37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 046
CONTENTS
Monday, April 23, 2001
1105
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ways and Means
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Divisions on Motions Nos. 4 and 5 deferred
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
| Bill C-249. Second reading
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
1125
1130
| Mr. David Anderson |
1135
1140
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1145
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1150
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1155
1200
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-13. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mr. Tony Valeri |
1210
1215
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Mr. Joe Peschisolido |
1240
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Third reading
|
| Division on motion deferred
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADARM2
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1400
| QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| EARTH DAY
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| CANADA BOOK DAY
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| ELMIRA FESTIVAL
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1405
| ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. David Anderson |
| ARMENIA
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
1410
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Comartin |
| WORLD BOOK AND COPYRIGHT DAY
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONS
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
1415
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Pierre Paquette |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| LUMBER INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1435
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1440
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| ORGAN DONATION
|
| Mr. Dan McTeague |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1445
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1450
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| LUMBER
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Pierre Pettigrew |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Rob Merrifield |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1505
| COPYRIGHT ACT
|
| Bill C-337. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| PETITIONS
|
| Antarctica
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VIA Rail
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Kidney Disease
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Labelling of Alcoholic Products
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mining Industry
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
1510
| Trade
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Summit of the Americas
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-24. Second reading
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1515
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1600
1605
1610
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1615
1620
1625
1630
| Mr. Dennis Mills |
1635
| Mr. Stephen Owen |
1640
1645
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1650
1655
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1700
1705
1710
1715
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1720
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1725
| Mr. Andé Bachand |
1730
1735
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1740
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1745
1750
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1755
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1800
1805
1810
1815
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
1820
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1825
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1830
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-9. Report Stage.
|
1850
1900
(Division 70)
| Motion No. 1 negatived
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
(Division 71)
| Motion agreed to
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-17. Second reading
|
(Division 72)
| Motion agreed to
|
| INCOME TAX ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Second reading
|
1905
(Division 73)
| Motion agreed to
|
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Third reading
|
(Division 77)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LABELLING
|
| Motion
|
1915
(Division 74)
| Motion agreed to
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Tobacco Products
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
(Division 75)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Nuclear Fuel Waste
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
(Division 76)
| Motion agreed to
|
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1920
| Shipbuilding
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1925
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 046
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 23, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation
among House leaders and I think if you were to seek it you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That divisions on ways and means proceedings number 4 and number
5 be deemed to have been requested and deferred to the end of the
time for consideration of government orders this day.
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader have
unanimous consent to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved that Bill
C-249, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (Crown
corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board) be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly nice to be back in the
House after the Easter break. It is also nice to see you in the
Chair, as well as my colleagues from the House, and to get back
to the parry and thrust of the House and politics.
It is my pleasure to stand, as the first member in the House
after the break, to talk about something that I am very
passionate about and something I feel is very important with
respect to governments of all kinds, that is, openness and
transparency, where in fact governments and crown corporations
should be accountable to the people that they serve.
In this case, the bill speaks to the Access to Information Act
and openness and transparency, particularly by crown corporations
but also by the Canadian Wheat Board. Being a member of
parliament from an area in western Canada, I have a great deal of
responsibility for the agricultural community. A lot of
producers talk to me on a fairly regular basis with respect to
not only agriculture but the role that is currently being played
by the Canadian Wheat Board in western Canada and the marketing
of particular products, such as wheat and barley.
Bill C-249 unfortunately, and I underline the term
unfortunately, has been deemed to not be a votable item.
I also sit on the private members' business committee. We are
currently looking at the possibility of having all private
members' business, whether it be bills or motions, made votable.
I personally believe a good first step to the renewal of this
Chamber and this House would be to give all members of parliament
the opportunity to put forward what they feel are necessary
changes to government policy and to have their changes voted on.
Unfortunately this bill is not votable. Having sat on that
committee, I do take some responsibility I suppose but I still
suggest very strongly that this bill should be votable. I know
other members of other parties will agree with me when I say that
the Access to Information Act is not there simply for governments
to be able to not put information forward but for members, not
only of parliament but also of the public, to access information
from crown corporations and government which they feel is
rightfully theirs.
The bill raises a very important question for policymakers to
answer. Should the Access to Information Act be extended to
include crown corporations, including the Canadian Wheat Board as
it is currently structured, as defined under the Financial
Administrations Act?
Some crown corporations are already subject to the Access to
Information Act, such as the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. Others, such as Canada Post and the Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited, are not.
1110
The argument made most often by these companies and the federal
government is that because they are subject to competitive
pressures of the marketplace, they should be exempt from the
Access to Information Act. Their legitimate fear is that their
competitors will use the act to obtain sensitive information that
could be used to undermine the corporation's competitive
advantage. That is a legitimate concern.
What most people do not realize, however, is that under section
18 of the Access to Information Act, government institutions can
exempt competitively sensitive information. The act says:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any
record requested under this Act that contains (a) trade secrets
or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information
that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government
institution and has substantial value or is reasonably likely to
have substantial value; (b) information the disclosure of which
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive
position of a government institution;
The reason I read that section is that we already have the
ability under the act to not provide information that would or
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive
position of a government institution. We cannot use that excuse
to not open up the boundaries of access to information to other
crown corporations, including the Canadian Wheat Board.
It goes on to exclude information, the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the
financial interests of the Government of Canada. Section 18 then
may offer exemptions significant enough under the act that crown
corporations and the Canadian Wheat Board would be able to comply
with the act without having to disclose sensitive, competitive
information. What it would do is allow that openness and
transparency of these corporations, including the Canadian Wheat
Board, to be made mandatory to give information that does not
fall within these categories. I will talk to that briefly in a
moment.
The bill I have put forward today not only addresses some of the
most paramount concerns farmers have with the Canadian Wheat
Board but of all crown corporations that include transparency and
accountability. As in any crown corporation or, as the Canadian
Wheat Board is now known, a mixed corporation, Canadians expect
no less and they should continue to expect no less.
When the Canadian Wheat Board was incorporated by the Canadian
Wheat Board Act in 1935 it was established to market,
interprovincially and for export, Canadian wheat and barley for
producers. The wheat board is a monopoly system. If a producer
wants to sell wheat or barley outside the Canadian Wheat Board,
he must apply for an export permit. This means he sells his
product to the Canadian Wheat Board, obtains a permit, buys the
wheat back from the Canadian Wheat Board and then sells it on the
open market. In other words, the farmer has no choice as to how
he markets his commodity. It has to go through the Canadian
Wheat Board, a wheat board that generates sales of wheat and
barley in excess of approximately $6 billion annually.
The point I am getting at is that the farmers do not have a
choice but to market through the Canadian Wheat Board. There is
a lot of money at stake for the producers so why should the CWB
not be accountable and transparent to those very producers, those
very people it is there to serve?
Somewhere throughout the over 65 year history of the Canadian
Wheat Board, farmers started to question the agency that was
supposed to represent their best interests. They started to
question its monopoly and the returns compared to that of the
marketplace.
Most farmers in western Canada do not want to eliminate the
Canadian Wheat Board. Others may speak to that comment and may
well disagree with it, but the people I have talked to have
initially said that they do not want necessarily to get rid of
the Canadian Wheat Board. They simply want it to be able to
compete in an open and transparent basis.
Canadians expect accountability for publicly funded
institutions, as they should be. I firmly believe that the bill
before us today would only add to that accountability.
I want to talk very briefly about why this particular piece of
legislation is before the House today: openness and
transparency.
In a previous life and in a previous form of government, I
learned a long time ago that it is much better to be open to the
people and the public we serve. In the municipal government
there is nothing hidden behind closed doors.
1115
I found out a long time ago when there is a closed door meeting,
even if they are only talking about what to serve on the menu,
immediately there is some distrust. When the doors are closed
and the information is not flowing, something is happening behind
those doors.
That is what is happening with the wheat board. I do not
believe that there is anything sinister happening behind those
closed doors. I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board is hiding
behind those doors and not allowing the true information to come
forward. If it does, I do not believe that it will be
detrimental to the operations of the corporation.
I will give one small example. A number of months ago the
Canadian Wheat Board commissioned a survey. It was its survey,
done of its producers. Some 1,500 people were surveyed. They
were asked to answer questions. The questions were asked, the
data were gathered, and that information is not available to the
public. Although it was gathered from the public, gathered from
the people who are the stakeholders in the corporation, the
information from that survey is not made available publicly
because, I am told, it is way too sensitive commercially.
I would even accept that the information gathered was too
sensitive commercially. By the way, I went to the access to
information office and was told quite emphatically that the
corporation did not fall within the guidelines of access to
information.
I then wrote a letter to the board and asked for the survey
results and was told that I could not access them or be given the
results. Then I asked a simple question: could I have the
questions that were asked in the survey? I did not ask for the
information that was gleaned or all the data gathered. It was a
matter of the questions that were asked of the people who
supplied the information. I was told that the information was
way too sensitive and commercial. I could not even get the
questions that they asked.
The board asked those questions of 1,500 people. They were not
meant to be kept secret. It was simply a matter of giving me the
questions asked, and I could not get them. Even though I believe
the information the board would have given me would not have
impacted on its operations at all, it tells me that there is a
closed door mentality that it does not have to give information
and therefore it will not.
That adds another nail into coffin of the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is not what I want. I want openness and transparency from
the wheat board.
Access to information is supposed to work quite simply. A
person filing a request pays $5 to ask for a range of records
held by federal departments and agencies including memos,
briefing notes, expense reports and audits. For the initial $5
fee the person receives five hours of government search and
preparation time, beyond which departments may charge additional
costs.
Access to information does not go as smoothly as it is supposed
to go. In fact a recent report by the information commissioner,
Mr. John Reid, was highly critical of the federal government for
undermining the spirit of openness by showing palpable animosity
toward the process. The commissioner stated that some
bureaucrats have even threatened the career prospects of their
staff members that investigate complaints from dissatisfied
people who have filed access to information requests.
This is totally contrary to the act. Moreover, Federal Court of
Canada Justice Edmond Blanchard ruled recently that the federal
government tried to circumvent the will of the information act by
refusing to release papers explaining the reasons behind one of
cabinet's environmental decisions relating to Ethyl Canada.
Ethyl Canada requested discussion papers from cabinet members
referring to the decision to ban the fuel additive MMT. When
access to the documents was denied, Ethyl Canada filed a
complaint. Judge Blanchard subsequently found that Ethyl Canada
had a well founded complaint under the Access to Information Act,
noting that the purpose of the access law is to give the public
greater access to the inner workings of government. That is what
the act is there for.
That is exactly what brings us here today. It is an effort to
open up government and its institutions to Canadians. A federal
task force was also appointed last August, headed by Ms. Andrée
Delagrave. It is currently studying and reviewing ways to
improve the Access to Information Act. It is inviting the public
to comment over the next two months on its improvements. The
task force is meeting with bureaucrats who process the reports,
historians, librarians, journalists and other users of the law.
1120
I hope members of parliament would also be a part of that
process. I know that my office and the offices of other members
use access to information quite regularly in order to have
openness and transparency.
The bill I have before the House today is non-votable. I find
that somewhat disturbing. Hopefully in the not too distant
future the House will allow these types of bills and motions to
be voted on so that we can see where members of the House stand
on accountability, openness and transparency.
I do not want to specifically target the Canadian Wheat Board,
although it is mentioned specifically in the bill as are other
crown corporations. When public funding is a major cornerstone
of organizations, it is my belief that those organizations should
be open and accountable.
Under the act there are safeguards with respect to commercially
sensitive information, with respect to competitive interests, and
that crown corporations can use to stop unnecessary information
flow to individuals asking for it. However it does stop the
closed door mentality of corporations that are not prepared to
give the most minute details, which I believe is a right of the
citizens they serve.
I will not stop here with the piece of legislation I have before
the House. Other legislation will come forward and I suspect
eventually the Access to Information Act, even through the task
force, will be changed quite dramatically so that Canadians will
have access to information they deserve.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, allow me to
return the good wishes of the member for Brandon—Souris and say
how pleased I am to see him and all our colleagues on both sides
of the House following the Easter recess, and particularly to
find them in good spirits and good humour.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to speak to Bill C-249. If passed, the Canada
Wheat Board would fall under the Access to Information Act.
I can only say that such a scenario, if realized, would be
completely unacceptable, not because the government is not open
to accountability of its agencies and departments, as it most
certainly is, but because it would run contrary to common
business sense.
One wonders if the hon. member who put forward the bill and
represents a western Canadian rural riding does not realize how
the Canadian Wheat Board operates.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not a government department, not a
government agency or even a crown corporation. It is a rather
unique entity in Canada and perhaps the world in that it is a
single desk marketer founded by federal legislation but not
funded by taxpayers. Rather it is co-operative in style and is
paid for by the farmers whose grain it markets. It is
financially accountable to those farmers rather than to Canadian
taxpayers.
It is also a business. By no means is it an insignificant
business. It is a huge, highly successful commercial operation
selling billions of dollars worth of Canadian wheat and barley
each year to scores of countries around the world. Its success,
which I hasten to add could not have been attained without the
high quality wheat and barley our western farmers produce, makes
it both the envy and the bane of its competitors.
As a business it competes with the Australian wheat board and
major transnational companies that are similarly huge, such as
Cargill, ConAgra and ADM. It is run by a board of directors,
two-thirds of whom are elected directly by prairie farmers. As a
business and a single desk marketing organization, the Canadian
Wheat Board is probably subject to more audit scrutiny than any
corporation either public or private could ever be.
Suffice it to say, to suggest the Canadian Wheat Board should
fall under the same information legislation as government
departments is quite frankly ludicrous.
1125
If it is to advance the interests of farmers it serves, the
Canadian Wheat Board must remain competitive in the global
marketplace. Certain commercial or strategic information, if
known to its competitors, could be used by them to gain
commercial advantage, much to the detriment of Canadian grain
producers.
Notwithstanding, the hon. member or any farmer, or any Canadian
for that matter seeking information about the dealings of the
Canadian Wheat Board, has several easily accessible options to
pursue.
First, there is the CWB annual report, a comprehensive document
which in terms of the information disclosed goes above and beyond
the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board's commercial
competitors. The most recent annual report is 60 pages long and
includes detailed information about stocks, market trends, export
volumes, client countries and so on.
The Canadian Wheat Board, as with any other business, is audited
every year by an independent, internationally known accounting
firm. Detailed results of that audit are also part of the
Canadian Wheat Board's annual report.
No, the Canadian Wheat Board does not release any information
that would pertain to specific transactions or that would
identify individual customers or shareholders. Nor do any of its
competitors.
Farmers need to be knowledgeable about their wheat board and
have every right to information pertaining to the CWB's
performance and to facts that will help them make decisions about
their own operations. The Canadian Wheat Board provides much of
this information through market commentary, delivery related
information, pool return outlooks, et cetera.
Farmers can also obtain facts about the Canadian Wheat Board
through their elected directors. Directors have access to any
and all of the Canadian Wheat Board's sales data and any other
information pertaining to the wheat board's operations.
As with any business, nothing is off limits to those who sit on
the board of the Canadian Wheat Board. It falls upon the
directors to use their best judgment as to which pieces of
information should be public and which should not.
Again I go back to a key point, which is that the Canadian Wheat
Board is a commercial operation in a dog eat dog world. In these
troubled times for grain producers, why would we add to their
worries by making the board more vulnerable to its privately held
secretive competitors? That is not to say that the Canadian
Wheat Board is any less transparent than its competitors. To the
contrary, it is more so.
Hon. members might recall that when the government made changes
to the wheat board in 1998 it was with a view to making it more
open and accountable to the farmers it serves.
Among the many actions the Canadian Wheat Board has taken to
become more responsive and open to the farmers it serves was the
development of an information policy. Let me be clear. This is
a policy created by the board of directors in order to be
directly accountable to farmers. The preamble to the information
policy states:
As a producer controlled marketing organization, the CWB has a
responsibility to provide meaningful and relevant information to
its farmer shareholders. Information is key to increasing
producer knowledge and understanding of CWB operations and
performance, and will ensure that the CWB is accountable and
meets producers' needs.
It further states that goals of the information policy are to:
1. enable farmers to make a meaningful assessment of CWB
performance; 2. provide meaningful and relevant information to
farmers for use in their operations; and 3. ensure farmers' and
the CWB's strategic and commercial interests are not placed at a
competitive disadvantage by any information release.
1130
A key element of the policy is if farmers want any information
that is not disclosed through the usual audits and annual
reports, meetings with the board of directors or other channels
of communication they can simply request it.
I point out that the policy calls for the Canadian Wheat Board
to respond to requests for information within 15 days or, if it
cannot provide the information requested within 15 days, it must
tell the requester how long it will take. In comparison, the
Access to Information Act provides for a 30 day response period.
I have heard no great hue and cry from farmers wanting the
Canadian Wheat Board to fall under the Access to Information Act.
Is this bill the result of stacks of petitions as is often the
case with private members' bills? Not likely.
I will leave it to others to speculate on the motive behind this
bill. I would like to close by simply urging members to vote
against Bill C-249 because a vote against this bill is a vote for
the commercial interests of our western Canadian grain farmers.
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have just come back from
southwestern Saskatchewan where the new crop year is beginning.
Ranchers are out in their fields and calves are just being born.
They are watching their new crops come to life. Farmers are
beginning to go into their fields now to start their farming
year, and within the next month will start to see their crops
come to life, in the same way that western Canada is trying to
come to life economically.
We are having a tough time in agriculture and producers are
trying to respond and be successful. As we move into a new
season and see it come to life, it is fair to ask: Should
producers know about their product?
When growing a product there are some questions that are fair to
ask and we should be able to get answers to those questions. It
is reasonable to ask where the product is being sold and where
the market is for it. It is reasonable to ask how much a product
sold for, how is it blended and mixed out and if a maximum price
was received. It is fair for the producers to ask if they got a
fair price for their product. It is also fair to ask how much
other people are benefiting from production.
These are a few of the areas that producers need to know about.
They know very little today because of the lack of information
coming from the system. Producers should know this, and the bill
today begins to address that problem and process.
Bill C-249, an act to amend the Access to Information Act
particularly with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board is
important for several reasons.
First, we continue to live in a democracy. As we saw this
weekend, people have the right to participate in and be a part of
a democratic process. Farmers can be trusted. They do not need
to be shielded from information about their own industry.
Second, producers need and can use this information. Farming is
changing very rapidly these days. The old days when we trusted
those above no longer exist. The days when everything was done
in secrecy are not acceptable to producers.
The wheat board was developed during the war years to provide
Europe with its source of cheap grain. It did that job. The
wheat board did a good PR job from the beginning but there has
been a culture of secrecy around since it was put in place.
Basically farmers were told to trust it and not ask questions.
I remember as a young person on a farm being in a situation
where farmers did not know what freight rates were and what they
were paying to get their product to the market. They did not
know what deductions were being taken off their crops. They did
not know where their production went or how it was priced. Those
days are over. It is not good enough any more.
It is only in the last 10 or 15 years that producers have
realized that the wheat board and other organizations have not
necessarily been looking after their best interests. One of the
best examples I saw was in the early nineties with some frozen
feed wheat. We were told by the board that it did not want it.
It was not prepared to market much of it that winter. Farmers
went out and found markets. They took their wheat across the
border and arranged for pricing. They found out it was not
quite as bad as it was thought to be in Canada.
1135
They were prepared to go through the buyback system from the
board. It was not the board that contacted them. It was the
grain company in the United States that phoned and said it did
not want to buy their wheat at the price which had been
negotiated. It said it could get as much as it wanted at 85
cents less than what the farmers had negotiated.
It became obvious to the people who knew what was going on that
our interests were not always being looked after but we could not
get the information in any way, shape or form to prove it. I
think we could agree that government organizations that
withhold information have seen their day. We saw a good
example of that this weekend.
Once it was stay at home and let someone else make decisions
about the farm, but not anymore. The era of “we will look after
you” is over. The farmers who are succeeding in agriculture
today are some of the sharpest and most successful business
people. They are usually the people who insist on managing their
own resources in order to be successful.
Farming is a tough business today. Success means being on top
of the industry. It means having all the information available
to make decisions. Virtually every other commodity allows that.
Wheat is one of the few that does not because we cannot get the
information from the wheat board.
An example of an industry that has grown phenomenally and where
people can get information is the pulse industry. Over the last
few years pulse acres have grown by 2,000%. That industry
continues to grow in western Canada. It is interesting that it
has been one of the industries which has had the least government
involvement of any industry in western Canada.
Producers need information which deals with the products they
are growing. We need this bill for a number of reasons.
First, there is a desperate need for accountability at the
Canadian Wheat Board. It has a long history of denying access to
information. Without information there can be no accountability.
Anyone who thinks about that statement will realize it is
accurate. Without information no one can be held accountable.
There has been an information wall, almost a code of silence.
We heard the member for Brandon—Souris speak about trying to get
generic information and was absolutely stonewalled. It is a
process familiar to those of us who have tried it.
The second area in which we need information is the buyback
system. Over the years if farmers wanted to market their own
grain they had to sell it to the wheat board and buy it back at
an inflated price. This restricted and did not help producers.
In particular it restricted diversification.
The western Canadian economy is struggling right now. One of
the things we absolutely need is value added processing and
diversification. The buyback which the board has in place
hinders that in every way. There is a restriction on getting
information on how the buyback is calculated and why we should
have to pay the price it is asking. Producers are not allowed to
question the figures.
I believe that the beginning of accountability would be to open
up the Canadian Wheat Board to the Access to Information Act.
There is a principle which applies here. People should be able
to make their own choices and be educated enough to make them.
The only way to ensure accountability is to let people
participate voluntarily. I would suggest that while this bill is
a good start, we need to go further. We need to take a look at
voluntary marketing of our wheat.
I will give three examples of producers who are hurt by the
current system of forced participation and the inability to get
information from the Canadian Wheat Board system.
The first example is western Canadian farmers who have been able
to contract their grain. Farmers who have found markets for it
have been restricted by the Canadian Wheat Board from marketing
the grain themselves. Ontario farmers have a choice when it
comes to marketing grain but not western Canadians. Not only can
we not get information but we have no freedom to market.
The Liberals are sending out a task force to talk to western
Canadians about agriculture. Maybe they can start with this.
One reason why there is alienation there is that people are
treated differently in different areas of this land when it comes
to marketing their products.
The second example of producers who are hurt by the current
system is the organic farmers. They do a very good job of
selling to niche markets. In the last few years the wheat board
has tried to step in and take that away from them. Organic
farmer organizations have a tough time marketing their grain
because the wheat board does not sell well to niche markets.
The third example is producers who want to add value to their
communities. Right now, because of the buyback system and the
entire wheat board system, there is an inability to diversify in
rural communities. We absolutely have to do that.
1140
We have no opportunity, no information and no choice. I believe
we should have a voluntary marketing system that would remove the
problem of not being able to get information. However I do not
see anything that progressive coming from the government.
I conclude by saying that I do not think there is a need to
oppose this bill. The Access to Information Act gives adequate
protection to the Canadian Wheat Board. If it does not want to
release information it feels is commercially sensitive, it does
not have to. If people have ever seen an ATI, they will know
that there are more black felt pens probably used than there is
clear ink on the page.
I encourage the government to have the guts to use this
bill as a good beginning. It leads to greater freedom and
autonomy for producers. I call on the government to go
further in establishing a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board.
My challenge to the government is that it quit being afraid to
lead. It is time to treat western Canadians as grown-ups. We
are all familiar with the Berlin Wall that surrounded its people.
The results behind that wall were inefficiency, a huge
bureaucracy, an air of intimidation when it was challenged and no
accountability. I encourage the government to get over that
mentality concerning the Canadian Wheat Board.
I fear the wheat board, with its lack of openness to its
policies, will drive the prairie wheat producers into the ground.
I ask that this bill be supported. Although I know it is not
votable, I ask that its provisions be brought to reality in the
House.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I had a marvelous speech prepared but I am going to
shelve it. It will end up in file 13 rather than on the record,
because I am somewhat scandalized to learn that the decision has
been made that this bill will not be votable. This is quite
simply a very fine and very simple bill: an act to amend the
Access to Information Act (Crown corporations and the Canadian
Wheat Board).
Examining the Access to Information Act, hon. members will see
that it contains a schedule several pages in length.
It will be seen that the bodies not covered by the Access to
Information Act include the Canadian Wheat Board and the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
It seems to me that, for a government that has just signed an
agreement with 33 other countries and says that democracy is
something important, it should start by having some democracy at
home, before trying to lecture on law and morality to the 33
countries of the Americas. It should start by setting an
example within the country, by ensuring that access to
information is available in all crown corporations, particularly
in the Canadian Wheat Board.
Enough time has already been wasted. The government got fed up
with our constant questions about Grand-Mère. It said that we
had nothing better to do, that we were wasting our time here in
the House.
This morning they are wasting our time by bringing us together
to debate a bill in a vacuum, which will go nowhere. We will
talk about it for an hour. This will be a wasted hour of the
time of all House employees. Electricity will be wasted. The
salaries of employees will be wasted, because we will have to
work and debate for no reason. It is time to reform this
parliament and to do something here.
It should not be possible to introduce bills that are not
votable. They should all be votable, from the first to the
last.
It is a real shame that we have a government that hides
and is afraid to make information accessible. And yet, when we
look at the work of the Canadian Wheat Board—it does its work
quite decently—it is apparent that the directors have set
themselves a code of conduct and follow it.
