CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 2176
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2177
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2178
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2179
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2179
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2179
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2180
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2180
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2180
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2181
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2181
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2181
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2182
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2182
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2182
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2182
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2182
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2182
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2183
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2183
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2183
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2184
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2185
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2186
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2186
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2187
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2188
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 83 2190
Bill C-33. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 2191
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2195
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 29; Nays, 198. 2200
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 178; Nays, 53 2201
(Bill read the second time and referred to acommittee.) 2202
Bill C-217. Motion for second reading 2202
Bill C-217. Consideration resumed of motion 2204
Division on motion deferred 2210
2175
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 1, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the hon. member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is my duty to inform the House
that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Ms.
Copps, member for the electoral district of Hamilton East, by
resignation effective May 1, 1996.
[Translation]
Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act,
I have addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer today for
the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in honour of Child
Find's Green Ribbon of Hope month.
Thousands of children go missing in Canada every year. Each
time a child is abducted, a family and a community is devastated.
They suffer a loss that is unbearable. Together they hope and pray
for the child's safe return. The reality is that many children are
never found and many others lose their lives to their abductors.
Our children must be protected. It is the responsibility of this
government and indeed of all Canadians to guarantee that
protection.
Members of this House can help Child Find in its search by
printing pictures of missing children in their householders and by
supporting recent initiatives to have missing children posters
displayed in our government buildings.
Today I encourage all hon. members to wear the green ribbon of
hope throughout the month of May to raise awareness and support
for this very urgent cause, our missing children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this May
Day, I wish to pay tribute to all workers in Quebec and Canada.
Thousands of people are taking this day to demonstrate publicly
their dissatisfaction with the federal government and to condemn
the antisocial measures, especially the unemployment insurance
reform, advocated by this government, as well as the lack of a real
job creation policy.
For over a century, workers have gathered together on May 1 to
commemorate the Chicago martyrs who fought for better living
and working conditions.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes workers in Quebec, Canada and
other countries a good workers day. We support their fight for
justice, equity, dignity and solidarity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the plain and simple truth is that I made a mistake. The comments
attributed to me regarding minority employees are neither a
reflection of my personal views nor of Reform Party policy. They
were hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions posed by
reporters and they were the wrong answers.
I do believe all Canadians are equal and should be treated fairly
without regard to race, religion, language, culture, sexual
orientation or any other characteristic. Human rights are
paramount. I
2176
would never fire or discipline an employee based on anything other
than his or her performance. This is the point I was trying to get
across in the interview.
Having discussed this with my colleagues in caucus, I realize
that nothing less than an unequivocal apology to everyone is in
order. That is what I am saying. I apologize without reservation for
the statements made and for any hurt they may have caused any
person or group.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I want to talk
about ``shylocking'' or usurious lending rates. I must keep on
condemning the outrageous interest rates charged by the banks and
by some companies on credit card balances.
According to an Industry Canada report, the interest rates
charged on credit card balances exceed the bank rate by 12
percentage points.
The government has a duty to legislate to prevent these abuses
and protect consumers. The government is currently turning a blind
eye to this legalized ``shylocking''. The time has come to end this
nearly scandalous exploitation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw attention to the
commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the discovery of insulin
by the team of Canadian researchers Banting, Best, Macleod and
Collip.
The discovery of insulin ranks as one of the medical world's
greatest achievements. Previous to the discovery of insulin in the
summer of 1921, hundreds of thousands of sufferers of diabetes
faced almost certain death from the disease.
Insulin however is not a cure for diabetes but rather only an
effective treatment for a disease that affects over 1.5 million
Canadians annually.
Research into the cure of diabetes continues. I urge all Canadians
to support the work of the Canadian Diabetes Association and give
generously to this cause.
* * *
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a trade unionist myself, it gives me great pleasure to
rise on this the day we celebrate the International Day of the
Worker. On this occasion we should think about the situation facing
working men and women on the verge of the 21st century.
Production methods and changes in the workplace present
Canadian workers and governments with new challenges but also
with new opportunities.
As a federal government, our role is to ensure that Canadian men
and women have the opportunity to find meaningful, satisfying
work and contribute to society. Through initiatives like
employment insurance and our youth task force, we are meeting
that challenge.
I am sure all members of this House join me in recognizing the
contributions made to Canada every day by working men and
women in a countless number of occupations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
seminar on Cyprus is being held today on Parliament Hill by the
international committee seeking justice for that country.
On behalf of the Canada-Cyprus parliamentary committee, I
wish to welcome His Excellency the Canadian High Commissioner
to Cyprus, Andreas Iacovides, and all the other people attending
the seminar.
[English]
Today's event is just another example of the continued efforts of
PSEKA to see that the Cyprus issue is not forgotten. I commend it
and the Hellenic-Canadian Solidarity Committee for Cyprus for
their continued efforts.
I invite all members of this House to attend this important
conference. It is my hope that Canada through our Minister of
Foreign Affairs will play a leadership role in restoring peace to this
island after 22 years.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday May 4, every resident of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region is invited to participate in a solidarity rally. This general
mobilization was called for by the regional coalition against the
unemployment insurance reform.
According to Michel Desbiens, of the diocesan pastoral board:
``The goal is clearly to give the public a chance to express, loud and
clear, its disapproval of this reform, which is once again geared
toward impoverishing a great many people who would be only too
pleased to work. Knowing how precarious the situation of the
unemployed in our region is, we can only be outraged by the
oppressive and discriminatory measures the federal government
2177
wants to put in place. The people must be able to vent their
legitimate anger, and the only peaceful means remaining is a public
demonstration''.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in a democracy the rules of governance must be controlled
by the governed and not dictated by the governors. These
fundamental principles, integral in the very foundations of a
democratic society, are being denied to the first peoples of this
land.
First Nations people are being downtrodden, bankrupted and
oppressed under elitist power structures sanctioned and financed by
the Government of Canada. With the full knowledge of and
condoned by Indian affairs, irresponsible self-serving native
leaders are diverting, mismanaging and misusing funds earmarked
and allocated to fulfil treaty obligations.
This unconscionable state of affairs has become epidemic in
Indian country with honest accountable native leaders being
notable exceptions instead of the rule. The concerns and grievances
of the general membership of First Nations must be investigated
thoroughly and resolved accordingly before discussions on native
self-government proceed any further. To do otherwise would result
in fascist states disguised as native self-government.
This from Leonard Iron, a Cree of the Canoe Lake Band and
president of the First Nations Coalition for Accountability, who I
am pleased to represent.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
recently a bomb was sent to a Jewish community centre in Calgary,
a gay man was beaten in a park, a First Nations person was denied
lodging, and a woman was denied a promotion because she is a
woman. Racism, sexism and homophobia are not the issues of the
dark past. For too many people they are everyday experiences.
As parliamentarians we have a special responsibility to show
leadership in building a society founded on equal respect for every
Canadian. Extremism gives legitimacy to those who would justify
racism, sexism and homophobia for reasons of profit or simply to
deny others equal rights and respect.
If we as parliamentarians do not demonstrate leadership on this
issue, we have failed our country and our democracy.
Today the Reform Party deputy leader has said she is committed
to fighting intolerance. I therefore challenge the Reform Party to
vote for the amendment to the human rights act on sexual
orientation, not just to apologize, but to show real action.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on this day, a century ago, Canada was in the middle of an election
campaign. On May 1, 1896, Wilfrid Laurier was campaigning to
become the first French Canadian Prime Minister from Quebec.
And what a campaign it was. Everywhere he went, he attracted
flocks of people, unleashing their enthusiasm.
Laurier used to say: ``I am of French origin and proud to be;
knowing my Anglo-Saxon fellow citizens as well as I do, I have no
doubt that, were my heart not filled with pride for my origin, they
would just look down on me with scorn, and I would deserve it''.
And he added: ``I have no intention of losing sight of my origin but
I am, first and foremost, a Canadian''.
That said, I tip my hat to Sheila Copps for her courage; she has
not lost sight of her origins either and she is, first and foremost, a
great Canadian.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Friday
the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan called upon me to table with
him a petition presented to him by residents of the Hudson area of
my riding.
Last Monday I met with the same concerned citizens of Hudson.
Their message was also very clear. They fear for their future. They
expect all those who share their concerns to put their political
differences aside and join efforts to ensure that Quebecers are all
made to feel at home anywhere in Canada. Their concern is
Canadian unity and not partisan politics.
The member stated that Reformers stand solidly behind the
constituents in my riding who express clearly their desire to remain
Canadian. The time for grandstanding is now over. I challenge the
member to reverse his vote of December 13, 1995 and to now
support the initiatives of the government to recognize the distinct
character of Quebec which he and his party have voted against.
Only then will the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan earn my
respect and that of the constituents of Vaudreuil. Only then will he
clearly demonstrate his commitment to working hand in hand with
the federal government for the greater cause of Canadian unity.
2178
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to make it clear to all Canadians what my personal
belief is and what the position of the Reform Party is regarding the
treatment of all Canadians, including minority groups. I strongly
believe in the principle of equality for all people and deplore
discrimination for any reason.
(1410)
The very first statement in the Reform blue book is a statement
of principle which reads: ``We affirm commitment to Canada as a
balanced federation of equal provinces and citizens''.
Mr. Alcock: How are you going to vote? Are you going to vote
for equality?
Mr. Benoit: I cannot support any bill which breaks away from
this principle of equality. Canadians do not support discrimination
from their citizens and especially not from their governments.
Mr. Harvard: How are you going to vote?
Mr. Benoit: This government once again is allowing
discrimination under Canadian law. Equality before the law and the
merit principle should be the only principles on which we are
judged.
Mr. Harvard: Are you going to vote for equality, Leon?
The Speaker: Colleagues, sometimes it happens that we are
near microphones that are open. I am sure we make inadvertent
statements, but I wish we would be very conscious of the
microphones near us being open.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on this International Day of the Worker, the federal
government is adding insult to injury by amending the
Unemployment Insurance Act without a true debate.
By going ahead with its reform, which seeks to make the poor
pay for part of the deficit, the federal government is breaking a
long Liberal tradition.
Liberal MPs in Fredericton, Shediac, Halifax, St. John's,
Charlottetown and Bonaventure, who were elected to govern
differently from the Conservatives, are being asked by their
constituents to challenge their government. Canadians expect their
MPs to oppose this unfair reform.
They too, like the official opposition, must demand that the
minister go back to the drawing board and proposes a new reform
that will be fair to workers and regions of this country.
* * *
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that, this week, opposition parties are trying to
outdo each other with racist and discriminatory statements.
After a Reformer made totally unacceptable comments about
black people and homosexuals, the Bloc member for Québec-Est is
now trying to win the prize for bigotry.
While commenting the report tabled yesterday by the
commissioner of official languages, the Bloc member compared
French speaking people outside Quebec to paraplegics in
wheelchairs with only two wheels.
The intolerant and discriminatory comments of the Bloc member
are an insult to French speaking Canadians outside Quebec and to
physically disabled persons.
If the Bloc member and the Reformer had the least bit of respect
for Canadians, they would make a formal apology.
* * *
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Quebec's former minister responsible for
restructuring, Richard Le Hir, resigned from the PQ caucus.
In his letter of resignation, which his leader, Lucien Bouchard,
apparently did not have the time to read, Mr. Le Hir said, and I
quote: ``Quebecers must understand that sovereignty has hung like
a cloud over the province for 30 years now-It is high time to begin
thinking about the billions spent pursuing it, on the tax revenues
that did not come our way and that could perhaps help us to hold on
to what we already have''.
Quebec's separatists must realize that though they may get rid of
the messenger, his message still remains. Lucien Bouchard should
take the time to read the important message sent him by Mr. Le Hir
and recognize that it is time that the threat of sovereignty stopped
weakening Quebec's economy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Sunday, April 21 over 50 people gathered at the Wu
Centre in my riding to partake in an afternoon of discussions
focused on seniors issues.
2179
The forum provided constituents with the opportunity to voice
their concerns regarding the old age security system. Although
there was not a great deal of consensus on the issue, I believe that
a lot of misunderstandings were cleared up about the new plan.
The most common concerns surrounded taxation and whether or
not the new plan will be harder on middle class earners. Many felt
there still needs to be a great deal of educating of the public
surrounding the details of the new plan before those details are
finalized.
This is an important debate over a fundamental change in the
system. I encourage my colleagues to hold similar forums in their
ridings.
_____________________________________________
2179
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the speeches by all the members of this
House, as well as public pressures, the Deputy Prime Minister has
finally stepped down. She had no other choice, moreover, since she
had made a public commitment to quit if the GST was not
abolished.
Will the Prime Minister admit that this resignation is evidence
that it was not only the Deputy Prime Minister who did not keep
her word concerning the GST, but the Liberal government as a
whole, and he himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Ms. Copps, who resigned earlier today-and I must
express my admiration for her in this connection-had made a
personal commitment. At her press conference, she indicated
clearly that the government was respecting the commitments it had
made in the red book, on page 20 in French and page 22 in English,
that she herself had made an additional commitment, and that now
her credibility was being criticized or questioned by the public.
In response to the incessant attacks against her, she has decided
to rely on the judgment of the voters of Hamilton East, and I am
convinced that, after the June 17 byelection, she will be back with
the support of the people of Hamilton East.
She had made a personal commitment to which she has been
faithful. For this lady, who has so well served the province of
Ontario, first as an MPP and then as an opposition MP and later a
minister and Deputy Prime Minister in this House, an attack on her
integrity was unacceptable. She is putting her fate in the hands of
the voters. They have always had enormous confidence in Ms.
Copps, as do we on this side of the House.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week, Number Three in the government, that is the
Minister of Finance, admitted his error and apologized for it.
Number Two has just done the same, and has resigned.
Does the Prime Minister realize that now there is just Number
One left, who has not admitted, nor is he capable of admitting, to
the Canadian people that he has not respected his commitments?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some ten times or so I have read out here in the House the
Liberal Party's commitment, made at the time of the election,
namely that we were going to replace the GST by a form of taxation
that would be harmonized with the provinces, that would generate
the same level of revenue as the GST did in the past, that there
would be a single administration to implement it, that there would
be only one group of auditors bothering businessmen, etc.
