill C-63 give too much discretion to
the minister and are invitations to abuse our hospitality. This
is distasteful and should be changed. My colleagues have pointed
out many of these shortcomings.
In many ways a nation is defined by its immigration and
citizenship policies. Ours need major rework and this act does
not contribute in a major way to doing that. Today Chinese
Canadians are represented in all professions in Canada and in all
walks of life. As a cultural group they have emphasized
education because that is how best to express upward mobility.
This is the legacy many cultural groups have brought to Canada
and that is what we want to encourage.
I will now get into some of the specifics of Bill C-63.
The bill is intended to replace an act which has been in
existence without any real change since 1977. It has been billed
as a major reform but it really does not do that. Critical areas
have been neglected and other areas have been altered in a
negative way.
1025
The unwillingness to change integral elements of the act will
result in the court system ultimately creating law and an
increase in power of the minister to make closed door decisions
without oversight by parliament.
There is one major section on citizenship at birth. Bill C-63
states in effect that all children born in Canada will continue
to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship regardless of their
parents' immigration or citizenship status.
Recommendations from the 1994 all party standing committee
stated that children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens
only if one or both their parents is a permanent resident of
Canada. In the judgment of Canadians there is abuse of the
provision of the Citizenship Act granting automatic citizenship
to children born on Canadian soil. The minister stated that she
made no changes to this clause because there was no research done
on how big a problem the citizenship at birth issue is.
That is quite a statement, recognizing there is a problem, not
addressing it and not taking the four and a half years since the
report came out to do anything about gathering statistical
evidence to support or refute the dimension of the problem.
Under grant of citizenship the current legislation allows
individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved
to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of
application as a half day toward the total needed for their
citizenship application.
Bill C-63 penalizes applicants for bureaucratic delays within
the system, even if those delays are no fault of the applicants.
Many groups have petitioned the minister to change this provision
so that applicants are not penalized for bureaucratic delay. The
official opposition calls for reinstatement of this provision.
The last point I will speak about is the citizenship oath. This
may as well be called the minister's oath. It was not done in
the public domain with public input. We missed a grand
opportunity. The government wants to retain its monopoly on
citizenship and immigration against the better judgment of
Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-63.
I want to take a more personal perspective on it. As an
immigrant to this country it was an honour when I, with my
parents and my other brothers and sisters, finally swore the oath
of allegiance to Canada. I have an understanding of what an
absolutely wonderful thrill that was. Growing up in such a free
and great country as Canada, I had hoped that other immigrants
and other people wanting to come here would not be side stepped
or roadblocked or delayed in any way from their achieving the
same possibilities that my family and I have achieved.
Unfortunately Bill C-63 is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare. To
say to people coming here that they may or may not be accepted as
citizens of this country because of bureaucratic bungling in the
department is unacceptable. It goes to prove that the people who
drafted the bill did not think of all the particulars. It would
have been better if they had taken more time and carefully
drafted the bill.
I also have concerns regarding the oath of allegiance.
Even though I come from an area which is very much in favour of
the monarchy, there are many aspects to the oath of allegiance
that I think need to be modernized and accepted to more
Canadians. The previous speaker from the Reform Party was
correct that there should have been a wide open debate.
Something of this importance in stature across the country should
have been open to all Canadian to debate exactly what kind of an
oath of allegiance we should have for new Canadians.
1030
The concern that is often neglected in the aspect of citizenry
is our aboriginal people. They were the first citizens of this
country. Nobody asked them. They seem to get bypassed in all
these circumstances and everything else. We came to this country
400 or 500 years ago and literally took over from them. They had
a very good way of life for thousands of years and we came in an
said we were going to change everything. That is stretching the
argument a bit, but unfortunately the fact is they are an
integral part of our society.
We talk about two founding nations in this country. We actually
have three and they were the first. The part that really
disturbs me is the fact of having an understanding of the French
or English language, the two official languages. It is really a
hardship on new immigrants who come to this country. There is no
question that when my family came here they hardly knew a word
of English at all, not a word. According to the bill they could be
restricted from entering this country because of an act of that
nature. I find that wrong. I wish that the minister and the
government would take that back and review the situation and go
through the clauses that many of us on the opposition side feel
are flawed in this department and in this bill.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to the bill because the bill does not address the
real problems in immigration that are reported to every one of us
as MPs almost on a daily basis. I know some members in the House
are in rural constituencies and they really are not exposed to
the sorts of problems with the immigration system experienced by
members of parliament in urban centres.
I can give some examples of some of the problems in the
Vancouver area that simply are not addressed by the content of
the bill. I am sure many of the members have seen the news items
on television where up to 80 Honduran drug dealers are arrested
at one time in Vancouver in drug sweeps. These 80 Hondurans are
criminal refugee claimants. They are not genuine immigrants.
They are people who have come through our borders using false
passports, using false documentation and they go straight to the
drug dealing trade on the streets of Vancouver and east
Vancouver. Some of them are as young as 12 and they are here
illegally.
The minister has done absolutely nothing in her bill to deal
with that type of problem. In fact, we are so stupid in Canada
that we even brought a social worker from Honduras to look after
all these illegals who are already here taking our welfare
payments, taking free medical care, taking free dental care and
all the other benefits that hardworking Canadians are entitled to
while they deal drugs on the streets of Vancouver and we cannot
do anything to get rid of them.
These very same people are arrested over and over again every
week. They are taken down to the court house and within an hour
they are back on the streets. There is an example of a major
problem in the Vancouver area that has been completely ignored in
the bill by the minister.
We have the same sort of problem in Vancouver every night with
illegals where up to half of those arrested in the Vancouver area
on any night of the week are illegal refugee claimants. Imagine
that, half of those arrested in Vancouver every night of the week
are illegal refugee claimants. That gives members an idea of the
size of the problem, the strain on our police forces, the strain
on our welfare system, the court system, all the issues that flow
from that one problem of porous borders, our inability to keep
criminals out of the country.
Some of the refugee claimants who say they are in Canada because
they would be persecuted in their own country—
1035
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I remind the Reform Party that we are debating Bill C-63,
an act respecting Canadian citizenship. It is important that we
have some relevancy. What the member is talking about and what
the Reform—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
North Vancouver.
Mr. Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I know that my constituents
consider what I am saying to be extremely relevant to this bill.
The fact is the bill does not address the problems that they have
identified for years. They have begged the minister to deal with
them. I have already given some examples.
One of the things my constituents have suggested to the
minister, and she heard it on radio talk shows when she was out
there last year, was that she include in a new bill an ability
for us to get rid of these criminals, to deport them in lieu of
sentence.
We have this absolutely ludicrous situation where a refugee
claimant can come in and commit a crime, they go into the court
system and if we are really lucky the person gets put in jail. As
soon as that person is released on probation, that is considered
to be a part of the court sentence. So the immigration
deportation process cannot start up. The person can wander
around the streets, commit another crime and go back to jail.
This process is repeated over and over again. Thousands of
people are doing it in the Vancouver area. I am certain it must
be happening in Toronto and it has to be happening in Montreal.
For an unknown reason the minister is ignoring the problem. She
brings in these bills that fiddle around the edges of the
problems but never deals with them.
Let me give the House some examples of the sorts of things that
happen in my office. On a weekly basis we get anything up to
about a dozen immigration case inquiries. I am an immigrant. No
one can say I am against immigration. I could not have come here
if I was against immigration. But what I stand for is a quality
in immigration. There is nothing wrong with screening people to
find quality immigrants to come here and who want to be Canadian,
not for them to bring their problems from some other country or
to bring criminals into this country, but to bring decent,
hardworking people who can contribute.
About 20 years ago the immigration department worked through the
embassies to find quality people to come to Canada who had skills
and who could help the country grow. Now the immigration
department is captive of its own system. The quotas are filled
almost exclusively by family reunification and people who come to
invest money. It is not done in a proactive way to find people
we really need.
Let me give the House four or five recent examples of the types
of cases that come to my office. A short time ago a man called
to say he was having trouble sponsoring his wife from Pakistan
because the Canadian embassy refused to recognize his marriage.
We did an inquiry. What did we find out? This man married
someone he had never met. He had never seen the women. He had
never been to the town she lived in. He could not produce any
wedding photographs. Someone else stood in for him so all the
photographs were of someone else. He expected me to be an
advocate for him when he had not even met the woman he was
sponsoring.
Last week an Iranian man called me. He already had a
sponsorship list of five people he wanted to bring in. He called
to ask us to cancel the five he had already decided to sponsor.
He wanted to change them to a different five. What sort of
nonsense is this? A person does not know who he wants to sponsor
into the country? It is an indication of another problem that
occurs in the Vancouver area which is a pyramid selling scheme
for citizenship.
People sell sponsorships. I know my colleague with the same
name from Fraser Valley had a problem in his area where there was
a big pyramid selling scheme. People would go back to India, get
married and sponsor the person who would then sponsor the family.
They would go back and get married and sponsor the next group.
There was a huge amount of money changing hands. That structure
was broken up a couple of years ago. It gives us an idea of the
sort of problem.
I had another case a week ago where a refugee claimant who was
sponsoring his wife from India called to ask why they had done
nothing for almost a year.
1040
Our contact at immigration Canada advised that the refugee
claimant in my riding was due to appear in court on kidnapping
charges. He had actually kidnapped someone in Canada. At the
same time as he is committing these crimes he is trying to
sponsor more people in. It is absolutely ridiculous.
The state of our immigration system is appalling and the
minister's bill is doing nothing to address these problems.
Toward the end of last year another woman called asking me to
write a letter of support to immigration Canada so that her
husband, who had already been deported back to Iran, could come
back to Canada. He had committed a crime in Montreal and had
been deported twice. He was counterfeiting money in Canada and
this woman wanted me to write a letter in support of his coming
back. It is absolutely amazing what is going on.
We have had more cases over the past few years than we can count
of refugee claimants in my riding who have actually gone back to
the country that they claim they were persecuted in. They claim
to be destitute and persecuted but somehow they have the money to
go back on a vacation to the country that is supposed to be
persecuting them.
Then of course they get found out. One would think that it
would be an easy job to deport them. No, sir. It is impossible
to deport them. On average it takes 10 to 12 years to get that
done.
As members can tell I am just getting warmed up. I have a list
of stuff here but with only one minute left I know I will not get
through it all. However, perhaps I have been able to illustrate
very well the sorts of problems this minister has not addressed.
I will try to sum this up in the last minute I have. Last March
a refugee claimant from Sri Lanka was arrested near Toronto with
10,000 fake Canadian citizenship cards in his possession. He had
paid about $15,000 for them, $1.50 for each Canadian citizenship
card. A Nigerian was arrested in May with dozens of false
immigration documents, citizenship cards, social insurance cards,
drivers licences and false passports. Even here in Ottawa the
RCMP is constantly confiscating false passports.
The system is in a mess and Bill C-63 does absolutely nothing to
address it. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today on Bill C-63, an act to amend the citizenship act.
Citizenship and immigration matters are extremely important to
many of my constituents in Markham. It therefore gives me great
pleasure to speak to this proposed legislation.
Just last month we signed up 360 new citizens. Markham has a
population of 190,000. Roughly 55% are of ethnic origin.
My caucus colleagues from Saint John, New Brunswick and St.
John's East have spoken very eloquently about the human side of
citizenship and immigration cases. I would like to outline some
of the details of Bill C-63.
This legislation amends the citizenship act by changing certain
citizenship rights and conditions for citizens and applicants.
This bill also revises the criteria for obtaining citizenship,
the process for granting, denying and revoking citizenship to
Canada.
This bill is a result of the report of the immigration
legislation review advisory group which was submitted to the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in December 1997. The
report was entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for
Future Immigration”. The government had commissioned the review
to determine how immigration and citizenship legislation could be
reformed.
The report was met with mixed reviews from the press and the
public. Concerns were raised about a number of issues, including
new citizenship tests that require a physical presence in Canada,
dropping reference to monarch successors from the citizenship
oath and the new requirements that the person speak one of
Canada's two official languages.
I hope the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration gives these and other issues due scrutiny. We
need to hear from organizations representing our immigrant
community. Furthermore, we need to hear from other individuals
and groups concerned with the different aspects of this bill.
I would now like to review some of the substances of the
legislation.
Bill C-63 stipulates that a person born in Canada becomes a
citizen unless the parents are diplomatic staff of a foreign
government or the United Nations.
1045
The act also allows the minister to grant citizenship to a
person who is at least 18 years old, meets the residency test of
being present for three of the past five years, has an adequate
knowledge of English or French, and has adequate knowledge of
Canada, citizenship responsibilities and can communicate that
knowledge in English or French without a translator.
The residency test is changed in two significant ways. First,
prospective citizens must have been residents for three of five
years prior to application rather than three of the previous
four. Second, the rules are changed to require that the
prospective citizen be physically present in Canada during those
three years. Currently it is possible to be a permanent resident
of Canada while actually living abroad.
Minimum residency requirements may be waived on compassionate
grounds. The minister may grant citizenship to a minor or
adopted child on application. The minister may also grant
citizenship to someone who was born outside Canada to a citizen
parent, is less than 28 years old, has resided in Canada for at
least three of the past five years and has not been convicted.
Persons may be stripped of citizenship if they were born outside
Canada to Canadian citizens who was born outside Canada after
February 14, 1977, respectively, at aged 28 unless they meet
minimum residency requirements.
Citizenship may be renounced if persons apply to the minister
because they are citizens of another country or successfully
apply for another citizenship, not a minor, able to understand
the significance of citizenship renunciation and not residing in
Canada.
The cabinet may order the revocation of citizenship if a person
obtained it by duplicity. Persons referred for citizenship by
someone who loses citizenship could also lose their citizenship.
The minister may not revoke a person's citizenship if the person
is not notified or if the person within 30 days of notice requests
appeal to a federal court and it is determined by federal court
that citizenship was not obtained by some false representation or
fraud.
Bill C-63 allows the minister to restore citizenship to a person
whose citizenship was not revoked under the act or prior to the
legislation or was a permanent resident of Canada after loss of
citizenship and has at least 365 days of residence in Canada as a
permanent resident in the two years preceding application for
citizenship.
If the minister or cabinet believe that it is against the public
interest, any person may be disallowed from taking the
citizenship oath. Such a decision would remain in effect for
five years. Any person determined to be a threat to Canadian
security under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act may
also be barred citizenship.