As for the auditor general, I will use a quote I had included in
my text to praise the Canadian Wheat Board. I will not have
worked for nothing.
An hon. member: We will get something out of it.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We will get something out of it. The
auditor general wrote this in his report:
In the mid-1990s, the level of defaults, especially relating to
the Prairie Grains Advance Payments program, threatened to
undermine the viability of the entire cash advance program. When
it became apparent that losses were becoming unacceptably high,
the Department together with the Canadian Wheat Board took
action to try to reduce the level of defaults. The changes they
introduced to administrative practices contributed to reducing
loan defaults from their peak of $61.6 million in 1993-94.
1145
In this excerpt, the auditor general praises the work of the
Canadian Wheat Board. The directors came up with an acceptable
code of ethics.
Why does the government refuse to let the Canadian Wheat Board
be subjected to the Access to Information Act? Why does it
prevent crown corporations, including the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, which spends taxpayers' money to the tune of $1
billion per year, from being subjected to the Access to
Information Act? Why does the Liberal government reject
transparency? What does it have to hide? This is shameful.
I will never stop saying that we must absolutely manage to
implement a reform and live the way we should in the 21st
century. Gone are the days of horses and buggies. In case the
government does not realize it, we are living in the era of the
high speed train.
Times have changed and, together in this House, we should be
discussing important issues. But I will stop here, because it is
pointless to carry on.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could get the unanimous consent of the
House, so that this work will not have been done in vain and ask
that the bill be deemed a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the
first day back after the Easter break it is a pleasure to speak
in the House on this private member's motion, which requests that
there be a new definition of government institution to open up
financial administration and which includes the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Although I have not been here for a long time, this is for me a
bit of déja vu because we debated this issue in 1997 and 1998
when we were dealing with Bill C-4, the act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board. Certainly the New Democratic Party had a lot of
difficulty with parts of that bill at that time and we
subsequently voted against it.
However, we think there is some justification for lack of
disclosure on this particular piece of legislation and in this
particular area. The reason I say this is that the Canadian
Wheat Board goes head to head with some of the largest
multinational corporations in the world and we certainly do not
see companies like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill making
available in minute detail all of the access to information that
would be required should this motion ever be adopted.
At first blush, obviously, when we think of transparency and
access to information we might wonder why anyone would be opposed
to this. However, if we think beyond this a little bit and
realize that we are dealing with some very large multinationals
that the Canadian Wheat Board is in direct competition with, we
can understand why the board has not made this available at this
time. I find myself in support of that rationale.
It goes without saying that all directors will be entitled to
the complete disclosure of all Canadian Wheat Board facts and
figures, including but not limited to fully audited financial
statements, so they will be able to examine the price at which
grain is sold, the price premiums achieved, the operating costs,
and whether or not the Canadian Wheat Board is being run
efficiently. That is a result of one of the changes in the
1997-98 legislation, which opened up the Canadian Wheat Board by
allowing an elected board of directors of farmers. It is a 15
member board, 10 of whom are elected and 5 of whom are appointed
by the government. With the full knowledge these 15 directors
have of the Canadian Wheat Board and its global competition, the
directors would be, will be, and are in the best position to
assess what information should be made public and what, for
commercial reasons, should remain confidential.
1150
Therefore, the New Democratic Party finds itself in opposition
to the motion before the House. It is important to point out at
the same time that not only the Canadian Wheat Board but the
Export Development Corporation and Canada Post do not fall under
the Access to Information Act. There are reasons for that
situation and, as I have tried to point out, they are logical and
well founded.
I will note as an aside that at the moment under chapter 11 of
NAFTA there is currently a very major dispute going on behind
closed doors involving United Parcel Service and whether or not
the Canadian government is going to be required to pay several
hundreds of millions of dollars. UPS is arguing that Canada
Post-Purolator is competing unfairly against it.
This is exactly the point that the Canadian Wheat Board finds
itself at: by publishing that data we would put ourselves at a
commercial disadvantage to the Cargills, the ADMs and the other
multinational giants engaged in the wheat industry.
I know there are others who wish to take part in the debate and
there is time allocation, so I will conclude by making three
brief points. First, the Canadian Wheat Board is a commercial
organization and information pertaining to sales and prices is
restricted, as it would be in any private organization.
Second, a board of directors heads the Canadian Wheat Board. Ten
of those fifteen directors, the majority on the board, are
elected farmers. They and they alone are responsible for the
performance of the organization and the information it releases
to its farmer constituents.
Third, the Canadian Wheat Board is not responsible to the public
at large as it is not a government department. It is paid for by
the producers in western Canada. The corporation submits its
annual report to parliament each year and, may I add, they do
have an auditor. I believe Deloitte and Touche is the company
that audits the books every year and presents those facts. I an
also given to understand that the Auditor General of Canada, as
part of the wheat board bill of 1997-98, the old Bill C-4, will
be examining the books of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I hope I have satisfied the House as to why the New Democratic
Party would not be in support of this motion.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to stand to oppose the motion by the member for
Brandon—Souris, because the net impact of the bill would be to
undermine the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to do its job.
The bottom line is the fact that the bill could even hurt
producers' returns by, as the member who just spoke said,
providing the competition with all the commercial information,
the marketing information, et cetera, that the Canadian Wheat
Board has available through its diligence and through the good
work of its market information section.
I should not be surprised by the tactics of the member for
Brandon—Souris, who is now using this new tactic under the guise
of the access to information bill he is pursuing here to again
attack the integrity of the Canadian Wheat Board. It seems to be
commonplace for this member and members of the Canadian Alliance
Party opposite to do that. They do it through the process of
maybe stretching the facts a little and I would not want to go
much further than that. They are building on myths about the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I would use this as an example. In his closing remarks, the
member for Brandon—Souris said, and I quote, “When public
funding is a major cornerstone” of the organization then the
Access to Information Act should apply.
The fact of the matter is the Canadian Wheat Board is not
publicly funded. The Canadian Wheat Board operates under the
legislation of the House. The Canadian Wheat Board is financed
by farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board is controlled by a board of
directors elected by farmers through legislation passed in the
House.
1155
In fact, there is no commercial organization in the country more
transparent than the Canadian Wheat Board. It upholds its
tranparencies in a number of ways. First, there is the elected
board of directors who have to stand for election. Second, there
is the annual report that is presented to the minister of
agriculture. In fact, the member for Brandon—Souris, if he so
desired, and I imagine he does, would be able to bring the
Canadian Wheat Board before the standing committee on agriculture
and question the board in terms of its activities. Can he do
that with Cargill Grain and those other commercial grain
institutions that he seems to be supporting in the guise of
attacking the Canadian Wheat Board?
Next, there are the district meetings held in all the elected
districts across western Canada. As well, there is the monthly
newsletter that goes out from the Canadian Wheat Board. Also,
there is the auditor general, who looks at the annual report of
the Canadian Wheat Board.
How much more transparent does this organization have to be in
order for the member to understand the fact that certain
commercial information should not be made available to the
competition?
I also want to point out that the member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands was on the typical Canadian Alliance rant
against the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to underline the fact,
in disagreement with what he had to say, that the bill would hurt
primary producers. It would seriously hurt farmers in western
Canada.
If some of these members would tour the Canadian Wheat Board
head office in Winnipeg, they would see how it gathers its market
intelligence, how it is one of the best sellers out there in
terms of being able to maximize returns, and how, through its
system of pooling, it is able to prevent negative competition
within Canada and maximize what is in the international market
and efficiently get the maximum returns from the international
marketplace back to primary producers. If they would look at
that business operation, they would see why the Canadian Wheat
Board is so often so able to beat the competition. If the
members opposite did a little research, they would find that the
Canadian Wheat Board, in terms of some analyses that have been
done, has been able to beat the open market pretty nearly all the
time, not all the time, but most of the time, in terms of
maximizing returns to primary producers.
The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands also talked about the
culture of secrecy of the wheat board. That is another myth.
Nothing is further from the truth. Earlier in my remarks I
outlined the reports, the meetings, the annual report and the
information base. There is no culture of secrecy at the Canadian
Wheat Board. Indeed, it is the direct opposite.
In conclusion, the bill would very seriously hurt the farm
community. As I said earlier, I should not be surprised, but I
am amazed that the members opposite continue to use any vehicle
to try to build on the myths that are out there rather than
talking about the strengths of the Canadian Wheat Board and how
it can be used to assist farmers in their time of need.
As I said earlier, the Canadian Wheat Board is farmer financed.
This access to information proposal from the member for
Brandon—Souris would in fact put it in the position of actually
having to subsidize the competition. The member, through his
efforts in the bill, would actually subsidize the competition,
the likes of Cargill Grain and other grain export companies, by
having the Canadian Wheat Board, through its farmer financed
organization, provide information on markets, on the markets of
other countries, on weather patterns and all that intelligence
base that the Canadian Wheat Board uses to assist in its market
intelligence to try to make the best sales possible.
Under the bill, all of this would possibly have to be turned
over to the competition. In effect, the competition would have
to spend far less time in research in terms of corporate
operations because the member's bill would be actually
subsidizing the competition against the very farm community he
proposes to speak for.
1200
It gives me great pleasure to stand and oppose a bill that would
undermine our farm community in western Canada if it were allowed
to pass in the House. It would also put the Canadian Wheat Board
at a disadvantage with its commercial competition in terms of
trying to maximize returns to primary producers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
thank each member of the House who rose today to speak to the
proposed legislation.
It does not surprise me but it does disappoint me that the
member for Malpeque still cloaks himself in the paranoia that is
out there. He did not look at the content of the bill dealing
with access to information, the honesty and the transparency. He
would rather go on a rant as to what is right and what is wrong
with the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what the debate was
meant to be about.
It seems obvious that some members were not able to grasp the
issue at hand, which is that openness and transparency is the
only way in which any type of organization can be effective.
The excuses I heard from the member for Malpeque, as well as
from the member for Timiskaming—Cochrane, included the words
never, ludicrous, not necessary, trust us and be happy. The
member for Malpeque suggested that the bill was a way of
backdooring the Canadian Wheat Board. If he had listened to what
I had to say he would have heard that this was not meant to get
rid of the Canadian Wheat Board in any way, shape or form. This
was simply meant to strengthen its operations in a number of
ways.
The question that it does open up, especially for the hon.
member, is how information from the 1950s could be seen as
sensitive and commercial in nature by the Canadian Wheat Board
and yet that information is not forthcoming. When the wheat
board hides behind closed doors and does not even answer
questions in a survey, it conjures up an impression that it has
no desire to be more open and transparent.
Let us get to the big picture which deals with access to
information. The rules have to be expanded as we are having
difficulties right now accessing information.
Have the two members on the government side ever filed an access
to information request? Have they ever gone through the process
of finding out what it is like to get access to information? Has
the member for Timiskaming—Cochrane ever met with the board of
directors of the Canadian Wheat Board? I have met with those
people and I have filed access to information requests. Quite
frankly, the questions the members have asked I have already gone
through.
The bill should be votable but unfortunately it is not. I hope
the debate has indicated that this is an issue that will not go
away. It can be resolved. The wheat board can continue to
operate. It can be open, honest and transparent if it is given
the tools. The member for Malpeque never mentioned this, but the
wheat board also has the ability under the act to stop access to
sensitive commercial information. That does not have to happen.
The nonsensitive and noncommercial information should be open and
available, not only to myself but to the producers that the board
serves.
One can use that excuse to go to the board of directors but it
also signs pledges that it will not give any information outside
the board. Changes have to come from the government so that the
information is made accessible.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1205
[Translation]
SALES TAX AND EXCISE TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 2001
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-13, an act to
amend the Excise Tax Act, as reported (without amendment) from
the committee.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be concurred in at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By
leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (for the Minister of Finance) moved that
the bill be read the third time and passed.
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak today at third reading of Bill
C-13, the Sales Tax and Excise Tax Amendments Act, 2001.
The bill would reaffirm the government's commitment to making
our tax system simpler and fairer for individuals and for
Canadian business. The principal purpose of the bill is to
implement measures relating to the goods and services tax and
harmonized sales tax that were announced in the 2000 budget, as
well as the additional sales tax measures proposed in the notice
of ways and means motion tabled in parliament on October 4, 2000.
The measures were aimed at improving the operation of the
GST-HST in the affected areas and ensuring that the legislation
accords with the policy intent. The bill would also implement
two amendments to the Excise Tax Act relating to excise taxes on
specific products.
I would like to begin by outlining the measures contained in the
bill that were proposed in budget 2000.
First, the GST-HST is designed to ensure that Canadian
businesses and products are competitive in the export markets. A
number of measures in Bill C-13 are aimed at achieving that
specific objective. Specifically, these measures relate to the
GST-HST treatment of export distribution activities.
The bill would implement an initiative referred to as the export
distribution centre program. It is an initiative that addresses
a cashflow issue faced by limited value added export oriented
businesses. It would also help ensure that the GST-HST does not
present an impediment to the establishment of North American
distribution centres in Canada.
I will speak to the opportunities provided by the establishment
of EDCs in a moment.
Bill C-13 contains a measure that would ensure that the GST-HST
does not make Canadian suppliers of warranty repair or
replacement services less competitive relative to foreign
suppliers when in fact these services are provided to
non-residents. It also expands on an existing program known as
the exporters of processing services program. Refinements to the
program would ensure that the GST-HST does not impose prohibitive
cashflow costs for businesses that provide storage or
distribution services for non-residents in respect of goods that
are for export.
Another proposal in the bill relates to the cross-border
transactions, in particular the sale of railway rolling stock to
non-resident businesses. Bill C-13 proposes an amendment to
ensure that the use of railway rolling stock to ship goods out of
the country in the course of the exportation of the rolling stock
itself would not disqualify it from tax-free treatment.
Bill C-13 introduces the new residential rental property rebate,
another important sales tax initiative. The measure stems from
the 2000 budget and would be of significant benefit to builders
and purchasers of new residential rental accommodation. It would
reduce the effective GST rate on newly constructed rental
property by 2.5% which is the same federal tax rate reduction
that applies to purchasers of new, owner occupied homes under the
existing new housing rebate program.
Bill C-13 builds on the government's commitment to continue to
work on improving health care and education in Canada. In the
area of health care, the bill proposes an amendment to continue
in force an existing GST-HST exemption for speech therapy
services that are billed by individual practitioners but are not
covered by applicable provincial health care plans.
1210
With respect to education, Bill C-13 contains a measure which
would ensure that vocational training provided in different
provinces receives the same GST-HST treatment regardless of the
regulatory regime that exists in each province with respect to
vocational schools.
The government recognizes, as do all members of the House, the
important role that charities play in helping Canadians and in
enriching our communities. The bill proposes amendments to
ensure that the GST-HST legislation properly reflects the
government's intended policy of generally exempting from sales
tax the rental of real property and related goods by charities.
The legislation proposes a number of clarifying amendments to
ensure that there could be no doubt as to the application of
these provisions for both future and past transactions, for
example the issue of excise tax on automobile air conditioners.
Bill C-13 reflects a number of improvements to the
administration of the tax system, which is in keeping with the
spirit of the government online initiative recently announced by
the Prime Minister. There is a movement within government and in
the public to ensure that it meets its target of getting on line
in the very near future.
I would like to spend a few moments on a part of the bill which
has not received the attention it should have received to date. I
would like to raise the awareness of the creation of export
distribution centres by explaining what they mean and their
potential.
The creation of export distribution centres enhances Canada's
ability to conduct export distribution activity. The program
does not create any artificial advantages for any Canadian
community. Instead, it unleashes their inherent geographic
advantage. If the 49th parallel did not exist, in other words if
the entire continent was Canada, our communities would be host to
a significantly greater number of distribution centres for goods
produced abroad because of our geographic advantage. That this
is not the case today is due to legislative and regulatory
barriers.
When we look at the U.S. foreign trade zone program, we find
that an overwhelming number of such zones are located in the
northern tier along the Canadian border. That is because the
northern part of our continent provides the natural entry point
gateways to the NAFTA economy.
The EDC program which would be created as a result of Bill C-13
would allow communities in every part of Canada to participate in
the fast growing distribution and logistics industry. It is also
important to note that the program is not zone specific; it would
be market driven. Unlike the United States, which geographically
decides where a trade zone is to locate, the Canadian export
distribution centres would be market driven.
It is a program that is universal. Any location in Canada and
any business could seek to participate. Unlike programs in the
U.S. and elsewhere, it does not create any unique privileges for
specific locations. I am already aware, as are many close to
this issue, of groups in Hamilton, Montreal, Vancouver, Gander
and Regina that are pursuing the EDC opportunity. It is truly a
coast to coast opportunity.
Many members of these groups have told us that the opportunity
to engage in this kind of activity has been there for some time
but it has been hindered by existing regulations. Bill C-13
removes this impediment for local community development.
1215
In my riding of Stoney Creek the legislation would allow us to
make full use of the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport
as an economic development engine. The airport is well placed
and well prepared to attract logistics and distribution
companies.
Tony Battaglia, president of TradePort International, the firm
entrusted with managing the Hamilton airport, commented that the
airport would be able to compete with similar facilities in the
United States. The proposed changes in Bill C-13 would provide
the necessary tools for Canadian facilities that move goods by
air, road, water and rail. These tools would allow such Canadian
firms to compete and attract global commerce.
What does that mean in terms of job creation? Professor Michael
Tretheway of the University of British Columbia's transportation
and logistics program has estimated that within 10 years Canada
will be able to create up to 50,000 jobs in the distribution
sector. Job creation can only be enabled if we can offer
distribution firms in Canada the same advantages that locations
in the United States offer to their distributors.
For example, existing programs in Canada allow the storage and
re-export of goods in a duty and tax free environment. However
they do not allow the addition of Canadian value to the goods
being re-exported. The situation is paradoxical. On the one
hand, the current program encourages distribution centre
locations in Canada but, on the other hand, it discourages the
adding of value and the job growth that results from it.
The legislation seeks to redress the imbalance by providing a
program that allows the creation of distribution centres in
Canada in a duty and tax free environment where value could be
added when goods are intended for distribution into the broader
NAFTA marketplace.
During the consultation period a concern was brought forward by
a number of individuals that the legislation would enable growth
in the distribution sector at the expense of Canada's domestic
manufacturers. The program has strict limits so that it cannot
be used for full manufacturing. Furthermore, 90% of the goods
must be re-exported. The program is intended to attract
distribution centres for goods already being manufactured
overseas and exported to the U.S. and broader NAFTA markets.
There is no displacement of domestic manufacturers.
The proposed legislation is strongly supported by Canada's
airports. The Canadian Airports Council has been a very strong
supporter of the EDC program. It sees an opportunity to develop
its airport lands for the benefit of its communities.
The EDC program would allow the airports council to lever its
air service and ground transportation networks and build the flow
of goods and jobs between Asia and Europe on the one hand and the
U.S. and NAFTA economies on the other. Companies in Europe and
Asia that wanted access to NAFTA markets were not looking to
Canada for foreign trade zone possibilities. However, because of
Bill C-13, they now can.
The measures in Bill C-13 that I have outlined today propose to
refine, streamline and clarify the application of our tax system.
The bill would provide an opportunity for economic development
specifically through the creation of export distribution centres.
At the same time, Bill C-13 reflects the government's commitment
to ensure our tax system is fair. I urge all hon. members to
pass the measures quickly.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I
am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-13, the
sales tax and excise tax amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I point out that I will be sharing my time with the
hon. member for Richmond.
The bill we are debating today has been before committee and is
now going through its final debate in the House.
The purpose of the bill is to simplify the tax code, but probably
not to the extent Canadians would like. The measures are aimed
principally at improving the operation and fairness of the GST or
HST in affected areas and ensuring the legislation accords with
the policy intent.
1220
Bill C-13 implements two amendments to the Excise Tax Act. The
first clarifies the deferral of tax on various automobiles and
car products to the time of sale or importation to a
manufacturer. The amendment is made to clarify the deferral of
existing excise taxes on air conditioners, for example, installed
in automobiles and on new heavy automobiles at the time of
importation by a licensed manufacturer or sale to a licensed
manufacturer.
The second amendment provides the Minister of National Revenue
with he discretionary power to waive or cancel interest and/or
penalties. The second amendment provides discretionary power to
the minister, as I have said, to cancel penalties calculated in
the same manner as interest under the excise tax system, which is
consistent with the discretion already provided to the minister
in relation to the sales tax and income tax systems.
The primary goal of the bill is therefore to correct some
administrative oversights in the February 2000 budget concerning
the application of the GST and HST. The bill is technical
amending legislation. The official opposition therefore supports
the bill, but we believe the government could have done more to
address other pertinent issues relating to taxes.
There are a number of GST and HST measures in the bill. I will
briefly describe them. The export distribution centre and export
trading house programs amendment would implement new rules that
ensure the GST and HST do not impede North American distribution
centres in Canada. Businesses would be able to purchase or
import inventory and customer goods on a tax-free basis rather
than having to pay the tax and later claim a refund. This might
help combat fraud, which is unfortunately part of the system.
The non-residents and cross-border transactions amendment
ensures that no tax is payable on goods imported solely as
replacements under warranty. It also ensures there is no tax on
the service of storing goods for a non-resident business.
Another point is that the real property amendment implements the
new residential rental property rebate, which is a partial rebate
of GST on newly constructed or substantially renovated long term
residential rental accommodation. I see many such accommodations
in my constituency of Surrey Central. The builders or the people
involved in that kind of construction will feel some relief in
that area.
That is important because it permits a credit for work done on a
new home used primarily as a place of residence or as short term
public accommodation, for example a bed and breakfast
establishment. Such establishments will get some sort of relief.
That is particularly important because the previous rules
disallowed homeowners the credit if they ran small businesses out
of their homes.
1225
There are other amendments. The health amendment continues to
be in force. There are GST and HST exemptions for speech therapy
services that are billed by individual practitioners and not
covered by the applicable provincial health care plan. The bill
will provide some relief for people who use such therapies.
The education amendment ensures that similar vocational training
across the country is provided the same exempt treatment,
regardless of how vocational schools are regulated in each
province.
The electronic filing amendment removes the requirement to apply
to the Minister of National Revenue for permission to file GST or
HST returns electronically over the telephone or Internet.
Canadians are busy preparing their tax returns. If the bill is
put into place it will probably give relief to people who must
seek such permission. It allows anyone to file taxes that way,
provided they meet the criteria set out by the minister.
Finally, there are miscellaneous amendments which correct
ambiguities in existing provisions consistent with current
industry practice, administrative interpretation and the
underlying policy intent. These are some of the areas the bill
focuses on.
For those who are watching I will quote from the Canadian
Alliance policy, which is the grassroots members' policy.
We will restore public confidence in the fairness of the Canadian
tax system by reducing its complexity. We will restore
indexation and move towards a simpler tax system, built around a
single rate of taxation to ensure lower taxes for all Canadians.
We believe that all Canadians above a minimum income level should
share in the cost of the services provided by government, which
benefit us all.
There are other areas of concern. I was talking with my
constituents during the two week break. They are concerned about
gas prices because there are taxes on taxes on taxes. I regret
that the sharp spike in the price of home heating oil and
gasoline, which has hit us all so hard, is not addressed in the
bill.
Canadians suffered this winter in the cold climate. The
Liberals did not foresee or prevent the 70% hike in natural gas
prices, which they should have if they had prudent practices in
place. They did nothing about it except send out cheques for a
couple of hundred dollars. The government completely missed the
target. Instead of sending cheques to those most in need of
assistance it sent them to people who probably do not pay heating
bills such as students, prisoners and even deceased Canadians.
The Liberal finance minister has no sympathy for our seniors or
for persons on fixed incomes. These people have so little money
that they must choose between filling prescriptions, buying food
or paying for heat. It is the Liberal government's fault because
the government keeps our taxes high and our dollar weak. We are
being hurt twice.
It is the tax on gas which has driven the price upward. The
price we pay at the gas pumps includes a tremendous amount of
tax. The price of crude gas is something like 29 cents, but
these days we are paying 74 cents or so at the pumps.
That is why when the price of gas or oil on the world market is
hiked we feel it more. Not only is the price hiked but the taxes
go up accordingly. That exacerbates the increase in the
wholesale price.
1230
First, we have the federal excise and sales tax on gas. On top
of that we have a provincial excise tax. On top of that we have
a provincial sales tax. On top of all that we have the 7% GST.
In other words, we are paying GST on the taxes as well which is
wrong. We have a tax on a tax on tax on a tax. That is the kind
of system we have in gas pricing and that is very unfair.
My province of British Columbia gets less than 5% of the amount
of federal taxes paid on gas for transportation and
infrastructure development. The federal Liberals rake in about
$700 million a year in fuel taxes from British Columbia alone,
and this is the only province that does not have any four lane
highways. We cannot even buy enough street lamps with the 5% the
federal Liberals are returning to us for transportation and
infrastructure development. That is the kind of situation we are
facing with respect to that particular area.
However, we support this bill but we again urge the government
to lower taxes for Canadian families, consumers and small
businesses. Those lower taxes will help boost our economy. We
want lower taxes and a simplified tax code. Our tax code is very
complicated, probably one of the most complicated of any country
which I have visited or heard about.
The clarifications in Bill C-13 should only be a temporary
measure on the road to tax reform. The steps are in the right
direction but they are baby steps.
The provisions of Bill C-13 enact corrections to last year's
budget and the fall mini budget. The government should be moving
toward simplifying and broadening the base of the tax code. If
the tax code was simplified, endless exemptions and further
clarifications would not be necessary. There may not be any need
to do what we are doing today.