We have begun the process of having a national tax harmonized
with the provinces. We regret not having been able to do so across
the board immediately, but we have had the co-operation of four
provinces so far, and are counting on the others, in order to have a
single tax. According to many of the opposition members, we are
the only country in the world to have two competing levels of sales
tax.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to clarify things for the Prime Minister and for anyone
else, the Minister of Finance had promised to abolish the GST. He
said ``We did not do so, and I apologize for that, it was a bad thing
to do''. The Deputy Prime Minister had said ``We are going to
scrap the GST or I will quit''. Acknowledging her commitment, she
has resigned. As for the Prime Minister, he had said ``We are going
to scrap the GST''. So what is he going to do now?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
would the Leader of the Opposition kindly tell us, is he in favour of
harmonizing the sales tax, or is he not? Would the Leader of the
Opposition kindly tell us, is he in favour of our harmonizing the tax
with the province of Quebec? Is he in favour of doing what his
former leader, Lucien Bouchard, said was necessary, creating a
harmonized tax?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Is he in favour of doing what
the Quebec Minister of Finance has said, that if we wanted a
harmonized tax-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The Minister of Finance has the floor.
2180
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of
the Opposition wants to speak of the Prime Minister, if the Leader
of the Opposition wants to speak of the government, let him look
at what has been done, let him look at how the government headed
by this Prime Minister has succeeded in tidying up public
finances, despite the Bloc Quebecois' declarations to the contrary,
a Prime Minister who has successfully protected our social
programs, despite the Reform Party's objections-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Those are your promises.
Mr. Martin: -a Prime Minister who has given integrity to this
country-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, even if the Minister of Finance shouts himself hoarse
issuing all kinds of challenges, he will not make us forget that we
heard him admit on television he made an honest mistake.
Everyone heard him.
I understand why the Prime Minister had him responding to the
third question: because the Minister of Finance has far more
credibility than he does as a result of admitting he made a mistake.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister
usually-although we have not seen him do it today-brandishes
the red book to try to confirm his promise with respect to the GST.
Will he finally realize that millions of people heard him say on
television and in all other forums that he would scrap the GST?
When will he admit that he has not kept his promise, as his
Minister of Finance and his Deputy Prime Minister have done?
Number Two and Number Three on either side of him have both
realized this; only the one in the middle has not.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that
she was totally satisfied the government had kept its word, as
mentioned in the red book on page 20 in French and 22 in English.
We have kept our campaign promise of a new tax generating
equivalent revenues. If the hon. member refuses to believe what is
written, there is not much I can do about it. We campaigned on this.
That is what we have been saying for weeks, and the Minister of
Finance will work on a new national sales tax with the co-operation
of all provincial governments.
Furthermore, an all-party committee of this House, which spent
one year studying the problem, recommended the strategy used by
the Minister of Finance to honour the commitment in the red book.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we, too, have read his red book more than once. However,
when one compares what is written in the red book with what his
government has just done, one can see that, even then, the
government has not kept its word since, on page 20 in the French
version of the red book, the Liberal Party promises, and I quote:
``Nous substituerons-''.
If the Prime Minister consulted a dictionary from time to time or
watched the evening news on Radio-Canada before going to bed, he
might understand the meaning of this French word. ``Substituer''
means ``to replace'', to replace the GST with something else. Two
weeks ago, the Liberal government confirmed that the GST would
be maintained. All it did was give it a different acronym.
(1425)
Will the Prime Minister admit, as his Minister of Finance and his
former Deputy Prime Minister did, that he has laughed at the
people and broken his promise, as he has done for his entire
political career on all kinds of issues?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
Quebec and in the other provinces with which an agreement was
reached, there will now be a single sales tax instead of two, a single
tax collector instead of two, a single tax base instead of two.
Let us be very clear. Is the hon. member telling us that we should
not rationalize taxes with Quebec? Is the hon. member completely
out of step with the Quebec government? I think he should call the
head office so they can tell him they support what we did.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
although under great public pressure, the former Deputy Prime
Minister has done the right thing and resigned her seat in the House
of Commons.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: She made a promise and is now keeping that
promise.
The Liberals promised to abolish, scrap and kill the GST and
broke that promise. Now even Sheila Copps realizes that the
government cannot continue to justify the unjustifiable.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he now finally admit
that his government has broken its election promise to abolish,
scrap and kill the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in talking about integrity, I would like to mention the
flip-flop by the hon. member within a few hours and the fact that
his party
2181
totally ignored the same statement by the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan for two years before reluctantly asking him
to change what he said.
I do not think we have any lessons to learn from that party about
anything in politics, especially after hearing words like that which
are completely unacceptable in a modern society like Canada
where tolerance is the modus vivendi of the whole nation.
I have always said that the red book is clear. We said we would
replace the GST with a national harmonized sales tax with the
provincial governments. So far we have done this with four
provinces. With the help of the provincial governments it will be
done with the rest of them. It is the red book commitment and the
promise we have kept.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
funny that Sheila Copps did not see it that way and all we have left
in her memory are roses on her desk used as a prop.
Sheila Copps said today in her press conference that she
overstepped the red book. She had every opportunity to overstep
the red book when it was lying on the floor because that is where
that red book belongs, especially page 22.
Liberal candidates campaigned on a promise to abolish, scrap
and kill the GST and they know it. What Canadians demand to
know now is why has the Prime Minister tried so hard to hide the
fact that the Liberals broke their number one election promise.
I ask the Prime Minister again, why did he not simply come
clean with Canadians from the very start and tell them that he had
absolutely no intention of eliminating the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if you want to quote Madam Copps, she said a few hours
ago that we are doing exactly what we said in the red book. She said
that she had made a personal promise that was more than what the
red book stated and that she had to live with that promise.
Yesterday, you challenged her to have the guts to go to her
riding. She is waiting for you to come to her riding with the
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan. She will tell the people of
Hamilton what kind of party you are, which attacks everybody who
is coloured or who has other differences in order to please the
narrow-minded people in Canada.
(1430 )
The majority of the people of Canada are not like the Reform
Party. They are generous people who tolerate people of colour, of
different religions and different mode de vie, which was so
shamefully mentioned yesterday by the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan and supported by the acting leader of the
Reform Party. During that time, the leader of the party has been
hiding in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you of two things.
Would you please all address your remarks to the Chair. Second,
would you please refrain from mentioning whether a member is
here or not.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
challenge has been put out for me to be in Hamilton East. I will be
there, you betcha.
The member for Hamilton East-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, the former member for Hamilton
East's decision to honour the promise she made to her constituents
puts the rest of the Liberal caucus in a pretty tight spot. I think we
can see that today.
Like Sheila Copps, they ran on a platform that included
scrapping the GST. I am sure there will be a lot of soul searching
going on in Liberal offices today now that the former Deputy Prime
Minister has blown the GST red book sham completely out of the
water.
I ask the Prime Minister one more time, what does he have to say
to Liberal MPs who got elected on a promise to abolish the GST
and are now considering whether to follow Sheila Copps' lead?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we go back to the basic issues.
On the issue of human rights, we saw what happened to the chief
whip. The member for Beaver River claimed yesterday that what
the chief whip said was supported by the majority of her
constituents.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I have been in the
member's riding and I do not believe that reflects the views of her
constituents. I do not believe it reflects the views of Canadians. If
the hon. member is going to go to Hamilton East, we will all be
there. I want to make sure I am there the day she is.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The history of the Liberal Party's election campaigns is
revealing. In 1974, they promised not to freeze wages and prices.
They did not keep their word. In 1979, they made a commitment
not to raise the gasoline tax. They did not keep their word. In 1989,
they promised to tear up the free trade agreement if elected. They
did not keep their word. In 1993, they got elected on the promise of
eliminating the GST, and again they did not keep their word. And
that is not to mention countless unkept constitutional promises
made to the people of Quebec.
Facts clearly show that, in every election over the past 20 years,
the Liberal Party has repeatedly taken office under false pretences.
2182
How can the Prime Minister still expect the public to have any
confidence in his government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we got a fair number of our candidates elected in the last
election. The next time an election is held, we will get re-elected
with a substantial majority. I can bet the hon. member a much
smaller number of her colleagues will be elected to this House in
the next election.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is very well known in Quebec. In the
last referendum, the people voted yes-
Mr. Duceppe: In his own riding.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): -in his own
riding. He should run in Rimouski-Témiscouata to see who would
win then.
(1435)
My second question is as follows. When will the Prime Minister
come to the realization that the only thing he can do at this point is
to apologize to the people of Canada for breaking his promise
regarding the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer is to be found on page 22 of the red book.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister has apologized for his role in the GST fiasco. The
former Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps, has jumped, or was
she pushed? Now we have the situation of the Prime Minister in
denial.
The question is very simple. When is the Prime Minister going
to admit that he and his government broke their promise to scrap
the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has brought in a policy after going through over 20
options and after working for close to two and half years to find a
better solution. This policy is the one recommended by the finance
committee and supported fully by the Reform Party.
Why is it that the Reform Party now stands up day after day
denying what it said? Why is the Reform Party swallowing itself
whole? Why does it not admit what it admitted at the time of the
finance committee, that this is good public policy. Is it afraid to
endorse something that is good for Canadians?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister knows very well that we have called on the
government from day one to fulfil its promise to scrap the GST. It
is how the Liberals won the election. He and all the members
across the way who ran on that promise should take the high dive.
I want to quote from the House record from June 16, 1994. These
are the words of the Prime Minister. He said: ``There can be no
substitute for responsibility at the top. The Prime Minister sets the
moral tone for the government and must make the ultimate
decision when issues of trust and integrity are raised. That is what
leadership is all about. As Harry Truman put it: The buck stops
here''.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When is he going to start
accepting responsibility? When is he going to admit that he broke
his promise on the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance said what was the policy of the
government very clearly.
A committee of the House, as promised in the red book, studied
the problem of finding an alternative to the GST. The committee
came up with this recommendation. It was supported by the
Reform Party, the same party that changed its position five times
on the GST.
We were consistent. We said that it had to be replaced by one
sales tax. I remember very well the Reform Party saying that it was
completely unacceptable to have 10 different provincial sales taxes
plus a federal sales tax.
The members of the committee went across the nation for a year.
Their report was supported by the Reform Party and it is exactly
what the Minister of Finance is implementing at this time.
We have nothing to apologize for. It is what is written in the red
book on page 22 and it is what was recommended by a committee
of the House formed by Liberal members and Reform members
who supported that policy as the only good alternative to the
present system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have just learned that the Prime Minister has
decided that the members of his party will vote freely on Bill C-33,
which seeks to add sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Yet, the
Minister of Justice has said on numerous occasions that there
would be a party line vote on Bill C-33.
In a letter dated October 18, the Prime Minister-
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I have trouble following the
question. I would ask the hon. member to put his question, but I
would remind him that, in doing so, he should not anticipate the
agenda, as he is doing now with this bill. Please put your question.
2183
(1440)
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is an important one. It
concerns Bill C-33. Will the Prime Minister keep to his word and
make sure that his members follow the party line regarding Bill
C-33?
The Speaker: The question is out of order. The hon. member
may ask a second question if he so wishes, but not on this bill.
Again, you may ask another question, but not on this legislation.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, can we ask the Prime Minister whether he
intends to fulfil his commitments regarding all the bills, and Bill
C-33 in particular? Does the Prime Minister-
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The current consultation process for the Canada pension plan is a
top down, closed door, elitist sham. The fix is in. The chair has
been ordered to report by mid-June and he has already decided the
outcome, and now I have been denied the opportunity to stand
before that committee in my home town of Calgary to make a five
minute presentation.
I ask the minister to explain to the House why a member of
Parliament has been denied this opportunity.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process of consultation on
the CPP is a joint effort between the Government of Canada and the
provinces. As we go across the country federal representatives are
conducting hearings in co-operation with their provincial
counterparts.
There are very few Canadians who have the kind of opportunity
the hon. member has to make a contribution on a whole series of
subjects brought before the House. This and other topics can be
discussed in the House on any number of occasions. Whatever
contribution the hon. member wishes to make to the consultative
process on CPP we would be happy to receive.
To have members of Parliament take up the time of committees
when they are travelling across the country does not appear to be
necessarily the best use of committees time.
I want to tell the hon. member that whatever her views on this
consultative process, I would be happy to receive them and will
make sure they are taken into consideration.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for that answer. It is the one that I did
anticipate.
I would like to tell the minister to put a red circle around
Tuesday, May 7 in Calgary next week because I will be at the
committee hearing.
We keep hearing the government wants to consult with all
Canadians on how to save the Canada pension plan. This should
mean people from all provinces of Canada. The only hearing in
British Columbia has been cancelled, well before the B.C. writ was
dropped.
Will the minister explain to the House why he refuses to hear
from people in all provinces on how to save the Canada pension
plan?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the
Canada pension plan and how it can be modified, I am sure the hon.
member knows it is a very complex situation requiring a large
number of provinces representing a very significant percentage of
the population of Canada before anything can be done. We will
have as extensive a consultation as possible.
A very integral part of the process of consultation involves the
provinces because the CPP is a partnership. As we enter into the
consultative process, obviously we have to ask our provincial
colleagues how they wish to proceed as well.
There is no intention on the part of anyone either at the national
government level or at the provincial level to preclude the
participation of anyone. This process of public consultation is only
one of the many available to members of Parliament and to
Canadian citizens.
(1445)
I repeat my offer to the member and to any other Canadian who
wishes to participate to make their views known to us. We will take
them into account.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
pages 88 and 89 of the red book, it is written that funding cuts to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation illustrate the Tories' failure to
appreciate the importance of cultural development and that a
Liberal government will be committed to stable multiyear
financing for the CBC. The result of this other promise is close to
$400 million in cuts since this government came to power.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the official
languages commissioner voiced his concern about the impact of
2184
cuts on francophones outside Quebec. Does the Prime Minister
acknowledge that, by making these cuts, his government is directly
responsible for the CBC's inability to meet the needs of the
country's francophones?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that
Radio-Canada and the CBC must respect not only their own act but
also the Official Languages Act. I think we can say that the
corporation respects this act.
As for the cuts, it is very clear that Radio-Canada and the CBC
have a board of directors and that it is up to them to make choices
consistent with the needs they must meet throughout the country.