Additionally Bill C-63 specifies that persons may be denied
citizenship if they are on parole, probation or imprisoned,
charged with an indictable offence in or outside Canada, under
investigation by the Minister of Justice, the RCMP, CSIS or are
or have been charged under the Criminal Code, have not been
granted legal entry to Canada or are under removal order.
Bill C-63 lets the minister monitor conformity to the act and
reverse citizenship decisions.
Citizenship judges will be renamed citizenship commissioners and
will be responsible for promoting Canadian values, respect of law
and social harmony. While they will preside over citizenship
ceremonies, they shall no longer approve citizenship
applications. Instead applications shall be decided by
departmental officers. The salaries and benefits of the position
will remain the same.
Bill C-63 changes the oath of citizenship. Where the current
oath swears or affirms allegiance to the Queen and her
successors, the new oath swears allegiance only to the Queen but
not her successors.
Finally, the bill makes it an offence to misuse citizenship
related documents. It sets punishment standards for citizenship
officers who engage in wrongful behaviour.
By and large these changes appear welcome and somewhat overdue.
It seems that every year we keep getting consultation papers or
reports released by the minister without any concrete action.
I do worry about the impact that Bill C-63 tougher citizenship
qualifications will have for international business people and
others who travel extensively outside the country. The bill
would force immigrants to be physically within Canadian borders
for 1,095 days, a total of three years within a five year period
before applying for citizenship.
We need to be careful not to unfairly restrict international
commercial activities in the private sector.
1050
The intent of Bill C-63 is positive. The devil is often in the
details. However, careful study and consultation at the
citizenship and immigration committee will help improve the bill
and address problems highlighted by others.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-63.
There is one problem that I and others members of the House see
repeatedly in our offices, that the immigration department is in
a mess. The minister has had three years to deal with it and yet
she has done nothing. In fact things are spiralling out of
control. Most members of the House have put cases into the her
lap, only to see them completely disappear and evaporate without
any action being taken.
Let me talk about some of the problems that are taking place. As
are other members of the House, I am an immigrant to this
country. We are deeply grateful for what Canada has given us.
Let us make no mistake about that. However, the traditional role
of immigration into Canada, the backbone and building block of
our nation, has been watered down by incompetence on the part of
the minister.
We have traditionally relied on an independent class of
immigrants, who are trying to get into Canada, to build the
country. They are going through the hoops and are told to leave
the country. They are told they cannot get in. They do all the
work, put their money down, and are sent back to from where they
came, even when they are employed in this country. On the other
hand, individuals who are criminals and commit offences on our
soil are allowed to walk free on Canadian soil. What kind of
immigration policy is that?
People who are trying to get legitimate family members into
Canada are not allowed to do so. People who are legitimate
refugees cannot come in. However those who are bogus refugees
are allowed to come in. Why is that so?
Over and above the incompetence the minister shows in botching
up her portfolio and in what she does to the citizens of this
country, she does a greater disservice to legitimate immigrants
who want to come to Canada to build a safe and secure future for
themselves and their family. Those are the people the minister
is slapping in the face by botching up her portfolio. This needs
to be fixed. The minister has had the opportunity to fix it but
she has not.
Clause 4(1) of the bill indicates that individuals who are born
on Canadian soil automatically become Canadian citizens. Let us
talk about some scams. One of the scams is that persons can
bring in their children between the ages of 12 and 16, let
someone here adopt them and when they become 19 they can bring
the whole family into Canada.
When I was delivering a baby I learned of another scam. People
can come into the country in the second and third trimesters of
pregnancy, have babies on Canadian soil and the children
automatically becomes Canadian and can then bring the entire
family into the country. That is not good immigration. That is
gypping the immigration system and immigrants who come into this
country by going through legitimate hoops.
It would have been more intelligent for the minister to have a
residency requirement for persons coming into the country who are
having a child who will become a Canadian citizen. There should
be a two year residency requirement or they should be landed
immigrants before they ultimately become Canadian citizens. If
those provisions were included this loophole would be blocked.
Also the loophole with respect to adoption needs to be blocked.
The minister can do a number of things. My colleague from
Vancouver mentioned the issue of the oath of allegiance. We have
a lot of rights in Canada but we do not talk about a lot of
responsibility. The minister could have included in the oath of
allegiance an allegiance to Canada, an allegiance articulating
the responsibilities of people when they come to the country.
That would have made the oath of allegiance, the oath of
citizenship, meaningful. She failed once again.
1055
If we are to build an immigration policy that does justice to
Canada, if we are to build an immigration policy that will be
fairer to immigrants as well as to Canadian citizens, we have to
get back to basic principles. We have to build an immigration
policy that focuses on the independent class of immigrants. We
have to make sure the people who come into the country have the
skills to contribute to the Canadian economy and have the
linguistic skills to be able to function within Canada.
We have to recognize our responsibility to live up to our
international obligations under the United Nations treaties we
have signed with respect to refugees. Letting in legitimate
refugees is a good thing, a humanitarian and compassionate thing,
but letting in bogus refugees, people who are using refugee
claimant status as something to queue jump, does a disservice to
Canada and Canadians. Above all else, it does a disservice to
the legitimate refugees and immigrants trying to come into the
country.
As has been mentioned before, immigrants to the country who
commit crimes should be sent back to the country they came from
and banned from coming back into Canada for at least 10 years. In
that way we would ensure the safety and security of our country
for both immigrants and Canadian citizens.
We are seeking from the minister an element of fairness, an
element of intelligence, and an element of a co-ordinated
strategy within the ministry of immigration which will ensure we
have an immigration policy that strengthens and not weakens
Canada.
Immigrants come through the offices of every member of the House
with stories of how they have been forced to pay for the mistakes
of the ministry. When people who try to bring their beloved into
the country they come here with a certain set of rules and
guidelines, only to be told that they have to return to their
countries of origin and go through the process again. When they
go back to their countries of origin they are told to go back to
Canada. This costs them money they often do not have. It also
causes them an unnecessary amount of time to go through the
process of becoming a legitimate contributor to our country.
We cannot understand why the minister, after three years in her
portfolio, has failed to deal with these fundamental issues. She
was even guided by the House Standing Committee on Immigration
and Citizenship. Four years ago the committee placed 28
recommendations inn the minister's lap. Was anything done about
them? No. Why does it take four years to deal with 28
recommendations from a bipartisan committee to strengthen our
immigration system? What we see is Bill C-63 which, if anything,
nibbles around the edges of our system.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have a couple of
minutes remaining in his time when the debate on this bill
resumes.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
HARNESS RACING
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, every sport needs its superstars. Harness racing
has a superstar family. The legendary Keith Waples is the
patriarch having been the first driver in Canada to crack the two
minute barrier. He is a Hall of Famer. His cousin Ron Waples
won pacing's triple crown and trotting's Hambletonian. He is a
Hall of Famer.
Now the torch has been passed to Ron's son, Randy Waples, who
was named Canada's driver of the year in 1998. Randy raced to
victory 472 times and won over $4 million in purses. More than
that, his charismatic style won legions of new fans to standard
bred racing. He is what any sport craves. Randy Waples is
dashing, dedicated and driven to succeed. He is equally
proficient behind a microphone as he is behind a horse, a public
relations dream.
The hopes and aspirations of harness racing will ride on the
wings of this energetic, electric superstar. I congratulate
Randy. One day Randy Waples will be a Hall of Famer.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a few days
ago we obtained an internal document put together by a consortium
of 11 environmental organizations which exposes the shocking
truth.
1100
Big money from wealthy American corporate and family trusts is
driving a campaign to kill jobs and investment in Canada. Hewlett
Packard, the Rockefeller Foundation, the W. Alton Jones
Foundation and even Ted Turner are putting up big money to
support the Sierra Club, Sierra Defence Fund, the David Suzuki
Foundation and a host of others to stop a mining project in
northern B.C.
Never mind that Redfern Resources Ltd. went through a rigorous
three and a half year review. Never mind that people living in
Atlin, Dease Lake, Stewart and the Yukon who care deeply about
the environment desperately want the Tulsequah Chief Mine to
proceed.
These environmental organizations do not care about facts. They
do not care about the truth, about balance and above all, they do
not care about people.
I call on the revenue minister to stop facilitating this and
immediately revoke their tax holiday as charitable organizations.
* * *
SKATING
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my
riding of Oakville the pursuit of excellence is alive and well
not only in industry, science and technology, but also on the
playing fields and in the arenas.
Last Sunday, February 7, the Oakville Ice Expression Novice
Synchronised Skating Team competed in the Central Ontario
Championships and won a berth to represent Ontario at the
Canadian Championships in March.
I want to congratulate these Canadian girls, age 12 to 15, for
their dazzling performance.
Their success has been made possible by the support of parents,
volunteers and corporate citizenship. I wish to recognize and
thank all these people for their hard work and dedication.
I believe that the pursuit of excellence when begun early
through sports or the arts sets the pattern for adult life that
benefits the individual, the community and the nation.
* * *
CANADA 1999 WINTER GAMES
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House this morning that
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte is about to embark on an absolutely
fantastic event. Tomorrow morning in Corner Brook, Newfoundland
we are going to be hosting the entire country at the Canada 1999
Winter Games.
The Prime Minister of Canada will be attending, as will many of
my fellow cabinet colleagues and members from the House. It is a
great event.
Planning for this particular event began several years ago when
the communities of Corner Brook, Steady Brook, Stephenville,
Pasadena and Deer Lake began in earnest planning for the Canada
1999 Winter Games.
The event is going to be a great celebration. Watch it. TSN
and RDS are going to be providing 50 hours of live broadcast
time.
Congratulations to all. I want to say thank you to the federal
government for all of its support.
* * *
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, today, February 19, marks the 36th day since the
possession of child pornography was made legal in British
Columbia.
That might not be of concern to the Minister of Justice and her
parliamentary secretary who take great solace in telling
Canadians that child pornography is illegal in the rest of
Canada. But those of us from British Columbia, especially those
with children and grandchildren, resent the minister's dismissal
that she has things under control.
The fact is the insensitive Shaw ruling of January 15 has
already precipitated the dismissal of one charge of child
pornography in British Columbia. There are another 38 pending
that are in jeopardy of being brought to justice.
No, it is not business as usual in British Columbia. It is open
season for these depraved parasites to practise their pedophile
behaviour with immunity.
On February 2 the Reform Party gave the Minister of Justice and
her party an opportunity to protect all Canadian children and we
gave them another in committee on February 17. They have
abandoned and rejected them twice.
* * *
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance's most recent budget contains important
measures for our economy's three key sectors.
The Government of Canada will be spending $2 billion in the
mining, fishing and agriculture sectors. By doing so, the
government is honouring its commitments to the rural community.
In addition, let us not forget that the federal agriculture
minister announced on December 10 that $900 million would be
available over the next two years in response to a major concern
about farm revenues.
The Government of Canada is also funding a number of programs
benefiting the agricultural sector within the context of the
safety net envelope.
The reason our government works for farmers is simple: the
Liberal government believes there is a need to preserve and
ensure the growth of agriculture in Canada, which is fundamental
to our modern economy.
* * *
[English]
MATHIEU DA COSTA AWARDS
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay
tribute to the recipients of the 1999 Mathieu Da Costa Awards.
This awards program commemorates the legacy of Mathieu Da Costa,
the first recorded black person to set foot in Canada. Mathieu
Da Costa was an interpreter of the Micmac language for Samuel de
Champlain during his voyage to Canada in the early 17th century.
1105
This year's winners of the awards are: Kylene Cachelin of
Kamloops, B.C.; Christina Young of Orleans, Ontario; Lucius
Dechausay of Scarborough, Ontario; Samuel Carter-Shamai of
Toronto, Ontario; Jennifer Ligget of Victoria, B.C.; Raelyne
Linton of Parry, Saskatchewan; Mala Rambaran of Regina,
Saskatchewan; Odolys Azondékon of Aylmer, Quebec; and Jennie
Dorsaint of Laval, Quebec.
Congratulations to you all. You have made us proud through your
willingness and commitment to learn more about our country's rich
cultural heritage.
* * *
[Translation]
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Indonesian government recently declared that it was prepared to
grant independence to East Timor, a former Portuguese colony
invaded and annexed over 20 years ago.
As the Indonesian president, BJ Habibie, recently said “Give
them freedom. It is just and fair”.
The Bloc Quebecois is delighted that the government of Indonesia
intends to act on the desire of the people of East Timor for
sovereignty. Reports indicate, however, that the pro Indonesian
militia are receiving arms. This is the very militia that are
trying to further integrate the Timorese into Indonesian
society.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes the government of Indonesia will
demonstrate its good faith by working on a peaceful and
negotiated solution to the East Timor problem and the right of
the Timorese to decide their future freely may not only be
recognized but honoured as well.
* * *
[English]
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
desperately hoping that Canadians would see their convention as
something fresh and new, the Reform strategists behind the Reform
dominated convention decided to call it the united alternative.
They want to fool Canadians into believing that a brand new
political movement is arising by making superficial changes. They
can give Reform another name, another logo and another contrived
public image, but it will be the same old Reform Party with the
same old name, same old logo and another contrived public image.
The Tory leader is weary of the united alternative for good
reason. The opposition leader and the Reform Party are incapable
of providing an acceptable alternative because they are
intolerant of values and views that do not fit their
neo-conservative ideology. Instead of trying to accommodate
Canadian voters, Reform strategists are conspiring to eliminate
other choices so Canadians will have to vote for them whether
they want to or not.
It is a dumb strategy that serves only to highlight Reform's
desperation. The only Tories at this convention will be
reformatories and that dog won't hunt.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
they are getting worried over there and well they should because
today more than 1,500 Canadians from across the land will be
gathering here in Ottawa to ad lib on this government.
They will be gathering here to revitalize Canadian democracy.
These delegates to the united alternative convention come from a
variety of partisan backgrounds but they share a common
conviction: that it is time to end the top down, tax and spend,
soft on crime, anti-family, patronage ridden, Ottawa knows best,
arrogant misgovernment of this Liberal regime.
These delegates know the Liberals won 100% of the power with
only 38% of the vote in the last election, the smallest plurality
ever to result in a majority government. They know they lost the
election in eight of the ten provinces. They know they won
nearly all of the seats in Ontario with less than half of the
vote and Ontarians are now misrepresented by the 101 health care
cutting, tax raising Dalmatians opposite.