From this point, lowering the taxes of all Canadians will have a
far more positive impact for everyone. With the exception of the
new residential rental property debate, the amendments will have
little impact on the government's revenue. Expected costs for
the new residential rental property rebate are estimated at $15
million for 2000-01, $40 million for 2001-02 and $45 million for
subsequent years.
In conclusion, we will support the bill but we remind the
government that it should lower taxes for Canadians and simplify
the tax code. I believe Canada can be a competitive leader in
the global economy of the future and I believe Canadians can
enjoy a higher standard of living and a better quality of life.
However to get there we must blaze a trail of tax relief and
debt reduction. We need to lower taxes such as payroll taxes. We
need to cut the tax on investing. We should not be penalizing
those investors who invest in Canada, who boost our economy and
who help create jobs.
We should cut the taxes on high tech businesses. It is time
these businesses be promoted. That is where our future lies.
That is where more jobs will be created. However the government
does not realize that we have to cut taxes for high tech
businesses as well as small businesses. Ninety-six per cent of
jobs are created by small businesses.
These are some of the points I wanted to add to this debate.
1235
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the
point which my colleague from the Alliance Party made that as the
opposition party the Alliance supports Bill C-13. Our concern
though is that this will be viewed as a final step and not as a
temporary, necessary technical change in our tax system on the
long road to full taxation reform.
I will not get into the details that were discussed by my
colleague on the Alliance policy on tax reform. However I do
want to speak about a luncheon I attended last Friday for the
Vancouver Board of Trade. It was very illuminating for me. The
guest speaker was the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Dodge.
He spoke about the variety of variables that go into having a
sound economy. It was like a lesson on 101 central banking. The
unfortunate thing though was that he did not once mention the
taxation system.
We all know in the House that there is a great link between
monetary policy and fiscal policy. As my colleague just
discussed, taxes are high and the Canadian dollar is low. What
the Alliance puts forth, and I say, is that taxes are high therefore
our Canadian dollar is low. More important, it does not allow
the Governor of the Bank of Canada to do what is right with
monetary policy, which would be to have lower interest rates at
this time.
Mr. Greenspan, the chair of the federal reserve in the United
States, dramatically and successfully used the proper monetary
tools at his disposal and reduced interest rates a full half a
per cent. Obviously, he believed there were further tough
economic times. The Bank of Canada put forth a very anemic
quarter per cent interest decrease.
It is not because the Governor of the Bank of Canada does not
understand that we need a softening of monetary policy to deal
with these tough times. It is simply that he cannot. His hands
are tied because of the lax fiscal planning of the Liberal
government.
I and the Alliance Party believe that the chair of the federal
reserve of the United States will follow up with a further half
per cent decrease. However our Governor of the Bank of Canada,
legitimately so, is so concerned about the level of the Canadian
dollar that his hands are tied. Why are his hands tied? They
are tied because there is a direct correlation between economic
performance wich includes all of the variables and the level of
the Canadian dollar.
The level of the Canadian dollar, outside of the fluctuations on
a day to day basis, is simply a reflection of the economic health
of the country. Tax policy is a key in that economic health. If
Canada were a patient, it would not be doing very well right now
because our economic policy is correctly reflected by our low
Canadian dollar.
What should the Canadian government do? Bill C-13 is a positive
step. Why? It deals with certain technical problems that the
government itself created in the past seven to eight years. That
is good.
My concern with Bill C-13 is not what is in the bill but what is
not in the bill. As my colleague said so eloquently, the
economic problems we face in Canada should be dealt with quickly.
Let me give one example. There is a severe housing shortage
right across this country. Even in an area such as my
constituency of Richmond, British Columbia, which is viewed as a
middle class rather affluent part of Canada, we have a problem as
well. It is the problem of not enough housing.
We all know about the tragic, and I use that word carefully,
situation in Vancouver East which the member of parliament for
that area eloquently spoke about. I do not agree with many of
her proposals on how to fix the problem, but I do agree with the
point that there is a problem and the Liberal government is
ignoring it.
Sure it throws $25 million here and $25 million there. I would
argue that that is exacerbating a problem rather than fixing it.
1240
Why not utilize the tax system to urge the creation of rental
stock through the private sector? Yes, there is 5%, 10% or maybe
15% of the population who are marginalized and have other
problems that have to be dealt with, such as alcoholism,
drug abuse and coming from broken homes. The government has to play a
role there. However on the creation of a housing stock, that is
where the tax code can be utilized and it is not.
Why is it that apartment owners and builders are not treated as
a business when it comes to capital gains, rollovers and loss
allocations? It is a simple step. Rather than taking moneys and
providing housing in a grandiose national plan, perhaps it would
be a better approach to allow the private sector to build
affordable housing with the provision that there is a segment of
marginalized Canadians who have to be helped in a different way.
I commend the Liberal government for the variety of technical
bills it has put forth in this session to deal with the
inadequacies that it created. However it is a first step. I
hope that in the next step of dealing with the economic morass
that we are in, it will put forth more substantive tax reductions
to deal with an economy that is declining. I do not say that
with partisan vigour. Sure there is the parry and thrust of
debate. Sure there is a partisan element of the electoral
process. However I think we all agree that we do not want a more
complicated tax system. I believe we all agree that the
reduction of capital gains tax is a way to spur economic growth.
I hope that in the next few months we will have from the
other side of the House real substantive tax reform and not
simply necessary and technical amendments to problems that were
created by this government.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Yorkton—Melville.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I had the honour to represent Yorkton—Melville in the
House for 25 years. I understand why you said Yorkton—Melville.
I want to say a few words on the changes to the GST, which the
bill before the House implement.
I remember the great debate in the House of Commons when the GST
went through. I believe it was in 1991. There was a great
debate about changing our taxation system. We used to have what
was called a manufacturers' sales tax. The government of the
day, the Mulroney Conservative government, decided to replace
that tax with the goods and services tax.
We had a great debate in the finance committee. I was a member
of the finance committee at the time as the NDP finance critic.
We studied the issue ad nauseam. We had hearings on it. I
remember spending several days writing a report on it with
members of the finance committee. We made recommendations. There
were all kinds of changes made at the time to the initial
proposal of the government. The GST came in and the old
manufacturers' sales tax disappeared. At the time we voiced a
lot of concerns about the GST itself.
First, the problem with the GST is that it is a tax that the
government likes. It takes in a lot of money, I believe
$23 million to $24 million. Every point in the GST brings in
roughly $3.5 million of revenue.
Another problem with the GST is that it is all encompassing and
taxes things like funerals. It taxes reading materials, books
and a whole series of things that are necessities of life at the
same level it taxes things that are not necessities or things
that might be purchased for entertainment, luxury goods and
things of that sort.
Another thing is that the GST is a very regressive tax. It does
not matter what our income is, we still pay the same GST. We pay
7% for a haircut. Whether we are rich or poor, we still pay that
same 7%.
When we buy clothes we pay 7%. It is a very regressive tax in
terms of having a fair and balanced tax system.
1245
I have always believed that in a democratic society that looks
after the common good we should pay taxes based on the ability to
pay. If we make more money we should pay more in tax. The tax
rate for those making $100,000 should be higher than it should be
for someone making $30,000, $40,000, $20,000 or $25,000 a year.
For those making a million dollars a year the tax rate should be
higher still. There has to be a progressive taxation system in
the country. The problem with the GST is that it is not
progressive. It hits everybody in the same way in terms of
paying the same rate of tax on the same goods and commodities.
If we look around we see many necessities on which people pay
GST. I mentioned haircuts, all kinds of clothing and a lot of
the necessities of life on which we pay GST.
An hon. member: Home heating fuel.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Home heating fuel is a very good
example as well. With the price of energy going up, particularly
the price of natural gas, a lot of ordinary folks who are on a
very tight budget or on a fixed income have real difficulty
paying the 7% on a home heating bill that may have been $75 or
$80 a few years ago and is today maybe $150 or $250, depending on
where one lives. The GST adds an awful lot in costs for the
ordinary consumer who is paying the heating bill.
I think a measure of a society is to have a taxation system
based on the ability to pay. That is the most important part of
this. It should be based on ability to pay. Our party, the NDP,
realizes, of course, that there should be a very important role
in our society for government. In the last few years the role of
government has diminished too much in terms of deregulation,
privatization and cutbacks to social programs. Health funding is
the best example of that. We have a health funding crisis in the
country. The federal government cut back by billions of dollars
transfers to the provinces for health care. The member for
Winnipeg North Centre, who is our critic, knows the cost of that
to ordinary people across the country.
We do need taxation revenue coming in, but the principle is to
find the money on the basis of the ability to pay. The taxation
system in the country should become more progressive, not less
progressive. To do that I think we eventually have to phase out
the GST, to roll it back from 7% to 6% to 5% and to 4%.
Eventually, when we have a fair taxation system and the economy
grows and becomes stronger, we have to eliminate it altogether.
Our party said that in 1991-92. That is what we said in the last
campaign. That is what we say now. The goal is to eliminate the
GST in the country in order to have a fairer taxation system.
An hon. member: The Liberals used to say that, it seems
to me.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: As the member from Winnipeg says, I
remember the debates in the House of Commons in 1993 when members
of the Liberal Party got up and said “elect us and we will get
rid of the GST”. I remember the Prime Minister saying that if
he was elected Prime Minister he would get rid of the GST. That
is on tape and can be seen by looking up the old speeches from
question period in 1992-93. I ask the Liberals across the way
what happened to that fundamental promise they made to the
Canadian people. What happened? The Liberal member across the
way is clearing his throat in embarrassment. What happened to
that campaign promise the Liberals made to the Canadian people in
1993?
No wonder people are cynical about the electoral process,
politicians and political parties when a political party can make
a very serious promise to the country and then break that
promise. In hindsight, the only member across the way who did
not break the promise was the minister of heritage, the member
for Hamilton East. She was deputy prime minister. She resigned
her seat in the House of Commons, probably in 1996, and went back
to Hamilton East for a byelection. She said she had made a
commitment on the GST, the government had changed its mind and
she sought a new mandate for herself as the member of parliament
for Hamilton East.
What about the rest of those members? They made the promise,
they broke the promise and they are still in government. That is
one reason why more and more people in the country give up on the
political process and rank politicians so low in terms of
credibility.
The goal has to be to gradually eliminate the GST in order to
make it a more progressive taxation system.
1250
People are in the final process of filing their income tax, with
the deadline being April 30, which is only a few days away. When
Canadians file their income taxes they are reminded that too much
of the taxation burden in Canada is still on low income and
modest income people in Canada. These are people who have
families and are struggling to make ends meet. I hear stories
day in and day out about low income people having trouble with
the taxes they have to pay.
Yet there are so many loopholes in our taxation system. We have
the family trusts for the Bronfmans and the wealthy, and they can
really get away from paying taxes, from paying their fair share.
These very wealthy people, the billionaires, do not pay their
fair share and we have the Liberals across the way who will not
do anything about this.
An hon. member: Operation loophole.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Yes, there is the whole case of
operation loophole, the court case that was launched in Manitoba
by someone in the city of Winnipeg going after the Bronfman
family and the wealthy people for the taxes they evade by moving
their wealth offshore. That is not fair. When a person does
that the ordinary person has to pick up the can and put more
money into the taxation system.
What we have to do is have a more progressive taxation system.
Many years ago we had seven or eight tax brackets in Canada. The
Mulroney government reduced that to three. In the last budget we
had a fourth tax bracket added, which is a very minor step in the
right direction. Also, the tax rate for middle income people in
the country is gradually going down from 26% to 23% so we will
have a taxation system that is a bit more graduated, except that
the highest tax bracket still remains at 29%, I think. In the
United States the highest tax bracket goes up to 45% or 50% for
extremely wealthy people.
Even in the United States there is a more progressive taxation
system than we have in this country, and the United States is the
world's bastion of so-called capitalism, where they talk about
making life as easy as possible for investors and people with a
lot of money and a lot of wealth. Even in the United States
there is a more progressive taxation system on the individual
income tax side. We have to get back to that in Canada.
I see the Alliance across the way. The people of Canada should
be aware that the Alliance Party is pushing a single flat tax
system in the country. It is a single rate, a flat tax. That is
the most regressive tax of all that we could have. Even the
Republicans in the United States have dropped the idea of a flat
tax. George Bush and the Republicans think it is too regressive
for the Republicans in the United States.
Mr. Pat Martin: But not for the Alliance.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: But not for the Alliance, not for the
reformers. They are advocating a flat tax whereby a wealthy
person would pay the same tax rate as somebody who is teaching in
an elementary school in Halifax or working on the assembly line
in Oshawa or in a grocery store in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if that is fair, if that is just. That
is what the Alliance Party in Canada is advocating, even
flattening it more, giving the wealthier a bigger break, giving
the rich a bigger break and putting a heavier load on the
ordinary people. Basically and fundamentally it wants to cut
back on the role of government, just cut back and cut back on the
role of government. The Alliance says it wants to reduce the
role of government in our society to the lowest common
denominator. I do not think that is the way to go.
We need a more progressive individual tax system and a gradual
elimination of the GST, which is regressive because in a way it
is a flat tax. On the other side, we have to fill some of the
loopholes in the current taxation system that are there for some
of the wealthy and some of the big corporations in Canada.
Finally, we have to readjust our corporate tax rate in Canada so
that the large corporations pay more of their fair share. A
number of years ago the large corporations paid a lot more in
taxes than they do today. Today individuals are paying more and
corporations are paying less. It used to be the other way in the
days of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau and even in the first
part of the Mulroney years when all this started to change.
The sad thing about it is that when the Liberal Party took over,
instead of making a more progressive taxation system in terms of
our society, it got spooked into a more reactionary and
conservative taxation system because the Liberals feared the
Reform Party. The Liberals feared the agenda of the Reform
Party, now the Alliance. This Liberal Party made a sharp turn to
the right. It is the most right wing, conservative Liberal Party
we have seen in the history of our country and that is why we
have to make a change.
With a fair taxation system we can give people the freedom to
have more equality of condition. With a fair taxation system we
can still raise a lot of government revenues for social programs,
for education, health, research and development, social housing
and the farm crisis. If we had a fair taxation system we could
accomplish all these things for the common good.
1255
One way to start is to make sure we gradually eliminate the GST.
We could take the first steps in that direction by taking the GST
off reading materials and some of the other basic necessities.
That would help ordinary citizens of the country.
I will close with that and say that I hope to see Liberal
colleagues getting up and telling me they are embarrassed that
their party broke its promise in 1993, when the candidate from
Peterborough, for example, was out there for the party that
promised to get rid of the GST. I would like to see him get up
in the House of Commons now and explain why his party broke that
promise and why he hangs his head in the House of Commons
whenever this issue comes up. His party has broken a basic and
fundamental promise to the people of the country.
It is like medicare. I am told that way back in 1919 the
Liberal Party promised health care for Canada. It promised
medicare in 1919. That did not happen until about 1966 and it
only happened at that time because of the leadership of the CCF
of Saskatchewan, where the first health care system in Canada
became such a popular idea that in 1966 the Pearson government
brought it in. That took an awful long time. It took 47 years
to keep that promise. How long will it be before the Liberal
Party keeps its promise on the GST?
I end with that question and I hope some of those members have
the courage to get up and tell us why they have broken faith and
why they have broken this engagement with the people of Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: In closing, my apologies to the
member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I was in a time warp when going
back to Yorkton—Melville, I suppose.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am looking for some guidance. I was to speak on behalf
of our party. I was out of the Chamber, retrieving some of my
notes. I am wondering where we are in this debate now.
Have we passed on to further debate? We in our party do have a
point of view we would like to put forward.
The Deputy Speaker: To the hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest, the debate on Bill C-13 in fact did collapse. The
Chair did on a few occasions ask if there were any other members
seeking the floor for debate.
I am aware the hon. member had given some indication that in
fact he had an interest in speaking to the previous bill, which
has since been passed.
1300
The Chair can only make a suggestion. The hon. member for New
Brunswick Southwest could seek unanimous consent of the House to
allow him to speak to the bill which has been passed.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous
consent to continue the debate, though I am certain that
government members will not want to hear what I have to say.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for New Brunswick
Southwest would also help the Chair if he could indicate how much
time he would require to add his comments to the record. Could
he please specify the amount of time that he would seek? He is
indicating 10 minutes. Does the House give its consent for the
member to put forward his comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable
development technology, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: The chief government whip has asked that the
division be deferred until later today, at the end of government
orders.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to lead off the
debate on an issue of major concern to all Canadians: the problem
of organized crime and the legislative tools available to our
police, prosecutors and courts to address that problem.
[Translation]
In the Speech from the Throne, our government promised to take
aggressive steps to combat organized crime, including the
creation of stronger anti-gang laws.
[English]
Building upon the foundation that the government put in place
over the past several years, including the 1997 anti-gang
amendments to the criminal code, the proposed legislation would
enable law enforcement to respond to the threat of organized
crime in the country.
Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code regarding organized
crime and law enforcement, responds to our commitment to law
enforcement officials and to my provincial counterparts to
provide additional legislative tools to assist them in the fight
against the many manifestations of organized crime. The
legislative measures set out in Bill C-24 seek to assist Canadian
law enforcement officials in the fight against organized crime.
1305
These proposals fall into four categories: first, measures to
improve the protection of people who play a role in the justice
system from intimidation; second, the creation of an accountable
process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal
liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the
course of an investigation; third, legislation to broaden the
powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime, and
in particular the profits of criminal organizations, and to seize
property that was used in a crime; and, fourth, the creation of a
number of new offences targeting involvement with criminal
organizations.
I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the valuable
contributions made to its development by my provincial colleagues
and their officials. It has been a truly collaborative effort
characterized by mutual respect, patience and a commitment to the
development of a broad based response to the threats of organized
crime.
These efforts resulted in the adoption last September of the
national agenda to combat organized crime. In Iqaluit, the
solicitor general and I agreed with our provincial and
territorial colleagues on an action plan. That plan has several
key elements, but expanded and strengthened legislative tools
were at the forefront of this national response.
We recognize that tougher and more effective laws are not the
full answer to the problem of organized crime. The enforcement
program that we announced when the bill was introduced
demonstrates our commitment to attacking the problem on all
fronts.
The first aspect of Bill C-24 involves a range of steps to deal
with the intimidation of persons involved in the criminal justice
system. There are those who ask why is it necessary to amend the
law to deal with the intimidation of persons involved in the
criminal justice system. They point to a number of provisions in
the criminal code that might be employed to address this issue.
The simple answer is that the existing law needs to be
strengthened.
The criminal justice system depends for its proper functioning
upon the participation of various members of our community. There
are the professionals responsible for the investigation and
prosecution of crime, the judges and those who deal with
convicted offenders, and members of the public who participate as
witnesses and jurors.
[Translation]
For all stakeholders to be able to participate effectively, they
and those with whom they are associated must be free to act
without being subjected to threats, prejudice, intimidation or
physical injury.
[English]
In recent times prosecutors, judges, witnesses, police and
prison guards, as well as their families, have been subjected to
intimidation intended to destabilize the criminal justice system.
The purpose of intimidation is to interfere with the ability to
hold trials in an environment conducive to proper deliberations
where participants in the system feel free to play the role
expected of them.
Whether acts of intimidation are subtle or explicit they are of
particular concern with regard to the prosecution of organized
crime. Concern about organized crime was shared by members of
parliament. Last year the subcommittee on organized crime was
struck to examine a myriad of issues related to organized crime.
It brought forward recommendations which included two specific
criminal code amendments intended to address concerns over
intimidation.
I am pleased to note that Bill C-24 implements both those
recommendations. One of those recommendations called for the
enactment of measures beyond those now in place to more fully
protect jurors serving in trials related to organized crime.
1310
Accordingly the government proposes changes to the jury
selection process set out in the criminal code to allow a judge
to order that the names and addresses of prospective jurors not
be read out in open court. A judge would be empowered in
appropriate cases to ban the publication of any information that
could disclose the identity of a juror.
Additionally Bill C-24 not only increases the penalty associated
with the existing offence of intimidation to five years
imprisonment. It introduces a new offence punishable by up to 14
years imprisonment to deal with acts of intimidation that target
justice system participants intended to impede the administration
of criminal justice.
A new section of the criminal code would make it an offence to
engage in acts of violence against a justice system participant
or a family member of that participant. It would be an offence
to harass, stalk or threaten these people with the intention of
either provoking a state of fear in a group of persons or the
general public in order to impede the administration of justice
or a justice system participant in the performance of his or her
duties.
I turn my attention now to the aspect of Bill C-24 that seeks to
protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability when for
legitimate law enforcement purposes they commit acts that would
otherwise be illegal.
The Supreme Court of Canada in its unanimous 1999 judgment in
Regina v Campbell and Shirose stated that the police was not
immune from criminal liability for criminal activities committed
in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. However,
while observing that “everybody is subject to the ordinary law
of the land”, the supreme court explicitly recognized that “if
some form of public interest immunity is to be extended to the
police..., it should be left to parliament to delineate the
nature and scope of the immunity and the circumstances in which
it is available”. Through Bill C-24 the government takes up the
challenge offered to it by the Supreme Court of Canada and
properly assumes its responsibility to provide guidance.
After issuing a consultation paper last year and engaging in
much consultation the government has put the proposals before the
House. The proposed scheme contemplates several means of
ensuring accountability. These involve a combination of new
legislative measures contained in Bill C-24, police training, as
well as reliance on existing judicial and disciplinary means to
ensure compliance with rules governing their use of powers given
under the law.
The legislation does not propose the granting of blanket
immunity to all law enforcement officers for unlawful acts
committed in the course of carrying out lawful law enforcement
responsibilities. However, the legislation does provide a form
of very limited immunity. Colleagues need to understand that for
many years law enforcement authorities were working on the basis
that they had common law immunity. All the supreme court did was
make it plain that there was not common law immunity but called
upon parliament to put in place a legislative scheme if it saw
fit.
Here is how the scheme would work. When a public officer is
engaged in the enforcement of any act of the Parliament of
Canada, doing that which would otherwise constitute an offence
may be permissible if the following elements exist.
First, before the person can act he or she must be designated
a competent authority. The individual must also believe on
reasonable grounds that committing the act or failing to act is
the reasonable course of action and proportional in the
circumstances and including whether there is any other available means of
carrying out their duty.
Nothing in the proposed scheme would provide immunity for the
intentional or criminally negligent causing of death or bodily
harm; the wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the
course of justice; or conduct that would violate the sexual
integrity of an individual.
1315
Another feature of the legislative package before us today is a
new approach to addressing participation in the activities of
criminal organizations. The bill contains a new definition of
criminal organization and three new offences that effectively
criminalize the full range of involvement with organized crime.
At its core, the danger of organized crime flows from the
enhanced threat posed to society when people combine for the
commission of serious crimes. Historically criminal law has
responded to this elevated harm by punishing individuals for
engaging in conspiracy and for aiding or abetting the commission
of specific offences.
In 1997 in Bill C-95 parliament went further and directly
targeted organizations of such individuals for the very first
time by providing a definition of criminal organization,
increased investigative powers and increased penalties for those
committing crimes in conjunction with criminal organizations.
Law enforcement officials and provincial attorneys general have
called for a simplified definition of criminal organization and
for offences that respond to all harmful forms of involvement in
criminal organizations. That is precisely what we have done in
the legislation before the House today.
The current definition only covers criminal organizations that
have at least five members, at least two of whom have committed
serious offences within the preceding five years. As well, the
organizations themselves must be shown to have been committing
crimes punishable by a maximum sentence of five years or more in
prison.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention against
organized crime which affirms that a group of three persons
having the aim of committing serious crimes constitutes a
sufficient threat to society to warrant special scrutiny from the
criminal justice system.
I believe that Canadians want our law enforcement officials to
be able to target criminal groups of three or more individuals,
one of whose main purposes or activities is either committing
serious crimes or making it easier for others to commit serious
crimes.
In conjunction with a more streamlined definition, the full
range of involvement with criminal organizations is targeted in
Bill C-24 by three new offences.
The first offence targets participation in or contribution to
the activities of criminal organizations. Taking part in the
activities of a criminal organization, even if such participation
does not itself constitute an offence, will now be a crime where
such actions are done for the purpose of enhancing the ability of
the criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable
offences.
The bill also addresses the concern expressed by law enforcement
officials and provincial attorneys general that the current
requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
was a party to a specific crime shields from prosecution those in
the upper echelons of criminal organizations who isolate
themselves from its day to day activities.
We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to
society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to
more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those
who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to
these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when
they recruit simply to expand the organization's human capital.
Thus the expressed provisions of the proposed participation
offence make it clear that the crown does not in making its case
need to link the impugned participation, in this case
recruitment, to any particular offence.
1320
Some have called for mere membership in a criminal organization
to be an offence. In my view such a proposal would be extremely
difficult to apply and would be vulnerable to charter challenges.
The second new offence retains the core of section 467.1 of the
criminal code which is the criminal organization offence
introduced in Bill C-95. The new offence targets those who aid,
abet, counsel or commit any indictable offence in conjunction
with a criminal organization.
Unlike the existing provision, it would not require the crown to
prove both that the accused has participated in or substantially
contributed to the activities of a criminal organization and that
he or she has been a party to the commission of an indictable
offence punishable by five or more years of imprisonment. The
participation-contribution requirement has been removed entirely
and the range of offences targeted has been broadened to include
all indictable offences.
The third new offence deals specifically with leaders in
criminal organizations. Like the participation offence, it does
so not by criminalizing status but by proscribing the harmful
behaviour itself.