We respect the responsibility of the CBC's directors.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
corporation may be respecting the act, but this government is not,
when it comes to keeping its promises not to cut funding to the
CBC. Everyone recognizes that the absence of adequate means of
communication is a factor in assimilation.
By going back on his promises not to reduce the CBC's budget,
just as he went back on his promises to scrap the GST, will the
Prime Minister go on much longer denying that it is through
measures such as these that his government is playing an active
role in the assimilation of francophones outside Quebec?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing what the
member for Québec-Est comes out with. He is not capable of
recognizing the facts. He is not capable of seeing what we now
have in a country whose government has very clear commitments
to its minorities, throughout the country, commitments that it has
met. It supports minorities throughout this country and it will
continue to do so.
We are not saying that things are perfect. What we are saying is
that we stand by our objective of supporting all the minorities in
this country. Show me another government that is doing as much as
we are.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Windsor-St. Clair is a diverse riding. Many of our
constituents came to this country knowing that the majority of
Canadians treat one another with dignity and respect.
Recent events have served to remind us that we must remain
vigilant against racism, even in the House. Could the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism please tell the House what the
government is doing to combat racism in Canada?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this
question because the incident to which the hon. member refers has
created extremely deep wounds in the visible minority community
of the country, wounds that no apology could erase for a very long
time.
This country has been based on some very fundamental values
such as respect, tolerance, justice and equality. The government has
been committed to those values with our proposal of Bill C-41
dealing with hate crimes and our employment equity bill, both of
which were voted against by the Reform Party. It voted against
those issues of fairness and equality.
The department of multiculturalism has fostered racial tolerance
and inter-racial harmony by working among youth, with the police
chiefs and with the Teachers Federation of Canada to bring about
racial harmony in the schools and among young people. We have
continued to work with the public to increase awareness. Around
the world we have been recognized as a country-
(1450)
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said he will cut the
B.C. salmon fleet by 50 per cent to conserve salmon stocks.
However, he knows this will not decrease the number of fish
caught. It will only reallocate the fish to the large commercial
fishing boats, putting small independent fishermen out of a job.
This plan will kill jobs. It will kill fish and it will kill communities
in B.C.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, what will you tell these communities--
The Speaker: Always address the Chair, my colleague. The hon.
minister.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not finish his question but I can
anticipate it.
Contrary to the belief of his colleagues, the Pacific salmon
revitalization plan was developed over a period of about a year,
stemming from the Fraser report, 70 stakeholders and a round table
that went on for a long time.
It is not a perfect plan. It is not a plan which has 100 per cent
consensus. I doubt if any plan would have 100 per cent consensus
in the commercial salmon industry. However, the plan does address
the difficulty of overcapacity in the fishing industry.
He is right, it may not result in fewer salmon caught. However, at
least it will reduce the pressure on the salmon that exist. The
salmon stocks are at a very low level.
2185
This plan will address the problem. It will help the stocks. It
will help the industry at a time when it is low. It will help in the
revitalization despite the plan the member has, which would derail
everything that would help the fishermen and their families.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if it will not decrease the number of fish caught, how will
it decrease the pressure on the fish? It makes no sense.
The minister is running a bloated, inefficient ministry and yet
has decided to cut financing for salmon hatcheries based on some
report he has refused to release to us for six months.
Will he table the report in the House this week and will he
support a self-financing Sooke River fish hatchery?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the hon. member has difficulty
with the plan from what he said. I will not get into detail.
I suggest to the hon. member that if he has difficulty
understanding the plan perhaps he could speak with his colleague,
the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who came out with a press
release a couple of days after the plan was released to criticize it
sentence by sentence, only to have one of his constituents, a
fisherman, write to him to criticize his criticism, actually calling
the press release drivel, which means silly nonsense, like the hon.
member.
The Speaker: I urge members to stay away from any kind of
personal remarks about other members.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In March 1993, the then Leader of the Opposition and current
Prime Minister of Canada made the following comments about the
amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act introduced by
the Conservative government, and I quote: ``The Liberal Party is
appalled by these measures. Obviously, by reducing benefits and
further penalizing those who leave their jobs voluntarily, the
government shows very little concern for the victims of the
economic crisis. Instead of getting to the heart of the problem, it
goes after the unemployed''.
As his government is getting ready to adopt a so-called reform of
the unemployment insurance program, which makes existing
penalties even harsher, is solely designed to cut billions of dollars
in funding and will have a more devastating effect than any reform
to date, how can the Prime Minister justify this new about-face on
the part of the Liberals?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we had
to find ways to improve on the Unemployment Insurance Act was
precisely the fact that tens of thousands of women could not have
access to the program at all.
(1455)
The hon. member knows full well that, as a result of changes
made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, women working less
than 15 hours per week for instance, who used to be penalized for
all kinds of reasons, will now be covered and have access not only
to the unemployment insurance program, but also to a variety of
programs also designed for those considered to be ordinary
employees by their employers.
There is no doubt that the Unemployment Insurance Act had to
be amended. Everyone agrees with that. But what is happening
now? The government has introduced legislation. Members of the
committee to which the bill was referred have proposed
amendments. But all we hear coming from the official opposition
party is that the bill should be withdrawn.
We do not know whether they in favour of the status quo,
whether they have amendments to suggest that might be regarded
as improvements, or whether they are just playing petty politics at
the expense of the most vulnerable segment of our society.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the then
Prime Minister told people protesting against a reform less
devastating that this one that they could count on the Liberals to
demand that the bill be withdrawn.
Does the Prime Minister not agree that this reform is of no help
at all in resolving the unemployment problem? In his own words, it
does not go to the root of the problem. Worse yet, it is
anti-employment.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important point in her question and that is this concern with
employment. The bill does provide among other things for $300
million to be invested in a transition fund, precisely to create jobs
in the most disadvantaged regions of the country.
As an extra benefit, once the program is fully implemented, $800
million will be invested in job creation programs. There is one
thing on which we agree with the hon. member, who is her party's
critic on the subject. We agree that the solution to the problem
facing the unemployed is job creation. And that is what we are
working on.
2186
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Correctional Services Canada is showing how innovative it can be
in the Edmonton Institution for Women. There were three more
escapes last night. That means that one-quarter of all inmates have
walked away from that place.
Since it opened last November there has also been a suicide, an
assault on staff, and several reports of attempted suicide and
self-mutilation.
Does the acting solicitor general agree with the warden that there
is nothing to worry about at this prison even though there are
children being raised there? Or does he think it is time to close this
mistake until they get their act together at the Edmonton prison?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to
raise this issue. The solicitor general is concerned about it, as are
the department, the warden and I. We are taking steps to upgrade
security at the facility.
Many practical steps have already been taken. Today the
solicitor general called the attorney general of Alberta and
arrangements have been made in the meantime to transfer many of
the inmates to provincial institutions, another example of
co-operation between the two levels of government and
corrections.
Many of the inmates have been transferred to provincial
institutions in Alberta. There are difficulties at the Edmonton
facility and steps have been taken and will be taken to address
them.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has built five such prisons in the country. I have visited
two of them.
Virtually all of the guards at this prison in Edmonton were hired
straight out of college. I think it is time the government look not
only at the Edmonton Institution for Women but at the Nova
Institution for Women and all the other facilities to revise its
policy. Change it.
(1500 )
I ask the justice minister if that is the case. Is the government
looking to change its policy on women's prisons?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opening of the
correctional facility in Edmonton was the result of a task force,
established in 1989, which recommended the closure of the
correctional facility in Kingston in favour of opening five regional
centres.
To date we have had problems in Edmonton, but there are other
facilities that have proven to be without incident, one in Maple
Creek, Saskatchewan and one in Truro, Nova Scotia.
On the question of safety and security in Edmonton, today
Correctional Services Canada announced an additional eight
measures it is implementing to ensure safety, which was a concern
expressed by my colleagues from Edmonton East and Edmonton
North.
These measures are taken very seriously. We have implemented
the procedures and are doing so immediately.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, flooding in
southern Manitoba has reached critical levels. In the Red River
Valley region alone 180 families have been evacuated.
The Government of Manitoba is saying national defence is not
meeting its responsibility to the flood victims.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell the people of
Manitoba what actions and financial help Canada has provided to
southern Manitoba flood victims?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the flooding in
Manitoba this year has been particularly severe. As was the case in
southeastern Saskatchewan last year, there are mechanisms in place
whereby the federal government can assist the provinces.
The prime responsibility for co-ordination of disaster relief is
with the provinces, and the province has requested relief and
assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces. Seventy class A
reservists have been working over the last three or four days to
assist with flooding in the Saint-Adolphe area.
However, under the disaster financial arrangements regime there
is a program whereby the federal government can assist the
provinces and in turn the provinces can compensate individuals or
municipalities. Officials of the two governments are working on
this right now. Official requests are to come in the next few days.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding his
department's massive changes to licensing and the fishing zones of
the west coast.
2187
B.C. communities have elected their representatives, raised the
money to support them and sent them to Ottawa to get the minister
to halt the plan so that improvements can be made to it.
Will he now commit to suspending the May 24 deadline and
commit to beginning a serious discussion with representatives of
the affected communities who have already been chosen to
negotiate effective ways to achieve fish stock enhancement that
will also maintain west coast communities?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, which I
know is a serious one.
I met with a community sustainability group yesterday. It
expressed some of the concerns and misunderstandings with the
Pacific revitalization plan which, as I said, is not 100 per cent
perfect. I understand these difficulties and I understand the
uncertainty involved. I have great concern for the concerns of
fishermen and their families.
I will be in British Columbia tomorrow meeting with fishermen,
addressing their concerns, listening to them, bridging some of the
gaps, addressing uncertainties and fine tuning the program, which
will probably address some of the items mentioned by the hon.
member.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have received notice that the
hon. member for Laval Centre wishes to raise the question of
privilege.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I feel that my privileges as a member of Parliament have
been breached by the unacceptable remarks made by a member of
this House.
(1505)
The discriminatory and racist comments made by the hon.
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan prompt me to ask you to suspend
him from this House until his case is reviewed by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In an interview to the Vancouver Sun, the hon. member said that
if he ran a business and if he had a homosexual employee-
The Speaker: My dear colleague, you may be a few seconds
late, as the hon. member has already made a speech today in which
he offered to withdraw his comments and admitted he had made a
mistake.
It seems to me that, given this fact, the question of privilege is
not in order at this point.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware that
the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan did apologize in this
House, but I insist that apologies are necessary. The fact remains
that the comments made by our colleague infringe on the dignity of
the people of Canada and Quebec, and I really think that this
statement-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: Many times statements are made outside the
House which are not made in the House. Our precedents tell us
these are things said outside of the House and therefore are not
necessarily the purview of the House.
We are dealing here with opinions of some people. At this point
they have tried to clarify them. The member does not have a point
of privilege in this matter. I would like to pass from this matter
now.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order on the same issue. I wish to remind the Chair that,
less than three years ago, the hon. member for Rosemont, who then
sat as an independent, was ordered by the Speaker to apologize for
comments he had made outside the House.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member brings up something that
happened in 1993. I have no reason to doubt that. I am going from
memory because I was a member of the House at the time. I will
inform myself of this in a formal way, but it seems to me the
member for Rosemont made suggestions about members of the
House and the House itself. However, in this case, to my
knowledge, the words used did not reflect on the House, on a
member or on the works of the House.
(1510)
Because the hon. member does bring up a very specific point, I
wonder if the House would grant me some time to look into this
and see if that precedent can apply.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I point out that according to the standing
orders, once you have made a ruling members of the House should
not question your ruling. Therefore I object to what is going on
here.
The Speaker: It is true I have made a ruling on a point of
privilege. I am not dealing with a point of privilege here. I am
dealing with a point of order brought up by an hon. member. I will
look at this precedent and if it does exist I want to see what the
bearing would be on this point of order, not privilege. That is
behind us.
2188
Therefore I will come back to the House if necessary on this
point of order.
_____________________________________________
2188
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to nine petitions
presented during the first session of Parliament.
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition from a group of students, a grade 11 history class
from Dakota Collegiate in my riding.
This petition was conceived, drafted and brought forward by this
group of innovative and creative students. There are approximately
185 signatures on this petition calling for Senate reform. These
students not only call for Senate reform but offer constructive
suggestions and ideas on what changes could and should be made
to our institutions of government. I commend them for having
taken this initiative.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
interest and hope that I table in this House a petition signed by 339
persons who support the organization Le Patriarche, which
provides therapy to drug addicts.
Founded in France in 1972, Le Patriarche is established in
Canada and it also provides services to drug addicts in over 15
countries throughout the world. Le Patriarche needs volunteers
from abroad to apply its therapy and to train Canadians to take over
this responsibility.
(1515)
I therefore support these petitioners, who ask the government to
make it easier for volunteer therapists from abroad to come to
Canada. Since the problems related to drug addiction are on the rise
and affect more and more young people, it is essential to support
organizations such as Le Patriarche.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Gerda Swift of North
Vancouver and 116 others, who pray and humbly call on Parliament
to keep dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life;
to eliminate statutory release; impose stiffer sentences for violent
offenders; have violent offenders serve their full sentences and
have time added for bad behaviour; have a central register for the
names and addresses of violent offenders; give more power to the
legal institutions to keep dangerous criminals, even after the
sentence is served if they are still a risk to society; give police more
authority in apprehending and interrogating violent offenders and
to reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder in which
there is no doubt of guilt.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions. The
first is from Kelowna, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to society.
The petitioners, therefore, pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families which
provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the
chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition comes from Timmins, Ontario.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability and, specifically, that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners, therefore, pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions.
The first petition is from the residents of the regional
municipality of Sudbury who object to the proposed legislation that
would see boaters paying vessel licence fees of up to $1,000 every
five years.
Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament drop this
proposal because it would put boating out of the reach of ordinary
citizens.
2189
I agree with the petitioners.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by constituents requesting that Parliament
continue the lamprey control funding at the previous level and at no
extra cost to the Canadian public.
I also agree with the petitioners.