A growing majority of Canadians want a united alternative and
53% said in today's National Post that they would vote for a
united alternative and that—
The Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. members that the convention
has not started yet and we do not want to destroy the element of
surprise. The hon. member for Mississauga West.
* * *
UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker:
There once was a party named Reform,
Representing anything but the norm,
So to find their roots,
They've put on their boots,
And the united alternative was born.
It seems the first meeting will be the last,
Although the weekend should be a blast,
It's off to Ottawa they go,
Sadly looking for Joe,
But stuck with the same old cast.
Many will go to the ball,
Including two Tories in all,
And to observe this mess,
The Liberals send their best,
Who will likely go up the wall.
“To unite, to fight”,
Is the cry of the right,
They will work through the night,
Many will get tight,
And they will awake with the same old plight.
So on Monday morn,
We'll see a brand new Reform,
With hangovers in tow,
Missing their leader and Joe,
And Canada will surely not mourn.
* * *
1110
UNITED NATIONS BIOSAFETY PROTOCOL
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the United Nations biosafety protocol negotiations are
under way in Cartagena, Columbia.
On February 11, the European parliament voted on legislation to
make biotech companies legally responsible for the adverse
effects of releasing living modified organisms.
We have learned that this Liberal government is negotiating
against liability or redress responsibilities in Cartagena.
My questions for the government will be: What will protect
Canadian farmers if a biotech crop fails? Why is the government
against liability for biotech companies?
* * *
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this House has received two pieces of good news concerning the
economy this week.
First, a budget that reflects the Liberal government's
commitment to administering public funds efficiently and
providing maximum support to all regions of Canada.
The second news came to us just this morning. According to
Statistics Canada, exports have increased by 7.4% in 1998 over
1997, to $320 billion.
This growth remains comparable to that of the last two years,
which have actually been excellent years for Canada.
These statistics get us thinking. To maintain its unique place
on the world stage, today more than ever, as we move toward the
year 2000, Canada must remain united.
If we want them to represent a viable economic force in the
future, all Canadian provinces must continue to co-operate in a
spirit of consultation and negotiation, making Canadian
federalism evolve in the interest of quality of life in Canada.
Long live Canada.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
recently the government was faced with a serious problem: how
could it get Alberta and Ontario to sign the social union
agreement, an agreement which was not in their best interest?
After looking at the problem from every angle, a solution soon
emerged. Premiers Harris and Klein should be offered something
in exchange. Why not take a few billion dollars from Quebec and
give it to them for health care?
There was one rub: Would the Liberal members from Quebec go for
it? It was extremely painful to see the Quebec caucus of the
Liberal Party turn into a red carpet to be merrily trod on by
the rest of the federal Liberal caucus.
The carpet has been rolled out, but it is soiled.
Does this deserve respect? Mercy, perhaps? No. After all,
mindlessness deserves nothing besides indifference.
But when an entire population is cheated without hesitation by
Liberal members, elected in Quebec, only outrage can express
people's reaction to such an irresponsible behaviour.
I cannot wait for Quebec to get its loot back.
* * *
[English]
EMERGENCY SERVICE VOLUNTEERS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring attention to the House to a serious inequity in
our current tax system. Emergency service volunteers across
Canada who are not paid for their time and efforts are penalized
under existing laws. Currently a $1,000 tax free allowance is
provided only to those volunteers who receive remuneration for
their services.
The Progressive Conservative Party recommended to the
finance committee that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide a
tax credit of $1,000 to all emergency service volunteers. The PC
Party believes this proposal will end the discrimination against
rural firefighters who rarely receive any compensation for their
work.
The Minister of Finance had a chance to rectify this unjust
situation in his latest budget but chose to ignore this
recommendation. The current policy is unfair to all those who
volunteer their time. We urge the minister to reconsider his
decision.
This country needs sound opposition. It does not need group
therapy sessions for a united alternative.
* * *
MENTORPRISE
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next
Friday, February 26 I will be attending the Mentorprise
recognition and awards celebration.
Mentorprise is a progressive human resource strategy to attract,
recruit and train new employees. It is also a valuable tool for
new graduates in their search for career related work.
Mentoring allows for leadership development through the
partnering of experienced business people with enthusiastic and
talented graduates. Mentoring is a unique relationship with both
professional and personal dimensions. Mentoring fosters skill
development, promotes the exchange of ideas and knowledge,
encourages independent initiatives, and builds teamwork.
1115
At the awards ceremony I am going to have the opportunity to
present awards to both employers and youth who have demonstrated
a commitment to the principles of mentoring encompassed in the
mentorprise program.
I would also like to take this opportunity to ask all members to
join me in acknowledging the important work of the York Region
Neighbourhood Services and those people who have made the
mentorprise program a success.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to recognize Canada's greatest natural
resource, our youth.
What we do in parliament has a lasting effect on the children
and youth of today for they are the leaders of tomorrow. Let us
not forget this as we deliberate on the matters before us
throughout the remainder of this parliament.
As the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, I would like to take this
opportunity to make an announcement. With us today is Miss
Chanel Rodrigues from Nanaimo, British Columbia. Chanel is only
10 years old but unlike many of her peers, she has an appetite
for politics.
Although it will be another eight years before she will be
eligible to vote in a federal election, she has taken an interest
in the political process now. Chanel has travelled to Ottawa
with her mother in order to take part in the great and historic
united alternative conference this weekend.
I commend her and would encourage other like-minded youth to
become involved in the political process. When we are
accountable to voters today, we must remember that we are also
accountable to the voters of tomorrow, young people like Chanel
Rodrigues.
On behalf of all members I would like to welcome Chanel to
Ottawa and encourage all of Canada's youth to become involved in
the political process. Welcome, Chanel.
* * *
CHILDREN
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government has made a lot of promises:
getting rid of regional rates of pay, the GST, and more
importantly, child poverty, none of which it kept.
At one time the Liberals talked about attacking child poverty
and providing child care to allow parents to take full time,
family supporting jobs. They have not done so. Budget after
budget more and children became poor. It is continuing. The
child care promise also disappeared along with pay equity and
abolishing the GST promise.
This Liberal government does not seem to understand that in
order to eliminate child poverty we need to do away with their
parents' poverty. The NDP has always supported the creation of a
national child care program. We believe that children deserve a
chance to show what they can do.
Parents have been waiting for six years for this government to
keep its promise. Canada's children deserve the chance to build
a better future.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Picture this, Mr.
Speaker. It is the year 2019. Rumours are that the Rolling
Stones are breaking up. Dick Clark celebrates New Year's rock'n
eve and his 100th birthday. The parliamentary renovations are
just winding down.
Why is Jo Jo the finance minister telling us we have to wait
until 2019 to get the tax relief that Canadians need today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously the member was working on plans for the new
reformatory party when the budget speech was read. He did not
hear the Minister of Finance announce billions of dollars of
general tax reductions for all Canadians starting right now,
added to the billions of dollars of tax reductions for middle and
low income Canadians announced in the last budget.
There is tax relief for Canadians now. It will continue on and
on as Liberals continue to be supported by Canadians, unlike the
Reform Party in its desperate attempt to survive.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Look who woke
up, Mr. Speaker. I can't get no satisfaction or tax relief from
that answer or this government, which is why we are going to see
this government out in two years let alone twenty.
I would like to think sometime in my adult life before I retire
I am going to get some tax relief. However, according to Jo Jo
the finance minister, I will be picking out a burial plot before
that happens.
Canadians are hurting now. Why does the minister expect
Canadians should wait 20 years when they need tax relief today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member can't get no satisfaction. I
am sorry that in spite of all his efforts he cannot get relief. I
would suggest he see his therapist, his physician, his guide in
these matters and allow the government to continue bringing real
tax relief, dollars and cents, into the pockets of Canadians as
it started in the last budget, as it is continuing in this budget
and as it will continue for years and years to come.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member from Viagra falls.
I have a better plan for the government. It is called tax
relief in my lifetime, tax relief before they throw dirt on me.
1120
Why should Canadians have to wait for 20 years for the tax
relief they need today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member must have already thrown dirt on himself
and buried himself. He did not hear the budget speech and the
pledge of billions of dollars of tax relief now for all
Canadians.
He ought to have his party uncover him so he can find out what
is going on in the real world.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I may not get no satisfaction but at least I am not screwing any
taxpayers.
We ought to look at the fine print in this budget to see the
real truth. The real truth is this government voted for the
largest tax increase in Canadian history, a $10 billion CPP tax
grab. It took it effect last month. Hundreds of thousands of
Canadians will pay more because of bracket creep.
Why is the finance minister forcing us to pay more taxes and not
less after this budget?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, here is a guy who really isn't getting any satisfaction.
The fact is the changes lowering taxes put out in this budget
will relieve Canadians from bracket creep for years to come. We
are taking into account the concerns about bracket creep. The
budget is dealing with that.
In the meantime the hon. member should find somebody to help him
deal with his own problems.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the joke is getting as old as that minister.
A small business teetering on the verge of bankruptcy does not
need to hear more rhetoric from this government. It needs tax
relief today and not 20 years from now. A small family
struggling to get by does not need tax relief 20 years from now.
It needs it today. But with bracket creep and the payroll tax
increases it will spend more in taxes than it did last year, than
it does this year.
Why is this government telling Canadians they will get tax
relief when in fact they will end up with less money in their
wallets at the end of the day?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of
small businesses, for the 24th month in a row business
bankruptcies have gone down. This is a result of our polices.
If the hon. member is dissatisfied with our budget maybe he
should take a couple of words from the book of their keynote
speaker at their alternative gathering this weekend. Ralph Klein
said “The feds did the right thing in the budget and I have to
admit that”. Does this mean they are going to throw him out of
their caucus?
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three
provinces, along with Quebec, constituted a group determined to
get the federal government to respect the common front on the
social union. They were Ontario, Alberta and, to a lesser
extent and a bit later on, British Columbia.
Quebec very quickly found itself isolated and, less than two
weeks later, these three provinces hit the jackpot in the
federal budget.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs:
Were there in fact discussions and negotiations on a financial
basis with the three provinces?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during the social union negotiations, it was always
agreed that we would talk about the social union and the
ministers of finance would talk about the money angle.
In fact, on June 15, 1998, the finance ministers from all
provinces except Quebec told the Government of Canada that they
wanted to go back to equal social transfer payments, as long as
equalization payments could be increased accordingly.
That is what the Minister of Finance announced a few days ago,
the result being that Quebec will receive 34% of the overall
transfer and Ontario only 25%. Ontario is therefore not
necessarily the big winner.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, am I to
understand from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that
there were discussions to convince British Columbia, Alberta and
Ontario to change their positions on the social union framework
agreement and that a financial argument was never used?
In other words, they changed their positions without knowing
that it would be to their financial advantage.
1125
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what change in position the member is
referring to.
The meeting in Halifax went off very well. The following
meeting did not go as smoothly. There were misunderstandings
that were clarified and we now have a social union that will
make it possible for the provinces and the Government of Canada
to work together for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is going around
telling people that the social union agreement is the eighth
wonder of the world.
Under that agreement, the federal
government pledges to consult with the provinces at least one
year prior to implementing funding changes in existing social
programs.
Since, in its budget, the government significantly changed
funding for social transfers, when did it give notice to Quebec
of that change?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. The eighth wonder of the
world is the Quebec City bridge.
As for giving notice under the social agreement framework, we
have been talking about that change not just for one year, but
since 1990, when the ceiling was imposed on the three richest
provinces, for two years only. At the time, the current premier
of Quebec was a federal minister, so he should know.
I remind the hon. member that the first Campeau budget provided
for equalizing the transfer in 1996. Therefore, we have been
talking about this issue for a long time.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the David Copperfield of Canadian politics is not
answering our questions.
How can the federal government invoke social union to interfere
in the health sector, but not comply with the terms of that same
social union when it changes the funding of social programs, a
change that adversely affects Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are three inaccuracies here. First, I just
explained that this change, which was necessary, was discussed
over a period of several years.
Second, Quebec is not adversely affected. Out of the $21.7
billion in transfers to the provinces, Quebec will get $7.4
billion or 34% of the total amount.
Third, there is no interference in health. The federal
government is involved in research because it is also its
responsibility, and Quebec researchers are very pleased about
that. I could provide the hon. member with several quotes to
that effect.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the real question today is why do Reformers think they
need a united alternative conference when they have the Liberals
to do their bidding on health care.
Both are cheerleaders for privatized two tier health care in
this country. The Liberals do it through the back door through
neglect and inaction. The Reformers are just more explicit by
saying let us end the public monopoly on health care.
Now that we know the budget only gets federal spending up to
12.5% in five years time, a long way from the 18% that existed
when the Liberals came to power, what is this government doing
specifically to stop the slide toward Americanized two tier
health care?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we categorically oppose two tier medicine.
We have gone far beyond what the NDP itself has been calling
for. Before the budget it called for only $2 billion to be put
back into health care. We are providing $11.5 billion of which
$3.5 billion can be drawn on right now in addition to $1.4
billion directly from the federal government.
No wonder Roy Romanow, the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, said
about the budget “I am very pleased and I think the federal
government should be congratulated”.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, this government continues to refuse to answer the
question about money from its budget, public money, going to
private, for profit health care companies.
We have a situation in Ontario where a company, Olsten, 100%
U.S. owned and which has been under investigation in the United
States for fraud, is getting home care contracts while the
Victorian Order of Nurses, a non-profit organization to minister
to the sick and suffering which has been around since 1897, has
been shut out.
Canadians want to know what is this government doing to stop
public money from going to American for profit corporations.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question for the
member last week. I will try again and I hope this time she will
understand.
The federal government has responsibility for the protection of
the Canada Health Act which requires public administration,
comprehensiveness, portability, reasonable access and universal
coverage.
The provinces have responsibility for planning, managing,
delivering, all aspects of the administration of health services.
We do not interfere and tell them what to do and I am surprised
the member is suggesting we should.