Leaders of criminal organizations pose a unique threat to
society. Operationally they threaten us through their enhanced
experience and skills. Motivationally they threaten us through
their constant encouragement of potential and existing criminal
organization members. Accordingly in the bill we have moved
aggressively to identify, target and punish those within criminal
organizations, whether or not formally designated as leaders, who
knowingly instruct others to commit any offence, indictable or
otherwise, under any act of parliament for the benefit of, at the
direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.
The penalty provisions for the three offences I have outlined
confirm the government's resolve to provide a proportionate and
graduated means of addressing all forms of involvement with
criminal organizations and to ultimately break the back of
organized crime in Canada. The participation offence I
previously described is punishable by a maximum of five years of
imprisonment, the party liability offence by a maximum of 14
years of imprisonment, and the leadership related offence is
punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.
Furthermore each of these punishments has been fortified by an
appropriately aggressive sentencing regime. Its two critical
components are mandatory imposition of consecutive sentences for
the offences and a presumptive parole ineligibility period of
one-half the imposed sentence. When these measures are combined
with our newly expanded and improved criminal forfeiture scheme
our message to organized crime is clear: crime does not, will
not and must not pay in Canada, and we will take all necessary
measures to ensure the continued safety of our homes, streets and
communities.
Not all provisions of the bill specifically target organized
crime groups. Several elements in the proposed legislation are
meant to improve criminal law generally. These improvements to
the law will nonetheless be extremely useful in combating
organized crime.
The offences initially listed as enterprise crimes were those
considered most likely to be committed by organized crime groups.
Over the years, as organized crime evolved and moved into new
areas of criminal activity, new offences were added to the list
of enterprise crimes. Today the list of such crimes stands at
over 40 with no indication that we will stop adding new offences
to the list.
1325
At the same time, by limiting the proceeds of crime provisions
to certain listed offences, we have created two types of
criminal: the criminal whose proceeds are subject to the
proceeds of crime provisions of the code and whose illicit
profits can be ordered forfeited by the courts, and the criminal
whose profits fall outside the reach of the proceeds provisions
of the code.
Furthermore, there is a proposal to eliminate the enterprise
crime list approach and expand the application of the proceeds of
crime provisions to designated offences, that is, to most
indictable federal offences. In this manner the profits from the
commission of most serious crimes would be subject to forfeiture.
All existing protections, such as notice provisions, applications
to revoke or vary orders, appeals and remedies, will of course
continue to be available to the accused and to third parties.
Canada must be in a position to offer the necessary assistance
to foreign countries that have successfully investigated and
prosecuted members of organized crime groups and whose courts
have ordered the confiscation of tainted property located in
Canada. I would like to ensure that Canada is not singled out
for its inability to provide the necessary assistance to help
such jurisdictions obtain the confiscated property.
Accordingly, the bill proposes a number of amendments to the
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that would allow
Canada to enforce foreign confiscation orders. That is
important. The provisions contained in the proposed legislation
would allow Canada to respond on the basis of a treaty to
requests from a foreign jurisdiction for assistance in enforcing
a confiscation order issued by a court in that jurisdiction in
relation to proceeds of crime derived from the commission of a
criminal offence for which the accused was convicted. In
anticipation of a confiscation request, Canada would also be able
to provide assistance in respect of a request to seize or
restrain the targeted proceeds located in Canada.
The proposed amendments would also facilitate requests from
Canada regarding the enforcement of restraint or forfeiture
orders for proceeds of crime located in foreign jurisdictions.
The last element that I want to stress deals with offence
related property. The bill contains amendments to make the
offence related property forfeiture regime in the code apply to
all indictable offences. As well, the present exemption from
forfeiture for most real property would be eliminated.
I believe the measures I have outlined today would ensure that
we have the tools necessary to combat the increased threat of
organized crime. Let there be no mistake that the proposals
before us would provide more effective laws and aggressive
prosecution strategies to target organized crime at all levels.
I thank colleagues for their support of this initiative. I look
forward to their support because the initiative would ensure that
our streets and communities are safe from a most pernicious
element within our society, organized crime.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the new
organized crime legislation, Bill C-24.
I was struck by the almost desperate plea that the Minister of
Justice made to the House to pass the legislation. The matters
I heard her raise, discuss and urge upon the House are things my
party and its predecessor the Reform Party have been saying for
years. They have been desperately asking the House to bring
forward legislation to address organized crime. Over and over
again Liberal members have simply stonewalled or refused to bring
forward legislation.
1330
I must say that I am relieved to see after years of the
opposition fighting for more effective laws to help combat gangs
and other criminal organizations that the federal Liberals have
finally woke up.
During the election they realized that organized crime was an
issue. Suddenly the government said that it better do something
because there was a danger to our country and to our
institutions. It said that police officers were having a
difficult time coping and the courts were overwhelmed by the
issue of organized crime. I therefore note, with a bit of
bewilderment, that the Liberals finally woke up.
I thank the minister for bringing the bill forward because there
are some very good things in it. I know the minister is also
very open to ideas and prides herself in listening, discussing
and accepting recommendations from time to time.
I am relieved that the government is finally acknowledging that
organized crime is a serious problem. The rest of the country
has been saying this for many years. It is no secret, although
to the Liberal caucus it was a bit of a secret, that the level of
activity of criminal organizations has increased substantially in
recent years, posing a severe risk to public safety and security.
Not only has there been an increase in the level of activity.
There has also been an increase in the intensity of violence
including bombing, threats and intimidation.
The extent of collaboration within and among criminal groups has
broadened greatly. The available technology has improved their
ability to conduct organized crime by leaps and bounds. Over the
years Canada has become a very attractive place for these types
of criminals. According to the Criminal Intelligence Service of
Canada, CISC, “virtually every major criminal group in the world
is active in Canada”.
Antonio Nicaso, a well known organized crime specialist and
author, has said that Canada has become one of the world's most
important centres for global crime syndicates in part because of
federal regulations and laws. He has stated that prior to Bill
C-22 it was harder to import cheese into Canada due to the
restriction of the minister of agriculture than it was to import
a suitcase full of money.
The RCMP commissioner has said recently that for the first time
there are signs of criminal organizations which are so
sophisticated they are actually focusing on destabilizing certain
aspects of our society.
Our party has long recognized these frightening indications and
for years as the Reform Party and now the Alliance we have been
calling for changes in the way the government should approach
organized crime.
Over the past few years there have been a few halfhearted
attempts by the government to adapt our laws to help fight these
criminals. Just before the 1997 election the Liberal government
pushed through parliament amendments to the criminal code that
were intended to fight organized crime. However, because it was
so last minute the opposition was not able to hear from witnesses
to determine whether the proposed legislation would be effective.
1335
The Canadian Police Association stated that Bill C-95 did not go
far enough to provide police and prosecutors with the tools to
fight organized crime. There were a few, some estimate perhaps
under five, ineffective prosecutions under the bill.
Even the justice minister at the time said during the debate
that he did not claim the bill represented everything needed to
fight organized crime but that it was just the first step. Under
intense pressure from not only opposition politicians but also
from police and other concerned members in the community, the
government has finally introduced some of the long needed
legislation for which we have been calling.
Our party welcomes many of the proposals in the new bill, but a
number of significant deficiencies in the legislation still
require further amendment to adequately address the problem of
gang participation and violence.
The most disturbing feature of the legislation is its failure to
make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already
proven to be a criminal organization. Contrary to the
suggestions of the Minister of Justice, this provision does not
make participation or membership in a criminal organization
illegal unless it can be proven that the person had the intention
to facilitate illegal transactions for that organization.
The fact that an organization is criminal would have to be
proven in each particular case over and over again. It would
result in needless duplication of resources, expenses and the
prolongation of criminal trials, which would again have an impact
upon the court system and its resources.
Members often think that all we have to do is pass a law in the
House and things will change. In the real world things are not
that simple. As a minister of justice of a provincial government
I actually had to carry out the laws that parliamentarians
passed. The reality is not simply the law. The reality is the
resources that must be provided to make even the best legislation
effective.
Last fall my colleagues in the Bloc put forward a supply motion
that called for parliament to make it a crime to belong to a
criminal organization. The Liberal government argued that such a
provision might be considered unconstitutional. However, making
illegal participation in a group that has been proven to be a
criminal organization is a reasonable limit on freedom of
association and other freedoms in the charter.
When the primary if not the sole purpose of such an association
is to commit illegal acts, the safety and security of private
citizens may reasonably supersede the individual rights of the
persons conspiring to commit these acts or participating in these
organizations.
I ask the House to bring the Bloc proposal forward as was
suggested earlier. What is the fear of bringing the proposal
forward? Is it that it might be unconstitutional? If the courts
do not believe that our citizens are deserving of this
protection, let them tell us so.
1340
We should not settle for second best because the Liberal
government is frightened to pass the legislation that it needs to
pass. The courts should tell us and we will respect the courts.
If the courts believe citizens are not entitled to that
protection then parliament must listen to what the courts say.
Certain members think what I am saying is funny. It is not
funny. A member across the way laughs about what I am doing. I
take the seriousness of the situation to heart and members have a
responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens. If
members opposite want to joke about that, let them joke. I can
take that.
Another equally disturbing fact about the bill is the serious
lack of funding and resources that has plagued and continues to
plague the administrators of our justice system. Frontline
officers fighting to get these criminals prosecuted have been
effectively handcuffed with a serious lack of resources.
Criminal organizations have the best possible tools. They have
state of the art technology. They have access to millions of
dollars derived from illegal activities to fund their activities.
Meanwhile our frontline police officers struggle to maintain
existing technology. They are unable to adapt to new and
emerging technologies because of insufficient funding.
Funding has become a vital issue in our continuing fight against
the sophisticated and wealthy organized crime syndicates.
Organized crime investigations are themselves resource intensive,
costly, highly technical, lengthy and complex.
When the bill was first introduced over two weeks ago the
justice minister announced a mere $200 million of funding. To me
and the average citizen $200 million is a lot of money. The
government continually includes an amount of money in a package
announcement as though the money is immediately available. That
is not correct.
The amount is spread over five years. It does not come close to
the amount that is needed for frontline law enforcement officials
to do their jobs effectively. When one looks at the $200 million
over five years and where the money will go, it will not be to
local police forces in Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver that
actually do the investigations. Some of it will go to the RCMP,
and we applaud that. What concerns me about the $200 million is
that it will not go to the places it needs to go in terms of
frontline investigation and help for the police.
I speak from experience and knowledge having dealt with that
matter when I was minister of justice for a provincial
government. The need to fight organized crime in whatever form
we find it is a constant concern. Another concern is the lack of
resources available at the provincial level and the reluctance of
the federal government to put its money where its mouth is. From
time to time the government comes up with bills and makes
impassioned speeches to the House to pass the legislation.
We agree that the legislation should be passed but we need to
make it effective legislation. How do we actually carry it out?
We cannot simply stand here in Ottawa and say that we have now
given the tools when we pass the legislation.
1345
We need to financially support our front line police officers.
If we are not prepared to do that then all our speeches, our
legislation and the studies and the years that have gone into the
legislation were all for naught.
When one considers the annual RCMP expenditures alone in one
year, the $200 million extra to fight organized crime is a drop
in the bucket. If this was all going to front line RCMP officers
it would be a good start, but everyone here in the House realizes
that is not where it is going.
We are not even talking about the municipal police forces that
carry out the mandate of parliament when we pass legislation.
Who will help the Toronto police force or the maritime municipal
police forces that have a very real interest in protecting their
citizens against this pernicious criminal activity?
Even though the introduction of additional funding by the
government gives the appearance of a substantive and immediate
injection of funds, the funds allocated on a yearly basis will
not significantly enhance police or prosecution resources when we
consider that a relatively simply prosecution under this
legislation can cost $10 million.
I understand from newspaper reports that a special courthouse is
being built in Quebec for these types of crimes. The courthouse
alone is estimated to cost $10 million.
When I was a justice minister in Manitoba we had to build a
special courthouse at a cost of $3.5 million. The money was well
spent. It was essential to not only have legislation in place
but to put the resources in place to actually get the job done.
When we consider the ramifications to legal aid, to prosecutors,
to police overtime and to clerks, $10 million for one trial is
not an uncommon amount. We see the courthouse being built for
$10 million in Quebec and then we think of what it will cost to
conduct a trial. We cannot allow organized criminals to have
even an inkling of an understanding that we are not prepared to
support our police officers.
If we have actually convinced the Liberals that this is the
right direction to move in, I am glad. At least they have taken
the first step, the legislative step, but now they have to take
the second step. The earlier legislation was only part of the
first step. This is getting close to completing the first step.
The huge step, the financial issue, has to be addressed but,
unfortunately, it is not being addressed.
I am encouraged that the Minister of Justice might find it in
her heart to convince some of her colleagues over there who might
be mean-spirited enough to deny our police officers these
resources. I recognize that she has a very difficult job trying
to convince some of these people on the other side; not all of
them, some of them are very good people.
She needs to convince some of the Liberals who do not believe
that this is really a problem. If that is the basis of her
leadership speech, as was just mentioned, let it be her
leadership speech. I do not think it is a bad thing to do. I
would encourage the Minister of Justice to move in that
direction, if not in the leadership, at least in terms of finding
that money for our police officers.
1350
I am making those comments to her through you, Mr. Speaker. I
wanted that clear on the record.
It is somewhat heartening to see that the legislation proposes
added protection from intimidation for people who work in the
justice system, such as witnesses, jurors, police, prosecutors,
prison guards, judges, members of parliament and senators. This
is absolutely crucial. It is one of the practical steps that
needed to be taken and is being taken.
There are some shortcomings in that list. I am not sure whether
it adequately protects other key players in the fight against
crime, especially when we look at the listing of federal MPs.
Does it protect provincial MLAs or members of the national
assembly in Quebec, in particular, provincial justice ministers?
I do not say that because I was a provincial justice minister
but I do think they are on the front line with the police and
they deserve protection as well. We do not want them, the deputy
ministers nor anyone involved in provincial justice departments
who are front line workers in the fight against crime to be
intimidated. They need the same level of protection as federal
parliamentarians.
It would seem mean-spirited of us if we granted the protection
to ourselves when we do not even carry out the day to day
activities and refuse to grant it to those who carry it out on a
day to day basis.
In addition, as recent cases demonstrate, journalists who
demonstrate their service of the public interest by reporting on
organized crime also need and deserve the enhanced protection
under our criminal law. It is absolutely essential.
The media is a very important tool in the fight against
organized crime. One need only point out the well known case of
Michel Auger, a Montreal crime reporter. That case demonstrates
the need for extra protection for journalists. Last September he
was shot five times as he arrived at the offices of his
newspapers.
That was not the only incident in Canada where journalists had
been the subject of attack, where they have had the courage to
stand up and say the right things and write the right things.
Jean-Pierre Charbonneau, who is now speaker of the Quebec
legislature, was shot three times in the chest and the arm in the
newsroom in 1973 while he was a reporter covering an inquiry into
organized crime.
In 1995 a freelance reporter was shot after answering a knock on
his front door. He was shot in both legs and survived what
police called a warning by bikers.
We all know of the case of the editor of North America's largest
Punjabi paper. He was shot and killed in his suburban Vancouver
garage in 1998 by an unidentified killer.
Members of the press who research and report on all items of
interest to Canadians, in particular, matters pertaining to their
safety, must be protected from these types of attacks on
democracy and freedom of the press.
It is not enough to say that we have a general provision that
covers attempted murder or murder.
As a democracy and as passionate believers in free speech, we
need to send out a specific, clear, legislated message that those
journalists are entitled to that protection.
1355
The House of Commons should never allow attempts by criminal
groups to intimidate any person or any democratic institution,
and I include the press in those democratic institutions.
The bill also addresses the issue of police immunity. I think
all right thinking people understand the need for police to have
these powers. We also understand the need for clear criteria
governing those activities. It was always the case that police
had those clear criteria in place as policies that governed their
activities. The Supreme Court of Canada has come along and said
that we need to put that in legislation. I agree because I do
not think it is necessary to fight on that issue. Let us put
clear criteria in place but let us not hamstring and handcuff our
police officers at an undue cost to our security and the security
of our citizens to enjoy democracy and their democratic rights.
The minister needs to bear in mind that when we create immunity
for police, we also have to address the possible adverse impacts
on law-abiding citizens and the damage that might be done to
their property by a police officer carrying out his or her duties
under this protection.
If a police officer has to steal and destroy a car, which would
be permitted under the criteria, damage other property or commit
some other crime that causes damage to a citizen's
property, I do not believe the citizen should have to bear that
responsibility personally. This is a societal cost. This is a
cost that we as a society must bear because we have given this
power to the police.
The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it
being two o'clock the House will now proceed to statements by
members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADARM2
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Thursday, April 19, 2001, at 2.41 p.m. Canadian astronaut
Chris Hadfield and his six companions rocketed into space
aboard space shuttle Endeavour. In its cargo bay was
Canadarm2.
Yesterday, Colonel Hadfield became the first Canadian to walk
in space. At the end of his sortie, the space station remote
manipulator system, better known as Canadarm2, had been
deployed. Today it is being tested.
This next generation robotic arm, the most advanced of its kind,
is the product of more than a decade of dedicated application by
Canadian scientists and technicians at MacDonald Dettwiler
Robotics and at the Canadian Space Agency.
I want to congratulate all involved in preparing and executing
Mission STS-100 on a job well done. We are proud of Chris
Hadfield and all our Canadian astronauts.
* * *
1400
QUEEN CHARLOTTE ISLANDS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
during the past two weeks I had the opportunity to visit the
beautiful Queen Charlotte Islands or Haida Gwaii, as they
are known locally. I took the time to meet with several
different groups of people, including members of the Haida first
nations.
I received several messages loud and clear on the island. Number
one was about the total lack of credibility in federal Department
of Fisheries and Oceans' policies. The fishing industry on the
north coast as a whole is in serious trouble and DFO must address
this issue.
Islanders are also concerned about their failing economy. Any
economic development, industrial or otherwise, would be welcome
provided environmental concerns are fully dealt with and long
term and lasting benefits accrue to the island people.
The Queen Charlotte Islands are a beautiful part of Canada and
it is my privilege to have had the opportunity to see them for
the first time and to relay the concerns of their citizens to
this parliament.
* * *
EARTH DAY
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April 22 was the 31st anniversary of Earth Day, the
largest environmental event in the world. Earth Day gave all
Canadians and others around the world an opportunity to celebrate
the importance of a safe, clean and sustainable environment.
The health of our environment depends on decisions about the
croplands, freshwater, oceans, forests, fisheries and other
natural resources on which life depends. There are over six
billion of us on the planet who are consuming the world's
resources. The future of our environment will depend on the
actions we take now.
I join with my constituents in encouraging the Government of
Canada to continue to demonstrate strong leadership on
environmental protection and to promote an international
environmental agenda.
* * *
CANADA BOOK DAY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April
23 is Canada Book Day. I want to celebrate it by telling you
about the Writers' Development Trust of Canada, why the trust was
founded and what it does.
A nation's culture is inseparable from its storytellers. Our
writers not only entertain and enlighten us, they help define us
as a people. It was the recognition of the seminal importance of
Canadian writing that in 1976 led four visionary Canadians,
Margaret Atwood, Pierre Berton, Graeme Gibson and the late
Margaret Laurence, who lived in Peterborough riding, to create
the Writers' Development Trust of Canada.
Then as now, its purpose was to nurture the growing community of
Canadian writers, to ensure that amid the din of competing voices
our own stories would be gathered and told in exquisite poetry
and compelling prose.
In the intervening years, the writers' trust has remained
faithful to the founding vision, establishing programs and prizes
that celebrate and reward our distinctly and uniquely Canadian
perspective.
Let us celebrate Canada Book Day.
* * *
ELMIRA FESTIVAL
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to inform all Canadians
about the 37th annual Elmira Maple Syrup Festival which took
place in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington on Saturday, April 7.
I congratulate the residents of Elmira, Ontario for once again
hosting a most successful event, the world's largest one day
maple syrup festival.
This year the event attracted close to 50,000 people, not only
from the Waterloo region but from other parts of Ontario, Canada
and even the United States to the picturesque town of Elmira to
taste this great and delicious maple syrup. This year marked a
very exciting milestone when the festival served its
one-millionth pancake.
This festival is a wonderful event in the Waterloo-Wellington
area and definitely a worthwhile experience.
I wish to congratulate the festival and its 2,000 volunteers who
give of their time to raise money for local non-profit
organizations. I am very proud of all those involved in this
festival for once again organizing such a rich and enjoyable
event.
* * *
ORGAN DONOR AWARENESS
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, she was her mom's sunshine girl and
her family's princess. When 11 year old Sandrine Craig
tragically died in a school bus accident, six people received her
organs and tissue, generously donated by Sandrine's mother Diane
and her brother Kenny. They gave new hope to six other families.
Sandrine's family and friends also initiated Sandrine's Gift of
Life, a national donor awareness campaign, to increase the number
of people who sign donor cards and to encourage them to share
their wishes with their families.
Since then, donor cards have been distributed across the
country. Diane Craig is co-chairing the campaign with
broadcaster Don Cherry and the Hon. Gib Parent, former speaker of
this House, both of whom have been personally touched by organ
donation.
During this National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week,
everyone should talk to their family and friends about organ
donation; someone's life depends on it.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to inform hon. members and all Canadians that,
this year, National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week will
be held from April 21 to 28.
[English]
Organ and tissue donation is a crucial health issue for
Canadians. Last year alone some 1,800 organ transplants took
place in Canada. However in too many cases organs and tissues
that could have saved lives were not available. Last year some
3,700 Canadians were on waiting lists for transplants and 147
people died waiting.
Earlier today, Her Excellency, Governor General Adrienne
Clarkson, hosted the annual Celebration of Life ceremony,
honouring organ donation families and recipients across Canada.
I would like to recognize the organ and tissue donation families
and recipients who are in Ottawa today. Our goal is to put
Canada on the road to a strong national organ and tissue
transplantation system. With their inspiration, we can work
together toward this goal, giving hope of a better life to
thousands of Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the summit of the
Americas has shown us the true face of our federal
representatives.
Secrecy, scheming and paranoia characterized the attitude of the
Minister for International Trade and his associates as they
prepared for this summit, from which almost everyone was
excluded.
Arrogance, pettiness and a casual disregard summed up the
Canadian government's treatment of the Premier of Quebec, who
was relegated to the role of observer at an event being
organized in his own jurisdiction, in our national capital.
The reality is that Quebec is the sixth strongest economic power
in the Americas. The reality is that Quebec is a developed,
mature nation which is open to the world. The reality is that
it would have been only natural for Quebec to be at the table in
the same capacity as all sovereign nations and to negotiate
itself the agreements which will change the lives of its people.
The reality is that it is becoming increasingly evident that
the Canadian federation is an obstacle to the development of a
modern Quebec.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague and I seem not to have attended the same summit.
I followed the summit of the Americas this past weekend in
Quebec City with extreme pride.
Our Prime Minister and his government did a remarkable job.
During this summit, the heads of state and of government reached
consensus on a significant number of questions.
First of all, they reached consensus on a democracy clause. As
a result, human rights, freedom and stability will be assured.
Discussions were also held on the benefits of economic growth
for the population of the hemisphere and the available means for
fostering social development and reducing inequalities as well
as the involvement of civil society.
As this summit has come to an end, we must acknowledge the
commitment of our heads of state and of government to a better
future for the Americas.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals have failed to
defend Prince Edward Island potato farmers from unwarranted U.S.
protectionism. The restrictions on the export of P.E.I. potatoes
continue despite the fact that P.E.I. crops were cleared of
potato wart some time ago.
Once again the federal government has treated an issue with
inaction and complete disregard for farmers.
How can the minister of agriculture claim that he is working
closely with the U.S. when he was not even able to meet with his
U.S. counterpart, agricultural secretary Ann Veneman, when she
came to Quebec City? Why did the Prime Minister not make
arrangements for his minister of agriculture to attend the summit
of the Americas to discuss the P.E.I. potato crisis?
It makes one wonder: Is anyone looking out for the interests of
Prince Edward Island?
* * *
ARMENIA
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, April 24 marks the 86th anniversary of the Turkish
genocide of the Armenians. Over the past 86 years the prayer of
millions of Armenians around the world has been a simple one:
please do not forget our suffering, please do not forget our
humanity.
This weekend I joined with members of the Canadian Armenian
community at the Armenian General Benevolent Union and again at
the Toronto Armenian Association to share in commemorative
ceremonies of the Armenian genocide.
Gradually the truth is being recognized. On January 29, 2001,
the government of France became the first of the G-7 nations to
officially recognize the Armenian genocide of 1915 with the
adoption of law 2001-70, joining many other nations in shedding
light on one of history's darkest crimes.
In 1996 the House designated April 20 to 27 of each year as the
week of remembrance of inhumanity of people toward one another.
During this week let us honour the victims of genocide and of
crimes against humanity. Most importantly, let us recognize
these horrors and pledge to eliminate this evil from our society
forever.
* * *
1410
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
over lunch on the weekend the Prime Minister claims to have
educated President Bush on the location and potential of the
Alberta tar sands and at the same time committed to allowing the
Americans to buy as much Canadian energy as possible without any
commitments or conditions.
After lunch Mr. Bush said “Canada is going to be the largest
exporter of crude oil to the United States”, and then referred
specifically to the Alberta tar sands.
According to the David Suzuki Foundation, a typical tar sands
plant, just one of them, will produce greenhouse gas emissions
equivalent to 1.3 million new cars on the road per year.