The Speaker: As members know, it is not our practice either to
agree or disagree with petitions. I would ask you to refrain from
mentioning it.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two
years now, a resident from my riding, Tran Trieu Quan, has been
held prisoner in Vietnam. People in the Quebec City region and
throughout the province are upset by this situation and the 5,300
petitioners ask Parliament to ensure the safety and freedom of Tran
Trieu Quan.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 51 of my
constituents regarding section 718.2 of Bill C-41.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not pass Bill
C-41 with section 718.2 and not include the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my duty
and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of my constituents
pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners have a whole variety of concerns regarding what
they perceive to be excessively high prices for gasoline, propane
and diesel fuel. They suggest that there seems to be price fixing
taking place among the oil companies and that consumers are being
gouged. They suggest that perhaps a consumer boycott of selected
company stations would be an appropriate course of action.
(1520)
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have another in
quite a long list of petitions that I have been presenting on section
745 of the Criminal Code, known as the faint hope clause.
These petitions come from Airdrie, Crossfield and Fernie, B.C.
They add to the hundreds of names of people from my area of the
country who say that this clause in the Criminal Code puts our
whole criminal justice system into disrepute.
This makes over 19,000 names that I have presented to this
House on this issue.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present signatures of a few hundred of my constituents, primarily
from the Kindersley area in west central Saskatchewan.
The petitioners state that section 241 of the Criminal Code says
that everyone who counsels a person to commit suicide and who
aids and abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues
or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
The petitioners ask Parliament not to repeal or amend section
241 of the Criminal Code in any way, and to uphold the decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada of September 30, 1993 to disallow
assisted suicides and euthanasia.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, that has
been approved by the clerk of petitions. It contains 100 signatures
and was forwarded to me from the British Columbia area.
The petitioners, all being residents of Canada, petition the
following: that the wartime merchant navy was the fourth arm of
the armed services; that veterans of wartime merchant navy are
under the Civilian War Related Benefits Act; that one in ten
Canadian merchant seamen lost their lives, the highest proportional
rate of all services, and that merchant navy prisoners of war spent
50 months on average in imprisonment but only 30 months are
recognized.
Therefore, your petitioners call on Parliament to consider the
advisability of extending benefits or compensation to veterans of
the wartime merchant navy equal to that enjoyed by the veterans of
Canada, World War II armed services.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by numerous
residents of Kingston and area.
The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to proceed
immediately with amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that
the sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired
or causing injury or death while impaired, reflects both the severity
of the crime and a zero tolerance by Canada toward the crime.
2190
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
tabling a petition with almost 2,000 signatures that calls on the
government to enhance the protection of children under the age of
four from sexual abuse.
The government has taken some preventive action, including the
introduction of a child sexual abuse register, to deal with this
terrible crime, however, more work remains to be done.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
another petition from my constituents who oppose the extension of
benefits of government employees to same sex partners.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed
to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2190
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights
Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration
of the second reading stage of the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of
the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the second
reading consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be
interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question
necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage shall be put forthwith and
successively without further debate or amendment.
(1525 )
[English]
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 50)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
2191
Nault
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solomon
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (North Vancouver)-83
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caron
Godfrey
Pagtakhan
St-Laurent
(1605 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The House resumed from April 30, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, there are four minutes
remaining for questions or comments on the intervention of the
hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I know it has been some time for Canadians who are
watching this on television. This debate is on Bill C-33, which is a
government order to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by
inserting the two words, sexual orientation.
Since we are in the period for questions and comments, I will ask
my honoured and learned colleague from Fraser Valley East if he
would tell the television viewers across the country what the
implications of the insertion of those two words in the Canadian
Human Rights Act might be for them.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I have four minutes or maybe less now.
Parliamentarians have an hour left to speak on this. Again it is a
travesty that the Liberals have brought in closure to restrict open
debate.
Last night I asked for unanimous consent to split my time with
the member for Ontario who is not being allowed to speak by the
Liberal Party. That permission was denied by the members of the
Liberal Party, which is a shame. They talk about freedom to speak
one's mind and their own members are not allowed. One of their
members was not even allowed to split my time with me.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member has made a statement which is not accurate and reflects
badly on other members of the House. Anybody who wants to
speak is allowed to speak-
The Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of
order. The time will not come out of the time of the hon. member
for Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the person who
was just on her feet denied unanimous consent when I tried to
obtain it yesterday.
It is a shame-
The Deputy Speaker: There is a second point of order which
will not come out of any member's time. The hon. parliamentary
secretary on a point of order. I hope it is not the same point of order.
2192
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member is making accusations which are not correct. he has also
made an accusation which to me has taken the Chair in question.
He is attributing that we are deciding who speaks in this House.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary will
know that his party will have the floor for the next speaker after the
present speaker finishes in two minutes. Then the parliamentary
secretary will be permitted to get up and explain what he has just
said as part of debate.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley East has about three minutes
left.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I guess I am down to two minutes now.
I am not sure if they are going to jump up again.
If they would care to look in yesterday's Hansard, I stood in this
spot and said that I would like unanimous consent to split my time
with the member for Ontario. That unanimous consent was denied
by members of the Liberal Party.
I want to make it clear that it is disgusting that the Liberals will
not allow people in their own party to speak. It is disgusting that
they have invoked closure. If I had another 40 minutes, I could get
wound up again on the whole issue we are debating here.
However, the issue I am raising now is that I made an offer to the
member for Ontario. I had talked it over with him previously and
said that I would do that. Consent was denied. He has been denied
the privilege to speak by his own party. That is truly disgusting.
Now the rest of the members will not be allowed to speak because
closure is in place.
I have gone through the issue and my remarks are in Hansard for
everyone to see. Closure is being invoked for the umpteenth time,
which is far worse than what the Mulroney Tories ever did.
(1615 )
I would just like to point out that the Liberals are denying free
speech in their own House of Commons and I think that is truly
disgusting.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
too would like to say how ashamed and upset I am that people in
this House-
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
the next speaker in the normal order is in fact a Liberal member. I
believe it is the secretary of state for-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member was sitting there an
instant ago and watched me look at her whole bench and nobody
moved a muscle. The only person who was standing was the hon.
member for Calgary North. The hon. member for Calgary North
has the floor.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of real concern to
Canadians. The phone is ringing off the hook in my office. I have
scores of letters from my constituents about this legislation yet
debate is being stifled in this House by the government. The most
undemocratic thing that has ever happened in this Parliament is to
have debate on contentious issues simply cut off at the knees
because the Liberals want to ram it through. Shame. I speak with
the outrage of many Canadians across the country.
Unfortunately this debate has been surrounded by a high degree
of politicization and emotion. I want to touch on the perception that
was conveyed by the reported remarks of my colleague from
Nanaimo-Cowichan. Those remarks were most unfortunate and
were completely inconsistent with Reform policy.
Once again, I want to put on the record that the Reform Party
will take a back seat to no one in opposing unfairness and
discrimination. We believe strongly in the principle of equality,
that all Canadians are equal, entitled to equal protection under the
law, equal freedoms, equal protection from discrimination and hate
mongering. Even where we may disagree with the lifestyles or
viewpoints of others, the innate value, dignity and worth of each
individual is to be respected and affirmed.
This legislation must be looked at on the merits of whether it is
serving the best interests of Canadians and whether it is in fact
furthering the goal of equally protecting Canadians from unfairness
and discrimination in our society because that is a goal we all
believe in and to which we are all committed. There are four
reasons that this legislation should not proceed at this time.
The first point is it negates the key principle of equality in a
democracy. This is a very important principle which we need to be
looking at and have not looked at properly in my view. We should
not be looking at whether we should be adding one group or
another to the federal human rights legislation. We should focus
instead on the broader principle of equality and individual rights.
The principles of equality and individuals rights apply to
individuals and are based on the position of each person as a human
being, not on group membership. Recognizing different categories
of people for the purpose of defining or augmenting their rights
under the Canadian Human Rights Act is negating the principle of
equality and polarizing Canadian society.
So far the Canadian Human Rights Act lists 10 categories of
Canadians deserving special protections. Special interest groups
have used and are using these categorizations to demand
preferential treatment, not equal treatment but preferential
treatment. Often their claim is based on the rationale that special
treatment is required to make up for past injustices or for certain
inherent
2193
disadvantages. This has led to a situation where Canadians are no
longer equal. Groups not currently included in the list justifiably
argue for inclusion.
(1620)
We see this in the United States where there is a real movement
to include prohibitions against discrimination of people based on
their height. I personally would applaud that. That is another
expansion that logically this kind of approach leads to. There is a
movement for the prevention of discrimination based on size or
weight. There is a movement for the prevention of discrimination
based on looks. If one is not attractive, according to that particular
lobby, then one is discriminated against and not given the same
opportunities as others. Where does it all end?
We need to look carefully at the kind of approach we are taking
to this legislation before we rush it through. We should back up and
take a long range look at it.
The Reform Party strongly believes that all Canadians are
entitled to the same rights and privileges under the Canadian
Human Rights Act. However, the protections awarded by this act
do not ensure equality but rather tend to have the opposite result in
some cases. It sets Canadians against each other in a quest for
economic benefits which benefit one group at the cost of another.
All of us have friends and family members who want to pursue
different professions or different opportunities in the federal public
service but are told: ``No point in applying. You do not have the
special group characteristics that are required at the current time''.
Extending the special protections of the Canadian Human Rights
Act to a constantly growing list of groups will lead to increasing
infringement of the existing privileges and rights of other
Canadians.
Under the current wording of the Canadian Human Rights Act,
inequalities clearly do exist. Therefore, the only logically
consistent and defensible way to oppose extending these special
rights to groups not currently included is by proposing to eliminate
those inequalities while strongly affirming a belief in the equality
and rights of individuals.
The debate we really ought to be having is to back up, take a
clear look at the big picture and the principles we are attempting to
protect. Before we go too far down the road of adding more and
more specially designated groups, we should first consider
replacing all prohibited grounds of discrimination. We should also
replace the special categories currently listed in the Canadian
Human Rights Act with a clearly worded straight definition of
fundamental human rights that applies to each and every Canadian
without discrimination and without any inequality at all. We have
not looked at this approach. It is one I believe must be considered
and properly debated before we move to add more and more groups
to the human rights legislation.
The second reason this legislation should not be passed at this
time is that Canadians are very unsure, and I believe rightly so,
about the effects and the consequences of passing this legislation.
The government put out a little book about what would be the effect
of passing this legislation. It says that it would not extend
economic benefits to different groups and a number of other things
which it is alleged this legislation would not do. Unfortunately I do
not think it is any surprise to Canadians that once legislation is in
place, its interpretation or application very much depends on
decisions of the courts.
(1625)
Canadians are rightly asking: Will this legislation change our
application of economic benefits? Will this legislation change our
definition of family and the basic building blocks for our society?
Will this legislation prohibit people who disagree with certain
viewpoints from voicing that disagreement, or if they choose to
speak their own opinion, will that be considered discrimination?
Will they be muzzled and their freedom of speech abrogated?
These are very real logical questions and they should be answered.
What does the Liberal government do when these very serious
questions are put forward by the Canadian people? It cuts off
debate, in effect saying: ``We do not want to talk about this. We are
not going to answer your questions. It is going to go through and let
the chips fall where they may''.
Canadians are increasingly losing confidence in their lawmakers
and no wonder. They are often told one thing and the consequences
are something quite different. Canadians have a real lack of trust
and confidence in their lawmakers.
We have a duty as lawmakers to address that by being open and
transparent and taking all the time necessary to answer the very real
concerns, fears and objections of the people who are going to have
to live with this legislation. We must do that. It is our
responsibility. We represent these people. Pushing something
through because a few people in their wisdom have decided this is
the way the country should be going is not the way a democracy
should be working. Shame on us.
Shame on us for not taking the time to respond to the concerns
that I am hearing in my constituency office. I am willing to wager
that every single member of Parliament is hearing those same
concerns. That is not the way to bring in good legislation.
The third reason we should hesitate in pushing ahead with this
legislation particularly in such a high-handed manner is that it does
not enjoy the support of the majority of Canadians. I have already
mentioned that Canadians are concerned about the real effects and
2194
consequences of this kind of bill. In addition to that, simply put, it
does not enjoy the support of the broad base of the Canadian public.
Surely if we have to live with laws, they should at least meet
with our approval. If we think that people would approve if they
knew all the ins and outs, then it is up to us to place that
information in front of the public, to inform them to the point
where public opinion would broadly support this kind of a measure.
If we truly believe this is right for our society, that it is something
which is necessary, proper, fair and just, then it would be no trouble
at all. There would be no problem in getting Canadians behind it.
But what does this Liberal government do? It introduces the
legislation, it introduces closure, it shoves the debate through and
just pushes it upon Canadians without any consideration for their
hesitation, their concerns and their lack of support. That is wrong.
It should not be done that way. I protest in the strongest possible
terms on behalf of the people of Canada at the way this legislation
that is going to affect us and the way we perceive society is being
dealt with and that there are special protections for yet another
group.
I did a survey in my riding of Calgary North in anticipation that
this issue would come forward. I listed arguments that were most
often brought forward in favour of the inclusion of sexual
orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the arguments
that were most often brought forward against it. I received over
1,000 responses. Not one response criticized the objectiveness or
completeness of the background information that I provided to my
constituents.
(1630)
As an elected representative I need to give people objective
information. They need to know both sides of any question. They
need to know the pros and the cons, which there always are in
whatever proposal comes forward. They need time to look at the
information, to consider it and discuss it in order to make an
informed decision.
Of the 1,035 responses I received to the question: Do you think
the federal government should amend federal legislation to add
sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination, 67.9
per cent said no; 26.3 per cent said yes; 4.4 per cent were
undecided; and 1.4 per cent had no response.
I then asked a second question: If yes, would you support this
amendment if it meant extending economic and family benefits
that heterosexual couples currently enjoy such as medical,
survivor, income tax benefits, marriage and adoption to
homosexual couples? Of the 272 people who answered yes to
question number one, that sexual orientation should be included,
64.3 per cent of those 272 people agreed that economic and family
benefits should also be extended to same sex couples, 28 per cent
disagreed, 7.7 per cent were undecided and no one omitted a
response.
That is the result from one poll in one urban riding. It has a very
wide and broad range of people and backgrounds. It is incumbent
upon us, it seems to me, to take more time to canvass the public
when putting into place legislation that is going to affect our
society for many years to come. It would have results we cannot
clearly foresee pending court interpretation of the legislation.