* * *
1130
FISHERIES
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the salmon farming industry in New Brunswick,
particularly in New Brunswick Southwest, is a hundred million
dollar industry. It could be threatened because of some
international protocols being enforced by NASCO. I want some
assurances from the minister that the industry will be consulted
and have input into these protocols before they could endanger
the survival of that industry.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest
in this. I take this occasion to thank the hon. Minister of
Labour who has taken a very close interest in the matter. I can
assure the member that what he requested will be followed. We
will be having full consultations before there is any
implementation of any new process as a result of the
international protocols.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I had a question for the finance minister with
regard to this so-called health care budget. The minister
yesterday responded that some of that money is going to pay down
past debts. In other words, this health care budget will have a
very short shelf life because it is doing nothing to resolve the
waiting lines crisis in health care. In fact, it is going to pay
off past debts. Can the minister assure us that all that money
is going to patient care, or is it going to pay down past debt?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is an
important funding partner. The provinces deliver services. In
order to assist the provinces the federal government in the
budget made the enormous commitment of $11.5 billion over the
next five years. What is really significant is that $3.5 billion
of that money is available immediately and the provinces will
decide how they will use those dollars to solve whatever problems
they have. We want to know that people in Canada will have
access to the services they need when they get sick. They need
them but it is up to the provinces to deliver those services.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the defence minister admitted he did not know anything
about the condition of our troops in Kosovo or in Macedonia. For
the information of the minister, Macedonia is only 10 kilometres
away from the war zone in Kosovo. He laughed and said he did not
believe what he heard.
We all want to protect the lives of innocent Kosovars but we
also want to protect the lives of our troops. Why would the
minister want to send our troops into harm's way and not give
them the tools they need to protect themselves?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are well protected. They are in the
former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. There are engineers there
who are doing an effective job. They have just completed
renovation on a hospital. We had some trouble with the food
contract. We changed the contractor. But they are well
protected. As part of the collective defence there are proper
patrols of armed guards to ensure they are safe and secure. I
remind the hon. member that they are not in Kosovo and they are
not intended to go to Kosovo. They are in the former Yugoslav
republic of Macedonia.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is wrong about Macedonia and he is wrong about
Kosovo. The minister relies on the French to hand out axe
handles to our troops for protection. He also tells them not to
worry, the French will protect them. Again, if the minister is
to send our troops into harm's way, into a war zone, why will he
not give them the equipment they need to protect themselves?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are not in a war zone, they are not
in Kosovo. They are in the former Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia. They are there with the French and with other
countries that are part of a collective and team effort.
Different roles are played by troops from different countries.
The French are doing the protection while the Canadians are doing
the engineering work. It is a team effort.
Furthermore, the hon. member needs to get his facts straight
with respect to this question of axe handles.
There is a problem in that country as there is a problem in many
other countries in terms of stray dogs. That is the reason they
were issued those handles, not for protection against enemies.
* * *
1135
[Translation]
EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government gave Quebec $1.4 billion in equalization payments to
get Quebeckers to swallow the fact that they will get only $1
billion of the $11.5 billion the federal government will be
investing in health, when Ontario will be getting five times
more.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Can the minister finally admit that the sum of $1.4 billion is a
one-time payment covering the past five years and that it is in
no way a guarantee of the future for Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at how things have gone in recent years,
equalization payments have been stable or have increased. That
is a fairly solid guarantee.
What must be said, and I repeat, is that if we add up the
planned increased in equalization payments for the next five
years, plus the unplanned increase in the past three years, plus
the planned increase in the Canada social transfer, we arrive at
the figure of $21.7 billion, of which $7.4 billion will go to
Quebec. That is 34% of the new transfers.
Could I ask the Bloc Quebecois to acknowledge that?
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
equalization payments vary a lot from one year to the next
according to the state of the economy. Does the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs realize that, while he guarantees Mike
Harris $5.5 billion to organize health care, he is saying to
Bernard Landry “Good luck with your budget. That is about what
you are going to get in equalization payments”?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the figures here to show the hon. member the
stability of equalization payments in recent years and those
planned for the future. This is for Quebec only. In 1995-96,
$4.2 billion; in 1996-97, $4.2 billion; in 1997-98, $4.8 billion;
in 1998-99, $4.6 billion; in 1999-2000, $4.5 billion; in 2000-01,
$4.7 billion; in 2001-02, $4.9 billion; in 2002-03, $5.1 billion;
and in 2003-04, $5.4 billion.
It is very stable and it will increase.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there was a
time when we had one of the best health care systems in the
world. That was before the Liberals took power and cut $20
billion from our health and social programs. The result of that
is 200,000 in waiting lines and the wealthy and desperate going
to the U.S. For example, a woman from Kelowna said: “It scares
me to think about what would be happening to me now had I not
gone to the U.S. for my neurosurgery last fall”.
Is the Liberals' worst nightmare not coming to effect, two tier
American style health care because they are the cause?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Macleod has in effect been calling
for two tier health care for years. For example, he said: “The
Reform Party is prepared to support the complete rearranging of
the concept of health care insurance. This concept might include
such elements as basic deductibles and other variations of the
health insurance concept”.
If that is not two tier medicine, I guess I am wrong when I say
that the other hon. member, formerly head of the taxpayers
federation, can't get no satisfaction. I think the hon. doctor
is wrong even though he has been calling for two tier medicine.
He has to take—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
room for an honest debate on health care which this crew will not
enter into. But here is what it will enter into. It will enter
into rhetoric on one side and actions on the other. The actions
on the other side are very straightforward: 200,000 on waiting
lists and the wealthy and the desperate going to the U.S. for
care.
Again, is it not true that the Liberals have been the creators
of two tier health care in Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is the one who has been pushing two tier
medicine on behalf of the Reform Party. Why do they not look at
themselves in the mirror and admit what they have been doing?
The hon. member said not long ago that he proposes removing the
existing restrictions to the Canada Health Act. What does that
mean if it does not mean two tier medicine? No wonder the
Conservative Premier of Alberta said about the budget, including
what we are doing to preserve and strengthen health care: “The
feds did the right thing in the budget and I have to admit
that”.
Why does the hon. member not admit that and get on the right
side of what Canadians want?
* * *
1140
[Translation]
SOCIAL UNION AGREEMENT
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1995, that is
four years before decisions were made on the budget brought down
this week, the current President of the Treasury Board, who was
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the time, stated
that the per capita formula for distributing the Canada social
transfer would not be used as it would put Quebec in the most
unfavourable position.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
How can the minister's successor proclaim from the rooftops,
four years later, that the per capita formula is now the best
for everyone?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): The
answer is relatively simple, Mr. Speaker. As long as the Canada
transfer was being reduced, it could not be restored to its
previous level on an equal footing.
We had to wait for the transfer to grow, in conjunction with
equalization, before we could do that. And all the provinces
save Quebec have asked us to.
The Government of Quebec was the only one to disagree, even
though it receives 34% of all federal transfer payments. It
should be very pleased that the equalization portion of the
transfer keeps growing since it comes with no strings attached.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): What happened at the Privy
Council during these four years that could bring about such a
drastic change in philosophy?
Was it the arrival of the minister who once said that Quebec had
to suffer for support for sovereignty to drop?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what we have just heard qualifies as a false
allegation, as the Bloc knows full well.
But since members of the Bloc have decided to stoop that low and
I have no intention of sinking to the same level, I would like
to tell my colleagues from the other provinces that the pathetic
show put on by the Bloc this past week has nothing to do with
Quebec culture, which is one of trust and solidarity, not petty
jealousy.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister dodged legitimate
concerns about the integrity of the Canada jobs fund. The best
he could do was call the fund remarkable.
It sure is remarkable. It is a remarkable slush fund to reward
Liberal friends. It is a remarkable misuse of public money for
political purposes and there is a remarkable whiff of corruption
hanging over it.
When will the minister get out of denial, do his job and clean
up this mess?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one is in
denial on this side. We have a research and evaluation report on
the transitional jobs fund which is very positive.
For example, it says that by the time the program ends more than
30,000 new jobs will have been created, most of which would never
have been created without the program. The report says that the
program was creating real sustainable jobs and that the majority
of the partners were impressed with the rigor and partnership
approach of the program.
In terms of the reference about political presence in the
program, there is a difference between legitimate political
presence—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if everything is on the up and up with the jobs fund,
why can we not get to the bottom of the $164,000 grant that was
given to the man who took a money losing hotel off the Prime
Minister's hands? Why is the correspondence of the Prime
Minister supporting this grant being hidden?
If everything is all right, and to lay concerns about the fund
to rest, will this correspondence be tabled in the House today?
Will he do that?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only members
of the Reform Party can take a piece of good news like the
research report and turn it into bad news.
When it comes around to this project to which she refers, I must
assert that all cases have the same criteria applied. The
project must create sustainable jobs, the department's
contribution must not exceed 50%, and the project must be
consistent with local and regional economic priorities. This
project, as with all others, did measure up to those criteria.
* * *
[Translation]
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the owner of
the Ottawa Senators just added his voice to those of other team
owners to put pressure on the federal government to get some tax
relief, as was recommended in the report of the subcommittee on
the study of sports in Canada.
1145
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us
if, in its budget, the government kept the necessary margin to
lower taxes for sports tycoons, or has that possibility been
totally ruled out?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just asked a
question about a committee report. She knows that the government
has 150 days to provide a response to that report.
It is clearly this government's intention to comply with that
deadline and to provide a timely response, as it always does.
* * *
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the budget just brought down, the official languages envelope
was $285 million, a $70 million increase over last year's
budget.
Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage tell us more about this increase and explain to the
House what impact it will have on official language communities?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were expecting our
colleagues opposite, especially the Bloc Quebecois, to
congratulate the government on this announcement, but they are
silent.
This substantial increase of $70 million, or 33%, over last
year's budget will go to official language communities
throughout the country. Details on how and where this money
will be used will be given in the coming weeks.
But this confirms the government's firm commitment to linguistic
duality, the cornerstone of Canadian public policy.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Staff
Sergeant Rockwell of the RCMP has called the people-smuggling
problem in the Vancouver area mind-boggling. He says that
passport forgery is now so common that people have become blasé
about it and they do not even consider it to be an offence.
The B.C. government will not use Canadian passports for
identification purposes because there are so many forgeries
around.
Why has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration completely
ignored this problem when she has known about it for at least
three years?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
people-smuggling across international borders is a global
phenomena affecting many countries.
Canada is committed to combating this problem. CIC co-operates
closely with the RCMP, CSIS and Revenue Canada, as well as with
local and provincial police to combat the trafficking of human
beings.
I make it clear that when CIC officials discover someone who is
abusing the provisions of the Immigration Act they initiate
enforcement actions.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
answer is a good example of why there is Liberal alienation in
the west.
When an immigrant comes to Canada a T-1000 landed immigrant form
is stapled into his or her passport. When the immigrant becomes
a citizen it is that T-1000 form that can be sold to the passport
forger.
Why is the minister not doing the obvious when she knows that a
policy of simply removing or destroying the T-1000 form would put
the passport forgers out of business overnight?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
department and the government take very seriously the whole issue
of Canadian passports.
Let me state again that permanent residents refugee claimants
and visitors are subject to the laws of Canada. They can be
charged under the Criminal Code and other acts of parliament for
offences committed in this country.
The CIC takes very seriously any matter that relates to
commissions of crime within Canada and every effort is made to
remove those individuals.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister indicated during the take note debate on Kosovo that he
did not know the details concerning the involvement of troops in
a peacekeeping mission. The details would be worked out after
the signing of a peace agreement. A formal request by NATO would
be made of Canada and we would have two weeks to respond.
If this happens, will the minister commit to bringing the
detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so
that he might respond to the request with the full and open
backing of Canadians through parliament?
1150
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we had a
debate the other evening about this very matter. That was the
purpose of it.
We clearly said that it would be between 500 and 800 troops. He
has outlined the conditions under which NATO would request and
then we would respond. That is the parameter of it.
Certainly we will divulge all the further information we get as
it is finalized in Brussels or in the talks, should they succeed,
in Rambouillet. All hon. members will be so informed.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows that the debate the other night was not based upon
a specific detailed request from NATO.
In light of the fact that the Prime Minister said on TV last
night that before any final decision is taken there will be a
full debate in the House of Commons, will the minister commit to
bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and
a vote?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we had the debate the
other evening. In fact the House leader of the NDP agreed to
having that debate that evening. It has been done.
The government must now make a final decision and must make one
expeditiously as the matters unfold. We will do so and we will
keep everybody fully informed.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, NATO's secretary general confirmed that Canada would
be directly involved in an air strike on Kosovo. This appears
to contradict the Government of Canada's position.
To set the record straight, and in the event of an air strike on
Kosovo, with the predictable loss of lives, can the Minister of
Foreign Affairs tell us what position Canada will adopt and the
implications of that position?
Will Canada officially support an air strike? Will Canada be
taking part, as NATO's secretary general said, in one way or
another in this strike, or is Canada opposed to any
participation and not going to give any support for such an air
strike on Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. Last October we had a debate in
the House where all parties endorsed the notion that if it were
required NATO would be asked to activate a force in order to try
to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo.
We are still hopeful that before tomorrow there can be an
agreement arrived at Rambouillet. We are working very hard. We
are in active consultation today to make sure it happens. If it
does not happen the Secretary General of NATO will have to
consult the permanent representatives of the member countries to
see whether the activation order will be brought into effect.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
Wednesday's debate on Kosovo the Minister of National Defence
said “As the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated we are
not going in under some warlike condition”. The same day the
Russian Duma passed an unanimous motion that in the case of force
they would have the right to help Belgrade defend itself. NATO
says today it will have to use force.
Did the minister change his mind between Wednesday and today,
and under whose authority? Was Wednesday's debate just another
PR exercise?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing up two matters
altogether. The debate the other evening was about sending
ground troops into Kosovo on a peacekeeping mission, not a
warlike condition, that would come about as a result of the
parties coming to an agreement at Rambouillet.
He is also mixing this up with what we did last fall when we had
a discussion about the provision of six CF-18s which would be
made available as part of the possibility—and we hope it will
not happen—of air strikes to get the Yugoslav government to the
negotiating table.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in 1989 that
women must be fully integrated into the Canadian forces.
In light of the recent allegations concerning abuse of women,
could the minister inform the House as to the progress the
military has made in implementing the ruling of the Canadian
Human Rights Tribunal?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has the second highest
participation of women of countries within NATO at 10.8%.
In this decade we have improved from a 1% participation of women
in combat arms to a 3.1% participation. We are breaking down the
barriers so that women can have the opportunity to serve
according to their abilities in whatever part of the Canadian
forces they want to serve.
1155
Progress has been slow, but I am pleased to say that it is now
accelerating. We have had more women come into our recruiting
centres in the past year than ever before. With the appointment
of our advisory committee on employment equity and gender
integration we are moving the agenda forward faster.