If the Prime Minister wants to continue educating the American
president, could he please teach him how important the Kyoto
protocol is as well as the importance of developing new renewable
energy sources and energy efficient methods rather than new ways
to exploit scarce resources and increase greenhouse gas
emissions?
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD BOOK AND COPYRIGHT DAY
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this World
Book and Copyright Day, I wish to remind hon. members that books
are one of the greatest paths to knowledge and learning. I
congratulate and thank all those who create these paths.
The Government of Quebec decided to help facilitate this means
of access to knowledge by eliminating its sales tax on books,
whereas the federal government refuses to follow suit with the
GST, despite its huge surplus.
What is more, this government has not yet remedied the Minister
of Industry's lack of sensitivity in inflicting chronic
underfunding on the Copyright Board.
In order to put this situation right, the hon. member for Québec
and Bloc Quebecois heritage critic will this afternoon be
introducing a bill placing responsibility for the Copyright Act
under the Department of Canadian Heritage, something that has
been called for virtually unanimously by copyright holders.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
April 12 the Minister of National Defence made his long awaited
and much anticipated announcement to move the Second Battalion
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry to CFB Shilo. I can
tell the minister personally that the decision was warmly
received by the people of southwestern Manitoba.
The minister made it official following the military's business
case report that revealed the best option for restructuring
Manitoba's land forces would be to relocate 2-PPCLI to CFB Shilo
to share the training facility with 1-RCHA.
Today I would like to thank all the people who had a role to
play in that final decision. I wish to express my thanks to
community organizations in Brandon and Shilo, the defence
department staff, the military leadership and, yes, the Manitoba
Liberal caucus.
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister of National Defence.
He said in the House that the final decision should be based on
logic and military operational requirements, not politics. He is
a man of his word. We accept the 2-PPCLI in our community with
pride.
* * *
WORLD CURLING CHAMPIONS
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada
rocks. Our Canadian women's curling champion, Colleen Jones, and
her team won the world's curling championship in Lausanne,
Switzerland on April 8 in great style.
On this trip, their third to the world championships, skip
Colleen Jones, third Kim Kelly, second Mary-Anne Waye and lead
Nancy Delahunt beat Sweden 5-2 to take the women's curling crown.
Hailing from the Mayflower Curling Club in Halifax, the team
lost their first two games of the competition but went on to
sweep nine straight wins to finish in first place in the round
robin, treating Canadians to some fantastic curling.
On behalf of Canadians coast to coast and all parliamentarians,
I wish to extend congratulations to our new world curling
champions.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the summit of the Americas was an
opportunity for Canada's publicly funded national network to keep
the world informed.
Imagine my disappointment on behalf of all Canadians when,
during the height of the demonstrations, with the acrid stench of
tear gas in the air, summit participants were forced to turn to
CNN rather than the CBC to find out what was happening in the
streets of Quebec City.
We were sequestered as a group, observers and participants from
the 34 summit nations, locked within the perimeter, not knowing
if all of Quebec City was on fire.
1415
Canadians from across this nation have been telling me that the
money given to the CBC would be better spent on things like truly
accessible health care and more affordable housing.
Once again the CBC has squandered an opportunity to demonstrate
that the billion or so dollars of taxpayer money spent on the
CBC is not a waste of money.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend was a sad one for democracy in Quebec City and in
our hemisphere.
While I totally condemn the unacceptable violence suffered by
some of the police officers, I must draw attention to the
disturbing and illegal actions of the police who attacked
peaceful protestors outside the wall.
I was there, near the rue Saint-Jean, when the RCMP, without
provocation, attacked over 200 peaceful demonstrators, who were
sitting in the street chanting. They attacked the crowd with
tear gas and plastic and rubber bullets.
I was hurt in the leg, myself, by one of these bullets.
My colleagues and I demand a public and an independent inquiry
into the events. The leaders spoke of democracy inside the
wall. Outside the wall, democracy was under attack.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, having attended the summit of the
Americas conference, I have no problem at all congratulating the
organizers of the summit, the security forces and the government
for generally a good job in hosting the conference.
We have of course some concerns in a couple of areas. We do
believe that by the year 2006 there will be great progress in
terms of jobs and economic opportunity throughout the Americas.
However, in the area of softwood lumber and P.E.I. potatoes,
could the Prime Minister tell us why there was a lack of progress
on those specific areas? This is about jobs right now in Canada.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for
his kind words on the successful Quebec City summit that I think
reflects very well for all Canada.
I would like to reassure the Leader of the Opposition that there
has been progress and a lot of diplomacy on both on the softwood
lumber issue and the P.E.I. potatoes. I have raised the issue of
P.E.I. potatoes with Secretary Veneman and my colleague, the
minister of agriculture, was on hand as well participating in
that conversation. We have also had a number of conversations on
the softwood lumber issue with Bob Zoellick and Don Evans and—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let me be even more specific on the
subject of softwood lumber.
Did the Prime Minister propose to President Bush that
representatives be appointed in the matter of softwood lumber,
and, if so, did the Americans agree to this?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, at one point, we did indeed contemplate appointing
eminent persons on both sides of the border to take a look at
the long term solutions in this matter. This idea remains an
option, but I think it has been overtaken by the current
situation.
In the meantime, the American industry has submitted petitions
to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The department will have to
decide today, by 11.59 p.m. this evening, whether it accepts the
industry's allegations and will investigate.
However, our government clearly expressed its point of view last
week during consultations.
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe that Canada can be
a lighthouse illuminating a pathway on the seas of democracy for
those emerging democracies that want to move in that direction.
I wonder what the Prime Minister advised leaders from emerging
democracies on specific items like parliamentary reform, MPs
being allowed to vote freely in the House of Commons and having
parliamentary safeguards like an independent ethics commissioner.
What specific advice did the Prime Minister give to emerging
democracies on those specific items?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister did not say anything about
encouraging party leaders to hire spies against their opponents.
The declaration of Quebec City included a democracy clause under
which any unconstitutional alteration of a state's democratic
order will prevent participation of that state's government in
the summit of the Americas process, including the free trade area
of the Americas. The Prime Minister took the lead in getting an
important consensus on this from the 34 sovereign countries.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canada has a long history of trade disputes with the
U.S. over agriculture, one of our most important industries.
The P.E.I. potato dispute is just the latest example. It is
pretty clear that we need to spend time with the Americans
whenever we can to make our position clear, which brings me to my
question.
The Americans thought agriculture was an important enough issue
to warrant the presence of their agriculture secretary at the
summit of the Americas. It was probably a good opportunity for
our agriculture minister to spend some time bending her ears to
make our position clear. Why was he not there?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister discussed the issue
with President Bush on Thursday of last week.
I personally, along with my colleague, the Minister for
International Trade, discussed the issue with Secretary Veneman.
The Canadian ambassador to the United States and the United
States ambassador was here. I discussed the issue in a
conference call on Saturday morning with those people. Our
officials are in Washington this afternoon to continue those
discussions.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, nothing beats face to face meetings. The agriculture
minister missed a glorious opportunity. The agriculture
secretary of the United States understood that it was important
for her to be at the summit of the Americas.
It was an important opportunity for our agriculture minister to
get our position forward on Prince Edward Island potatoes. This
is a dispute that is hurting farmers in Prince Edward Island. Why
was he not there to make the point?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the point was made very clearly. As the
Prime Minister said, Prince Edward Island potatoes were served
twice to the president of the United States and, as stated in a
press release, they are all doing quite well.
One does not have to meet somebody face to face. I stressed
very clearly that the decision should be based on science and
that it should not be a protectionism decision. Our officials
are in Washington again today to continue those discussions and
to solve this based on scientific facts rather than
protectionism, as it has been treated by the United States so
far.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City
summit gave civil society an opportunity to express to the heads
of state who were gathered for the FTAA its disapproval of the
fact that negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors,
and it sent, through a peaceful protest by close to 30,000
participants, a clear message to the Prime Minister that these
talks cannot go on without civil society's involvement.
Did the Prime Minister take note of the lesson in democracy
civil society gave him, and does he realize that there can be no
talks on the future of our fellow citizens without consulting
them, without even discussing the issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister himself promoted democracy with the other
countries from the Americas and he also praised the 25,000
people who expressed their point of view in a peaceful fashion,
under the authority of union leaders. These people deserve
praise for the peaceful manner in which they expressed their
point of view.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister basically told those who wanted to be heard on this
issue to run for office. That was his answer.
Is there not an extremely serious credibility problem when the
Prime Minister tells people to get elected if they want to take
part in the talks, considering that he himself kept all the
members of this House in the dark and let only cabinet ministers
have access to the documents?
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe that members from every party were invited to attend the
talks. In the case of Canada, the spokespersons are themselves
elected members of parliament, while the leaders of the other
countries all represent democratic countries.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a bit
incredible to tell us that we were invited to take part in the
discussions, when we were not.
At the same time as the Prime Minister is inviting those opposed
to the FTAA to run for office, he is urging Liberal members to
boycott the parallel forums open to parliamentarians wishing to
debate it transparently.
How can the Prime Minister, who claims to put elected
representatives first, explain that not a single Liberal
parliamentarian attended either the Conference of
Parliamentarians of the Americas, COPA, or the people's summit,
at which civil society democratically made known its views on
the FTAA?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
proof that the federal government likes to promote discussion of
such issues as free trade is based on the fact that the federal
government paid $300,000 so that the parallel summit could be
held, with support from the Government of Quebec as well. The
federal government paid for this parallel summit. This is proof
of our support for democracy.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government contributed. It did not pay for the People's Summit.
I think its main reason for contributing was to buy peace.
The Prime Minister thinks he is entitled to sign a free trade
agreement because he was elected.
Does the Prime Minister intend to give a firm undertaking to
report in the House on the progress of future negotiations, and
does he intend to allow parliamentarians access to the texts of
negotiations, as these negotiations proceed?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I must say how proud I am to return to the House
today, knowing that it was because of Canadian leadership that
an agreement was reached in Buenos Aires to make the texts
public.
Another of our achievements in Buenos Aires was to obtain
agreement for institutionalizing formal dialogue with civil
society in the hemisphere. Canadian leadership was responsible
for this as well.
Our efforts resulted in the most transparent international
summit to date. Part of the summit was even televised.
Saturday morning, a complete session of heads of state was
televised.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what a
difference a weekend in Quebec City makes.
Before Quebec the government said that it would never sign
another trade agreement with NAFTA chapter 11 provisions. After
the weekend in a Quebec hotel, the Prime Minister is in love. He
said that chapter 11 was working well and that there was no
problem with corporations suing democratically elected
governments for acting in the public interest.
Would the trade minister please advise Canadians: Has the
government changed its position?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, the government has not changed its
position.
The Government of Canada signed chapter 11 of NAFTA some years
ago and we believe that it is absolutely imperative that
investments be protected around trade agreements.
What we have been seeking as a government has been a
clarification from panels that have made some decisions which we
think do not really reflect the intentions of the countries when
the agreement was signed. There is a difference. We are not
reopening or renegotiating the chapter. We want to clarify some
elements for the future.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
sounds a bit like the difference between marital bliss and
adultery.
Let me remind the trade minister what he told a parliamentary
committee just over a year ago. He said “We are not going to
enter into those kinds of investor state dispute mechanisms in
any other agreements and we're going to try to find a way to get
this particular chapter out of NAFTA”.
Now we have the Prime Minister huffing and puffing about a
democracy clause, while he shackles this and future governments
with the threat of being sued by foreign corporations for
responding to citizens.
What kind of democracy is that?
1430
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the sort of democracy that the
leader of the NDP chose recently. Last weekend it was pretty
obvious.
The kind of democracy we support was 34 elected leaders of this
hemisphere asking for access to markets and asking for
development. That is the kind of democracy we believe in: a
better hemisphere, a lot more democratic than it was 25 years
ago, based on solid development that trade can bring to all of
them. There were a lot of socialist leaders among them, but they
have come to live in this century instead of the last one.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is very proud to have said
that the Prime Minister served P.E.I. potatoes in Quebec. The
issue, however, is that potatoes from P.E.I. must be served in
the United States.
When did the minister of agriculture that the secretary of
agriculture would be in Quebec City? Why is it that the Prime
Minister of the host country did not get the minister of
agriculture into the summit to deal with this issue?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I found out at 8 o'clock on Friday night
and arrangements could not be made, for security reasons, for me
to get into the summit.
A meeting was arranged. As I said earlier there was a
conference call and the minister of trade was present. The two
ambassadors of our countries were present. A number of officials
were present. Secretary Veneman was present. I was present on
the phone and led the discussion at that time. As a result our
officials are in Washington this afternoon to continue the
discussion.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of agriculture is not building any confidence in
producers, believe me. Agriculture was not even on the radar
screen of the summit. The minister was not even available to
talk to the secretary of agriculture with respect to P.E.I.
potatoes and other issues.
Why could the Prime Minister not get the minister of agriculture
in? The secretary of state from the United States got in. Why
could the minister of agriculture not get into the talks?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have been
following the agenda. It was made very clear. I stated it here
and it was in the press.
The Prime Minister and the president discussed the issue.
Further, the minister of trade and I discussed the issue with
Secretary Veneman. We cannot take it any higher than that.
* * *
LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I too just spent the weekend at the Quebec summit
and I would like to commend the police for an outstanding job.
We heard all weekend from President Bush about the shortage of
energy in the U.S. and its desire for Canada to significantly
increase its exports in oil and gas. He made it very clear that
they are in a serious situation and are looking to Canada for
help.
On the other hand we heard very little from our Prime Minister
or Minister for International Trade on softwood lumber. Our
Prime Minister was more interested in being an amigo and hoping
to get an invitation to the White House for dinner.
Why the silence from our government on softwood lumber? Why was
there so little on softwood lumber?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not tell how many meetings and
how many bilaterals I had on the softwood lumber issue during
that weekend.
It was raised with Don Evans. It was raised with Bob Zoellick.
I have had the great pleasure of meeting Max Baucus, who has been
leading the charge as members know against Canada for so many
years. I have discussed it with Senator Grassley.
There was a lot of explaining to the Americans of our Canadian
position. I reiterated what the government and what Canadian
industry said last Thursday and Friday at the consultations with
the commerce department.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is reassuring that he is meeting with the
Americans, but he is not talking to Canadian people about what is
going on.
He said there has been progress. Let me tell him what Mr.
Zoellick is saying in public. He is saying that the dispute
could easily slide out of control. Senator Baucus warned the
fight is likely to get wider, and our government is silent.
The minister said earlier in question period that there has been
progress. We are not seeing it. I would like to ask the
minister what exactly are the government's plans. What is it
planning to do for industry, as this issue is likely to escalate
and cost the Canadian industry billions and billions of dollars
and thousands of jobs?
1435
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday and Friday, this
government, the provinces and Canadian industry were in
Washington explaining our point of view to the commerce
department in formal consultations.
I do not know what the commerce department will decide today. I
suspect that it will accept delegations of the industry and begin
to investigate our practices, but I said over the weekend to
every American I had the opportunity to meet that our Canadian
softwood lumber industry trades fairly in North America.
We will defend and promote our industry very energetically. I
reiterated that all through the weekend.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that
chapter 11 of NAFTA was no problem whatsoever. This chapter
enables a major transnational to sue a state for the loss of
potential revenue specifically as a result of that state's
adoption of legislation or regulations.
How can the Prime Minister explain the contradiction between his
statement on chapter 11 and the one recently made by his
Minister for International Trade, who again indicated that he
would not sign any FTAA containing such a mechanism?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be sure that I am quoted correctly
here.
What I have always said is that protection of investments was
absolutely necessary. We have Canadian investors throughout the
world and throughout the Americas, and their investments must be
protected.
What we have said, however, is that we wanted to clarify, not
reopen, not renegotiate, chapter 11—which we have already signed
off on—but that we want to clarify certain aspects of chapter 11
because we believe there have been, or may have been, certain
interpretations which, without any doubt, do not reflect the
intentions of the three signatory countries at the time we
signed it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
be clear. The minister has often said he would not sign any
FTAA if there were any provisions similar to chapter 11 of
NAFTA. Even on the federal Internet site, which we are
constantly being invited to visit, we read that “Canada is not
advocating the replication of NAFTA investor-state rules in the
FTAA”.
I would therefore ask him what explanation he can give today for
the about-face by his government, the about-face by his Prime
Minister last night in stating that there was no problem with
chapter 11, that he was prepared to renew it within any future
agreement between the three Americas.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our government has not yet tabled its position
relating to investments with respect to the free trade area of
the Americas.
What I have always said, however, is that we are going to take
into account, within the free trade area of the Americas, of the
experience we have acquired with NAFTA. There are certain
precautions we are going to take, because we are currently
engaged in the process of clarifying certain potential
interpretations of this chapter, and obviously cannot sign
anything in the FTAA that would not reflect the improvements we
want to make in light of present realities.
At this point in time we are still involved in consultations
with Canadians and our position will be made public as soon as
it has been established.
* * *
[English]
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Prime
Minister's former chief of operations, Jean Carle, is in charge
of the Business Development Bank's legal department. This is the
same department that asked to search, seize and destroy documents
related to the Auberge Grand-Mère.
Did Jean Carle play any role at all in getting his legal team to
go after those documents?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know members opposite would share my concern, and
indeed the concern of members on this side of the House, that BDC
documents were forged, that false information was put on those
documents, and that those documents were attempted to be
distributed.
When that information was brought to the attention of BDC, BDC
called in the RCMP and the RCMP is now dealing with the matter.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the BDC wanted these
documents because they contained information about an alleged
debt owed by the Auberge Grand-Mère to the Prime Minister's
company.
Only after the Prime Minister's Office determined that these
documents were forgeries did the BDC decide to refer the matter
to the police. Did the Prime Minister or the PMO have anything
to do with the BDC's decision to refer these documents to the
RCMP?
1440
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand it, the documents were provided to a
national newspaper, the National Post. The National
Post attempted to contact both the PMO, and I suspect the BDC.
The National Post sent a copy of the documents to the PMO,
so the PMO received them from the national newspaper, looked at
them and said “These are false. This is a forgery”.
That information was communicated back to the newspaper,
communicated to the BDC which, determining these were forged
documents, called in the RCMP. I am glad the member has
acknowledged that these documents were forged and I assume is
happy that the RCMP will find out who did it.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a loan approval from the Business Development Bank of
Canada dated August 1997 reveals that the owner of the Auberge
Grand-Mère, Yvon Duhaime, owed the Prime Minister $23,000 at the
very moment the Prime Minister intervened so that the auberge
would get financing from the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that the Prime
Minister was blatantly in conflict of interest and that it was
far more out of a financial interest than out of a sense of duty
as a member of parliament that he approached the management of
the Business Development Bank of Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no,
absolutely not.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the question remains in its entirety and we have to
know.
Did Yvon Duhaime owe $23,000 to the Prime Minister when the
Prime Minister intervened in support of the Auberge Grand-Mère
with the Business Development Bank of Canada? Yes or no.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on April 5 I asked the minister whether Jonas Prince or
any of his companies had received any assistance from the
minister's department, the BDC or the Export Development
Corporation. The minister promised “to report back to the House
at the first opportunity”.
It is almost three weeks later. This is his first opportunity.
Will he now answer the question? Was there any funding?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not prepared to answer today. I have just come
back; it is my first day at work.
I want to report to the member that there are crocuses on
Parliament Hill, the snow has melted and Canadians are really
very tired of these questions.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I dare say they are tired of the snow, but I do
think Canadians deserve an answer. Surely someone has been
working in the shop over there while the minister has been dear
knows where.
Was there any funding, direct or otherwise, to Jonas Prince?
When will the minister put someone on this file and when will he
give Canadians an answer?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the member opposite will ask the Leader of the
Opposition to lend me his shoe phone I will call right away.
The Speaker: I remind all hon. members that cellular
phones are not allowed in the House.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGAN DONATION
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
[English]
Canada has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the
industrialized world. More than 3,700 Canadians are waiting for
organ transplants. Thousands more are in need of replacements for
tissues such as corneas.
Given that today is the launch of National Organ Donor Awareness
Week, could the minister tell the House what the Government of
Canada is doing to rectify and correct the situation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member of Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for everything
that he and other members of the House have done on the subject
of awareness of organ donation.
Earlier today I took part in a very moving ceremony at Rideau
Hall, at which Her Excellency the Governor General as patron
kicked off a week to increase public awareness of the need for
organ donation in Canada. There were some real heroes there,
heroes who are members of families of those who have given
organs, relatives, and indeed recipients of organs themselves.
They demonstrate the importance of organ donation. We must
raise awareness. Twenty million dollars last week was confirmed
by the Government of Canada as an investment for a national
strategy. We must increase organ donations in Canada.
* * *
1445
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while the Prime Minister on Saturday in Quebec City was extolling
the virtues of democracy inside the wall, outside that same wall
the RCMP riot squad was attacking peaceful, non-violent
protesters with tear gas and plastic bullets. In fact earlier
that day a young woman was hit in the throat with a plastic
bullet. I saw it. I got a bullet in the leg.
In light of this attack on peaceful demonstrators, is the
solicitor general prepared to order a full, public, independent
inquiry—
The Speaker: Order, please. It is very hard for the
Chair to hear the question. The hon. Solicitor General of
Canada.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone who worked
so hard to make sure that we had a successful summit in Quebec.
The priority of our police and security agencies during the
course of the summit was to ensure a safe and secure meeting for
everyone, including delegates, protesters, media and the police
themselves, and they did that.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the young people sitting on the street peacefully singing were no
threat to any leader inside that wall.
[Translation]
In a democracy, people have the right to peacefully demonstrate
their profound disagreement with the FTAA. These same
demonstrators were attacked outside the wall in Quebec City with
gas and plastic bullets.
I ask the solicitor general once again whether he finds it
acceptable to have the RCMP attack peaceful demonstrators with
plastic bullets and tear gas? Is this really democracy?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will not apologize for the police
taking the appropriate action to make sure that we had a safe
summit.
What I want to do is thank the thousands of young people and any
persons who came to peacefully protest. I am also very pleased
they were able to do that in a reasonably safe environment.
* * *
THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, newspaper reports allege that Shawinigan hotel owner
Yvon Duhaime owed $23,000 to the Prime Minister in 1997. Could
the Prime Minister confirm to the House that Yvon Duhaime owed
him money, whether there was any other outstanding debt or
whether there was any form of debt owed from the sale of the
Auberge Grand-Mère hotel or any other dealings? Was there any
debt?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat my previous answer. The answer is no.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. Could he tell the House whether he wants Canadians to
accept that he was some kind of a security risk to the Quebec
summit. Is he not embarrassed to stand here and tell us that
somehow he could not get into a conference that was sponsored by
his own government?
After his successful telephone conference with the secretary of
agriculture, Ms. Veneman, could he now tell Prince Edward Island
potato producers that they can plant this spring so they will not
face financial ruin? Could he get his facts right this time?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I outlined that the
president and the Prime Minister had a discussion. The president
asked that the discussion after that take place with the
secretary of agriculture, Ms. Veneman. That is when I was
informed.
Because of the security and all that needed to be done, it was
not physically possible for me to get safely into the meeting. We
had a very successful meeting over the telephone. I did not have
to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to be there for a meeting.
Our officials are in Washington this afternoon continuing those
discussions.
* * *
HEALTH
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the face of rising concerns about
Canadians being denied prompt quality health care, the
government's only response has been to commission yet another
lengthy study. It already has in hand the 1997 report of its
National Forum on Health which studied medicare for two years. In
addition, the Senate is engaged in a comprehensive study on
health care and has released its first report.
With this wealth of information already available, why is the
government still unable to show the leadership that Canadians are
looking for on health care issues?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was this government that brought all the premiers and
government leaders together last September for an unprecedented,
unanimous agreement on stabilizing the health care system, not
only an additional injection of dollars but a coherent plan upon
which all governments agreed to tackle the issues of shortages of
doctors and nurses, modernizing equipment and making certain
Canadians have access to frontline care. That is leadership.
Apart from that we asked Roy Romanow to look at the long term
questions of sustainability. That is the kind of leadership
Canadians want.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is not very difficult to get
unanimous agreement that the government should restore the huge
cuts it made to health care since 1995. It is hardly leadership
to put back the money that it took out of the system.
There is a lack of prompt, quality health care in the country.
People are on waiting lists. Our equipment is obsolete. Even
third world countries will not take it. Something needs to be
done.
The minister keeps talking about the long term. Canadians are
suffering now. What is being done and what can the government do
to help?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows as well as I do that as a result of
increases in the last 18 months there is significantly more money
in the hands of provincial health ministers to provide services
on the ground.
The member knows as well as I do that among other things we put
$1 billion last September in the hands of provincial ministers to
purchase new MRIs, new CT scans and whatever other equipment is
needed on the ground.
We have worked with provincial partners to address the practical
issues on the ground. We are tackling waiting lists. Working
with those partners, we will provide quality care to Canadians
across the country.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, things are at a standstill regarding the lumber issue,
since the United States have rejected the proposal to appoint
special envoys to find a solution to the dispute and thus avoid
a long legal battle.
Since the U.S. president seemed very open to the establishment
of a free trade area of the Americas this weekend, could the
Prime Minister tell us what the U.S. president's reply was when
he raised the Canadian lumber issue?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, things are not at a standstill when, at every
level, be it the Prime Minister with President Bush or myself
with American Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, we have raised
the issue and confirmed or reiterated what our industry, our
government and the provincial governments have stated during
consultations with the U.S. commerce department, on Thursday and
Friday.