As this legislation deserves a more sober, broad based and public
dimension and consultation, I would move an amendment to the
bill before the House at this time. I move that we:
Delete all the words after ``That'' in the main question and substitute the
following:
Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act be not now read a
second time, but that it be read a second time six months hence.
The Deputy Speaker: The motion is acceptable.
(1635 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member said in her remarks that the Reform
Party was all in favour of equal rights for all Canadians. Yet it
appears that her intention is to get rid of part of the Canadian
Human Rights Act and take away rights that have been granted.
It is my view, and I think the view of most Canadians, that the
provisions of the act which prohibit discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status,
family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been
granted, have been widely accepted as advancing the interests and
the opportunities for the persons named on that list, which is, of
course. the vast majority of the Canadian population, since sex
after all is one of the prohibited grounds.
I understand that most women's groups feel their interests have
been advanced by the legislation. I am also of the view that most
persons who come from various ethnic backgrounds or persons of
colour feel that their interests have been advanced by this
legislation and so have persons with disabilities in particular. I
mention those groups because they are strongly in support of this
legislation.
If the hon. member thinks that there should be equality for all,
why does she oppose the inclusion of persons who are being
discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation? They have
provided ample evidence of this discrimination over the years.
They have sought this amendment for many years and now Reform
Party members seek to exclude them from this list because in their
view they are unworthy of inclusion.
2195
Why does the hon. member not come clean and admit that is
the real reason behind her remarks? It is not because she does not
think this act has done a good job. She is not advocating repeal
of this act and she knows it. I invite her to answer that comment.
Is she not trying to simply whitewash the Reform Party position
by saying everyone should be equal.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the
member for Kingston and the Islands because he is on record as
supporting the first remarks in my intervention in this debate that
the use of closure in this House is morally wicked. I appreciate the
fact that he feels so strongly on behalf of the right of members to
fully and fairly debate issues. Unfortunately the comments he made
in that regard were in the last Parliament. He seems suddenly to
have changed his stance in this one.
We need to look at what we are trying to accomplish in this
legislation. The member talks about advancing opportunities but is
that what we are trying to do in this legislation? I would submit that
this legislation is trying to eliminate unfairness and discrimination
against Canadian citizens.
If we are doing that, it is is something that each and every
Canadian citizen is entitled to. We are all individually and equally
entitled to protection against discrimination and unfairness.
What happens? We have a Canadian Human Rights Act. The
member is quite correct. I certainly would never support abrogating
that act. It enshrines very important principles of fairness, equality
and anti-discrimination in our society. Instead of a straightforward
definition of fundamental, individual human rights, it puts in
categories. It says these people are entitled to special protection
against discrimination, not all of us equally, but these groups.
The member even mentioned a category that is not in the
legislation: the disabled. The point he is making is quite correct.
Many people in our society for many reasons suffer unfairness and
discrimination. That should be stamped out. They should be
protected against that but on the basis that they have fundamental
individual rights and individual liberties and not because they are a
member of a group. No one would be excluded at all if there were
no categories because we would all be equally entitled to equal
protection, equal fairness and equal protection from
discrimination. I submit that is exactly what our legislation should
be doing.
(1640 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask the hon. Reform member this question. Would the addition of
the proposed term to the legislation, namely, the prevention of
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not cover all
Canadians, regardless of their sexual orientation?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope so. If it
does, why do we need to put it in? If we are all equally covered,
then we are all equally covered. We do not need to list some
defining characteristic of the people who are covered. If we are all
covered, why are we defining who is covered and who is not?
What the hon. member just said is that he agrees with the logic of
my argument and I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe the hon.
member from the Reform Party has completely missed the point,
but that ought not to surprise any of us.
I will make it clear for her. At present an individual who is a
heterosexual could be discriminated against and could be fired for
that reason. This legislation will prevent that from happening. Is
that not a good thing?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, if the member is suggesting that I
am mentally challenged, then perhaps he ought not to discriminate
against me by asking vague questions and then be unhappy because
I do not answer properly or to his satisfaction.
Again, the point that I am making is that any person in our
country who is discriminated against, who is treated unfairly for
any reason, whose fundamental, individual human rights are being
contravened, should be protected. That should not be allowed in
our society and that person should have a recourse to have that
discrimination reversed and addressed.
For whatever reason the hon. member wishes to raise it, I would
agree that if there is discrimination and unfairness taking place, it
should not be allowed. There is no need to say that these people are
going to be protected and these people are going to be protected
and if a person is in this group they will be protected, but then be
silent about the rest. That abrogates the fundamental democratic
principle of equality and is not the right way to go about protecting
human rights.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief comment on what my colleague from
Calgary had to say.
Yesterday in the mail I received a little booklet that describes
why the government is adding sexual orientation to the Canadian
Human Rights Act. I find it very interesting that it has already put
this out as a fait accompli. The government has limited debate in
the House.
What is being done here today is a sham. It is not going to
change the mind of the government. The government has already
decided what it is going to do. It has printed the information as if it
is an accomplished fact already that the amendment to the
Canadian Human Rights Act will be passed.
2196
This is a travesty of democracy and debate. There is absolutely
no point to what we are doing in the House. It becomes abundantly
obvious when the government invokes closure on the motion that
it has already set its course. The Liberals will not listen to the
Canadian people. They will not listen to the debate in the House.
That is unconscionable. It is a travesty of democracy and the way
things should work.
(1645)
If the people of Canada were demanding this we would have a
very different view of this entire thing. However, what we have
here today is top down, ``we are telling you the way it is''; it is
being published it in advance, before the bill is even put through
the House.
Liberals refer to their speaking notes all the time. Are those
speaking notes binding on this legislation? I do not think they are
any more binding than the promises they made on NAFTA, the
GST and all of these other things. They do not mean a thing and
they will not be binding on this bill.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments of my hon.
colleague and thank him.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The five hours for debate were up one
minute ago, so we shall now move on to the period when each
member is given 10 minutes on debate.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake-the goods and services tax.
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am dividing my time with the
member for Ottawa West.
I rise with pleasure and pride to speak to Bill C-33, an act to
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation as
a prohibited grounds of discrimination. I congratulate the Minister
of Justice and the Prime Minister for bringing this amendment
forward at this time, because there has never been any doubt about
the government's commitment to this principle.
This amendment is about the principles of justice and equality
which have always been the bedrock of the Liberal Party's belief.
They have always been the bedrock of Canadian values that we
hold dear, values of tolerance, respect and social responsibility.
Today more than ever we need to emphasize and set strategies to
promote equality. Today more than ever we need to name in
legislation what we mean by equality and how we intend to
implement that equality.
Today we see attempts by some groups to erode fundamental
Canadian values, groups like the Reform Party which speaks of
equality and yet its members espouse discrimination. They speak
about representing the grassroots of Canadians yet seek to divide
Canadians into different classes of citizens, those who would be
relegated to the back of the bus or the back of the shop, those who
would eat in different establishments eventually or go to different
schools. I thought that ended with apartheid.
The third party, which will undoubtedly vote against this bill, as
it has been saying, will have proven yet again that apologies or not,
its record is clear. It has voted against every equality seeking piece
of legislation the government has put forward.
Let me speak about the ugliness of discrimination. I know
because I am a member of a visible minority. I was a family
physician who listened daily to the pain, the anguish, the shame
and the loss of self-esteem that each patient of mine who was a
target of discrimination told me about, whether it was because of
their religion, colour or sexual orientation. These people lived with
that loss of self-esteem, with their mental health, with their ability
to walk proudly down the street, damaged and harmed with the pain
of discrimination.
Discrimination kills the soul. The idea of optional discrimination
is the antithesis to the fundamental values we hold dear. It is the
antithesis to the whole idea of equality. In a fantasy world, which
one day I hope to live in, where we are all equal under the law,
where it has been established that we no longer need to seek
equality, then the hon. member across may have something to say.
It is interesting to look at what history has taught us. It is
interesting to see how at every point in history and at every stage
where the fight for equality and freedom has been fought
arguments have always been made by majority groups against the
equality and the freedoms of the groups seeking equality.
(1650 )
Arguments have been made giving quasi-logical and legal
reasons for denying those freedoms. There were arguments for
slavery based on the fact that blacks were mentally inferior. All the
excuses were made on the mass genocide of Jews. People were told
there were economic arguments for ensuring the Jews were put
down.
The equality of women was denied consistently for centuries
based on the fact they were merely chattel and lacked the
intellectual ability to take an equal place in society.
I would not be standing here today in the House of Commons if
these kinds of legislation were not put into place to ensure I had the
same fundamental and basic equality as the other people sitting in
the House of Commons.
2197
I have listened to the arguments made by the third party to deny
this amendment. The arguments go on about groups and that
equality means we should all be treated equally. Equality can be
achieved only by removing barriers.
I am disabled and I cannot achieve equality if I cannot get into
the building to participate without a wheelchair ramp. That is a
special measure taken to ensure the equality of disabled people.
Today we know, and it has been well documented, that gays and
lesbians in this country are denied the right to employment based
on sexual orientation.
As a physician I have seen on a Friday or Saturday night gays
and lesbians who were beaten purely because of their sexual
orientation, taken bloodied into an emergency room.
The fundamental amendment we are discussing seeks to give
equality of access to employment and housing. I know what it is
like to be denied housing. When I was a medical student in England
I sought an apartment. Because I came from a Commonwealth
country I sounded quite British on the telephone. When I went to
the door, about one minute later because I telephoned from around
the corner, the woman took one look at me and said: ``I am sorry,
it's gone''.
People have to know what it is like to feel that way, to suddenly
feel inferior, subhuman, dirty and disgusting. That is what we mean
when we talk about the reality of the lives of people who are
discriminated against.
I do not hear the third party talking about equality in terms of
``then let us not let gays and lesbians pay taxes. Why should they be
equal and pay taxes?'' We know this group belongs to one of the
highest income groups in the country and pays an extraordinary
amount of taxes.
We talk about equality and I do not think members of the third
party understand the reality of people's lives because they come
from a privileged majority. We sit here and listen to them
espousing very warm, fuzzy and logical arguments, sot to speak,
based on airy-fairy ideas. They do not understand. They seek to
represent true Canadians and I do not think they even understand
the reality of the lives of ordinary Canadians.
The statements repeatedly made in the House by the members of
the third party tell me they represent only a particular group in the
country. They do not know what it is like to be a person of colour. If
they did they would never talk about some of the things they do.
They do not know what it feels like to be disabled. If they did, they
would talk about special measures to be taken to ensure that
disabled people are able to take their places in the workforce. They
would support the kinds of changes which would give people the
ability to seek equality opportunity from a level playing field. That
is what the amendment is about.
The amendment speaks to the fact that 71 per cent of Canadians
have supported the bill in poll after poll and survey after survey.
Canadians are fundamentally and basically people who espouse
freedom, justice, equality and who talk about respect, not just
tolerance. Tolerance means to put up with people. Respect means
we know that person belongs and that they have something to
share, something which will enrich the lives of Canadians. This
country is based on respect. We are the role model to the world.
The third party talks about discrimination. Name any country
that within the last part of this century has understood
discrimination better than South Africa? Yet as soon as it got rid of
apartheid and formed its first democratic government, one of the
first things it did was put into its constitution lists of all those
people who had been held back and who have a long way to go to
achieve equality. In that list the South African Parliament put
sexual orientation.
(1655)
There was not a debate. The reason there was not a debate was
that people who have been downtrodden, people who have been
seeking equality understand the reality and do not seek to keep
anyone from that basic fundamental freedom we talk about when
we speak of equality in this country.
Equality and justice are based on the fact that the greatest of us
in society will always seek to lend a hand to raise the smallest and
the least of us. This is what we are talking about. This is what this
party stands for. This is what this government stands for. This is
what the third party opposite does not even begin to understand.
I am proud to stand here and I am proud to support this bill.
Every Canadian looking on today, the 71 per cent of Canadians who
continue to believe in the things that hold us together, the common
values that hold us together as Canadians, will be applauding in
their homes today when they see us speaking to this bill because
they believe in it.
It is no coincidence that we have been seen as a role model to the
world. It is no coincidence that when Boutros Boutros-Ghali met
the Prime Minister at the 50th anniversary of the United Nations he
said: ``Your country is the greatest country in the world because
you have learned how as a diverse people to live together,
respecting differences, sharing equally, seeking constantly to bring
equality to the world. It is you who will lead us into the 21st
century''. This piece of legislation is beginning to do exactly that.
The Deputy Speaker: The 20 minutes speeches ended at 45
minutes past the hour. We are now into 10 minute speeches rotation
across the floor. The hon. secretary of state spoke for 10 minutes.
Now it is the turn of the other side of the floor and then it will come
back to the deputy whip for the Liberal Party.
2198
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-33 to amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
This legislation will add the undefined term sexual orientation to
the list of categories which offer special protection under the
Canadian Human Rights Act. This contravenes the concept of
equality, the idea that all people are equal and should be treated as
equals under the law.
This bill sets aside one more category under the Canadian
Human Rights Act to include people who will get special treatment
under the law. This is a break away from equality. I believe the
intentions of the government is presenting this legislation are good
and are honourable, but the results of this legislation, should it
pass, and we know it will because closure has been invoked and the
government whip will make sure it passes, will be one more
category enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The argument used by some members opposite of how could
anyone oppose adding protection based on sexual orientation under
the Canadian Human Rights Act is not a valid argument. What
should happen is that all categories set aside for special treatment
should be eliminated. We should, pure and simple, view Canadians
as equal, and under the law we should treat all people in this
country as equal.
I cannot support a bill which breaks away from this important
basic principle of equality.
(1700 )
I would like to read the very first principle written in the Reform
blue book. It is the most important principle that guides Reform
policy.
It says: ``We affirm commitment to Canada as a balanced
federation of equal provinces and citizens''. The most important
principle of Reform is the principle of equality. I will support no
legislation that goes against this principle. It is a basic principle
that I think Canadians support without reservation. For that reason,
I will vote against this bill.
I would like to comment on what my constituents say about this
legislation. I did a survey about a year ago in anticipation of this
legislation coming forward. The survey went out to all eligible
voters in the constituency through a householder. I would like to
read some results of this survey.
I will read the question so members know what was asked. It was
a fair, unbiased question: Should sexual orientation, undefined, be
included as a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights
Act? That is quite a simple, straight forward question.