* * *
MINING
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Tulsequah Chief mine project in northern British Columbia
underwent an extensive federal-provincial environmental review
process and was approved.
Now the actions of Alaskan Governor Tony Knowles and a handful
of environmental extremists are placing the mine in jeopardy.
The heritage minister is willing to stand up for the Canadian
magazine industry even if it starts a trade war. Why will the
foreign affairs minister not stand up for the Canadian mining
industry?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, once again another Reform member just demonstrated
how little he really knows.
The fact is that we have been in serious discussions with the
Americans. We have told them that we do not intend to refer this
matter to the International Joint Commission, that it is a matter
that has been taken care of in the Canadian jurisdiction, and
that we stand by it.
* * *
[Translation]
PORT-CARTIER PENITENTIARY
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two days
ago, the part time employees of the Port-Cartier penitentiary
learned that their work contract would end on March 1.
A number of these employees have worked for this institution for
many years, without ever obtaining permanent status.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
As new permanent positions will be created in this institution
in the short term, can the Deputy Prime Minister say that is
fair and just to offer the new jobs becoming available to these
former employees of Port-Cartier on a priority basis?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take note of the hon. member's question and will be happy to
provide him with the necessary information as soon as possible.
I thank him for his question.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Members of the government are quick to lecture the opposition
about the need for a Canadian voice in news coverage. This week
that voice is threatened as budget cuts force CBC technicians on
to the picket lines. CBC has announced the closure of three
foreign bureaus in Johannesburg, Mexico and Paris.
My question is simple. Does the government agree with these
closures?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a labour dispute at CBC because the employer
and the union have been unable to reach an agreement on the terms
and conditions of employment. It has nothing to do with funding.
Whenever there is a strike at CBC it affects services. We
regret that, but the mediators are there waiting for them to call
and we are willing to meet with them at any time.
* * *
TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The switch to per capita calculations for provincial
equalization payments is a direct challenge to the ideal of
sharing in the Canadian federation. The Liberal finance minister
in Newfoundland called the government's rosy claims about
transfer payments laughable. The health minister in Newfoundland
says it creates a two tier health care system.
Why is the Liberal government abandoning this fundamental
Canadian principle upon which equalization transfers are based?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has always
been a premise of the government that Canadians, no matter where
they live, would have an equal right to federal transfers for
their health care, for their post-secondary education and for
welfare payments. This is what it is to be Canadian.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The minister recently announced $1 million in support of the
West African intervention force to help re-establish stability in
Sierra Leone.
Could the minister tell the House what further actions he is
taking to move this item forward on the United Nations agenda?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are appalled at the atrocities
taking place in that fellow Commonwealth country, particularly
the mutilation of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and
children.
1200
This week, as president of the security council, we have
convened a meeting with the representatives of the west African
peacekeeping group to see what we can do to mobilize
international support in that relationship.
I want to thank the hon. member for helping to arrange a meeting
here in Canada of Canadians who have been concerned so that we
can help to develop support in this country for some real help in
these very tragic circumstances.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, taxpayers deserve a lot of credit for
keeping this budget afloat, but sadly interest on the national
debt is still the largest single government spending program.
Where in the budget is the long term debt retirement plan that
pays for past socialist sins? Why is the minister not sending
clear signals about real targets for debt reduction? What is the
government plan beyond just some leftovers to pay off the
national debt? Where is the target? Where are the plans?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for a very important question.
Our debt repayment plan is very simple. First of all, two year
rolling targets which we have always met or surpassed. Second,
very prudent economic assumptions. Third, a contingency reserve
of $3 billion. Fourth, if not needed, that goes directly to pay
down the debt.
As a result, we paid down the debt by $3.5 billion last year.
Our debt has fallen from 71.2% of GDP to 65%, going to 62% in—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that the federal budget provides no significant injection of
funds to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto summit, we can
legitimately question the government's intentions in this
regard.
How can the Minister of the Environment achieve the Kyoto
objectives with $150 million, when the United States will be
spending billions of dollars?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to achieving
the targets we declared at the Kyoto protocol.
In last year's budget we did put forward $150 million in order
to put together a national implementation strategy. The
provinces and all partners are working with us in the development
of that strategy. They will produce a report by the end of this
year. In this budget we did provide some assistance to the
Canadian Federation of Municipalities because it will play a key
role.
In the meantime, we also continue to invest in pilot projects,
new technologies and public education to help all of us achieve
our goals.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention
of all hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon.
Stockwell Day, Provincial Treasurer of the Government of Alberta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among
the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That Bill C-256, now in the name of the member for North
Vancouver, stand instead in the name of the member for Surrey
Central.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1205
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
table today, in both official languages, a number of order in
council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
INDUSTRY
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I again have quite a number of petitions so I beg your
indulgence as I present them.
I am pleased to present two petitions containing the signatures
of 100 Canadians from Ontario and Nova Scotia who are concerned
about the rights of the unborn. They request that parliament
support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of
the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in
favour of federal funding for abortions on demand.
I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to
the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for
the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary
abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in
this procedure.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my next petition contains 25 signatures which supports
Motion No. 33, parental rights and responsibilities which I
introduced in 1997.
Petitioners call on the government to reassure Canadian families
and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9,
1998 that the convention on the rights of the child undermines
the role of parents as unwarranted and concerns that the
government intends to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code
are unwarranted. These citizens recognize that the family is the
fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the
growth and well-being of the children and that it should be
protected.
I have two petitions containing 353 signatures from Canadians
from coast to coast who support Motion No. 478 which I
reintroduced on October 7, 1998. It proposes to add parental
rights, responsibilities and liberty to the charter of rights and
freedoms.
The petitioners call on the government to amend section 7 of the
charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental right
of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference
by the state.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition
containing 176 signatures from Canadians concerned about the
protection of the institution of marriage as it has always been
known and understood in Canada and that this institution be
preserved and protected.
My petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to
amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the
Interpretation Act.
BANKING
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition
containing the signature of 560 constituents from the riding of
Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan who express rejection of the
recommendations of the MacKay task force pertaining to entry of
banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.
These constituents affirm that independent insurance brokers
account for approximately 60,000 jobs across rural and urban
Canada and that banks' ability to retail property and casualty
insurance will have a negative impact on this industry and the
many thousands of employees it represents.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition I have the privilege of presenting is
one containing some 730 signatures from Canadians from coast to
coast who are calling on parliament to strengthen property rights
in federal law.
These petitioners support Bill C-452 which would strengthen the
protection of property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights and
guarantee that every person has the right of enjoyment of their
property.
These citizens are calling on parliament to guarantee that this
most fundamental right and freedom is protected.
1210
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be able to present a
petition under Standing Order 36 that has been signed by hundreds
and hundreds of Canadians from every part of this country. It is
very timely because it pertains to the question of medicare and
the ability of this government to preserve the principles
enshrined in the Canada Health Act.
The petitioners call on this government to not only preserve the
principles under the Canada Health Act but to enhance our ability
to address patient needs and concerns in every aspect of our
health care system.
The petitioners call for a commitment from this government to
live up to the principles of universal coverage, accessibility,
affordability, comprehensive coverage and federal funding.
Finally, they call on this government to work to ensure that
national standards are put in place to guarantee quality publicly
funded health care for every Canadian as a right by virtue of
belonging to a civilized community.
TRADE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of the citizens of the
great city of Kamloops who point out many concerns they have
regarding a number of our international trade agreements. They
fear that they obligate the transfer of bulk water from Canada to
the United States and northern Mexico.
The petitioners are simply asking the House to re-examine these
agreements to ensure that is not the case.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I have three petitions. The first one requests parliament to
reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made
by the government on June 9, 1998 that concerns that the
convention on the rights of the child undermines the role of
parents are unwarranted and concerns that the government intends
to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code are unwarranted.
I have another petition that asks parliament to affirm the duty
of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
The third petition requests parliament to support a motion
introduced by the member for Yorkton—Melville which asks
parliament to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to
pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and
recognize the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of
parents to direct the upbringing of their children and urge the
legislative assemblies and the provinces to do likewise.
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from my
constituents who are concerned that Canada does not effectively
screen out those who become involved in criminal activities,
including terrorism and drug trafficking. They note that these
individuals pose serious threats to the health, welfare, safety
and well-being of Canadians and that these individuals unduly
burden our justice system, our immigration and refugee system at
taxpayer expense.
The petitioners implore the government to take action and have
the Canadian status of these individuals revoked and that they be
deported.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I present a
petition today with 25 names on it from Ardrossan and Sherwood
Park in my riding and a few others.
The petitioners are concerned about the state of marriage in
Canada and its definition by government. They are asking that we
define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into
between a single male and a single female.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, back in 1998,
I placed Question No. 284 on the order paper asking how many
violent crimes have been investigated by the RCMP and how many
involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms.
In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written
answer within 45 days. My constituents have now been waiting 335
days.
The commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6
referring to his answer to Question No. 84. The RCMP gave its
response to the government 218 days ago.
1215
I raised this matter in a point of order on October 28, on
December 7, and again on February 9. The parliamentary secretary
said the question was being finalized. Question No. 84 is the
oldest unanswered question on the Order Paper. For the fourth
time, when is the government going to give my constituents the
RCMP's answer to this important question?
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider this. By not giving
an answer to this question, my work as a parliamentarian is being
restricted.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I have not been
responding to the previous points of order by the hon. member but
he has my commitment that this point of order will be taken under
advisement. We will look into this and provide an answer as
early as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all the remaining questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CITIZENSHIP OF CANADA ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an
act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate was interrupted, the hon.
member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the floor. He has two
minutes remaining for his remarks.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will wrap up my remarks on Bill C-63.
We in this House have the responsibility to do the best that we
can in all of our endeavours. For four and one-half years this
government has been told about the mismanagement and problems
within our immigration system.
Immigration, as members have mentioned, has been a pillar and a
building block of our country. Many of us are immigrants and
were grateful to come to Canada. But the failure of the
government to deal with the structural problems within our
immigration system has done a huge disservice not only to
Canadians, but also to immigrants who have come to this country
and people trying to get into this country.
The problems have been articulated. The solutions are in front
of us. Focus on the independent class of immigrants. Make sure
that the family reunification class truly appeals to those who
are immediate family members, not people who are further removed.
People who come to this country cannot simply come here, have a
baby and the baby automatically becomes a Canadian citizen.
Children who are born in this country should retain the
citizenship of their parents and once the parents become Canadian
citizens, the children will become Canadian citizens too. One of
the scams used by some people who come to Canada is to have a
child and the child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen.
In the oath of citizenship the minister should have put specific
and explicit references to the responsibilities a Canadian has to
our country. That is very important. We have a lot of rights
but we do not talk about the responsibilities.
There are enormous problems faced by immigrants. Immigrants go
through the hoops. They try their hardest yet because of
bureaucratic gross mismanagement they are forced to pay for the
problems of the ministry. That has to end.
I implore the minister to listen to the constructive suggestions
that have been put forth today. Listen to them, implement them
and build a good system for all of Canada.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to Bill C-63.
Mr. Speaker, although I may not be talking specifically about
Bill C-63, I can assure you that all of my remarks lead into that
document most thoroughly. I hope members on the other side of
the House do not get their noses out of joint too quickly and
will pay close attention to where this is going.
I am especially pleased to speak to this bill because I am a
citizen, a new citizen who came to Canada in the late sixties.
1220
I came to Canada with the intentions of fulfilling a contract to
teach in a school in Sundre, Alberta, my hometown. It was only
supposed to be for a year. I came here in the sixties with my
wife and small child and it only took a few months for us to fall
in love with the country and the people.
I particularly liked the school system at that time in
comparison to the one from where I had come. The schools in the
United States were leaning toward some very serious social
engineering. Problems were starting to develop and discipline was
disappearing. I was disappointed that was occurring down there.
When I came to Canada and saw what a fine system was in place and
how it was being run, I had a strong desire to become a citizen
of this country.
I made application to extend the contract. It was agreed that
it would be extended if I would take out landed immigrant status,
which I did, and if I would agree to become a citizen when I
became eligible, which I agreed to do and also did. Upon
entering the country my wife and I and our one-month old child
had to go through some very stringent medical exams. I had to go
through a lot of security checks. I was checked strongly in that
whole area. Financial obligations had to be met.
My wife and I did not object in the slightest bit to all of
those things. A number of immigrants who came in at that time
and who even lived in the same town felt as I do, that all that
was fair and right. They felt the government needed to do a
thorough screening of the people who come to this land seeking to
become residents and future citizens.
I do not know where we have gone and why we have gone the way we
have in regard to immigration policy or where we are at with the
refugee policy. It is really disgusting. I will not go into any
great detail on that because members who spoke prior to me have
done a very thorough job of explaining where we are coming from
in that regard.
I will talk about the early years. After four or five years I
became eligible to become a citizen. Then I saw things starting
to come into the education system and I did not understand why. I
commented to some of my friends and people associated with
education as to why they were allowing some of these things to
happen in the school system. They had already been tried in the
United States and they had failed desperately. It was not good
for any education system to go in that direction. A lot of them
did not know because these things were just happening.
The great white towers of government were bringing down mandated
things that were going to take place. Nobody in any community on
any scale was ever conferred with as to what kind of school or
community they wanted. Things just started happening. Mr.
Speaker, you will remember the era of Mr. Trudeau, the prime
minister in the early seventies. That is when things started
taking place that did not make a lot of sense to me.
I am not arguing with whether the metric system is good or bad
but I remember when it was decided to go metric. I had not yet
become a citizen so I did not want to be too boisterous in my
feelings. Down south there were signs up to think metric and all
kinds of things were being done to promote the metric system. The
people south of the border in the United States spoke strongly
and were heard by their government. The United States did not go
metric because the people did not want it.
I searched around my community for quite a while and I could not
find anybody who wanted to go metric either. Most of the people
said no. I thought surely there would not be any problem since
the people did not want it but lo and behold, we woke up one
morning and now we have the metric system in this country. I
asked people “Why did you let that happen? You people pay the
bills, you are the taxpayers, why do you let these things
happen?” They said that they could not do anything about it.
That is just the way things are.
1225
Then lo and behold up comes a certain bill that was being
debated very strongly but apparently nobody across the land was
very fond of it. They did not like the bill and did not want it
to come into being. That was the language law. It seemed that
the country was operating pretty well before all of that. There
was a lot of debate and they said no, let us not do it. But lo
and behold, we woke up one morning and we had to go through the
process of changing signs because we now existed under the
language law.