I can assure the House that our government is working hard on
this issue, at every possible level.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, this government has known for five years that the
agreement would end on March 31, 2001.
We are fed up with all the talk. I live in a region that
produces lumber. My constituents are fed up with the rhetoric.
They want answers.
When will the government sign an agreement? We have had enough
of the rhetoric.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could understand the position of the Bloc
Quebecois which has been asking us specifically not to negotiate
anything with the United States government. The Bloc says “Let
free trade develop as it should”. Bloc Quebecois members have
been most vigilant in this House to prevent me from having a
dialogue that could possibly lead to negotiations.
There is a blatant contradiction between what the Bloc Quebecois
member just said and what the Quebec industry is asking, and
what the party's head office, the PQ in Quebec City, is asking.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians do not need 18 months and a $15 million royal
commission to recognize that there is an acute medical staffing
shortage.
Federal funding cutbacks in the 1990s have led to massive
layoffs of health professionals and decreased enrolments in our
medical schools. Now Canadians are paying the price for that
lack of foresight. The shortage of doctors, nurses and
technicians are only expected to get worse.
Will the government wait behind the cover of the Romanow
commission, or will it take immediate action and help increase
quotas in our schools by this fall?
1455
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will know that medical schools are organized and
paid for by provincial governments. I am sure provincial
ministers will be interested in the hon. member's comments.
We have urged provincial ministers of health to increase
enrolment, not just in medical schools but in nursing schools and
in colleges where we can train the technicians needed to provide
services on the ground. We have also increased transfers to
enable them to do that.
I am delighted to report that the provinces have increased
enrolment. We now have many more places in medical schools than
two years ago. It is something I hope will continue.
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I hope it continues as well. However he cannot pass the
buck on to the provinces alone. The federal government was part
of the problem and it has to be part of the solution.
Accessibility is one of the five principles of the Canada Health
Act. The federal government is responsible for working with the
provinces to ensure Canadians have adequate and good access to
health care professionals. Waiting will only make this situation
worse.
Could you tell Canadians what you are doing about this problem
today, and is it more than what you have just said?
The Speaker: The hon. member will want to address his
remarks to the Chair.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I share the hon. member's concern that these needs be addressed.
That is exactly why last September, as part of the agreement with
the provincial governments, we put $800 million forward in a
targeted fund to assist in making frontline services more
accessible to Canadians.
That is why we put $500 million forward in the targeted fund for
high tech to link doctors, nurses and other practitioners to
share patient information to improve access to quality care.
We are on the job and working with our provincial partners to
address the very problems referred to by the hon. member.
* * *
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
light of the tremendous public profile of Canada's hosting the
summit of the Americas last week in Quebec City, could the
Minister for International Cooperation please tell the House
whether she thinks Canada is doing enough to meet the needs of
the poorest of the poor in this hemisphere?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the summit was a great success. My
department announced $191 million of programming. In addition,
we established a collectivity institute for the area to assist in
bridging the digital divide.
In addition, not only has a tremendous amount of work been done
by my department but also by all of my colleagues with civil
society. The document in fact includes civil society very much
in its response.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice. In the last two speeches from the throne
there was a reference to Divorce Act amendments for the sake of
the children.
Does the minister agree with the recommendations of the
Senate-Commons committee report? When will the minister
implement those conclusions with a bill instead of just trying to
find a way to avoid through endless deliberations?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware,
the government responded to the report of the joint parliamentary
committee entitled “For the Sake of the Children”.
As part of our response we indicated, in case the hon. member
has forgotten, that the family law system is a shared
jurisdiction: provinces, territories and the federal government.
I indicated that we would undertake a joint consultation with the
provinces, with the territories and with Canadians. I am very
pleased to say that the consultation has now begun with
Canadians.
I find it just a little shocking that party which preaches the
rhetoric—
The Speaker: The hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a fundamental of the
direction is the legal concept of shared parenting that does away
with terms such as custody. The research concluded the need for
legal equality and mutual parental responsibility in divorce.
Does the minister agree with the principle of shared parenting
as recommended by the Senate-Commons committee report? Is shared
parenting the accepted principle?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the
government's response to the report “For the Sake of the
Children” is that the provinces, territories and the federal
government would consult broadly with Canadians.
I find shocking that his party which preaches grassroots
participation, I guess does not want us to consult with
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government's policy provides that only businesses located within
the security perimeter established in Quebec City during the
Summit of the Americas are to be compensated.
Does the Prime Minister intend to change the current
compensation policy so that businesses located outside the
perimeter, which also suffered damages and incurred financial
losses during the summit in Quebec City, can also be
compensated?
1500
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated quite clearly, we had
thousands of people peacefully protesting at the summit. They
had the opportunity to make their point.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of
the successful outcomes of the 1999 team Canada mission to Japan
was changing the Japanese psyche in examining among other things
the high tech sector in Canada.
The Secretary of State for Asia Pacific recently returned from
Japan after meeting with his counterparts and launched the Think
Canada 2001 festival in Japan.
Could the secretary of state inform the House as to the intent
of the Canada 2001 festival which is currently going on for the
next three months and tell us why this is an important initiative
in our bilateral relationship with the Japanese?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada values its close relationship with
Japan. In recognition of this relationship, I launched in Tokyo
earlier this month on behalf of the Government of Canada the
Think Canada 2001 festival. The festival, which began with an
open house at the embassy, saw 20,000 visitors and included some
200 events.
Indeed the Think Canada 2001 festival will reinforce Canada's
image in Japan and will prove to Japan that Canada is a valuable
trading partner for the 21st century.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments recently made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I am also pleased to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions.
* * *
1505
[Translation]
COPYRIGHT ACT
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-337, an act to amend the Copyright Act (Minister).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill which would make
the Minister of Canadian Heritage responsible for the
application of the Copyright Act, except for the purposes of
section 44.1 of that act.
This bill is in response to the almost unanimous request of
copyright holders who, faced with the Minister of Industry's
careless handling of the Copyright Board, are asking that
responsibility for the board be turned over to the Department of
Canadian Heritage. This request has been made repeatedly by the
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada,
known as SOCAM, as well as by the largest Canadian agency
representing the cultural sector, the Canadian Conference of the
Arts.
Accordingly, I am introducing this bill today.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
ANTARCTICA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area who
are concerned about Antarctica. The petitioners point out that
Antarctica is a pristine and scientifically valuable environment
but that Canada, despite being a polar nation, lags behind
nations as far as environmental initiatives in Antarctica are
concerned.
The environmental protocol to the Antarctic treaty system
presents practical guidelines concerning environmental issues in
Antarctica. These citizens call upon the parliament of a country
which is signatory to the environmental protocol to ratify all of
the said protocol's guidelines in Canadian law.
VIA RAIL
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a second petition from citizens of the
greater Peterborough area who want a return of VIA service
between Toronto and Peterborough.
I want to point out that this petition has support in such
places as Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Durham, Whitby—Ajax,
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and Markham.
The petitioners point out the environmental advantages to this
service and to its educational and economic advantages to the
Peterborough area. They want parliament to return VIA service to
Peterborough.
KIDNEY DISEASE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a third petition from citizens concerned about kidney disease in
Canada. The petitioners call upon parliament to encourage the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research to explicitly include
kidney research as one of the institutes in the system, to be
named the kidney and urinary tract diseases institute.
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to present a petition
signed by my constituents in Winnipeg North Centre who want to
draw to the government's attention the fact that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are preventable
by avoiding alcohol during pregnancy.
The petitioners call upon parliament to require the labelling of
alcoholic products to warn pregnant women of the dangers
associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
[Translation]
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to table a petition from the residents of the municipality
of Val-d'Or and of the RCM of the Vallée de l'Or and from
workers of the Sigma-Lamaque mine.
The petitioners call upon the government to set up a financial
assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Quebec's
resource regions and to take action to increase its presence and
its involvement in resource regions that are having trouble
adjusting to the new economy.
[English]
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of citizens from London and the Grand Bend
area who call upon parliament to protect our health and
environment by banning the questionable gas additive MMT.
1510
TRADE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions which I will present very briefly. Two concern
free trade but no freedom of information.
The petitioners are demanding that the Canadian government
publish the integral versions of the free trade area of the
Americas. They are very concerned about the environment and the
impact on all peoples in the Americas.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the third
petition is a very thick one and it is from people across
Saskatchewan concerning employment insurance.
The petitioners ask that we take action and re-establish
employment insurance as an earnings replacement program that once
again supports unemployed workers, their families and their
communities.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (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.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations
among all political parties in the House and I believe you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, when proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 are
completed on Tuesday, April 24, 2001, the motion to adjourn shall
be deemed to have been withdrawn and the House shall resolve
itself into a committee of the whole to consider a motion “That
the committee take note of the state of Canada's resource
industries”, provided that, during consideration thereof, (1)
the Chair of the committee shall not receive any quorum call or
any motion except a motion “That the committee do now rise”,
(2) when no Member rises to speak, or at midnight, whichever is
earlier, the committee shall rise and (3) when the committee
rises the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting
day.
The Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
The Speaker: I have received notice of an emergency
debate from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
you will have received a letter from me earlier in the day in
which I request an emergency debate on the subject of the summit
of the Americas meeting that concluded yesterday in Quebec City.
I would like the debate to be about that summit and the events
surrounding it, in particular the security measures employed over
the course of the three days of the summit, including the
unprovoked use of measures of force such as water cannon, tear
gas and rubber bullets by security personnel on peaceful
protesters. I want to emphasize peaceful because it is the use
of these kinds of measures on peaceful protesters that is of such
great concern and should be of great concern to all members of
parliament.
The sons and daughters of many of our constituents were out
there peacefully expressing their concern. For the House or at
least the government to hold them in contempt as they did during
question period and call them hooligans and whatnot is very
misplaced. It made me glad that it was the police in charge of
Quebec City and not the Liberal caucus because not even the
police acted with such rhetorical contempt for the young people
who faced them outside the wall.
I think it would be an appropriate matter for parliament to
debate and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to agree to such a debate.
The Speaker: The Chair has had the opportunity to
read the letter forwarded by the hon. member for
Winnipeg—Transcona this morning.
I have reviewed the provisions of Standing Order 52 and have
heard his arguments presented at this time. In the view of the
Chair this application does not meet the requirements of the
standing order at this time.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law
enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in reviewing my notes during the course of question
period, when I had an opportunity to break from the very
interesting exchanges, I realized that I had come to the end of
my speech.
1515
I have spoken to my colleague, the member for Surrey Central,
and he has some issues to raise. I will defer to his comments
when he has the opportunity to address the House. It will not
serve the House by repeating my comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-24, since the Bloc
Quebecois has argued for such a bill.
It was one of the Bloc Quebecois' issues throughout the election
campaign. In truth, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for
years for a law with teeth to effectively fight organized crime.
Before speaking about the bill specifically, I have an aside to
make.
I listened attentively to the speech by the Minister of Justice,
and I must say I was rather disappointed by it, not because I
was expecting congratulations from the minister for myself or
the Bloc Quebecois on our tenacity in this matter, quite
honestly I was not expecting that, but I think she left out
big chunks of this story. Today, she is gloating, she is proud
of tabling a bill like this, but we have to look at what led the
minister to table this bill. I think it worthwhile to point out
a few things.
Among other things, she spoke of a certain justice committee
that studied the question. Indeed, the standing committee
on justice did examine the whole question of organized crime.
Why did the committee deliberate on this issue? Simply because
we took one of the Bloc Quebecois' opposition days to introduce
a motion to convince the Liberal government opposite, the
government the minister represents as the Minister of Justice,
to convince this government it was time and important for the
House to consider the problem of organized crime and to try to
come up with solutions.
It took a day of debate, a number of oral question periods and,
following a unanimous vote by the House of Commons, the matter
of organized crime was referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights so proposals could be made to the
government. The minister seems to have forgotten that part.
I also mentioned having questioned the minister on a number of
occasions, which I did again during this session. Barely three
weeks before the minister decided to introduce antigang
legislation, the bill before us today, she answered one of my
questions here in this House to the effect that the criminal
code contained all that was needed to fight organized crime.
Three weeks before introduction of the bill, the minister was
telling us that the criminal code and related legislation did
not require amending in any way for there to be an effective
campaign against organized crime.
Hon. members will understand that I am delighted to have
convinced the minister to introduce such a bill, but they will
agree with me that its maternity, or perhaps paternity, is open
to question. I have often said that the minister did not
understand the matter in the least.
She has demonstrated not only her total lack of understanding
but also her lack of monitoring of the matter, by stating a
scant three weeks before this bill was introduced that it was
not necessary to change the rules relating to organized crime.
We have before us a highly complex bill. I imagine the minister
herself has not worked very hard on this bill, not to know of
its existence three weeks ago. A bill like this cannot be
drafted overnight. However, since we in the Bloc Quebecois are
good sports, I congratulate the minister on having finally got
the message.
1520
On this particular issue, the Bloc Quebecois has more than once
extended a hand to the minister in the hope that she would decide
to amend the rules having to do with the whole issue of organized
crime in order to give the police and the justice system the
tools they are demanding.
The House is aware that the Bloc Quebecois was pushing for
changes. People in the community, in the Quebec nation, in the
rest of Canada as well, were also calling on the minister to make
such changes.
I would have liked to see the minister showing some thought for
these people in her speech at second reading of Bill C-24 to
amend the criminal code.
I would have liked the minister to recognize that there were
people, some of them in Quebec, who fought to have the law
amended. Some people in Quebec even lost their lives in this
fight.
This is a part of the whole issue that the minister seems to
have forgotten, because she did not thank or even congratulate or
pay tribute to these people. I will do so; it will be brief.
However, I would like to say something about all the work and
energy that people put into fighting, often quite resolutely, to
convince the minister to make these changes.
As we know, in the 1990s, 1997 I think, in Montreal, an 11-year
old called Daniel Desrochers lost his life in a bomb explosion
connected to the biker gang wars that were going on at the time
in Quebec.
The torch was picked up by family and friends and by the Bloc
Quebecois member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who worked to convince
the Government of Canada to change the criminal code. I must
pay tribute to their efforts and tell them that they have
contributed to the changes we have here today.
I would also like to salute and to thank Michel Auger, the
reporter on a Quebec daily newspaper who used his pen to awaken
the people of Quebec, the Quebec nation, and the people across
the way here as well, to this scourge. He did not back down, and
this needs to be recognized.
Mr. Auger refused to back down and continued to say no to
violence.
Then there was a young man in the riding of Terrebonne. The
late Francis Laforêt stood up to organized crime and said “No”.
He was a bar owner. A gang wanted to take over control of his
bar. He said “No crooked dealings in my bar, there will be no
drug dealing under my roof. You are not gaining control here.
No way”.
Hon. members know the rest. He was beaten to death with
baseball bats and goodness knows what else. The young Francis
Laforêt lost his life. I have spoken with his family and
friends and they too said no to violence, “No way are we going
to let ourselves be pushed around by organized crime”.
All these people, including Mr. Laforêt's parents, friends and
brother, took action, prepared petitions, kept track of the
issue and pressured municipal and federal governments and also
members of parliament to get zoning regulations.
In the end, these people too made a contribution by saying “no”
to violence and intimidation and “yes” to democracy. They helped
convince the Minister of Justice or rather her department and
those who drafted this bill. The determination shown by these
people was such that officials decided to continue to work on
this issue.
1525
This is part of history, part of that period. This is why Bloc
Quebecois members have shown such an interest in this issue. One
must realize the importance of this issue.
Looking at the government's own documents, we can see that
organized crime is not a new phenomenon. It is not something
that caught the government off guard because it was not aware of
it. The government is well aware of what is going on.
In fact, the RCMP did a study on organized crime and on the ins
and outs of the war that has developed in Quebec in recent
years.
According to the documents I had this morning, the RCMP figured
that, for the 1994-98 period alone, 79 murders were related to
the bikers' war. This number does not apply to the whole of
organized crime.
During that period, 79 murders and 89 attempted murders were
related to the drug trade and to the wars between Quebec biker
gangs, in addition to 129 instances of arson and over 80
bombings. These are figures that the minister knew or should
have known. Both the Solicitor General of Canada and the
Minister of Justice must have known about the situation, just as
they must know that the drug trade is exceedingly lucrative for
those who are involved in it.
The Quebec provincial police estimates that the Hell's Angels
alone made profits of $100 million last year.
The drug trade, from coast to coast in Canada, represents some $5
billion. The government opposite has known or should have known
this for a very long time. I was elected in October 1993 and
have known about this since 1994.
Despite the questions, motions, opposition interventions and all
that has gone on, the government did not budge. Finally the
pressure reached such a pitch that the department decided to go
ahead.
Had the minister or the ministers who followed one another,—
because since 1993-94 there has been more than one federal
Minister of Justice—had the ministers acted more quickly, lives
could certainly have been saved. Fewer bombs would have exploded
and fewer fires would have been lit. But no, it took until 2001
for such a bill.
Organized crime can be found everywhere. Naturally, it is to be
found in the bars and in the world of prostitution. On the
fringes, organized crime can be found in the scourge of the
illegal sale of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages and in illegal
casinos, because there is a market for it. There are similar
places. There are also high interest loans too. There is the
whole question of drugs. I hope the minister knows as well that
they are not just found in the street now, but in almost all the
schools. Young people are regularly offered these drugs. As
well, there is the whole question of cornfields and farmers.
It does not take boy scouts to be able to plant entire fields of
marijuana and to intimidate farmers. Organized crime is behind
that.
A look at the map of Quebec makes it very clear—and this is what
all Bloc Quebecois MPs from this region are also saying—that
there are many such crops. Many farmers are complaining about
this situation. Once again, I repeat, this is not a recent
development. The Minister of Justice has never seen fit to act.
Fortunately, the opposition and the people of Quebec have stood
firm and argued their case and today, finally, we have a bill.
1530
Is it a real anti-gang bill? Is it what the Bloc Quebecois
members would have liked to see? After looking it over, I would
say that approximately 80% of the bill reflects the comments and
answers given to questions put by Bloc Quebecois members to the
minister in recent years. This means that 80% of this bill is a
victory for the Bloc Quebecois, and we are most pleased.
This does not mean, however, that we are going to sit on our
laurels and that we will not try to amend the bill further. We
are going to try to convince the minister on certain points, as
the House will see a little later.
As for whether or not this is really an anti-gang law, that will
depend on how it is enforced. However, I think we are actually
starting to have something more closely resembling such a law.
With such legislation, we are starting to have tools which will
make it possible to mount an effective campaign against
organized crime.
People probably remember all the seizures made in Quebec under
the existing provincial legislation, not the bill being debated
today, but the existing Quebec legislation behind Opération
Printemps 2001, which resulted in more than 160 arrests in 74
municipalities in Quebec. Millions of dollars were seized in
the form of luxury vehicles, drugs and cash. It was a very
successful operation.
With respect to the operation per se, we can congratulate the
police on a job well done.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend them for their
professionalism. However, we have to wait and see how many of
the some 160 people arrested and charged with murder, attempted
murder, corruption and other offences under the Food and Drugs
Act will be found guilty.
This is why I think that, if the minister had acted sooner,
Opération Printemps 2001 would have been conducted under new and
much clearer and stricter provisions providing for harsher
sentences, something we in the Bloc, as well as the police and
the public have been asking for for some time now. Once again,
the minister turned a deaf ear.
What provisions of this bill should we be thankful for? In 1997,
when the then justice minister amended the criminal code to show
that the government was doing something to fight organized
crime, a definition of a criminal organization was provided and
a criminal organization offence was created.
I remember very well that we had some concerns about those
provisions, as we maintained that they would be hard to enforce
because the onus was put first on the police, to carry out their
investigations, and then on the crown prosecutors to convince
the judge beyond any reasonable doubt that the people charged
were guilty of being part of a criminal organization.
1535
We used to talk about the three fives rule. In other words, to
be able to indict somebody for an organized crime offence, we had
to prove and still have to prove, because this is still in
effect, that a group of five people had committed an indictable
offence punishable by imprisonment for five years and that these
five people had acted this way for five years. Of course, it had
to be proven too that these five people knew that they were
breaking the law.
That was a very heavy burden. The Bloc Quebecois asked the
minister, among other things, whether she would change these
rules. I remember distinctly that she stated in the House that it
was not necessary, because it was easy to prove all of that, that
crown prosecutors could prove it. At one point, she even asked us
to present our suggestions to her if we had something in mind.
On June 1, 1999 after several attempts to negotiate with her, I
made up my mind that I had to put this on paper and send it to
her.
Strangely enough, the definition on my document of June 1, 1999
is almost identical to the one in Bill C-24. The minister finally
understood that the three fives rule was difficult to enforce.
Only three people, and not five, are now needed in order to have
a criminal organization, just as I suggested on June 1, 1999.
Ideally, we could have dropped it to two people,
as we did for conspiracy. But I compromised on June 1,
1999 in order to try to speed things up. I imagine that things
were going along, but the minister was not necessarily working
at the same speed, because that was not when we got the bill.
In Bill C-24, the whole matter of membership in a criminal
organization and the definitions relating to that part of the
bill have therefore been modified, simplified for the better in
order to be in a position to make a case.
Under the bill, gang membership has been reduced to three
people from five. We now have the whole business of
contribution to activities that assist a criminal organization
to attain its criminal objectives.
I am pleased with this definition, which is far more complex in
the bill than the way I am stating it, and hon. members will
agree with me. I am just giving the main thrust for purposes of
understanding. It will be easier for us to be able to collar
various people whom we are not able to touch at the present
time.
I am thinking for instance of all the people involved in
recruiting new members to be taken into “gang school”. Before,
there was nothing we could do. That was one of the things we
pointed out. Now with the new definitions and the way the bill
is worded, we will be able to collar someone based merely on the
fact that he is participating in a criminal organization or
contributing to the advancement of a criminal organization, able
to establish evidence of this and to see him do time for it. We
are going to be able to put him away where he can do no more
harm to the public.
Then there is the whole matter of participating in the
perpetration of acts of gangsterism. This is very important and
merits particular attention, because this is now an offence with
a 14-year prison sentence attached.
1540
Furthermore, when the department changed section 477 of the
criminal code, one of our concerns was that such a definition
would prevent us from ever arresting the leaders. These leaders
do not commit the thefts, they do not kill, they do not sell
drugs. So, we had no means to put them behind bars.
The question was “Will the minister change the criminal code to
be able to arrest gang leaders?” At that time, she answered “We
have all the necessary provisions in the criminal code to arrest
gang leaders and to prosecute them”.
She will not admit it today, but she probably knew then that I
was right and that there was still something missing in the
criminal code, since Bill C-24 now defines clearly what a gang
leader is. She even added a definition of criminal organization
leader. That is to be able to arrest those leaders. To show the
importance of these provisions, there is a life sentence
attached to them.
Again, I congratulate the minister for the change, since it is
clearly something we requested and about which I asked questions
in the House. I congratulate the minister, but we are in
2001 and she should have done it in 1999, when I gave her
written documents. When questioned, the minister should have given us a
positive answer. It is not because something comes from the
opposition that it is necessarily bad.
Some members on the other side were very surprised by my
reaction to Bill C-24. They were quite surprised to hear me
say that this was a good bill. Actually, 80% of its content
corresponds to what we asked for. This is what we wanted. It is
a good bill, but we will nevertheless try to improve it.
However, when a good bill is introduced, I have always taken the
time to say so in the House and to congratulate those who
deserve it. But when a bill is not good, I have never refrained
from saying so.
I would like to say as an aside that the Young Offenders Act,
for instance, is a bad bill for Quebec. I go right ahead and say
so. However, this does not stop me from acknowledging good
bills, like the one we have before us.
We definitely support the provisions on participation in a
criminal organization and the definitions of a gang because the
Bloc Quebecois has been asking for those provisions for a long
time.
We have also been asking for measures to protect people in the
justice system against intimidation, which criminal groups have
frequently used against them. Members of the Bloc Quebecois have
personally been the targets of intimidation when they were
working on this issue and pushing it. Members of juries in some
proceedings were also victims of intimidation.
We have also witnessed intimidation of people who were
interfering with the business dealings, like drug dealings and
other similar activities, of criminal groups. We definitely
support protection against intimidation for people connected
with the justice system.
However, I think the department has forgotten certain things. As
the justice critic for the Canadian Alliance pointed out, and as
I said in press conferences, I fail to understand why the Quebec
minister of justice or the Quebec minister of public security
would not be granted the same protection against intimidation by
these groups when senators do have this legal protection.
Intimidating a senator or a member of the House of Commons is an
offence, but the same does not apply to MLAs. This is certainly
an oversight on the part of the department, which we will try to
correct in committee.
1545
What about journalists? We have the best example in Quebec with
Michel Auger. I think he has done more on this issue than anyone
else, with his writing. He tried to convince people that we
needed anti-gang legislation. He reported the facts. This is very
democratic. We saw the intimidation directed against Mr. Auger.
But there is nothing with regard to that in this bill.
A person accused and convicted of intimidating someone
associated with the justice system is liable to 14 years
imprisonment.
I am sure there are members opposite who will say “Yes, but
there is section 423, which provides that any attempt to
intimidate an individual in the justice system, in a general
way—”. Indeed, journalists could perhaps be covered by this
section, like MNAs or the members of another provincial
legislature. But it is a maximum of five years. So it is
clearly less serious when it involves these people. I
sincerely believe this too must be changed.