What response did I get from my constituents? The message was
very clear. There is no doubt how my constituents feel on this issue.
Eighty-nine per cent of respondents said they are against having
sexual orientation, undefined, included as a protected category
under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Only 6 per cent were in
favour. The rest were undecided or did not respond to that question.
Those results are pretty clear. They certainly guide my vote.
When going to constituents to determine their view on an issue,
it is important to do the background work. This issue has been well
debated in my constituency. The media have played their role on
this issue. They reported what has gone on at public meetings. They
reported what different people are saying on this issue. They have
my point of view on it. They have the point of view of many others
from the constituency who have an interest in this issue. The debate
has taken place at public meetings. There has been media
involvement. This has taken place over some time.
Finally, the formal mechanism, a key part of the process, which
is a householder survey that went out to all constituents, indicated
that 89 per cent are against having sexual orientation, undefined,
included as a protected category under the Canadian Human Rights
Act.
I also asked in the householder some other questions about
related issues. These related issues, although the government
argues otherwise, are pertinent. When this change passes-we
know it will-it will lead to more changes down the road.
Many members in this House and people outside who support
this legislation say that this is only a first step. I firmly believe that.
The other related questions that I asked in this survey were these.
I will read them and give the results: Do you agree with the
definition of the family as those individuals related by the ties of
blood, marriage or adoption and that marriage is the union between
a man and a woman as recognized by the state? The response to this
question: 96.5 or 97 per cent were in favour, only 2 per cent were
against and about 1 per cent were undecided.
I asked two other two related questions. One question was:
Should spousal benefits for any program funded or administered by
the federal government be extended to same sex couples? In
response 94 per cent said no, only 4 per cent said yes and about 1
per cent were undecided. Those results are quite clear.
(1705)
I believe that not only do the results reflect the position and the
beliefs of the people in my constituency but they reflect a much
larger view. I have heard this certainly in Ontario, Atlantic Canada
and across the prairies as I have gone around the country over the
past couple of years.
2199
The fourth question that I put to the people in my constituency
was: Should a new category called households be established for
the purposes of identifying dependent relationships that are not
currently included in the definition of a family? In response 88
per cent said no, 7 per cent yes-
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
paraphrase a famous orator: ``Never in history has so much been
said by so many about only two words''.
I want to begin by reading from the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This act enshrines the fundamental principle of Canadian society:
Respect for the dignity and equality of all human beings and their right to live
and to work free from discrimination.
A great deal has been said to suggest that in fact this act treats
Canadians unequally. Let me therefore read from the act:
For matters coming under the legislative authority of Parliament-every
individual shall have an equal opportunity-to make for himself or herself the
life that he or she is able and wishes to have, consistent with his or her duties and
obligations as a member of society, without being hindered in or prevented from
doing so by discriminatory practices.
Every individual. Equal opportunity.
It then lists the characteristics on which discrimination most
commonly occurs: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion,
age, sex, a conviction which has been pardoned. The amendment
before Parliament today adds two words to that list, nothing more.
The words are sexual orientation.
As far as I know every single Canadian has a sexual orientation.
You are bisexual, you are heterosexual or you are homosexual.
Everybody is covered by this act.
Inclusion of race in the Canadian Human Rights Act does not say
that black people are protected but white people are not. Inclusion
of religion does not say that I am protected as a Roman Catholic,
but a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Protestant is not. We are all protected
from discrimination based on our religious beliefs, whatever they
may be.
Not one person who has written or spoken to me on this issue has
said that it should be acceptable to discriminate against someone,
to deny them employment or services just because they are gay or
lesbian. Nobody says it is all right to discriminate and that is what
this act is about. It is saying it is not all right, it is not acceptable, it
is not legal in Canada to discriminate.
People have raised with me issues that they are afraid may be
implicit in this act so let me deal with these concerns. They are
concerned about pedophilia. The preamble specifies the right to be
free from discrimination based on respect for the law and lawful
conduct. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a crime. It is
prohibited by the Criminal Code and it will continue to be
prohibited by the Criminal Code.
The Canadian Human Rights Act applies only to lawful conduct.
Churches and schools are worried it will interfere with their right to
preach religious values on matters of sexuality. Churches and
schools are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The Canadian Human Rights Act applies only to those matters
under the purview and the legislative authority of Parliament.
Even when this issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court of
Canada under an Ontario human rights act which does include
sexual orientation and has for a decade, the Supreme Court of
Canada said that Catholic schools were completely free to ensure
that those people they hired had religious beliefs which were
consistent with the purpose of the school.
(1710 )
People are concerned that this amendment may affect the
definition of marriage. Again I want to go back to the preamble of
the bill, which says very clearly that the government recognizes
and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian
society and that nothing in the act alters its fundamental role in
society. In any case, marriage is primarily a provincial matter. If
having sexual orientation in the human rights act automatically
implied recognition of same sex partnerships, the Ontario
government would not have had to go through introducing a piece
of legislation 10 years after it included sexual orientation in its
human rights act. It would not have had to introduce legislation to
establish same sex relationships on a legal basis.
Again I want to go back to the courts because people are also
concerned about the extension of employment benefits to same sex
partners. It was very clear in the case of Egan and Nesbitt v. The
Queen. The unanimous decision of the court was that sexual
orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under section
15 of the charter of rights and freedoms. Not the Canadian Human
Rights Act, but the Canadian charter, which is constitutional law.
Notwithstanding the court's finding, it did not support the
extension of same sex benefits in that case.
The claim that this bill establishes special rights is simply not
accurate. This covers all Canadians. It protects us all from
discrimination, from whatever source.
We are bringing our Canadian Human Rights Act into
conformity with the human rights acts of eight of the provinces and
territories in Canada. We are bringing to 10 per cent of Canadians
who work in federal jurisdiction the same rights which are enjoyed
by the majority of the workforce employed in eight of our
provinces and territories. Is it not about time we had equality of
rights across the country?
2200
There are complaints. People can argue that there is no
discrimination, but there are many complaints from gays and
lesbians. The vast majority are about something as basic as the
ability to get and keep a job.
Discrimination hurts us all. Discrimination hurts our society. It
leads to isolation from society, to alienation, to being forced into
hiding who we are for fear of discovery, for fear of losing our jobs,
our apartments, the right to go where we want to go, to do what we
want and to buy what we want. It means being ostracised. That is
not good for the individual and it is not good for society.
Legislation will not end discrimination. Our Criminal Code does
not end murder, robbery, beatings or rape. However, it gives a legal
recourse to people who are victims of those actions which we have
determined are unacceptable in our society.
This subject is often argued on religious grounds. As a Christian
I have very strong religious principles that also guide my personal
behaviour. The strongest of the commandments that I obey is the
one that says: ``Love one another as I have loved you''. A similar
principle is in other religions and I respect them all; however, to me
it is a simple matter of human dignity, of fairness, of respecting
every other person on this earth and treating them fairly.
(1715)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second
reading stage of the bill now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 51)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Strahl
White (North Vancouver)-29
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
2201
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-198
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caron
Godfrey
Pagtakhan
St-Laurent
(1740 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say
yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 52)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anawak
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Byrne
Caccia
Campbell
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crête
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Grose
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Nault
Nunez
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peterson
Pettigrew
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Reed
Regan
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Robinson
Rocheleau
2202
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Sheridan
Simmons
Solomon
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-178
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Baker
Benoit
Bhaduria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Bryden
Calder
Chatters
Crawford
Culbert
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Hubbard
Iftody
Johnston
Jordan
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McGuire
McTeague
Meredith
Murray
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Peric
Pillitteri
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Skoke
Speller
Steckle
Strahl
Szabo
Ur
Verran
Wappel
White (North Vancouver) -53
PAIRED MEMBERS
Caron
Godfrey
Pagtakhan
St-Laurent
(1750 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill
stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and
the Status of Persons With Disabilities.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.55
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed in today's Order Paper.
2202
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ) moved that Bill
C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of
witnesses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce
Bill C-217 in this House. The purpose of this bill is to protect any
person testifying in criminal proceedings in which the accused is
charged with a sexual offence or a violent crime.
Under this bill, the accused could no longer personally
cross-examine witnesses. In such cases, witnesses would be
examined or cross-examined by the court.
First of all, I would like to thank the members on both sides of
this House who have already told me they would support my
initiative. I wish to thank them all. I hope that my presentation will
convince other members and that a majority in this House will feel
that my bill is well founded.
Bill C-217 is a solution to the problem of accused people
defending themselves. In fact, the accused can choose their own
defence strategy, including defending themselves. They can then
cross-examine their victims and confront them face to face. I have
two examples of legal proceedings supporting my arguments.
My first example is the trial of former Concordia University
professor Valery Fabrikant. That circus lasted five months, ending
in August 1993. Fabrikant assumed his own defence after firing his
lawyers. He was finally found guilty of murdering his four
colleagues, and he is currently serving a life sentence in the
Donnacona penitentiary, close to Quebec City.
The second case is that of Ferreira, whose trial took place in
Montreal, last fall. This person was accused of forcible
confinement and sexual aggression. As in the above-mentioned
case, Agostino Ferreira assumed his own defence. He even
personally cross-examined his two victims. I deplore the fact that
these aberrations in our legal system were not more strongly
condemned outside Quebec. I presume that a certain regionalism
prevails when it comes to news items of this sort.
For example, reaction to horrible murders committed in British
Columbia is not as strong in New Brunswick. To fully understand
the purpose and the objectives of my bill, it is imperative to see the
facts in these two legal cases that led me to propose this solution.
Here are these facts. On August 24, 1992, around 3 p.m., Valery
Fabrikant, a teacher and researcher at the mechanical engineering
2203
department, entered Sir Henry F. Hall, in Montreal's Concordia
University. He was carrying three fully loaded revolvers, as well as
boxes full of ammunition. He went to his office on the ninth floor
with his union president, professor Michael Hogben, 52, and shot
him point-blank.
He then killed in the same manner professors Ziogas, 48, Saber,
46, and Matthew Douglas, 66. He also shot secretary Elizabeth
Horwood several times, 66, without managing to kill her. He then
locked himself up in an office with the security guard, Daniel
Martin, and Georges Abdou, who managed to disarm him when he
was momentarily distracted. That is the first horror story.
(1800)
On January 4, 1995, Agostino Ferreira entered a clothing store
on Saint-Denis in Montreal. It was 10.30 a.m. and the store was
empty. He indicated to the two young female employees that he
needed their help to write a suicide note, but they did not take him
seriously. In the face of this reaction, Ferreira showed them a bomb
attached to his belt. He said it was powerful enough to blow up the
whole neighbourhood.
He was also armed with a pistol. He calmly told the girls to get
into a taxi. They were afraid that he would set off the bomb, and did
what they were told. The three went to Ferreira's apartment. In a
gloomy room, lit by candles, he had one of them write a suicide
note in which he confessed to a double murder five years earlier.
He then bound the girls with tape. He gagged them, blindfolded
them and tied their hands and feet. He cut the clothes off one of
them with a knife. He then raped both girls. They managed to
escape when he left the apartment to get some cocaine. So much for
the facts.
The Fabrikant and Ferreira cases caused quite a stir in the
metropolitan Montreal area. Apart from the cruelty and the
perversity of these individuals' actions, these two sordid affairs
have one fundamental point in common. These two individuals
presented their own defence, without legal representation, and took
advantage of their rights to personally cross-examine the victims of
their crimes.
In the case of Valery Fabrikant, the trial lasted five months.
Fabrikant, who refused to plead insanity, as his lawyers had
suggested he do, wanted to show that he had been persecuted by
Concordia University. He wanted to mount a defence mid-way
between that of provocation and the battered woman syndrome. In
all, the accused rejected 10 lawyers.
His defence, obviously, was not admissible in law. Provocation
supposes that the accused has been subjected to an insult or an
unfair action such that a reasonable person in the same situation
would have been unable to maintain control and, in the heat of the
moment, would also have killed his victim. This is a defence
which, if accepted by the court, would not have led to an acquittal,
but to lessened criminal responsibility. The individual could have
been found guilty of involuntary homicide rather than murder.
I dare not even touch the battered wife syndrome argument for
fear of losing my cool. There can be no more twisted and abject
individual that one seeking to justify his foul crime by identifying
himself with a woman who has been the victim of spousal violence.
These are nothing more than the dreadful machinations of a
paranoid and narcissistic mind.
The right to a full defence is a fundamental one in our society,
and probably the grounds on which Mr. Justice Fraser Martin
allowed Fabrikant to parade 77 witnesses, mostly from Concordia
University, despite the inadmissibility of the defence of
provocation.
During the entire trial, Valery Fabrikant presented himself as the
victim of persecution, of a plot by the Concordia University
community. He even summoned Elizabeth Horwood, the secretary
who survived the massacre. Our system allows such things.
(1805)
But I would ask this: Is our system better served when someone
who has been accused of attempted murder can cross-examine his
victim and attempt to discredit him or her? No. When there is a
legal counsel, he or she serves as a middleman to cross-examine
the victim without confrontation with the attacker.
I will give you an example of the type of question Fabrikant was
allowed to ask Mrs. Horwood, whom he had shot at: ``Where did I
hit you? What did I look like at the time? Can you describe what I
did?'' Mrs. Horwood acquitted herself very well under the
circumstances, but might she not have been spared a second attack
by the perpetrator?
Take a moment to imagine the state of mind of Mrs. Horwood,
when she again saw her attacker coming toward her to question her
on the events that have left a permanent scar on her life? After five
months of trial, the jury deliberated seven hours before finding the
ex-professor guilty of the charges against him.
During the trial, Fabrikant did not hesitate to insult Judge
Martin, which earned him six citations for contempt of court. The
Supreme Court of Canada finally sealed this murderer's fate on
June 2, 1994, by refusing him leave to appeal. That put an end to
the circus trial.
The story of Agostino Ferreira is scarcely any better, in fact in
some ways it is more loathsome. I shall not go into the facts of the
case, except to point out that Ferreira was charged with forceable
confinement, kidnapping and assault. At the trial, the victims were
cross-examined by Ferreira himself, who did not have a lawyer.