Once again I asked “Why did you let it happen? Why do you let
these things go on? You are the taxpayers. You are supposed to
be the boss. The members of parliament are supposed to be your
servants, not your dictators. Why do you let it carry on?”
I can give example after example clear up until the mighty GST.
I could not find a person anywhere who supported the GST. In a
massive way people tried to illustrate it through petitions
asking that parliament not implement the GST, but guess what?
They got it.
Before that, I decided that if I was going to be a citizen in
this country then I would have to get involved. I would have to
speak out. Because I remembered what the country was like when I
came here as an immigrant and I suddenly saw where it was going
and I thought good grief.
Out comes the charter of rights. It was not debated to any
great extent. Only a few of us noticed at the time that there
was not an inclusion of property rights. I asked people “Do you
realize what you were getting into? A document that does not
have the freedom of property rights in place. Are you sure you
want this?” I said “Mark my words. With some of the clauses in
there, there will be a day down the road when you will have
courts, judges and other judicial bodies making decisions that
will affect your lives”. It became law.
Lo and behold, the most blatant example we could have is a judge
in British Columbia saying that it is okay for a fellow to have
child pornography in his home. He declared that, so that is the
way it is. And we are supposed to sit back and say that is the
way it goes, this is Canada.
A government of the people, by the people, for the people. The
best description of democracy I have ever heard. I have yet to
see it occur. We continually allow those things to happen.
Then along comes Bill C-63. I also remember a House of Commons
committee that was put together four and a half years ago. It
came up with some proposals and some ideas of what we should do
to put together some corrections to immigration, to refugees and
to citizenship. The recommendations were brought forward by the
people of Canada through an extensive consultation program. The
people stated loud and clear what they would like to see.
This piece of legislation comes out and it does not reflect one
thing that the Canadian people said they wanted in this document.
Not one. Why? Because those people over there always know
best: “Those poor Canadian people out there do not understand.
We are the smart ones. We have been elected and put in this
place. We will solve all their problems”. They are supposed to
sit back, shut up and take it.
Being an old sheep herder back in my farming days, if I was
moving sheep from one place to another and I wanted to get them
across some water to the other side, I had to drag one through
the water and it would be bleating, screaming and kicking. I
would sit it on the other bank. One was not enough so I would
drag another one across and there would be two over there. Once I
got three sheep on the other side, the rest of the sheep would
say, “There are three sheep over there. As bad as we hate
water, we are going to plough through it”.
And what do I see here? Bills like this one. We know it is
going to pass because two or three here have crossed the water
and all the rest of the sheep will rise to their feet and vote in
favour of the legislation because those guys know best.
Stop the dictatorship.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member but his time has expired.
1230
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-63. I am one of many
Canadians who are very grateful that the hon. member for Wild
Rose chose Canada as his home. Without members such as the
member for Wild Rose we would certainly be further into a
dictatorship than we already are now. I thank the hon. member
for that.
I remind members of the House that I am from an agricultural
background. Agriculture is very strong in my constituency. We
all recognize, to put it politely, what load of fertilizer is
when see it and smell it. When I look at the bill it certainly
reminds me of that.
Some aspects of the bill go a very tiny way to addressing part
of the problems in the country, but nowhere does it address the
problems as it should. Whether or not members opposite like to
admit it, they spent a great amount of time dealing with new
citizens and the immigration laws in their daily work schedules.
I want one of them to stand and deny this is true.
I have been a member in the House since 1993. Most of the
concerns with regard to immigration and the downfall in
citizenship come from first or second generation immigrants. They
have an abundance of concerns about policy, where it is going and
who we are letting into the country. They left their countries
to come to Canada with great hope and expectations of creating a
new life and new wealth for not only themselves but for their
future generations.
Unfortunately they now live in a country where many live in fear
because of immigration laws that allow the criminal element to
come into the country, that allow the government to welcome them
with open arms and give them the same rights as every Canadian
citizen who has resided lawfully in Canada for their entire
lives. Yet we have the criminal element coming into the country
under the guise of some of the acts to create havoc.
People who have come to Canada to create a new life well
recognize this. They had to put up with it in the countries they
came from. This is one of the things they ran from to come here,
and we are starting to embrace it here with open arms. That is
just one aspect of what we have to look at.
Let us look at the blatant patronage aspect of the bill. One
inclusion in the legislation is the continued tradition of
so-called patronage appointments, namely citizenship
commissioners. We do not have to be brain surgeons or rocket
scientists to recognize exactly what the government means.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Far be it for me to
interrupt the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap, but if other
members in the House want to carry on private conversations, they
can do so somewhere else.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I assure you this does
not throw me off topic.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
rising on a point of order?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, what am I to make of an
invitation for the member to come outside?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member
rising on a point of order?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No, not to you. The member for Wild
Rose.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Okanagan—Shuswap.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard from
an member from the other side. This is typical of what goes on
and that is fine. They do not like it when we raise the idea of
patronage appointments.
An hon. member: What are you talking about?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: That is what we are on now and why
patronage appointments exist. They are a gift to those who
support the government. That is all they are and nothing more.
1235
Let us look at the hypocrisy of the government and what is going
on. It was not that long ago the Canadians census came out. Many
people in my constituency, first and second generation Canadians,
filled in a little section by putting in the word Canadian.
What happened when they did that? The government threatened to
sue and imprison some of these people because they had the gall
to write in that they were Canadians. They came to my office and
said “Mr. Stinson, I came here to become a Canadian. I want to
take on the nationality of a Canadian. My children are Canadian
and we look upon ourselves as Canadians”. Yet the government
has threatened them for saying they are Canadian. Even as a
seventh generation Canadian I was not allowed to put Canadian on
that census. What exactly is going on here? It goes beyond
being a joke.
Let us look at some of the powers in clause 43. Under this
clause Bill C-63 grants the minister far-reaching powers,
unbelievable powers. The minister has the right to specify who
may make an application under this act on behalf of a minor, fix
fees and define who is a spouse for the purpose of the act. I
only have to see that part to start wondering what is going on.
The minister may define what constitutes a relationship of parent
and child for the purposes of determining the entitlement to
citizenship under any provision of the act.
As a Canadian citizen I demand a voice in this regard. I demand
the people of Canada also have a voice in this regard and not
just the minister. This is arrogance of the highest form.
If the minister really wishes to improve the Citizenship Act,
she should be willing to bring some of these questions into the
open, have a debate and hear from the Canadian people, not make
these decisions behind closed doors where she is not accountable
to anyone.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: A committee is doing consultation.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: She is not accountable to anyone. She
has the right to override anything. There are dictatorships that
wish they had this kind of power. Canadians have sat back far
too long and just gradually and grudgingly accepted this. It is
time for the public to start voicing concerns about what is going
on in the country.
The member for Wild Rose was dead on when he said what was
happening. I thank the member for Wild Rose for bringing that
matter to the attention of Canadians. I hope everybody realizes
exactly what they are buying into when acts like this one are put
into place.
I would like to end on that note. I see members on the
government side are happy that I will be closing off the debate.
To tell the truth, I wish I did not have to stand here today to
talk to the bill at all. I know hon. members opposite do too,
because they do not like people out there to hear what is really
going on. That is fine. I understand that.
My ultimate wish is that this legislation goes on to the garbage
pile where it belongs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the second reading stage of Bill C-63.
1240
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed to
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday,
March 1, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If you would seek it, you might find that the House is
disposed to calling it 1.30 p.m. and moving to private members'
hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government House
leader has suggested that we see the clock as 1.30 p.m., the time
provided for private members' hour. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will now
proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's order
paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
increase the federal share of financial support for the
provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of
dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of
Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to speak in
the House today to Motion No. 508. In fact there is nowhere I
would rather be aside from my province of Nova Scotia. I am
anxious to get there and not to be at the only alternative
conference that is happening this weekend.
The motion put forward states that the government should
increase the federal share of financial support for the
provisions of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of
achieving funding on a 50:50 basis between the Government of
Canada and the provincial and territorial governments. This was
the original intent of the legislation that goes back over 10
years.
When I refer to 50% throughout my remarks I am not referring to
the ill conceived 50% release plan which is being surreptitiously
hoisted on an unsuspecting public through the solicitor general's
department. What I am referring to is the fact that the federal
government has backed away from the commitment made in the
original legislation to fund the administrative costs of the
Young Offenders Act.
Everyone in the House is aware that the laws are only as
effective as their ability to be enforced. The RCMP's ongoing
financial problems testify to this challenge, be it in the
overall budget or in the efforts of the force to try to combat
organized crime.
The Liberal Firearms Act is another example of waste before the
Canadian public. The spiralling costs and administrative
problems are yet other examples that the Liberal government will
put this type of legislation for political gain ahead of the
actual costs of the law enforcement community.
The costs of the implementation of the Firearms Act could reach
as high as an estimated cost of $350 million. These estimates
could be even higher. This comes from the government's own
officials.
Recently I met with representatives of the National Firearms
Association who are travelling throughout the country promoting a
more practical and simpler approach to firearms legislation and
certainly putting greater emphasis on actual safety and actual
use of government funds.
While the Liberal government advocates hundreds of millions of
dollars for gun registry, the Canadian police information system
that will house the data from this piece of legislation, the
important tool police officers use for information purposes, is
coming apart at the seams and is in need of a drastic influx of
federal money, $200 million by some conservative estimates, to
make it operational.
1245
The Young Offenders Act throughout the country is perceived as
not working for the average Canadian. It has been said aloud by
the government and by the minister in particular on numerous
occasions that we can expect changes or a revamped version of the
Young Offenders Act in the near future or, to use the minister's
often quoted phrase, in a timely fashion.
Eighteen months have passed since these pronouncements were
first made and this legislative initiative is still forthcoming.
The Young Offenders Act is in itself an important tool for law
enforcement in the community but there are financial limitations
facing our justice system.
Regardless of how the federal government proceeds with the new
youth crime legislation, if it does not assume a fair share of
the cost, it cannot realistically hope that the existing or any
new legislation will meet the intended ends.
The Minister of Justice admitted in October that substantial
extra funding is needed to successfully reinforce Canada's youth
justice system. And as the minister made that promise in January
to introduce new young offenders legislation, as she had on
previous occasions, once again one is left to wonder when it will
be coming and why in the budget this very week we do not see an
indication of a government commitment to this new proposed piece
of legislation.
The minister's promises in the past have proven suspect on this
particular issue, so Motion No. 508 in its simplest terms is an
important opportunity for this House to express its collective
favour in terms of putting fair funding and fair dollars on the
table when addressing the issue of youth crime.
While proposed legislative solutions vary among parties and
members of this House, I hope there can be some non-partisan
approach taken to this issue. The government itself has a
responsibility to assume its fair share of the programs and the
services that are being currently administered by the provinces
to assist in the execution of federal youth crime legislation.
As most members will recall, the Young Offenders Act is
relatively young legislation, having come into effect in 1984,
and while the statute falls under federal jurisdiction most of
the consequent services and programs for young offenders are
provided by provincial and territorial governments.
The original commitment of the federal government was to share
the risk of implementation of the Young Offenders Act. This
included the financial risk. The federal government therefore
undertook to contribute an amount approximately 50% of provincial
spending on young offenders programs and services.
It should be noted that a disparity among the provinces was
created by these cost sharing agreements. Prior to the Young
Offenders Act the cost sharing agreement fell under the Canada
assistance plan and was based on child welfare related objectives
and essentially restricted to custody costs, the previous
legislation being the juvenile delinquents act.
Under the original Young Offenders Act cost sharing agreements,
custody costs continued to be included and the list of programs
covered by the 50:50 agreement expanded to include post
adjudication, detention, alternative measures, which is a more
recent initiative, and bail supervision programs.
Other items such as probation and predisposition reports have
been added similarly to the list of cost shareable programs and
the services that were intended under this agreement.
It was the nature of that agreement whereby the federal
government's contribution was determined by how much the
provinces and territories would spend on federal youth offender
services.
This caused a disparity which I referred to. Nearly 75% of the
federal dollars in the mid to late 1980s was directed to custody
and custodial programming. This resulted in less federal support
for provinces with lower custody rates.
Because different provinces and territories obviously have
different priorities, the federal government should not
financially punish those jurisdictions for focusing on
non-custodial programs which is what I see as implicit in the
budget.
I must stress, however, that in negotiating a new funding
arrangement the federal government should likewise not punish
provinces that favour custody in their approach to enforcement of
the Young Offenders Act or the equivalent youth crime legislation
whenever that may come.
Equity and a level standard approach is what is desirable in
the final analysis.
I should note that I specifically left out any reference to
funding formula mechanisms, the reason being that I do not want
this debate to become bogged down in custodial arrangements
versus alternative measures. That debate would be for another
time.
1250
This motion deals with global funding which, regardless of the
funding formula, heavily penalizes the provinces and territories.
When the original cost sharing agreement expired in 1989 the
federal government of the day, facing serious fiscal problems,
froze its future share of the cost sharing program at the funding
level.
That, I will admit, was a Progressive Conservative government
but the funding was frozen at the levels which existed at that
time and the amount that was set aside at that time was $156
million.
Although admittedly a Conservative government along with the
actual funding cuts in subsequent years, and I refer specifically
to 1996-97 when 3.9% of that original cost sharing was cut and
3.5% in 1998-99, the overall federal share of eligible provincial
costs on young offenders programs fell an average of
approximately 30%. In actual dollars that translated into a
little less than $145 million.
Although the federal government froze and then cut its financial
contributions, the nature of the funding formula remained intact,
resulting in a persisting disparity between the provinces.
Regardless of the disparity the fact remains that all provincial
and territorial jurisdictions have suffered at the hands of the
federal government's decision. This is another example of
federal downloading that needs to be corrected before any
realistic overhaul of the Young Offenders Act can happen. The
provinces and territories are rightfully upset by the abandonment
of the federal government. They are funding the majority of the
costs and on a national overall average they are funding 70% of
the young offenders programs which are constitutionally a federal
responsibility.
It is no wonder that a level of animosity then emerges from
these provincial-federal talks, in particular in the area of
justice.