I believe there is another group the department has forgotten,
our elected municipal officials. During the House of Commons'
two week break, I worked on site, as they say. I did not just
meet the mayors in my riding but, on a related matter, I had
discussions with mayors across Quebec.
To name but one, since he was a pioneer in the whole issue of
zoning bunkers in his own municipality, the mayor of Blainville.
He said that there had been intimidation as well as threats and
all sorts of things, and he has no protection.
I think another segment of the population has been forgotten in
this definition, the members of municipal councils. There is
surely a way to draft this article to include more people and
for those trying to intimidate them to be liable to imprisonment
for 15 years.
There is protection as well for the members of a jury. This is
very important and something we in the Bloc Quebecois have long
been asking for.
The whole definition of criminal organization has been
simplified. In addition, there will be a special way to
calculate sentences for persons found guilty of gangsterism.
This is a step forward.
It is no longer a requirement to prove that the individuals knew
they had been committing indictable offences over the previous
five years. This whole notion of the number of years has been
completely eliminated, and so has the number of years in prison.
This applies not only to crimes punishable by five years in
prison but to all other crimes.
We only have to think about prostitution or drug trafficking in
bars, for which there was no maximum punishment of five years or
more and therefore were not covered by the current definition of
criminal organization under the criminal code. Today with these
amendments they will be covered.
Here again the Bloc Quebecois had been asking for a broadening
of the definition in order to better target those who carry out a
reign of terror against those individuals within the
organizations.
Then there is the whole issue of the seizure and forfeiture of
the proceeds of crime. However, in this respect we believe the
department could have introduced much more relevant and daring
amendments. We believe the department did not go far enough in
terms of the legislative tools it is giving the courts, the
police and the penal system as a whole. There is still work to be
done in this respect even though progress has been made.
1550
We are so far behind and we have so few tools to successfully
fight organized crime that any change, no matter how small, must
be welcomed and applauded. But while we are at it with the help
of experts to draft something that is defendable and enforceable
and is what the people want, we might as well do it right. We
really have to look at the whole issue.
There is one matter that scares several people, namely the
amendments aimed at protecting the officers in charge of
enforcing the anti-gang law.
Now, a police officer investigating very specific crimes such as
the trafficking of human beings, alcohol, tobacco or firearms
smuggling, heinous crimes, international terrorism, crimes
against the environment and everything related to drug offences,
will at last be able to commit acts otherwise illegal were it
not for that protection.
So that members can really understand what I am talking about, I
will give an example. Criminal groups, be it biker gangs, the
Italian network, Chinese triads or the Russian mafia, which is
also present in Canada, are well organized.
They have made it very difficult for the police to infiltrate
them. Very often, in those biker gangs whose methods we are more
familiar with, to determine if a new member going up every step
in the organization is trustworthy and is one of them, the
leader will ask him to commit certain illegal acts.
The bill says that an investigating officer could commit certain
acts without fear of prosecution. This is not protection at
large; murder, rape, acts of violence and so on are excluded.
This is for very specific offences. For example, in a biker gang
operating a large drug market, an undercover officer could be
asked to sell drugs. That is an illegal act. Without protection,
the police officer could be liable to prosecution for that.
Yet he must do so to be accepted as a member of the biker gang,
get to know more and possibly gather enough information to
prosecute the guilty parties.
This is very much a societal issue. It is a complex matter and
it could lead to abuse. We must be very careful in implementing
the law. However, if we want to fight organized crime
effectively, we must have such tools.
Some countries go much further than that, but we should begin by
looking at their experience and see how this is done, see how
things work and what the results will be over time. This is a
step in the right direction, albeit a very small one in terms of
both the offences and the people.
1555
If memory serves, the Minister of Justice once tabled a white
paper on the issue of granting immunity to any public official
during the course of any
investigation which is even more encompassing. At the time,
my initial reaction was “They want a police state. This makes no
sense. We must restrict that, we must establish a framework, we
must set limits”.
Again, the minister seems to have listened. This is not a common
occurrence, but we should mention it when she does so. Or else
it is the department that listened to what I said, so that today
such immunity is only granted to peace officers conducting
investigations in very specific areas. It is very limited in
scope.
It is something.
Where I have questions and am anxious to hear what the Solicitor
General of Canada and the Minister of Justice, who will certainly
be appearing before the committee, have to say about this
issue—I say this up front so they can be ready—is when it comes
to giving the political arm authority to make such actions legal.
Under the proposed legislation, the solicitor general would
authorize such actions. Truly, if there is one thing that must
not be mixed with politics, it is the law.
It would be a kindness to the minister to tell her that she is on
the wrong track, that this should be left up to the courts, as is
now the case for wiretapping, for certain very specific seizures
outside normal court hours. It could be a judge who, as part of
an investigation and upon presentation of evidence, gives
authorization. It could be ex parte. It could be various ways of
speeding up authorization. But it must be someone who is
independent of the political arm. It must be a judge who gives
authorization and who oversees the result.
This is one amendment we are going to try to make when this bill
comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Generally speaking, it is not what is in the bill that is
causing a problem but much more what is not. With this in mind, I
think that it will be easier to work with officials of the
Department of Justice and try to convince them to make certain
additions to the bill.
I will conclude by saying that one thing is certain and that is
that those enforcing the legislation must also be given the
necessary money. It is all very fine and well to have a
well-drafted bill, but the necessary money must be there for them
to enforce it.
In Quebec, we have shown that when the police
were given adequate financial support, they were able to do an
effective job of combating organized crime, as they did in the
Opération Printemps 2001, a major cleanup operation. We should
continue in this vein by passing this bill.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise and say a few words on behalf of the NDP on
this particular debate.
I agree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc when he says that a
great deal of credit should be given to the Bloc Quebecois for
pressing the matter in the House over the previous years. I
understand the satisfaction it must be experiencing in seeing the
government respond. By the Bloc's own analysis, some 80% of the
bill includes measures that it has requested.
1600
Quebecers have experienced, to a completely excessive and
unsatisfactory degree, the somewhat dubious benefits of the
activities of gangs, as have other Canadians in other provinces.
We have the bill before us and we are anxious that it not be
debated at great length here in the House. We would like to see
it go to committee. If we are serious about wanting the
legislation implemented and used to curtail the activities of
criminal gangs, we must get it through the House and into
committee and look at some of its provisions.
If there are things that can be improved and clarified, and I
certainly think there are, then let us go about doing that and
getting the legislation into force so that we can determine
through experience whether the bill will actually work. That is
the only way we can find out what will work, both in terms of the
ability of police to investigate and lay charges and the ability
of the courts to obtain and uphold convictions.
It is certainly not the intention of the NDP to delay passage of
the bill. I simply say to my colleagues in the Bloc who have,
shall we say, a somewhat robust history of making the work of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights somewhat difficult
because of their objections to Bill C-7, the bill on the youth
criminal justice act, that I imagine they will face a bit of a
dilemma if that is the case.
I am not saying that is the case now, but if it turns out to be
then we cannot get to this legislation until we have dealt with
the youth criminal justice act. That is another piece of
legislation about which, despite its inadequacies, we will not be
able to learn more until we have had an opportunity to see it in
practice.
This bill introduces three new offences and tough sentences that
target various degrees of involvement with criminal
organizations. That is all well and good. It is appropriate
that these new offences be introduced. I look forward to hearing
expert testimony on that in committee. Certainly in principle it
is a good idea and one that we support.
Protecting people who work in the justice system from
intimidation, either against them or their families, is certainly
something we would support. However we would go even further, as
have other members who have spoken today. We would like to see,
or at least have it made clear and explicit in the legislation,
that it is not just members of parliament who are protected by
the legislation. Provincial ministers of justice, provincial
politicians and, as the member from the Bloc said only moments
ago, simple politicians, because of various zoning or other
questions, may also find themselves in conflict with the
interests of criminal gangs.
We may therefore want to look in committee at ways to either
broaden the list of those explicitly included or to clarify the
definition so it does not just apply to members of parliament.
Simplifying the current definition of criminal organization in
the criminal code is another aspect of the bill which seems to be
merited. We look forward to hearing more about it in committee.
1605
Broadening the powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds
of crime, and in particular the profits of criminal
organizations, and to seize property used in a crime are things
we may well need to put into legislation so that governments have
the tools at their disposal to deal more forcefully with
organized crime.
An accountable process must be established to protect law
enforcement officers from criminal liability when they commit
what would otherwise be considered illegal actions while
investigating and infiltrating criminal organizations. That is
something I understand from my meetings with the Canadian Police
Association earlier this year. I certainly understand the
concern of police officers who work undercover in difficult
situations and need more freedom to act without worrying about
criminal liability. We cannot grant them absolute freedom, of
course, so it is a fine line. The minister has attempted in the
legislation to define what that line is.
This is something I look forward to discussing in committee
because people have expressed concern about where the line is
drawn. I understand and appreciate those concerns and yet I am
sympathetic to what police officers have requested. We certainly
accept the principle of protecting, to some degree, police
officers who are engaged in this kind of activity and we look
forward to hearing from people on both sides of the issue as to
where the line should be drawn.
I am particularly pleased that this legislation has come forward
because I myself, some time ago in a previous parliament, brought
forward a private member's bill regarding anti-gang measures. It
is no secret to people who know something about Winnipeg that it
has gang problems in its inner city, not just biker gangs but
criminal gangs of various descriptions.
There is a great deal of interest on the part of many citizens
of Winnipeg in giving the police and government the appropriate
tools with which to deal with these gangs. The Manitoba NDP
government is also interested in seeing much tougher measures to
deal with gangs.
I will leave it at that. However I cannot resist saying that
the government, when it announced in a press release that it was
stepping up its fight against organized crime, stated:
The Government will also inject an additional $200 million over
the next five years to implement legislation and related
prosecution and law enforcement strategies to fight organized
crime. This funding will build on the $584 million that the RCMP
received in the 2000 budget—
Having had the weekend I have just had, I cannot help but
reflect on the kinds of resources used this past weekend in
Quebec City to deal with, by and large, peaceful protesters.
I am not talking about the anarchists and the Black Bloc, the
people who tried to take down the fence. I am talking about what
I was going to call policing but which was, in many respects,
gassing, rubber bulleting and water cannoning of people who were
not trying to take down the fence or hurl stuff at the police on
the other side. Most of those people were simply acting on what
they thought were the rules of the game at the summit; that is,
as long as they were not trying to break the perimeter and were
acting outside the perimeter in a peaceful way, they would be
immune from police action.
When I consider the resources that went into the summit, I
sometimes wonder, as must many ordinary Canadians, why it is that
when one wants a police officer in a hurry one cannot be found
but when there is a summit meeting there are 6,000 of them. Where
did they all come from?
1610
How many communities were left without police protection over
the last several days so that students could have their first
experience of tear gas while sitting around singing or standing
innocently, or perhaps curiously, looking at the wall?
I apologize for those remarks but I think some people, even some
police, must feel that on occasion. I have a great deal of
sympathy for police officers in the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec
and others who must sometimes wonder why the government is
willing to pay so much in overtime and put so many resources into
something like that. When police want resources to deal with
criminal gangs or people who make life miserable for Canadians in
various communities and contexts they cannot get an extra dime
out of the government, but by God, just announce there is a
protest coming and they get all the equipment and resources they
ever wanted.
There is something not quite right here, as far as I am
concerned. This legislation is a step in the right direction. We
want to see certain things clarified in committee and we look
forward to that process.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate and to
follow the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, a new member of
our justice committee who brings a great deal of credibility to
the debate and great oratorical skill to the House of Commons.
Our party, as are I think all parties without exception, will be
supporting Bill C-24. It is somewhat of a reincarnation of
legislation we saw in the last parliament. It is very important
and timely to the process of dealing with the ongoing plague of
organized crime in Canada. It will allow police officers and
prosecutors, both through legislation and in some instances
through increased resources, to combat and turn their undivided
attention in some instances to the growing problem of organized
crime.
Neil Young sings of rust never sleeping. Well, crime never
sleeps. Crime is unfortunately becoming more and more active in
many communities and I am not talking only of the big cities.
Crime is becoming prevalent in small towns and rural parts of the
country.
We are particularly vulnerable in coastal communities, I hasten
to add. Sadly, since the disbandment of the ports police in the
country that is even more the case. We are seeing an obvious
attempt by organized crime to profit from illicit acts of
importation, in many instances of contraband materials. I am
talking about drugs, which are the chief trade, as well as guns,
pornographic and contraband materials brought into the country
under the radar of our current law enforcement capacity. One
would hope with the greatest optimism that this legislation will
help address, at least in part, this very complex problem.
There is a great need for this legislation. The RCMP, who
arguably is the most affected by the issue, is I think cautiously
optimistic. The new RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli alluded to the
fact that organized crime has plans to use bribes to destabilize
the country's parliamentary system. That came as a shocking
revelation to many when they read it in the newspapers. It
raised eyebrows across the country. It demonstrated the profound
epidemic of organized crime and the lengths that organized crime
will go to on occasion to exert influence, and I am obviously not
talking about a positive influence.
That epidemic has for many years been virtually ignored by the
current government. It is therefore very encouraging to see it
finally recognize the issue and give it a priority after seven
years.
1615
On Tuesday, September 12, 2000, the Quebec public security
minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to use the
notwithstanding clause to outlaw membership in gangs such as the
Hells Angels and the Rock Machine. Because such a move might be
struck down by the courts as unconstitutional, he was urging the
government to give at least an indication that it would not
hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause.
When it comes to organized crime, one thing everyone understands
is that it does not play by the rules. It does not abide by the
laws, whereas of course law enforcement, prosecutorial services
and the government not only have to put laws in place but stay
within the boundaries and confines of those laws, and rightly so.
Therefore we are sometimes talking about a distinct disadvantage
on the part of our system of enforcement vis-à-vis outlaw
gangs. Extraordinary times sometimes call for extraordinary
action. That is why, I am sure, the suggestion was made that the
notwithstanding clause might be invoked in those circumstances.
The Department of Justice clearly suffers from constitutional
constipation at times, I think, from this fear that somehow if a
law is made that might be deemed unconstitutional we should
refrain from enacting it.
This law will be challenged in our courts, as many laws before
it have been challenged. That is part and parcel of the process.
In particular, I can guarantee that the legislation that expands
police powers will be the subject of numerous court challenges.
We can bank on it.
We simply cannot hesitate in or refrain from introducing
legislation in the fear that somewhere in the land, whether it be
in the Supreme Court of Canada or in some other court, a judge
may decide that this is not within the bounds of the
constitution. That is part of our judiciary. That is part of
the process. I guarantee that this legislation will be
challenged, like other legislation has been.
However, when dealing with organized crime and the repercussions
of having organized crime go unchecked we sometimes have to make
laws that expand the current envelope and go beyond the realm of
what has been the normal practice.
While the Quebec minister was expressing these concerns, on the
very next day, September 13, the day after the call from the
security minister of Quebec, Mr. Michel Auger, a journalist in
Montreal with the Journal de Montréal, was shot five times
in the back. This was most likely the action of and has been
attributed widely to outlaw motorcycle gangs. I am informed
that it was likely the act of someone who wanted to join one of
the gangs and was part of the movement to get in, to show somehow
that this person had what it takes to be involved in this type of
activity. They are sometimes the most dangerous, these puppet
groups, these individuals who are trying to ingratiate
themselves, to earn their patch so to speak. Mr. Auger's fate
and the fate of many others who have expressed opposition to
organized crime and have raised the spectacle of somehow trying
to get this issue under control has been that they have sometimes
faced the wrath of the gangs themselves.
Criminal gangs are far-reaching now. They are branching out. As
I said in my opening remarks, they are found in communities
across the country, whether they be rural or urban. Many
Canadians are starting to feel particularly unsafe because of
this audacious presence. In the city of Halifax, there are many
people who are very concerned. Individuals such as Matt Jardine
and others who live in Halifax are concerned about what is
happening in their city.
An outlaw motorcycle gang, the Hells Angels, now has its
colours flying in radiant lights in front of its clubhouse in the
city of Halifax. This is the affront to democracy. It is an
affront to policing and the safe, secure feeling that people
should have in their communities.
There is a real need for this legislation. Again, it is
encouraging that it is being brought forward now. The minister
often uses the phrase in a timely fashion, and this has been
timely for many years. The time is here and we are encouraged by
that.
Organized crime also is becoming very prevalent in many circles
where it was traditionally unseen, such as the Internet. The
Hells Angels, I am told, have one of the largest Internet sites
available.
It is information that is now transmitted through cyberspace, not
only across this country but across the United States, North
America and the world. That is very disturbing. Obviously the
ability to transport information can be an extremely positive
thing, but organized crime can use it for a very nefarious
purpose, so there is certainly a need for legislation in that
area at some future time. It is not addressed by this
legislation.
1620
The bill has taken on a very broad background, if we will, in
terms of what types of organized crime we are dealing with.
Eastern bloc European gangs have emerged, such as the traditional
Mafiosa-Italian connections, and there are the snakehead
organizations, Chinese triads, Oriental groups that are forming
gangs and the traditional so-called motorcycle gangs, which are,
as I have said, becoming more prevalent.
The Minister of Justice gave repeated assurances to study
options for strengthening our current legislation to break the
back of organized crime. Although some of those details were not
discussed publicly, we do know that attempts were made to
introduce legislation in 1997. We see it coming back now in this
form. The minister reiterated this in her comments.
I do applaud her. I applaud the minister's initiative in
bringing forward this legislation now. It has finally received
priority and would allow those administering it, mainly the
provinces and the law enforcement community, to attack the issue
and to attack the underbelly of these gangs. In particular, this
legislation allows for greater use of attacking the proceeds of
crime, that is, going after the actual resources of organized
crime and taking away the flow of money and the benefits received
from illegal acts.
It also very clearly and specifically simplifies the definition
and the composition of criminal organizations for purposes in a
court. The bill targets various degrees of involvement within
organizations, that is, it attaches the type of activity that is
deemed to be participation in a criminal organization. Sometimes
that is just watching. Sometimes it could be the person working
on a dock in Halifax who turns a blind eye to an importation or
to a boxcar coming in with illicit contraband material.
The legislation also would make it easier for police and
prosecutors to arrest and jail those involved in organized crime
and keep them in prison for longer periods of time. There is a
greater element of deterrence, both specific and general, at work
in the bill for those who choose this path.
The bill would allow law enforcement officials to declare
forfeit the proceeds of crime from organizations, to seize the
property and to perhaps put that resource back into the community
that has been harmed. It allows law enforcement officers to
seize things like houses, boats, cars and money and to allow the
resource that has been pillaged and raped from a community to go
back into it and perhaps benefit it and try to rehabilitate some
of the harm that has been done.
The legislation would also strengthen rules protecting against
intimidation of witnesses, jurors and their families at organized
crime trials. It would strengthen the protection for federal
ministers and members of parliament. It would improve protection
for law enforcement officers from criminal liability when they
commit certain illicit acts while engaging in undercover
operations.
One thing missing from the legislation and which has been
pointed out by several members today is that it does not include
provincial ministers. I believe that was perhaps a legislative
oversight. I am certain it is something that can be corrected at
committee.
In particular, the provisions in this bill send a very important
signal that the Parliament of Canada is not going to sit back and
rest on the laurels of the fine men and women who are currently
working in our justice system, but that it is actually going to
bolster support for them and enhance their ability to do their
job and their ability to protect us, because it is that thin blue
line, as it is sometimes called, that the police provide to the
citizens of Canada.
We are supportive of the amendments that deal with taking away
the proceeds of the crime, taking away the lifeblood. There are
very positive amendments to this bill that could be tightened up.
Again, hopefully we will have an opportunity to do that in the
process.
Of course I mentioned the absence of protection for provincial
ministers. There is also perhaps some need to protect
journalists in some instances, as we saw with Mr. Auger.
1625
There is a problem with respect to the funding for the
legislation. That in and of itself is perhaps its greatest
weakness. The legislation has come about, typically, with great
fanfare and with announcements made in the press gallery. I
think the minister has had her knuckles rapped a little in that
regard. The legislation announces $200 million to address this
specific problem. That comes as great news to those in law
enforcement and was met with great enthusiasm by the commissioner
of the RCMP and others.
However, the question, the next natural progression of that, is
this: when will the money come? There were references in that
very press conference to the earlier announcement of $584 million
to the RCMP to upgrade CPIC, to allow for greater resources, to
allow for more overtime, to allow for resources and for perhaps
greater access to justices of the peace or greater access to
informants. They are all important elements of the police task
in protecting Canadians.
When will the money arrive? It would be very interesting to
hear from the minister or members of the government how much of
that $580 million, the earlier announcement, has actually been
put into the coffers of the police. I suspect that the same
question will be asked of this $200 million in very short order,
because they are crying out for those resources. The police are
desperately in need of the financial support. It is fine to make
the announcement, to give the moral support here, but they need
the actual resources and they need them immediately. That is a
question that has yet to be answered.
There is a positive starting point here. There is certainly a
determined commitment on the part of the government and on the
part of all members of parliament. This has affected individual
members of parliament. A member of the Bloc found himself in a
very unsettling position, I am sure, when he was the subject of
threatening actions on the part of an outlaw motorcycle gang.
The limitless resources of the organized criminal element
highlight the fact that the police are often left feeling that
they are not on a level playing field legislatively because of
their limitations within the law. However, they are also under
the increased pressure because organized crime has unlimited
resources and is essentially using more and better technology
than is available to the police. Members of organized crime are
watching the watchers. They are using videotape to tape the
police to find out who is watching them. They are transmitting
information about judges, about prosecutors and about police.
They are sharing information about undercover officers. They are
using the Internet to its maximum benefit.
This is the brave new era. This is an age wherein we should be
giving the police the tools and the technology to fight organized
crime on the same level that organized crime is using. Typically
we have seen the government try to fix a problem that in some
instances it created. I refer to the ports police. There have
also been severe cuts to the RCMP in the past number of years.
Clearly the RCMP was suffering budgetary restraints when it had
to close its training facility in Saskatoon. Clearly when the
Canadian Police Information Centre computer system was almost on
the verge of collapse without an immediate influx of money, it
was symptomatic of underfunding on the part of our national
police force. Bill C-24 would not provide this immediate
injection of funding.
There are, as I indicated, elements and commitments that we are
very supportive of. What we want to see and what we want to
diligently pursue is that the funding is actually going to be
there. There are clauses in the bill like, for example, clause
27 at page 29, which talks about the definition of criminal
organization. It now needs to be composed of three or more
persons and the crown now does not need to show that the offences
were committed in the previous five years.
Some of the legislation may seem technical and inconsequential
to the untrained ear, but this is very important for the crown
and for the police working in cohort to secure convictions. We
saw a very recent sting operation in the province of Quebec and
parts of Ontario that resulted in individuals being rounded up
and charged. There are potentially charges there that will not
be affected by the introduction of this legislation, but in the
future certainly it will help in the successful prosecution of
these types of offences.
One problem that I have picked up on is that Bill C-24 fails to
make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group already
proven to be a criminal organization. Whether or not an
organization is criminal would have to be proven in each
particular case, that is, it would create needless expense in
some instances and a duplication of resources that would prolong
many criminal trials.
1630
There is a general consensus that the legislation is positive.
Much of the technical examination of the issue came about as a
result of the Shirose and Campbell case that dealt with immunity.
It dealt with police officers having the ability to infiltrate
crime through in some instances buying illicit substances like
drugs and participating in questionable conduct themselves to
prove allegiance and to prove that they were working with the
gang to gain its trust so that they could break it up.
This is something that raises concern among lawyers and privacy
protectors. There will be an examination by a court of law to
see that it is in proportion, that it is reasonable in the
circumstances. These are the types of matters that we could try
to fine tune.
It will no doubt result in court challenges and that should be
welcomed. Members should embrace that reality. It is our
responsibility to make laws and it is the responsibility of the
courts to examine and interpret those laws in some cases.
With regard to the intimidation factor, it is very important
that there be as broad a definition as possible for who should be
protected from intimidation. Trials cannot function if jurists,
lawyers, witnesses, and in some instances police, are feeling
intimidated. Intimidation and extortion are things that gangs
deal in very much. They put fear into the minds of people if
they come forward to testify against gang members.
I am hopeful the minister and the government will be open to
certain amendments, further examination and strengthening of the
legislation. I trust all members would be supporting the bill.
Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few remarks in
support of the legislation. I would like to touch on an issue
that my colleague from the Conservative Party raised during his
remarks. It has to do with that part of his speech that dealt
with the exposure of journalists when they are involved in doing
research and writing about biker gangs.
It has a very special chord of relevance for me. During the
last election campaign I met a constituent, Yves Lavigne, who
wrote the book Hell's Angels at War, the biker gang book.
He has written three books actually. Hell's Angels: Taking
Care of Business is another one. People like Yves Lavigne
have tremendous experience and insight. They think outside the
box of normal police forces.
Would it be a good idea for the RCMP or other police forces to
use people like Yves Lavigne, who have spent 15 or 20 years of
their lives focused on a specific area of organized crime, as
consultants to make sure that the police think outside the
traditional box and bring these gangs to justice in a more
expeditious manner?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very
important element which is missing from the legislation itself.
I agree that the police should be outsourcing to individuals who
have expertise in this area. It is an incredibly overwhelming
issue in terms of its complexity and the lengths that organized
crime will go to infiltrate legitimate businesses.
Organized crime will seek to undermine the credible people
working in the system, whether working directly in justice or as
legislators, and to undermine the media who have a role in
reporting and making public the activities of organized crime.