He started out by apologizing to the first of the two victims for
asking her questions. He asked her if the suspect-the suspect
being himself-had acted not out of spite but out of love. Ferreira
also asked questions related to his statement that someone or some
2204
force may have been with him in the room when he committed
these rapes. This cross-examination lasted an hour and and a half.
The next day, Ferreira cross-examined the second rape victim for
an hour and ten minutes. Referring to a crucifix, he asked her is her
legs were spread apart in the shape of a cross at the time of the rape.
He also asked her: ``Were you flogged? Did you have to wear a
crown of thorns?'' This, to me, is an abomination.
I readily admit that such incidents are fortunately not
representative of most cases before the courts. Nonetheless, we as
legislators have a duty to review Canada's criminal law so that it
recognizes the rights of the victims.
If this House cannot give them an active role in legal
proceedings, the least it can do is protect them adequately. This is
the logic behind Bill C-217.
This bill would amend the Criminal Code so that the protection
already provided to victims of sexual or violent offences who are
younger than 14 is extended to all victims.
That is why I am asking the members of this House to support
my bill.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. An
agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing
Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the committee stage of Bill
C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of
my intent to propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific
number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of
proceedings at the said stage.
* * *
(1810)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would also like to
offer my comments on Private Member's Bill C-217.
[English]
In our opinion the bill itself would extend to all witnesses certain
provisions of the Criminal Code which protect witnesses under the
age of 14 years in prosecutions for sexual offences and offences
involving violence. The proposed bill would extend these
protections to all witnesses.
I believe that all members would agree with the member's goal
of removing any traumatic element and facilitating witness
participation in the criminal justice system. However, because the
amendment would affect fundamental principles of the criminal
justice system, such as open justice and the right to conduct one's
defence, I think it needs to be examined seriously before we agree
to include it in the Criminal Code.
The protection granted to witnesses in the criminal justice
system has been improved significantly in recent years. The
Criminal Code already includes a number of provisions to
safeguard adult victims of sexual offences. At the discretion of a
judge, he or she may exclude members of the public, place
publication bans on the identity of complainants and witnesses,
make evidentiary provisions such as restrictions on questioning
about previous sexual activity and even hold in camera hearings for
the determination of admissibility of certain evidence.
All of these safeguards would apply even where the accused is
not represented by counsel. These protections have been granted to
ensure that victims and witnesses can provide their testimony
without being intimidated. We must examine Bill C-217 in light of
the protections that already exist.
Bill C-217 would extend to adults protections that are currently
provided to children. What protection would be extended to all
witnesses under Bill C-217? Basically there are two protections.
The first would allow the judge to exclude the public from the
courtroom when he or she believes the interest of the witness
requires this. The second would permit a judge to prevent an
accused from personally cross-examining a witness.
Bill C-217 would build upon the recent Criminal Code
provisions enacted on August 1, 1993. The issue is whether these
protections which are justified by the particular vulnerability of
young persons would also be justified if extended to adults.
Let us examine the first protection. The prohibition for an
accused to cross-examine a child witness comes from concerns that
a cross-examination conducted by the accused would nullify the
protection granted by allowing the child to testify behind a screen.
In the case of a child, it is therefore justified by this concern and the
need to avoid that child from coming face to face with the
aggressor. This is particularly important because we know that
child abuse occurs in part because of the dominant position of the
adult in relation to the child.
2205
Cross-examination by an accused of a child victim would
continue that abuse. This is the reason the Criminal Code provides
that an accused shall not personally cross-examine a witness under
14 years, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper
administration of justice requires that the accused do so.
What happens when a judge does not allow an accused to
personally cross-examine a child? The judge in that case can
appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination of the child. This
provision applies in all sexual offences and in all offences in which
violence against the person has been used, alleged or threatened.
This provision, coupled with the provision for the use of screens or
closed circuit television, ensures that child victims will not have to
face their abusers. This may assist them in providing their
evidence.
Bill C-217 would extend that protection to all victims and
witnesses of sexual offences and crimes of violence. In all cases of
sexual or violent offence the judge could appoint counsel for an
unrepresented accused to conduct the cross-examination not only
of the victim, but also of any witness.
I readily agree with the hon. member that this protection would
be beneficial. I would question however whether this protection is
necessary and I would like to examine its implications. There
would be implications on costs when counsel is appointed by the
court to conduct cross-examination for an unrepresented accused.
The Criminal Code already provides for the appointment of
counsel for unrepresented accused persons in specific
circumstances. For example, the court can appoint counsel to act
for an accused considered unfit to stand trial.
(1815 )
The Supreme Court of Canada can appoint counsel when it
appears that the accused, whose case is brought before the Supreme
Court, is financially unable to retain counsel and it is in the interest
of justice to have the accused represented by counsel.
Who pays for these lawyers? As members know, under the
Constitution the administration of justice is a provincial
responsibility. Where a judge appoints a counsel to act on behalf of
an unrepresented accused, it will in most cases be the responsibility
of the provincial attorney general to pay for that appointment.
Bill C-217 would significantly increase the number of cases
where the courts would appoint counsel, if the courts were
permitted to appoint counsel, for an unrepresented accused in
sexual offences, sexual assaults and crimes of violence against the
person regardless of whether the witness is a child or an adult.
This would create the potential for imposing major costs on the
provinces, which have already expressed their concerns about the
cost implications where counsel is appointed in the rather
exceptional circumstances covered under present Criminal Code
provisions. Cost implications would significantly increase if the
amendments provided for in Bill C-217 were to in effect become
law.
Because of this, I would think it is absolutely essential that all
provinces be consulted about the proposed bill before it is passed. I
doubt if the hon. member has had the time to perform these
consultations.
I now want to examine another protection that would be
extended in Bill C-217, the exclusion of the public from the
courtroom. It is a general principle of our criminal justice system
that all proceedings take place in open court. The presiding judge
does, however, currently have discretion, provided by section
486(1) of the code, to exclude all or any of the members of the
public where the judge is of the opinion that it is in the interest of
public morals, the maintenance of order or the proper
administration of justice to do so.
In addition, section 486(1.1) of the code currently directs the
judge, when considering the term ``proper administration of
justice'', to include in that consideration ensuring that the interests
of witnesses under 14 are safeguarded in proceedings arising from
a sexual offence, a sexual assault offence or an offence involving
violence against the person.
The proposed bill before us would expand the direction given to
the judge in interpreting the proper administration of justice. In
interpreting the proper administration of justice the judge would
have to consider that the interests of all witnesses, not just those
under 14, are safeguarded in sexual offences, sexual assault
offences and crimes involving violence.
Can we believe that a judge who is asked to decide on whether
the public should be excluded from court does not already consider
whether a particular witness would be able to provide the necessary
and relevant evidence in a public courtroom? I believe the
discretion to exclude members of the public is carefully exercised
by all judges. I do not believe it is necessary to require the judge to
consider the interests of all witnesses in determining whether to
exclude members of the public.
While I am in agreement with the hon. member's intentions in
introducing the bill, I cannot support it for two basic reasons. First,
some implications of the bill involve provincial jurisdictions, and
we should not impose on them without proper consultations.
Second, I believe the actual modifications proposed are not
necessary at this time.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I commend the drafter of this bill, my colleague from the Bloc, for
her compassion and concern for the comfort and rights of victims
of monsters such as in the case she talked about in her presentation.
I am a little surprised she did not see fit to support our motion that a
victims' bill of rights be drafted and passed by the government
2206
because I see in her presentation today that she is very concerned
about victims' rights.
However, in this draft bill we have to balance two competing
interests. The first is the desire to put as little stress and unfairness
as we are able on victims of terrible crimes in order for them not to
have to relive their horror. We also have to look at the principles of
jurisprudence that will be affected by the changes being suggested
by my hon. colleague.
(1820)
There are two principles of jurisprudence which will be affected
by this bill. One is the right to face one's accuser, which has long
been a cornerstone of common law. Second, justice will be done in
the open. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done,
to quote a very long established principle of our justice system.
This proposal would amend two subsections of section 486 of
the Criminal Code of Canada to allow in certain circumstances,
particularly those of sexual assault and violent assault, that even in
the case of an adult victim, the victim or the witness could give
evidence in a closed courtroom and also that the accused could be
prevented from personally facing their accuser.
As has been pointed out in the previous intervention by a
government member, there is already in the Criminal Code the
flexibility, the discretion of a court to protect witnesses in certain
ways. These discretions are sufficient to prevent the excesses the
member moving the motion is talking about.
For example, in the murder trial of Fabrikant which was alluded
to, the judge ended the testimony of one witness after Fabrikant,
acting as his own lawyer, became, in the judge's words, insulting,
sarcastic and brutal. The judge did have and did exercise discretion
to prevent further abuse of and unwarranted interference with the
witness.
We do not condone trials behind closed doors. When it is
absolutely necessary, we do allow judges in the interests of public
morals, the maintenance of order and the administration of justice,
to curtail somewhat the right of the public to access to a public
trial. We saw that in the Bernardo trials and in others.
Because an open court is fundamental to the pursuit of justice in
Canada and it is guaranteed under the charter of rights and
freedoms, we should be very careful about further interference with
that right. Section 11(d) of the charter states: ``Any person charged
with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an
independent and impartial tribunal''.
It is interesting to note that when the current age restriction of 14
was introduced in Bill C-126, the matter was referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The criminal
lawyers association testifying before that committee questioned
why the legislation decided 14 was the proper age at which the
interests of the witness could be better protected than by provisions
already in the code. Previously there had been a very full debate
into the whole question of at what age and in what circumstances
special protections for witnesses should be written into our
legislation.
In a society which values the principle of open court and where
the principle of open court is deemed essential to our legal system
so that Canadians can have faith in it, we as legislators should be
extremely cautious about changes which will affect those
fundamental rights.
(1825 )
I concur with the mover of the bill that it is terrible and
repugnant that victims who have already gone through a
tremendously traumatic and terrible experience be unfairly asked
to relive this and should be further abused in the trial. Our courts
should do everything possible, and there are discretions available
to the courts, to prevent that.
Legislating for the most extreme scenario, for cases furthest out
on the swing of the pendulum, is not the proper way to structure our
justice system. We have to deal with those kinds of extreme cases
by other measures, not changing fundamentally our entire justice
system because there has been a very extreme and unusual abuse of
it.
The second amendment to the Criminal Code being sought by
this private member's bill deals with a person's right to
cross-examine a witness. Currently the code provides for a witness
under the age of 14 not to have to face direct cross-examination.
Instead the court may appoint counsel to conduct the
cross-examination. Bill C-217 would remove the age restriction of
a witness whom a defendant could personally cross-examine.
This part of the Criminal Code also deals with people who act as
their own defence lawyers. As the mover of this bill quite properly
pointed out, there are some occasions when an accused acting as
their own defence lawyer very much abuses the system. That
should call for the proper intervention of the court.
Again, denying or limiting that person a right to defend herself
or himself does interfere with the fundamental element of our
system of jurisprudence and we should be very cautious about
expanding further the erosion of that principle.
While giving protection to a witness to avoid unpleasant court
room tactics by a defendant is something we all recognize is a
desirable aim, there is the competing interest of upholding the
established principles of our justice system. The issue has been
studied by a number of organizations in the past, including the law
2207
commission. As I said, there has been legislation dealt with by the
justice committee of the House of Commons.
It appears the protections and the discretion available to the
court are already present to prevent the excesses this bill is trying
to address. An expansion to the extent contemplated in this bill
would not be warranted. We should be very cautious about
expanding these every time an extreme case comes along.
I recommend to the House that we applaud and recognize the
intent behind the bill and the humanity which motivates it but
reject the logic and the necessity for the measures being proposed.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-217 seeks to extend certain protections in the Criminal Code
currently provided to young witnesses under the age of 14 in
prosecutions for sexual offences and offences involving violence.
The bill would extend these protections to all witnesses.
I applaud the member's intentions in proposing these
amendments to the Criminal Code. The criminal justice depends on
victims and witnesses to report crimes and co-operate to the fullest
extent possible, including participating as witnesses at preliminary
inquiries and trials. The criminal justice should therefore facilitate
a witness's participation. Participating as a witness should not turn
out to be more traumatic than the crime itself.
(1830)
Over the past 10 years many improvements have been made to
ensure that victims and witnesses can provide their testimony
without fear of intimidation. While Bill C-217 would build on
these improvements, we would be cautious in supporting the
amendments without a very careful examination of their
implications and without consideration of the background of the
current provisions.
I am well aware of a recent sexual assault trial in Montreal where
the accused represented himself and subjected the victims to hours
of cross-examination. This case has naturally outraged victim
advocates and the public. If those victims had been under 14 years
the Criminal Code would have permitted the judge to appoint a
lawyer to act for the accused and conduct the cross-examination.
The victims would not have had to be personally questioned by
their attacker.
The member's proposed bill would respond to that case by
extending these procedures to all witnesses. My concern is that the
amendments may be too broad and too far reaching and may not in
the current form be necessary.
The Criminal Code already includes several protections to
ensure that young victims and witnesses are able to provide
necessary testimony. In addition there are several provisions to
facilitate the participation of sexual assault victims whether young
or adult. While these recent reforms to the law are designed to
assist victims and witnesses, we cannot ignore the fact that people
have an obligation and a duty to report crime and provide relevant
information and evidence. In some cases it will not be a pleasant
experience.
In the case of young victims and witnesses there is a requirement
in the Canada Evidence Act that the judge must conduct an inquiry
to determine if a witness under the age of 14 is able to
communicate the evidence and understands the nature of an oath or
affirmation. Even where a young witness cannot be sworn they may
still be able to provide evidence wherever young witnesses are
deserving of special protection.
The provisions of the Criminal Code which the proposed bill
would amend, that is sections 486(1.1) and 486(2.3), were only
proclaimed into force August 1, 1993. The amendments were
included in Bill C-126 which proposed a wide range of proposals
which in part responded to the recommendations made by the
parliamentary committee that reviewed the child sexual abuse
provisions of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-126 resulted in additional reforms to the child sexual
abuse provisions of the Criminal Code, including abrogating any
requirement that the court warn a jury about convicting an accused
on the evidence of a child; providing for special prohibitions and
probation orders for persons convicted of certain offences against
children, for example, prohibiting offenders from seeking
employment or volunteer work involving children.