Meanwhile the federal government only covers 16% of the cost of
provincially mandated programs such as health care,
post-secondary education and social assistance. Is it any wonder
that provinces are now clamouring that the share of the young
offenders programs, which they assert is a federal
responsibility, be allocated on a similar scale?
Simply put, the provinces are encouraging the federal government
to revert to at least a 50:50 basis with future federal funding
arrangements reflecting a reverse share of the federal-provincial
funding for health care and social programs instead of a 30%
share which they are currently carrying.
What this would demand is dollars. By my calculations the
federal government is covering 30% of the costs which are set at
approximately $144 million this fiscal year, and an 84% share
would come to around $400 million annually. But we know, as a
result of the budget, that this will not happen.
An honourable and reasonable compromise to this would be for the
federal government to commit to returning to the 50% share that
it once assumed. We are not suggesting that this would happen
overnight. In actual spending this would amount to roughly $240
million. The wording of Motion No. 508 is such that it would
allow the federal government to phase in its increase in
spending. The details and timeframe would be negotiated through
a new cost sharing arrangement between the federal, provincial
and territorial governments.
Sadly, if one believes recent articles in the Post, the
minister has ruled out any return to the level of funding that
was provided in the past.
I am left to believe that the federal government will not resume
a 50% share of the federal Young Offenders Act or whatever form
it takes any time soon. Hopefully the Liberal member designated
to speak, the parliamentary secretary, will clarify this
assertion by the minister that there is no intention on the part
of this government to return to its rightful share. There
appears to be no logical reason why the federal government would
not assume its fair portion. After all, the federal government's
credibility, and especially that of the minister, appears to be
extremely suspect by the majority of Canadians and by the
majority of provincial and territorial governments on this issue.
Beyond the youth crime issue itself there is a litany of other
issues where the federal Liberal government has disappointed its
provincial and territorial counterparts.
Four provinces and two territories representing almost 55% of
Canada's population have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada on the Liberal government's Firearms Act. This does not
bode well for the confidence that these provinces hold in their
federal counterpart.
1255
I am sure the province of Nova Scotia will be adding its name to
that list of those challenging the act when it elects a
Conservative government. It is a very questionable set of
priorities when it comes down to an issue as fundamental as the
Young Offenders Act and the federal government's abdication of
its responsibility.
Another example of this abdication comes from the call of at
least four provinces for the establishment of a national sex
offender registry. Once more we have seen the federal government
being very slow to act let alone react to calls for such a
registry. It is something I have followed closely. Colleagues on
this side of the House have tried to get the attention of the
federal government on a number of justice issues only to be
rebuffed with the response that the government has its own agenda
which it is committed to following.
It is therefore equally important in timing when one looks at
the crisis facing our current law enforcement community, in
particular the RCMP, with respect to the funding costs it has
undergone since the Liberals were elected in 1994. RCMP
Commissioner Phil Murray has admitted the force cannot continue
to function with its current funding and that an underfunding of
the RCMP affects provincial and municipal governments. This
again represents a form of downloading. The CPIC system has been
described as rusting out. This is the CPIC system which would
now also carry the additional burden of gun registry and DNA
databank legislation. It is like putting more and more weight on
a tired old mule, and that is going to collapse. When the RCMP
problems were particularly acute in British Columbia, that
province's attorney general mused about the establishment of a
new provincial police force in British Columbia.
Then there is the issue of replacement legislation for the Young
Offenders Act. I have spoken to the delay and to the continual
promise that this is coming. These promises and the broken
promises are not new to this government. Many of the
recommendations put forward by the opposition in committee were
not adopted by the current government.
In December 1997 the federal Minister of Justice met with her
provincial and territorial counterparts at the annual meeting.
She promised at that time there would be new young offender
legislation coming at their next meeting. That meeting has come
and gone. She showed up with empty hands. The legislation was
not there and it is still not before the Canadian people. When
the federal Minister of Justice met with her counterparts at the
end of October 1998 she showed up with empty hands.
I urge all members to join with me in supporting this motion, in
bringing it forward for debate and in placing a high priority on
the federal government's assuming its official responsibility
with respect to the funding of the legislation that is
forthcoming for the current Young Offenders Act in its present
form.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
FIRST NATIONS LAND MANAGEMENT ACT
BILL C-49—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached
under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with
respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-49,
an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into
effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land
Management.
[English]
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion
to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration
and disposal of proceedings at said stages.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in Motion No. 508 the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is calling for this House to
state that the federal government should increase its share of
the financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders
Act with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis
between the Government of Canada and the provincial and
territorial governments.
The Minister of Justice and this government cannot support the
motion as it currently reads. As members know, new youth justice
legislation will be introduced in the next few weeks. This is
largely the result of extensive consultations which have been
ongoing with our partners, the provinces and territories, over
the past several years, despite what the hon. member said
earlier. Part of this groundwork has included discussions of
financial issues.
1300
[Translation]
The minister is well aware that the provinces and the federal
government share responsibility for ensuring an effective
Canada-wide youth justice system.
She also wishes to note, as she has done on a number of
occasions in the past, that additional funding will be necessary
to implement the new legislation she is about to table, as well
as to support the services and programs that will play a direct
role in the achievement of several priorities on which the
federal government and the provinces agree.
As for the use to which federal funding is put, I would remind
the House that, in April 1997, following a thorough examination
of the youth justice system, the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs submitted certain recommendations regarding
federal-provincial shared-cost arrangements with respect to
services for young offenders.
[English]
The committee made it clear that it favoured an approach based
on early intervention where prevention efforts, community and
family based informal, non-criminal justice and non-custodial
strategies are given primacy. The committee came to the
conclusion that cost sharing arrangements should be adapted to
reflect this new approach.
It is important to understand that while acknowledging the
importance of adequate funding for youth justice services and
programs, the committee did not recommend a return to an open
ended 50:50 sharing of all provincial costs.
On the contrary, the committee specifically recommended that
discussions with the provinces and territories be undertaken with
the goal of shifting resources away from custodial institutions
or incarceration and into community based services.
[Translation]
The fact that, in recent years, Canada as a whole continues to
be among those nations with the highest number of young
offenders in custody, continues to concern us. Although
international comparisons are difficult, because of systemic
differences, it appears that Canada incarcerates proportionally
more young offenders than even the United States.
As well, the rates of incarceration vary considerably across the
country, varying between 9% and 32% for 10,000 adolescents,
according to provincial figures. The rates are generally higher
where alternative sentencing is rare or non-existent.
Finally, it is sad to note that the vast majority of youth in
custody are there for non-violent offences, to which community
approaches, which promote social values such as responsibility
and accountability, would be a better response.
[English]
What makes the matter worse is that incarceration is extremely
expensive. As more and more money is spent on custody, less and
less can be dedicated to those alternatives that could eventually
reduce overall budgets and provide for more meaningful
consequences for the majority of offenders. A continuing
deterioration of alternative programming could in turn create a
vicious cycle by provoking an even greater reliance on custody,
clearly the position of the Reform Party also.
An hon. member: That is baloney and you know it.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: You wanted to incarcerate 11-year
olds.
Clearly funds have to be used wisely in support of overall youth
justice policy that will be reflected in the bill that the
Minister of Justice is about to introduce. It would be unwise
for the federal government to accept, for example, to reimburse
the provinces for 50% of the current cost of custody when its
stated policy is to ensure that incarceration is generally
reserved for the most serious offenders. With 50:50 cost sharing
of all youth justice services, the federal government would be
left with no protection against further increases in the use and
the cost of custody.
Moreover, this type of agreement would seriously restrict
federal ability to actively promote the development of
alternative programming or to support the ongoing operations of
such programming where it already exists.
Certainly the federal government responsibility for the youth
justice legislation implies a responsibility to see that its
various components are properly implemented.
That is why on Tuesday of this week we were extremely pleased to
find that almost $400 million has been allocated for fighting
crime at home and abroad, with $206 million of that money being
allocated to the new youth justice strategy of this government.
1305
This funding will allow the government to move forward quickly,
implementing a new approach of giving more money to the
provinces.
We believe the federal funding should be used to achieve two
broad purposes. First, it should be designed to support the
implementation of the new federal legislation across the country.
Second, it should be used to ensure that special attention is
given to required services and programs that do not yet exist or
are currently under funded.
We also have to ensure that federal funding is equitably
allocated to the individual provinces and territories. Obviously
and open ended 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services
and programs would offer no particular support in the
achievements of the above purposes. It could actually have a
detrimental effect in encouraging an inconsistent partial
implementation of the legislation across the country.
[Translation]
While the provinces are responsible for administering justice
and can legitimately choose various means to enforce the law in
a way that suits their individual priorities and specificity,
the federal government must ensure that the law is applied in
compliance with its principles.
As members will see when the new legislation is introduced, it
will provide maximum flexibility to the provinces, so that they
can administer the youth justice system in a way that is best
for them individually.
I should point out that the provinces themselves made that
request, during our consultations. We listened to them and we
will follow up on their request.
Also, it is perfectly legitimate for the federal government to
plan its funding so as to give priority to those general
services and programs that are critical to achieving the main
objectives of the law.
[English]
While it can be expected that some provinces may question
specific aspects of the proposed legislation, it would be a
mistake to underestimate the existing degree of support for the
new approach it reflects. Similarly, where there might be some
differences of views with certain provinces in terms of defining
specific priorities for funding, it would be erroneous to think
that this is a case where the federal government is imposing its
views on the provinces.
Provincial views have contributed significantly to the shaping
of the new legislation and will continue to be the key in the
implementation of it. Past discussions and continuing
discussions have also demonstrated there is considerable
consensus on the need to promote more alternative ways of dealing
with young offenders.
[Translation]
We should be able to build on the basis of a consensus that
federal funding should first and foremost support the
development and maintenance of programs that provide significant
alternatives to the reliance on courts and incarceration. As for
the provinces and territories, they will continue to be
responsible for determining how these programs should be
developed and implemented.
[English]
Financial arrangements will be part of what we hope will be over
the next several years a flexible implementation phase of the
youth justice renewal strategy, undertaken in close partnership
with the provinces and territories as a reflection of our shared
responsibilities and commitments to youth justice.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 508 as
presented by the member from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We
appear to be united on this issue. Maybe there is some hope for
my hon. colleague yet.
The motion says that, in the opinion of this House, the
government should increase the federal share of financial support
for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual
goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the
Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial
governments.
This motion is essentially calling for the federal government to
fulfil its original commitment to maintain its 50% share of the
costs of enforcing the Young Offenders Act.
It is my understanding that as little as a decade ago the
federal government managed to keep up to the commitment of
providing half the cost of this legislation. This was a promise
made when the Young Offenders Act was brought into force in 1985.
It is also my understanding that the federal government has been
slowly chipping away at this commitment to the extent that it now
provides something close to 30% of the bill.
I realize that in the recent budget the government appears to
have committed itself to providing some $200 million in what it
calls new funds toward youth justice.
Let us remember, however, that in spite of months and months of
promises we have not yet seen this government's new youth
legislation and justice initiatives.
1310
There is little doubt that there will be additional costs
involved. There is little doubt the provinces will be required
to commit additional funds toward the new legislation should it
ever come into being. I anticipate that the newly committed
funds will in no way approach the federal government's original
commitment.
The failure of this government to maintain the 50:50 split no
doubt came into discussion when the Minister of Justice was
negotiating with provincial justice ministers over co-operation
toward new youth justice initiatives. I have no doubt that the
Minister of Justice was threatened with complete provincial
withdrawal from the funding of youth justice because of the
continuing shortfall of funding on behalf of her government. She
would certainly not want to have a recurrence of the Bill C-68
situation land in her lap where some of the provinces have
withdrawn from firearms control financing and have left it up to
the federal government to operate. Our provinces can only be
pushed and downloaded on so far.
Speaking of being pushed too far, I will take a moment to
mention this government's actions with conditional sentencing and
its impact on the provinces. The federal government's bill
became too high in the area of corrections. So what did it do?
It brought in conditional sentencing to permit criminal offenders
to serve their time at home. Now violent and even repeat
offenders are able to escape from serving any time in our
institutions. This freed up beds and kept the costs from
escalating for our corrections systems, but it did not
necessarily reduce the costs to the provinces that have to
continue to monitor, police and enforce the conditions placed on
offenders serving their time at home. Costs were downloaded to
the provinces. I would think the provinces would want to make
sure the federal government does not burn them in the same way
with its new youth justice strategy.
I have been actively involved in youth justice issues for a
number of years now. I have participated in various youth
diversion programs. I have been actively involved with our
crowns, our courts and our communities in my home province of
British Columbia. There are significant demands for additional
funding to properly operate a successful youth justice program.
Indeed, virtually all aspects of the youth justice program are
presently short of appropriate funding to properly do the job.
Youth diversion programs are by and large operating primarily on
the good intentions of community volunteers. While these folks
are extremely dedicated to the young people in their communities
and do wonderful work, often a few dollars will do much to soothe
many of their frustrations. It is difficult to have a young
person repaint a neighbour's fence that has been covered by
graffiti when there is not even enough money to buy the paint. It
is difficult to arrange counselling sessions or group discussions
when there is no money with which to rent a room. We cannot
expect volunteers to continue to support programs from their own
pockets indefinitely.
We are all aware of the shortfalls in funding for programs for
young people placed under secure custody. They are often
released back into the community with no education or treatment
to modify their unacceptable and criminal actions. If society
continues to show little interest in helping these young
offenders they will have little interest in helping themselves.
It all comes back to proper funding.
The statistics make it quite clear that young offenders often
become adult offenders. If we spend effectively on our young
offenders now, we will benefit in the long run because we should
not have to investigate, charge, convict and sentence time and
time again. If we properly treat the non-violent first time
offender we will for the most part avoid escalation into more
serious criminal activity.
The justice minister was recently quoted as complimenting
Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta for their efforts in the use
of community sentencing options instead of custody to sanction
our troubled youth. All provinces should be encouraged to follow
and expand on the present successful programs. To do so,
however, additional funding will be necessary to set up and
operate progressive options. How will the provinces be encouraged
to do so unless the federal government makes significant moves
toward fulfilling its end of the bargain?
As it has been said time and time again, it does little good for
this government to talk the talk, it must walk the walk. It must
re-establish its 50% commitment to youth justice and it must
ensure it never again lets itself fail in its responsibility to
our future generations.
I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for
putting this motion before the House.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, today the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is
asking the government to increase the federal share of financial
support for the provision of the Young Offenders Act with the
eventual goal of dividing the cost on a 50:50 basis between the
Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial
governments.