It also included providing for peace bonds where it is feared a
person will commit a sexual offence against a child; permitting a
support person to accompany a child while testifying; providing
that the judge consider the need to safeguard the interests of the
witnesses under the age of 14 when determining whether the
exclusion of the public from the courtroom would be in the
interests of the proper administration of justice; permitting a judge
to prohibit an accused from personally cross-examining a child.
These amendments were designed to enhance the reforms made
in 1988 by Bill C-15 to effectively deal with child sexual abuse.
One of those original amendments provided that child sexual abuse
offences and sexual assault offences, the complainant could testify
from behind a screen or by closed circuit television if the judge is
of the opinion that the exclusion is necessary to obtain a full and
candid account of the acts complained of from the complainant.
In other words, if the face to face contact with the alleged abuser
would make it difficult to obtain the necessary evidence, the judge
could order the use of a screen or closed circuit television.
2208
(1835)
However, the protection provided for young complainants by
this section was illusory where the accused chose to represent
himself. The accused, acting as his own lawyer, could come face to
face with his young victim. The amendments passed in 1993 were
designed to address this problem and were accordingly focused on
young witnesses.
We know that child abuse occurs in part because of the
inequalities between children and adults in size, knowledge and
power. Cross-examination by an accused of a child victim
continued the abuse. Therefore, the Criminal Code was amended to
provide that an accused shall not personally cross-examine a
witness under 14, unless the judge is of the opinion that the proper
administration of justice requires the accused to do so. The judge
can appoint counsel for the unrepresented accused to conduct the
cross-examination of the child.
This provision applies in sexual offences or in an offence in
which violence against the person has been used, alleged or
threatened. This provision, coupled with the provision for the use
of screens or closed circuit television ensures that child victims
will not have to face their abuser which may assist them in
providing their evidence.
The private member's bill before us would open that protection
to all victims and witnesses of sexual offences and crimes of
violence. The judge could appoint counsel for unrepresented
accused to conduct the cross-examination of a victim or witness.
I have no doubt this protection would be beneficial and
desirable, but is this protection necessary for all adult witnesses or
only certain more vulnerable witnesses? We must carefully
examine the implications of such proposals.
As I indicated, these provisions were designed to address the
problems of child sexual abuse to ensure that young victims of
abuse could provide the necessary evidence. However, adults are
presumed to be able to provide necessary and relevant evidence.
The Criminal Code already includes a number of provisions to
safeguard adult victims of sexual offences, including the discretion
of a judge to exclude members of the public, to order publication
bans on the identity of complainants and witnesses, to make
evidentiary provisions such as restrictions on questioning about
previous sexual activity and in camera hearings for the
determination of admissibility of certain evidence. All those
safeguards would apply even where the accused is not represented
by counsel.
We must also consider the cost implications. Who will pay for
the lawyers appointed to act for unrepresented accused? As
members know, under our Constitution, the administration of
justice in the provinces is a provincial responsibility. Where a
judge appoints a counsel to act for an unrepresented accused, it
would in most cases be the responsibility of the provincial
attorneys general to pay for that appointment.
If we permit the court to appoint counsel for unrepresented
accused in sexual offences, sexual assaults or crimes of violence
against the person, we are creating the potential for imposing major
costs on the provinces. It is therefore absolutely essential and
necessary that all provinces be consulted about the proposed
amendment.
The Criminal Code already includes similar provisions to
appoint counsel for unrepresented accused persons in specific
circumstances. For example, where an accused is thought to be
unfit to stand trial, the court can appoint counsel to act for the
accused. For appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, that court
can appoint counsel where it is in the interests of justice and where
it appears the accused is financially unable to retain counsel.
These are exceptional cases that arise rather infrequently.
Nevertheless, the provinces have expressed their concerns about
the potential cost implications where counsel is appointed in these
circumstances. Perhaps we should consider permitting a judge to
appoint counsel to conduct the cross-examination on behalf of an
unrepresented accused where the victim makes an application and
where in the judge's view, the interests of justice demand.
However, even this more limited measure should be discussed with
the provincial attorneys general.
It is a general principle of our criminal justice system that all
proceedings take place in open court. The presiding judge does,
however, have the discretion provided by the act to exclude all or
any members of the public.
There are many protections in place at this time. We
acknowledge the positive intent of the bill but we believe that
consultations should be conducted with the provinces and all
aspects of the bill reviewed.
(1840)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to give my unconditional support to Bill C-217,
tabled by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, whom I want to
congratulate. This bill will amend the Criminal Code to provide
increased protection to witnesses who were victims of sexual
assault, or against whom violence was attempted or threatened.
These witnesses would therefore avoid being cross-examined by
the accused, as is currently the case for persons under 14 years of
age. This would eliminate a sometimes absurd situation which has
gone on for too long.
2209
Recently, an increasing number of people charged with assault
have decided to undertake their own defence. Every time an
accused decides to do without the services of a lawyer, his victims
run the risk of being once again confronted with their aggressor,
this time in public.
Moreover, the legal system is also affected by austerity
measures. Among others things, eligibility criteria for legal aid are
becoming more stringent. This means that an increasing number of
people are not eligible for legal aid, since their income is deemed
too high. Still, these people do not have enough money to afford a
lawyer.
Undertaking one's own defence then becomes an alternative that
many will choose, thus increasing the risk of a court confrontation
between the aggressor and the victim. It is important to think about
the plight of a victim having to testify in court before the person
who assaulted her.
Our adversarial system is based primarily on the confrontation
of two parties: the state on one side, represented by the crown
attorney, and the accused on the other side, usually represented by a
lawyer. The victim of a criminal act is not considered to be a third
party in the case. However, he or she remains a key witness who
can often provide invaluable evidence. Therefore, it is important to
ensure his or her protection and to see that his or her testimony is
made in the best possible conditions.
This is precisely what Bill C-217 seeks to ensure. It is not a
magic formula that will turn the victim's testimony into a fun thing,
but it is a simple way of making sure that he or she does not have to
go through the absurd ordeal of facing the aggressor again and be
forced to answer his questions.
A few years ago, the federal government amended section 486 of
the Criminal Code in a fashion similar to the one proposed by the
hon. member for Saint-Hubert in her bill, except that it legislated to
prohibit the accused who has undertaken his own defence from
cross-examining victims under the age of 14. This goes to show
that the federal government is aware of the fact that, in some cases,
to ensure the protection of the witness who is also a victim, the
court may have to impose on the accused that the
cross-examination at least be conducted by counsel.
Age is not the only factor that makes a victim vulnerable. In rape
or verbal, physical and psychological abuse cases, the victim often
ends up in a cruelly and painfully fragile emotional and
psychological state. Having to take the stand is already hard
enough, and answering questions from their aggressors represents
quite an ordeal for victims who often are still in a state of shock.
Beyond the legal aspect, there is also a whole human aspect,
which cannot be ignored. Our system certainly recognizes the
rights of the accused. The accused has every right to conduct his
case without counsel. But many experts maintain that it is suicide
to go it alone, the rules and proceedings being far too complex to be
readily assimilated by lay persons and used in a trial.
However, for various reasons, some individuals accused of
violent and sexual crimes choose to conduct their own defence. The
risk remains then that the accused could misuse this right to once
again confront and traumatize his victim by asking abusive
questions, making the victim relive every instant of this painful
experience.
(1845)
Recently, two cases have clearly illustrated the absurd nature of
the situation that prevails at this time. We need only to think of the
notorious Agostino Ferreira, who was allowed to cross-examine,
for several hours, the two employees from a boutique on rue
Saint-Denis in Montreal, whom he had assaulted and raped.
We can barely imagine the state of mind of these two victims,
when brought face to face with the same person who had
humiliated them in the worst possible way. Imagine what was
going through their minds when the person responsible for their
rape was asking them questions about the details of this horrible
event.
Let us remember the Concordia killings as well. The person
responsible, Valery Fabrikant, dismissed his lawyers and
cross-examined the witnesses himself, which was truly a verbal
torture for them.
In most cases where the accused himself cross-examines the
victim, the victim, after having been humiliated by the accused, is
forced to relive the whole event, this time in public.
There is a way of sparing the victims this additional torture,
without infringing on the rights guaranteed to the accused by law.
Restricting the rights of the accused to defend himself in assault
cases of a violent or sexual nature, as proposed in the bill of my
colleague for Saint-Hubert, would afford the victims additional
protection during the trial process.
In conclusion, the system can be as efficient as possible, but one
fact remains: the key element in the legal process in cases of
assault and sexual abuse is the victim's reporting of the attack and
charging the attacker or attackers. If, for one reason or another, the
victims do not testify as to what they experienced, any legal
system, even the best in the world, will prove totally ineffective.
But, as long as assault victims continue to courageously bring
their abusers to justice, and as long as the law makers and legal
precedent recognizes their rights, the basic and vital objectives of
criminal law-protecting society and setting an example-still
have a chance to be met.
2210
These are the reasons why Bill C-217 represents a giant step
toward a more efficient and effective legal system, through a
greater understanding and protection of those who are still the key
element in the system, the victims.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The division
stands deferred until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
_____________________________________________
2210
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1850)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, last week, just after the Minister of Finance
announced the federal government was harmonizing the GST with
the provincial sales tax of three Atlantic provinces, but before the
Deputy Prime Minister resigned because the Liberals had broken
their election promise on this issue, I had the opportunity to
question the Minister of Finance about the harmonization scheme.
The government knows this is the most hated tax in the history of
the country, and Canadians remember well that in the 1993
campaign the Liberals campaigned strongly against it. We all
remember well the candidates on our doorsteps, the literature in our
mailboxes and the words of the high profile members of the Liberal
Party stating that if elected, the Liberals would get rid of the GST.
When he announced the harmonization package last week, the
Minister of Finance apologized to Canadians. He said the Liberals
were wrong to promise they would get rid of the GST. With the
Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister we now have
two senior government ministers acknowledging the Liberal's
mistake. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the replacement
harmonization program is also a mistake.
Harmonization is clearly a shift in the wrong direction. It shifts
an even greater share of the tax burden from the corporations to the
consumers.
New Democrats think it is time to acknowledge that what the
country needs instead of harmonization is meaningful tax reform.
In reality it is the consumers who need the tax break, not the
corporations.
When I posed my question to the minister I pointed out he had
already boasted that the GST harmonization would be good for
business. At the same time I pointed out the provinces were saying
harmonization would end up costing them money because at the
present time the corporations pay provincial tax but under the new
harmonization scheme they would not. In Saskatchewan that shift
is pegged at around $400 million in losses to the province.
It has already been readily acknowledged outside the Chamber
that harmonization is a fabulous giveaway to the large
multinational profitable corporations doing business in Canada.
For this giveaway the corporations have had to do absolutely
nothing.
Did the corporations have to agree to lower prices? No, they did
not. Did the corporations have to agree to create any new jobs or
even maintain the ones that exist today? No, they did not. Did the
corporations even have to promise to keep their profits in Canada
for investment in jobs or investment in our communities? No, they
did not. The corporations get this huge windfall for absolutely
nothing.
When we look back at what the Mulroney Tories did when they
first introduced the GST, we see they provided a great deal of
documentation to substantiate their claim. Much of that
documentation was subject to debate. Nevertheless the
documentation was made public.
Today we have the Liberals introducing the harmonized tax but
nowhere is documentation provided to substantiate the new claim.
The Liberals say the economy will boom, jobs will be created and
prices will be lowered. However, they have introduced or produced
absolutely no evidence, no studies to back this up.
The Minister of Finance seems to want Canadians to trust him, to
take him on his word on this one. Surely the minister understands
that when he said he would get rid of the GST Canadians did trust
him. When he said he was wrong, when he said he made a mistake,
Canadians lost their trust in him. He must now rebuild and regain
that trust, which will be very difficult.
2211
Surely he has reviewed the issue of harmonization and the tax
shift from corporations to consumers very carefully. Surely he has
done his homework and has the evidence to support the claims
he is making to the Canadian public.
Surely in the interests of public trust he can produce this material
and at the same time outline for all Canadians to see how much of
the current tax burden is being transferred from the corporate
sector to the ordinary taxpaying consumer. That is what I asked in
my question of last week.
Canadians are tired of being treated like uneducated, unthinking
children. Let us admit that harmonization is wrong. Stop the
process and begin to address the real issue of tax fairness.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will avoid the temptation to do
anything other than answer the question that I thought was asked
and use the time to respond to that question as is intended to be the
case at this hour in the House. Let me begin by reminding the
House what the Minister of Finance said in his statement on sales
tax harmonization on April 23.
Anyone who believes that business in this country does not pass
on provincial sales taxes to the consumer is simply naive.
Consumers are already paying for the imposition of retail sales tax
on business inputs in the form of higher prices. Because of reduced
competitiveness for Canadian products in both domestic and
international markets as a result of those higher prices, consumers
are also paying in the form of fewer jobs and lower wages. There
will therefore be no shift in tax burden from business to consumers
under harmonization. Canadian consumers are already bearing
these costs in one way or another.
In fact, consumers will benefit from harmonization. Competitive
market conditions will ensure that businesses pass on the tax
savings under a harmonized valued added tax to consumers. This
will result in a decline in price on most goods and services they
buy. In combination with the lower sales tax rate in harmonized
provinces, these price declines will result in lower after tax
consumer prices on many purchases and substantial overall sales
tax savings to families and individuals.
Removing sales tax from business inputs will also enhance the
competitiveness of Canadian goods and services when competing
with foreign suppliers in international markets and at home which
will benefit individual Canadians through higher and more stable
employment and income levels.
Moreover, harmonization will lead to an additional benefit to
business and consumers, reduced complexity and tax compliance
costs. For business, harmonization will mean one sales tax not two,
one tax base not two, one tax rate not two, and one sales tax
administration not two.
These savings will be substantial. As much as $700 million in
annual sales tax compliance costs will disappear under
harmonization on a national basis according to the Canadian
Institute of Chartered Accountants. Like the tax savings which
businesses will receive under harmonization, these savings will
also lead to lower consumer prices and increased economic
competitiveness in harmonizing provinces.
The only real consumer costs associated with this issue are those
imposed on Canadians in non-harmonizing provinces by
governments which continue to cling to inefficient and
uncompetitive retail sales tax systems.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House
stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
(The House adjourned at 6.59 p.m.)