1315
One would think this is not a big thing to ask for. If the
federal government wants to keep an eye on what is happening it
terms of crime prevention, health care or education across the
country, it should expect to pay its fair share. That is really
what is being asked here.
[Translation]
This also means that many problems are created by government
policies and regulations—provincial or federal. On the subject
of crime prevention, many of the decisions taken are taken in
such a way that it appears crime prevention was not the first
thought.
The more invested in crime prevention, the lower the crime rate.
Our young people who live in poverty cannot afford a
post-secondary education and parents cannot send their children
to daycare.
These are things that lower the country's crime rate. We need
governments that give priority to prevention.
We can talk about prevention as well in the context of halfway
houses for battered women. Too many regions do not have such
facilities for these women. They do not have the opportunity to
stay in a safe location so they may make good decisions for
themselves and their children. It is important to have such
facilities, and that is what the majority of Canadians think.
[English]
We have to remember that. Often when youths commit crimes we
want to throw them in jail and throw away the keys. That is not
the solution. We have to look at the cause, why young offenders
are in that situation. We need resources available to prevent
children from being in that situation. Once they are we
definitely need resources to help them out of those bad
situations and put them in very good environments.
Unfortunately, with child poverty increasing on a daily basis,
one goes with the other. If I look at just my area, in one week
there were three bank robberies in small communities of 200 in
one and 2,000 in the other. We have to look at that situation
very seriously. The increase in poverty is certainly a big
factor in crime. A woman in the Saint John area was badly beaten
during a robbery.
If we look behind why all these things are happening we can
track it to the individual not having resources available. I see
it with teachers all the time who tell me that they do not have
the resources to help the kids identified in our schools as
needing help.
I was speaking with a friend who is a French teacher in
Newfoundland. They have been told that in order to get a
psychologist in their school they would have to let a regular
teacher go. There are all kinds of situations in that school
where children and their families need counselling. We have to
look at the causes. When parents do not have a job or are the
working poor it certainly does not help. We did not see any new
funding going toward that.
1320
[Translation]
There is really nothing in the budget to help in this regard.
If the federal government wants to have input with the
provinces, it has to pay its half. This applies to health care
too. The government found itself in a very difficult situation
at one point. It used to pay 50% of health care costs but this
percentage has now dropped to 11%. The figure might rise to
12.5%.
It is very difficult for the federal government to say to a
province “I want you to provide these services in this way”,
when it contributes only 5% or 6% of the funding.
I have a 13-year old son and a little girl who is three years
old, but I have no idea what the future holds for Mathieu and
Mélissa. I hope they will stay on the straight and narrow. That
is all we can do, to hope, because our children have to make
their own decisions.
It is certainly good for them that their mother has a job, and
it was great that I could work or be on employment insurance
when I was off work, because there was food on their plates and
a roof over their heads. I was perfectly capable of supporting
them as a seasonal worker because, in those days, we could still
get benefits between jobs. Without this income, I cannot imagine
how those years would have unfolded. There was also education,
including the post-secondary education I had access to.
We must ensure that our young people today have access to
education and that they do not end up $40,000 in debt after
completing a four-year university degree.
That is often the case, and we are not helping our young people
with decisions that makes life harder and harder for them, when
they have no job prospects at graduation.
[English]
The New Democrats believe that the government needs to invest in
families by providing access to child care, support for parents
and labour policies that encourage employers to respect family
obligations.
[Translation]
I must say that I was lucky. All the years I worked, I was with
the public service, so I had benefits. If my son was sick, I was
entitled to five days a year at least to look after him. I also
had a drug plan, which also covered replacements for eyeglasses.
That helps a lot.
[English]
The federal government must make a real commitment to provide
funding to the provinces for more community policing and to
increase support services for both the rehabilitation of youth
and support for victims of youth crime.
The NDP fully supports the motion before the House and
encourages the government to adopt it and take immediate action
to address the chronic underfunding of our justice system.
[Translation]
I think this is important. We ought to support this motion
because the future of our young people is at stake. They are the
ones who will be running this country in the future. We must
look after them today to ensure that they will be there in the
future.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to Motion M-508 moved by my colleague, the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
increase the federal share of financial support for the
provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of
dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis between the Government of
Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
First, the debate on this motion is rather timely because it
gives us an opportunity to refer to a item in the budget brought
down with such fanfare by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday.
In fact, this budget, which has already distinguished itself
with its many new examples of federal interference in provincial
health jurisdiction, earmarks $343 million over three years for
crime prevention, as part of the reform the Minister of Justice
is preparing to introduce, a reform which serves no purpose, in
the opinion of justice stakeholders in Quebec.
1325
Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that there is
no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal
Minister of Justice regarding the use of these funds.
The planned reform is repressive in nature and smacks of
something the Reform Party would dream up. It will cost the
provinces more, with the bill for Quebec alone forecast at $23
million.
It is important to note that, since 1984, the federal government
has owed Quebec in the neighbourhood of $77 million for
enforcing the Young Offenders Act. I will come back to these
points a bit later.
As regards the Young Offenders Act, I must first point out, as
our friends opposite acknowledged, that Quebec is an example for
the rest of Canada. The present legislation effectively meets
its objectives in Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest
rate of juvenile crime in Canada.
I am pleased to report here the remarks made in 1995 by the
Minister of Justice in the previous parliament. In his opinion,
Quebec is an exception to the terms of application of the Young
Offenders Act in that it focuses on the rehabilitation of young
people outside the judicial system, an example the rest of
Canada might follow.
At the time, the federal minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness
in this regard. Despite this recognition, legislative
amendments aimed at increasing judicial interventions with young
people are, unfortunately, still in fashion.
While youth crime is decreasing more sharply in Quebec, I must
also add that, although it continues to be a source of
considerable concern, crime among young people is also on the
decrease in the rest of Canada. In 1997, the rate of youth
crime decreased by 7%, confirming the trend we have seen since
1991.
So, rather than rush into a reform that will mean a more
repressive approach to crime among the youth, the minister
should review the entire question of financial compensation to
the provinces for the application of the existing law.
When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984, 15 years
ago already, the federal government was assuming 50% of the
costs associated with implementing judicial and alternative
measures. The federal government gradually withdrew, something
which is becoming a habit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding
was down to 36%.
In addition to the federal government's withdrawal, its funding
formula does not take into account the proportion of young
Canadians who live in Quebec. While nearly 25% of Canada's young
people between the ages of 12 and 17 live in Quebec, only 18.28%
of the federal contribution in this respect goes to Quebec.
This has resulted in a $77.4 million shortfall for Quebec since
1989. The former justice minister and current health minister
had promised to restore the balance.
1330
Neither the former minister nor the current one ever delivered
on this promise. The last federal budget can certainly raise
doubts about this government's commitment to paying off its
debts.
Quebec is still waiting for a concrete proposal from the
minister for making up this shortfall, and chances are that we
are going to wait a very long time.
As we know, Quebec is the province where the rehabilitation of
young offenders is the most successful by far, and I might
remind you that this success is achieved through less expensive
and less cumbersome measures. What works in Quebec should work
elsewhere.
Today's Motion M-508 provides us with an opportunity to criticize
the new approach of the federal government, which clearly seems
to have forgotten that the youth justice system must reflect the
fact that youth are still in the process of developing and
maturing.
Efforts must focus on what led up to the offence. The federal
government's approach emphasizes the offence per se when, in our
opinion, account must be taken of the youth's overall situation
in terms of family, school and peers. In my opinion, Quebec's
approach will pay off.
Not surprisingly, Quebec is unable to support the federal
government's present approach. First of all, it does not put
youth crime and adjustment problems in proper perspective.
Another reason we are unable to support it is because it writes
off the worst troublemakers, instead of trying to reintegrate
them into society. We also reject it because it says that young
people 14 and older—I heard my colleague mentioning her 13-year
old son, who is only one year away from being 14—should receive
adult sentences when they are involved in offences that, while
they may be very serious, are not necessarily indicative of a
high level of criminalization.
Another point is the unnecessary complexity of the legal
procedure, which leaves the door wide open to preliminary
sentencing by trial and jury. For all these reasons, it is an
approach unlikely to help our youth prepare for a productive
life that will benefit our society, and Quebec is unable to
support it.
In closing, I wish to thank my colleague, the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for having moved this motion.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to Motion No. 508:
That—the government should increase the federal share of
financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act,
with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis—
On the face of it, this motion has a great deal to commend
itself. After all, what is wrong with more money for the Young
Offenders Act? What is wrong with more money for the youth
justice system, or indeed the justice system itself? What is
wrong with more money for the police, for the courts, or for the
prisons? Indeed, what is wrong with more money for everything?
1335
Let us just keep going back to the old ways of tax and spend.
Surely justice is as high a priority as any other priority. In
fact it has to be very high on anybody's priority list.
When this government took over, we inherited a $42 billion
deficit and we have since turned it around to a surplus. At the
time we took over, all governments were spending in excess of
100% of the gross domestic product. Thankfully under the
leadership of this Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance,
that situation has been reined in and we are now all living
within our budgets.
Provincial governments have been brought to heel by fiscal
realities and to varying degrees of success have recognized that.
The most notable exception, I would say, is the fact that the
Government of Ontario—which I would note in passing is a
Progressive Conservative government, and how progressive is
somewhat dubious at times—continues to finance its ways by
increasing the debt. These tax cuts that are priorities in
excess of all other priorities are financed by debt. At this
point it has ratcheted up by a full $30 billion.
The cost of this motion is estimated to be something in the
order of $100 million to $125 million. It is open ended. We can
draw on it any time and once we start funding it, we cannot
withdraw from the funding. It is like the Eveready bunny; it
keeps on going and going.
As soon as this funding starts, the government makes a statement
that this is a priority in excess of all other priorities. For
instance, it speaks of a desire on the part of the provincial and
federal governments to create community based institutions rather
than custodial based institutions. That priority frankly would
be defeated if this motion were to go forward.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, I and all the rest of us have had
pretty well as much as we can take on CHST debates. We get into
cash, we get into tax points, we get into equalization and we are
all numb. The numbers seem to go on and on.
It is a uniquely Canadian experience whereby those who receive
money say absolutely nothing and those who do not receive money
continue to bitch and whine into the next budget.
If there is a certainty in any of these debates, it is that all
governments want certainty in their financing. With certainty
they can plan and budget accordingly. Both levels of government
do not want open-ended commitments to financing.
The Young Offenders Act speaks to charge, conviction and
sentencing. In my view, that is the wrong priority. In my view,
this is not the priority this government needs to signal at this
time.
The changes to the young offenders legislation are in accordance
with the recommendations of the justice committee on which the
hon. member sits. I would recommend that the hon. member speak to
those recommendations rather than to this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish-Guysborough will now have five minutes for his
right of reply. I should advise the House that when the member
speaks, he will close the debate.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak in response to my
learned friends. I thank in particular the parliamentary
secretary and the members for Scarborough East, Laval Centre,
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, and Surrey North.
The last statement made by my hon. friend opposite spoke of open
endedness. What is truly open ended is the justice minister's
promise to table legislation. It has been open ended and we have
not seen it yet.
This is not an open-ended motion. This is a motion that would
suggest a 50:50 share. That is equitable. That is split down
the middle. There is nothing open ended about it.
My learned friend from Laval Centre spoke of Quebec's success in
dealing with youth crime and youth crime initiatives. I do
commend her province for that. The member indicated that it is
an example that other places, mainly Canada, can learn from. I
agree with that. I think we can learn a lot from the different
provinces and the approaches they have taken.
The point is that the funding and commitment made by the federal
government in its initial commitment to youth justice are not
being held up. The government is not holding up its end of the
bargain.
In particular, there was a comment made by the parliamentary
secretary with respect to the current funding and commitment from
this government.
1340
I was left with the impression that she was indicating that if
the provincial government received more money from the federal
government, somehow this would result in higher incarceration
rates. That is absurd.
What is so absurd about it is that at the same time the
parliamentary secretary speaks of youth justice initiatives such
things as restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution
need to be funded. More funding does not simply mean more
incarceration. The provinces have to exercise that discretion,
but that was the impression left.
We are talking about the federal government simply holding up
its end of the bargain. One would expect that the government
would at least feel a twinge of moral obligation to increase its
share of the young offender programs. Morality and the Liberal
government seem to be mutually exclusive on this point.
The underlying issue in Motion No. 508 as with any policy area
affecting federal-provincial relations is the Liberal view of
government. Federal Liberals profess to have an unparalleled
understanding of what is best for the country as a whole. They
have a very sanctimonious and arrogant view of what is best for
the country and how best to spend the country's money.
When it comes to taxpayers money no one can tell anybody the
Liberal government has a great track record. As we witnessed in
the social union negotiations, the federal Liberals painted the
provinces as somehow the enemy of health care and social
spending. We have seen successive budgets. We have seen the
education budget. We have seen the health care budget. One
would hope that someday we might see a justice budget coming from
the government.
Conditional sentences, child pornography inaction, gutting the
organized crime budget of the RCMP and the doomed false hope
Firearms Act are all questionable Liberal priority performances
on justice issues. Such sweeping generalizations from the
government toward the provinces, characterizing them as such, is
very irresponsible. Provincial and territorial governments are
not the inherent enemies of co-ordinated national policy efforts.
They want all levels of government to work their best and in this
case work their best to address the problems in our youth justice
system.
In our federation the federal, provincial and territorial
governments must work together as partners, not competitors. The
provinces want to be included in the decisions. They want the
federal government to simply hold up and pay in its amount. They
want the federal government to honour its commitments. Above
all, they would like just a little respect from the federal
government.
Motion No. 508 allows the Liberals to reverse the reputation
they have earned over the years in federal-provincial relations.
It allows them to tangibly demonstrate they are committed not
just to changing youth crime legislation but to ensuring the law
will be adequate.
As I mentioned at the outset, laws are only as effective as the
ability to enforce them. The Minister of Justice and the Liberal
government can acquire much needed credibility in renewing their
efforts and their commitment to the youth justice system by
increasing the federal share of the young offenders program.
As this is my final word on the matter in a final desperate
attempt to bring the matter forward, I would ask that there be
unanimous consent given to make this matter a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
motion be votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.43 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until Monday, March 1, 1999, at 11 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2).
(The House adjourned at 1.43 p.m.)