1635
I agree that police officers should have within their mandate
the ability to engage these individuals for information purposes
and for their expertise. The legislation does not provide for
the protection of specifically journalists, authors and those who
write and have obtained special information that is helpful and
relevant to the police.
I am encouraged that the issue is being fleshed out and that we
will have an opportunity to correct it to make that additional
protection available. Hopefully the spirit of productive debate
and study at the committee level will improve this important
legislation which he and other members support.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): 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 Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Shipbuilding.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to stand today to speak in favour of Bill C-24. I
was pleased to listen to the Minister of Justice and I heard the
comments made by members of the opposition who seem to have a
full understanding of the issue.
If it is not understood in the Canadian public at large, it is
well understood in the House by all parties and all speakers that
the scale of organized crime in the country and internationally,
the magnitude of the threat that it poses to our society, is
something of real urgency. The bill addresses it and needs to be
passed quickly and put into force.
I would like to speak about the variety and complexity of the
problem internationally as well as to individuals, communities,
government and private enterprises in Canada.
Internationally there is more than a trillion dollars a year in
earned profits from criminal activity worldwide. The figure is
growing every year. It has not been hampered and restricted by
deficit cutting that governments around the world have had to
undergo through the 1990s. These profits have been soaring. In
terms of the critical nature of this threat, former President
Clinton identified organized crime as the number one threat to
national security in the post cold war world.
The citizens of my constituency, Vancouver Quadra, understand
the chilling nature of the threat. It is much broader than just
gang wars. It involves the supply of drugs to our schools and
children. It involves property crime that is attendant on drug
addiction which is fed by organized crime. It involves home
invasions and the security of our homes. Ten years ago who in
our society had heard the chilling terms of terror such as home
invasion, carjacking or drive-by shooting? These are new terms
of terror which are directly connected to the scourge of organized
crime in society.
In terms of our economy, billions of dollars of laundered money
are put into our society which is based on a market economy. It
is corrupted by them. They debase the vigour of competition in
our market economy and threaten our economic viability.
They also threaten our economic institutions. Corruption and
organized criminal activity in scams with respect to banks,
credit card fraud, telemarketing fraud, insurance fraud and stock
market fraud are all part of the growing expanding scourge of
organized criminal activity which is sapping the economic
strength of the country as well as the safety of our citizens.
In terms of government agencies themselves, we have had
troubling information about the infiltration and corruption of
people working in government agencies at all levels in Canada and
internationally.
These are major challenges for our society. They require new
tools, many of which the bill provides. If we think about how we
will apply those tools we have to think carefully about the new
nature of criminal organizations.
1640
Criminal organizations working in Canada and around the world
are no longer monolithic crime families that are suspicious of
each other or competitive with each other against criminal
projects for turf. Today criminal activity is conducted in a
highly networked, complex, flexible and international fashion.
Criminal gangs are no longer fighting for turf with each other
although that happens, and we know too sadly of the horrors in
Quebec of criminal gang wars. However that is not the typical
character of organized criminal activity today.
Organized criminal activity works in networks, works in cells
across criminal organizations and across borders to uniquely
compose a criminal operation across boundaries, gangs and
criminal products. It requires a very special approach from law
enforcement agencies which is not our traditional approach. It
requires those agencies to be more flexible and more resourced in
their response. I will be splitting my time.
I would like to comment on the new tools that are necessary and
that are being applied by the bill. Monetary resources are
needed for police agencies. Those have been provided for over
the last two years with increased budgets and there are projected
further injections of financial resources for the RCMP and other
law enforcement agencies. That is critical.
The bill presents other tools. There will be stiffer penalties
for participation in criminal gang activity and broader
definitions of what constitutes criminal gangs and criminal
activity. There are very important provisions to create the
offence of intimidation of officials in the criminal justice
system. It is a critical point of protection that is necessary
and overdue.
The expanded definitions and increased ability to seize the
proceeds of crime are important in the bill. There must be an
ability to seize and forfeit property in a fashion that is
efficient, quick and hits at the heart of the enterprise nature
of organized crime.
The mandatory reporting provisions for suspicious financial
transactions are important. Fifteen billion dollars was
estimated as the amount of laundered funds from illegal
activities in Canada last year.
I will conclude by addressing specifically the unique and
changed nature of organized crime in society. It is flexible and
networked. It crosses boundaries and is cross organizational. It
is necessary to have an integrated and co-ordinated approach
across the collection of criminal intelligence, police operations
and prosecution of crime. These have to be working as a seamless
whole.
The information and intelligence gathering must not be in a
secretive closed chest fashion among competing law enforcement
agencies. It must be shared in a mandatory fashion, but it must
be secure and centrally analyzed. It must be disseminated on a
need to know basis and the success and experience of operations
have to be fed back into that intelligence system.
The operations themselves must be joint force operations,
drawing across law enforcement agencies for the best and the most
appropriate resources that can be uniquely composed and targeted
on any particular criminal activity. It should then be shut
down, redistributed and refocused on other criminal activity if
it is to mimic the flexibility and the networks of criminal
organizations themselves.
There must be an effective link to intensive prosecution which
the bill and the organized criminal justice policy address.
Dedicated legal advice must be present at the very earliest
stages of an investigation to deal with the incredible complexity
of criminal investigations and prosecutions, laws of disclosure,
laws of search and seizure, laws of wiretapping, and laws of
proceeds of crime. The best legal advice must be used at the
beginning of an investigation right through to an intensive
prosecution to make sure those prosecutions are successful.
I repeat that organized crime is an immense threat to society.
Its magnitude is overwhelming. The bill needs to be passed as
soon as possible.
1645
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words
with respect to the bill at second reading.
The first thing I want to say is that I applaud the government
for its initiative in bringing forward the bill. I believe it is
very much needed and, as many of the other speakers have said, it
is critical that we bring it forward as soon as possible.
In my brief remarks I cannot possibly deal with all aspects of
the bill which has 73 pages and many clauses, but I will say for
those who are watching or listening that a piece of legislation
like this one contains amendments to an already complex act, the
Criminal Code of Canada. It is very difficult when reading a
bill like this for one to understand it without proper study because
we have to flip from one section to another. We have to read a
section as it currently exists to understand why the amendments
are being made and how they will benefit society.
I want to focus on two or three particular issues and offer some
advice to the justice committee that will be studying the bill. I
know the members of the justice committee and that members on all
sides of the justice committee are interested and careful members
who will give the legislation, as they do other legislation, the
consideration it requires.
The legislation requires consideration because, as some other
speakers have said, there are a few fine lines here that we have
to decide on which side of the line we will come down. From my
perspective we should come down on the side of the line that
deals with the safety of society as a whole.
With that opening, allow me to remind everyone that the criminal
code was developed many years ago, long before there were
telephones, never mind cellphones; long before there were
international drug cartels; long before there were automobiles;
long before there were airplanes; and certainly long before there
were motorcycles.
It is a problem with law that it is often difficult for the law
to catch up with the criminal. The criminal mind is able to come
up with solutions on how to beat the law faster than we can come
up with how to avoid crossing the constitution but at the same
time making sure we protect society.
The bill is a valiant attempt to do that, but we must remember
that the criminal element is always moving, is always working to
try to beat us at our own game. We cannot allow legislation like
this to be stalled year after year in debate or stalled for other
purposes because we need to combat this type of crime as quickly
as we can.
When I heard that the government had announced the legislation I
was having coffee and watching a morning news program.
Immediately there was a person on the screen, a lawyer, who
criticized some portion of the legislation. In particular, she
criticized the fact that it could be that three people would be
deemed to be a criminal organization. I said to myself yes, so
what. I could not understand the criticism. If three people
decide to conspire to commit a series of offences, that is a
criminal organization. What is the problem? Why would the
lawyer be upset about that?
I went specifically to the legislation and on page 29 is the
clause that deals with the definition of a criminal organization.
As we must all remember in this place, we must never rely on the
television. We must never rely on newspaper reports. We must
rely on our own eyes examining what the legislation says. This
is what it says:
“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that
is composed of three or more persons and that has as one of its
main purposes or main activities the facilitation or commission
of one or more serious offences—
By the way, serious offence is deemed to be an offence for which
a person can receive a punishment of five years in prison or
more. It is a fairly serious offence. It continues:
—that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or
indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial
benefit, by the group or by any of the persons who constitute the
group.
1650
It does not stop there. It goes on to say:
It does not include a group of persons that forms randomly for
the immediate commission of a single offence.
It is not a criminal organization if three or four young people
get together, decide they want some chocolate bars, knock over a
local convenience store and grab a few boxes of chocolate bars.
It is specifically exempted in fact from the section.
A criminal organization is three or more people getting together
and conspiring to commit serious offences for their own personal
gain. I cannot understand why anyone would criticize that
section, and I want to put that on record.
I also commend the government on consecutive sentencing, which
in some circumstances is a touchy issue. Private members' bills
have dealt with consecutive sentencing, which has caused some
problems on the floor of the House among the parties and
individual members.
The government has specifically provided that the sentences
received for certain offences committed by people who conspire in
these organizations will be served consecutively to any other
sentence they may receive for the particular offence.
I will give an example. Five people decide to become bank
robbers and commit a series of bank robberies. Each of those
bank robberies is an individual offence. It is also a criminal
organization because there are five of them. They got together
and decided to commit serious criminal offences.
When they are caught and convicted they may very well be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the bank robbery or bank
robberies. In addition, if they are convicted under the criminal
conspiracy provisions in the bill of being an organized gang,
they will receive the term in addition to and on top of the bank
robbery convictions. They would not be served at the same time
but consecutively. I think this is the correct approach. It is
the right approach and I commend the government for bringing it
in.
As well, there are certain provisions of the criminal code which
provide that for certain heinous offences prisoners must serve a
minimum of one-half of their sentences before they become
eligible for parole. There is a list of those offences in the
criminal code.
I commend the government for ensuring that the commission of an
offence under this act is one of those. If people are convicted
of certain offences, either helping to commit the offence or
being part of the offence itself while it takes place, then a
conviction and a sentence will require offenders to serve at
least one-half the time they have been sentenced to before they
become eligible for consideration for parole.
I think this is a good thing. It is important. It sends a
message that society views these crimes as serious. We intend to
make sure that the time is served to the extent that at least
half the sentence will be served before the prisoner becomes
eligible for parole.
The final point I want to talk about in the brief time I have is
forfeiture of property. We already have forfeiture of property.
I draw to the attention of the justice committee subsection
462.37(2) in which the judge is allowed to seize property which
is not necessarily directly from the crime but can be inferred as
being from the crime or crimes.
The problem is the judge must be satisfied beyond a reasonable
doubt. I believe that is entirely too high a burden to put on
the crown and on the people of Canada. I would ask that the
justice committee consider amending it so that if the judge is
satisfied on a balance of probabilities the property can be
forfeited.
I appreciate the opportunity to give my two cents worth prior to
consideration of the bill by the justice committee.
1655
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-24, an act to
amend the criminal code respecting organized crime and law
enforcement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
The bill has two main purposes: first, to provide new tools in
the fight against organized crime; and, second, to respond to the
1999 supreme court decision in R. v Campbell and Shirose, which
put in doubt the ability of police and police informants to break
the law as part of undercover operations aimed at penetrating
criminal organizations.
After years of the Reform Party of Canada, now the Canadian
Alliance, fighting for tougher laws to help combat gangs and
other criminal organizations, the federal Liberals have finally
introduced some of the legislation we have been calling for. The
fact is that the weak Liberal government lacks the political will
to get tough on crime, particularly on organized crime.
It has introduced this legislation because of intense pressure
from the official opposition and other opposition parties and
because of the pressure from police and the public in general.
Combating organized crime was part of the detailed justice
platform released during the election campaign by the Canadian
Alliance.
The penetration of organized crime into Canadian society is a
very serious matter. Criminals move from jurisdictions with
strong controls to jurisdictions with weak or no controls. This
criminal activity undermines Canada's financial and social
systems and increases the power and influence of illegal
businesses.
A staggering variety of activities such as extortion, home
invasion, murder, theft, drugs and arms trafficking, counterfeit
currency and passports, migrant smuggling, prostitution, Mafia,
casino and lottery frauds are additional costs to society at the
expense of the taxpayer and at the expense of our future. These
activities make our streets unsafe.
We in Canada are also concerned that the privacy of Canadian
citizens could be unreasonably invaded. There should be
sufficient protection and the freedom of law-abiding citizens
should be preserved. The loopholes in the system and the law are
not plugged in Canada. That is the main problem. Canada is a
candy store for these criminals. Unfortunately criminals have
the motivation to come to Canada and commit crimes because they
consider Canada to be a crime haven.
The blurred vision of the Liberals has caused the dismantling of
Vancouver port police. Everyone knows that. This makes the port
a gateway for the importation of drugs and narcotics. It opens
up the way for criminals and makes their jobs easier rather than
tougher. It is a shame that the Liberal government gives
international organized criminals VIP treatment while those same
criminals, according to the Immigration Act, are supposed to be
inadmissible to Canada.
I remember when I was on the immigration and citizenship
committee that we introduced a motion to study fraud and criminal
activities under the Immigration Act not for general immigrants
but for illegitimate and criminal elements coming to the country.
Liberal members refused that motion.
1700
Previous legislative attempts to deal with the problem have been
ineffective. Bill C-95 did not go far enough in providing the
tools needed for the law enforcement agencies to fight organized
crime.
Years ago, perhaps in the early 1980s, the government of the day
not only ignored the recommendations of the law enforcement
agencies but it even refused to acknowledge the existence of
organized criminal activities in Canada. Since that time
organized crime has significantly increased. Canada has now
become a global centre and a haven for organized crime because of
its laws.
Whatever the government does now it is too late and too little.
The criminals are lightyears ahead of the law enforcement
agencies. They have more resources, more money and better state
of the art technology while the agencies on the other side even
lack the law with tooth and are struggling to maintain
yesterday's technology.
A Liberal dominated subcommittee of the justice standing
committee on organized crime held in camera hearings on the
problem and issued its report just prior to the dissolution of
the House. I will talk about that report in a short while.
I also want to mention that I represented the official
opposition as a member of the subcommittee on organized crime.
Since the hearings were in camera I will not go into detail but
will talk about some of the issues that are in the public domain.
It is sad that the recommendations of the subcommittee were not
fully implemented through this bill. Even though the committee
was a Liberal dominated committee, the bill of course would
enhance the fight against organized crime, though not enough, and
should not be delayed unduly.
I will now talk about the main features of the bill. There will
be longer consecutive sentences for gang activity: up to five
years for participating in a criminal organization; 14 years for
carrying out indictable offences for the benefit of a criminal
organization; and life for being the leader of a criminal
organization.
A new definition of a criminal organization would be: only
three members required instead of the current five; there is no
need to prove that members participated in indictable offences in
the five years preceding prosecution and providing that, in
addition to indictable offences punishable by five years or more,
offences can be prescribed as serious offences.
It is stated that the intention is to cover offences, such as
prostitution and gambling, that are controlled by organized crime.
Another point is the protection of justice system participants.
Threatening a judge, prosecutor, juror, et cetera, or a member of
their family would be punishable by up to 14 years and murdering
a justice system participant would be first degree murder.
The next point concerns police immunity. The solicitor general
responsible for the RCMP or provincial ministers responsible for
the police will be able to designate officers who may, in the
course of an investigation, commit offences other than offences
causing bodily harm, obstructing justice or sexual offences.
Forfeiture of property would apply to all property used in
committing a crime rather than just property especially built to
carry out the crime. Judges will have to determine whether the
forfeiture is appropriate given the nature of the crime.
Presumably a house may not be forfeited if five marijuana plants
are found in it but it could be if 500 or 5,000 plants are found
in it.
1705
There are still many significant deficiencies in the bill that
require further address or amendments. Even many recommendations
of the subcommittee have not been addressed in the legislation. I
was a member of that committee and it was a Liberal dominated
committee.
There are maybe 10 points I want to mention. The relevant
elements of existing legislation, resources, investigative and
prosecutorial practices, should be deployed to their fullest
potential and effective strategy to fill any gaps should have
been developed and addressed in the legislation. The committee
was concerned about it and it made very clear recommendations
about it.
The criminal code should have been amended so that all its
provisions related to organized crime activities could have been
brought together in a specific part to be entitled enterprise
crime, designated drug offences, criminal organizations and money
laundering. This recommendation was not followed.
The criminal code should have been amended to allow for the
designation of criminal organization offenders in a manner
similar to that applicable of dangerous offenders and long term
offenders provided for at section 752. This would allow, at the
sentencing stage, after a conviction has been obtained, for the
imposition of imprisonment for an intermediate period or for long
term supervision in the community after a sentence of up to 10
years. The recommendation was not followed.
Section 184 and following the criminal code dealing with
judicially authorized audio and video surveillance should have
been amended to increase in non-criminal organization offences
from 60 days to at least a 120 day period for which such
activities could be authorized and renewed. This particular
recommendation is very important if the Liberals were to listen
to Canadians, to the Canadian Police Association and to front
line police officers who are dealing with organized criminals.
When police officers need to obtain a particular warrant they
have to write about a thousand pages. A lot of work has to be
done to obtain a warrant.
Once a warrant has been obtained it is valid for only 60 days,
whereas the criminal activity continues for months and years
probably. They then have to go back and do all the paper work
again in order to obtain a warrant for wiretapping or other
things. The recommendation is very important and I hope the
justice minister will follow through with it. Since we are
debating the bill for the first time, the government has lots of
opportunity if it is sincerely listening to this.
The provisions of part VI of the criminal code should have been
reviewed and amended so as to streamline and simplify the
requirements and practices involved in the judicial approval and
renewal of audio and video surveillance as a law enforcement
investigative strategy. This recommendation was not followed.
Section 743.6(1.1) of the criminal code should have been amended
to allow sentencing judges to order that offenders serve full
sentences instead of half the sentences currently served, of
incarceration without any form of conditional release in cases
where there is evidence that a convicted person committed an
offence to the benefit of, at the direction of or in association
with a criminal organization.
1710
The criminal code should have been amended so that there was a
reverse onus placed on a person convicted of an enterprise crime,
a designated substance offence, a criminal organization offence
or money laundering whose assets have been seized, to prove that
these assets have not been acquired or increased in value as the
result of criminal activity. There should be a reverse onus on
the criminal rather than on law enforcement agencies to prove
that. This is a very important recommendation.
If the convicted person were unable to discharge the burden of
proof, as I mentioned, to the satisfaction of the court, these
assets should be declared to be forfeited. This recommendation
was not followed through.
The Canada Evidence Act should have been amended to codify and
simplify the rules related to disclosure. The disclosure rules
are so vague that jurisdictions in foreign countries refuse to
co-operate with Canadian law enforcement agencies because of our
stupid and ineffective disclosure laws.
The human resources expertise and technology levels should be
sufficient to effectively combat organized crime. Unfortunately
the funding announced by the justice minister today providing
only $200 million over five years does not appear adequate and
does not come close to the amount needed for frontline law
enforcement officials to do their job effectively.
The funds allocated on a yearly basis would not significantly
enhance police or prosecution resources when we consider that a
relatively simple prosecution could cost as much as $10 million.
Those resources are inadequate.
A national tactical co-ordinating committee should have been
established to promote the exchange of information and sharing of
experiences among field operators in order to fight organized
crime. This recommendation made by the subcommittee on organized
crime was not followed through again.
Because of lenient disclosure laws in Canada, as I mentioned
earlier, law enforcement agencies from other countries refuse to
share sensitive information with their Canadian counterparts on
organized criminals operating in their country. This jeopardizes
our efforts to combat crime and demoralizes our frontline
officers.
One of the most disturbing features of the legislation is its
failure to make it a criminal offence to be a member of a group
already proven to be a criminal organization in Canada. Contrary
to the justice minister's suggestions, this provision does not
make participation or membership in a criminal organization
illegal unless it can be proven that the person had the intention
to facilitate illegal transactions for that organization.
The fact that an organization is a criminal organization would
have to be proven in each particular case that goes before the
court resulting in needless duplication of resources, expertise
and prolonged criminal trials.
The bill fails to adequately protect other key players in the
fight against crime. In particular, provincial justice
ministers, MLAs, MNAs, MPPs are not granted the same level of
protection as federal parliamentarians, despite the fact that
they are directly responsible for the enforcement of these
provisions. They need to implement the law.
We all know the case of Michel Auger who had the courage to
stand up against crime and other journalists who were not given
protection.
In conclusion, I urge the government to make the legislation
tougher, to provide more resources to police and to encourage the
aggressive use of the new tools.
1715
In particular, the recommendations of the subcommittee,
regarding forfeitures, wire tapping and serving full sentences,
have not been addressed or have only been partially met.
Therefore, I hope the justice minister will be open to
considering amendments that would further streamline the Canadian
justice system and would offer Canadians a greater measure of
security through the legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor for the first time
since we got back from parliamentary recess and to congratulate
my colleague from the Canadian Alliance for his speech which may
have contained more nuances and perhaps more rigour, more
severity than the Bloc Quebecois.
Like the Bloc, which has been fighting for this for a long time,
the Canadian Alliance has long been calling for the federal
government to develop some backbone in this matter and to turn
out a bill that would, once and for all, make association with a
biker gang or other organized criminal group an illegal act. This
we have been calling for on a number of occasions.
There are two points I picked up on in my colleague's speech.
First of all, he stated clearly that the bill we are examining
today does not go far enough, particularly on the legislative
level. My colleague clearly stated that this bill, which will
inevitably become law, did not provide the legislative means to
really fight organized crime in Quebec and in Canada.
So, we have lack of legislative tools, and then my colleague
went on to speak of an obvious lack of financial resources. He
would like to see this co-operation between the provinces and the
federal government made possible and would like to see the police
forces with sufficient financial resources to achieve the
objectives set out in the bill, not only in principle but with
the bottom line of really battling organized crime in Quebec and
in Canada.
To a certain extent, what my colleague says is that the
principles, the provisions of the law and the financial resources
do not allow it to achieve these objectives.
Another aspect is the right of association and the right to
belong to a criminal organization, which would not be an offence,
according to him.
Could my colleague clarify these two aspects of his speech?
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members
in the House and the people who are watching this debate are
concerned about organized crime in Canada. Organized crime is a
hidden crime. Many times people do not know what is happening
behind the scenes because organized crime is low profile. Illegal
and criminal activities happen yet the public does not know about
them because there are no means for the RCMP and other law
enforcement agencies to follow them and they go unnoticed.
When I was talking to a frontline police officer, I was
surprised when she said that even if there were 10 clear leads on
organized crime, they did not have enough resources to follow one
of the leads. It is very disturbing when law enforcement
agencies say that.
I do not think the hon. members of the House are proud about
this issue. The progress we have made on organized crime is very
little. The reason is the lack of political will by our federal
government and the lack of co-operation with the provincial
governments. The government believes in a confrontational
approach with the provinces rather than a co-operational
approach. We should probably do everything we can within our
limits to be effective in controlling organized crime.
1720
In a nutshell, the recommendations which I put forward earlier
are very serious recommendations. This is not a partisan issue.
We are not talking politics here. We are not looking through the
lens of politics. We are looking through the lens of issues. It
is very important for the future of Canadians. Our national
security rests with the legislation we are passing to effectively
control organized criminal activities.
We do not want Canada to be a haven for organized criminals to
conduct their criminal activities. Therefore, as legislators we
have to form the legislation with those tools which are effective
and which give the law enforcement agencies all the facilities,
tools and resources they need to effectively control organized
crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
my colleague's speech and comments.
I also want to point out that, at last, this anti-gang bill,
for which the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for a long time, will
give more teeth to what is already in place. It is much more
specific, but it could have been even more specific.
In a society such as ours, besides police officers, there are
several members of parliament here in the House who were
threatened because they tried to give more teeth to the
legislation.
But how can legislation become effective? It is, of course, when
we have the necessary funding to implement it.
All legislation involves funding. But this one will involve
major funding. It will not just be a facade where the government
will say “We have said yes to the government. We have heard the
requests and today we are introducing legislation”. The bill has
teeth, but not enough. It is not specific enough to protect
people such as members of parliament, public figures and even
city councillors. This goes beyond the people mentioned in the
bill.
I ask the member of the Alliance to indicate who, apart from
members of parliament, these people might be, so that this can
be clarified during the committee hearings and the bill can be
amended accordingly, besides, of course, providing the necessary
funding. I would like him to comment further on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for
Provencher, the chief critic for justice for the Official
Opposition of Canada, mentioned in his speech there was a private
member's bill in the last parliament. The bill was moved by the
Bloc member. It was a very good bill and would make it a crime
to belong to a criminal organization
I believe the government should look into that. It is a very
serious and effective preventive type of bill that would help to
effectively control crime.
The other part of the hon. member's question was about the
resources. The $200 million spread over five years is a drop in
the bucket. Imagine the money the organized criminals make. They
use that money to buy sophisticated technology. They have the
art of technology which they use to evade the law enforcement
agencies.
Our law enforcement agencies should have better technology than
those people. Only then could they catch them. The $200 million
is a very minimal resource.
1725
He also mentioned threats probably to the frontline police
officers who were dealing with the organized criminals and to the
MPs, senators, judges, prosecutors, the media and all those
people who could be involved along with their families. That
would be important.
The resources and the tools are really important elements of the
bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Andé Bachand (Richemond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I
wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my
colleague, the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, on a most
important issue: Bill C-24 on organized crime.
Before I start, I also wish to recognize the work done by my
colleague, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough,
to inform and educate the caucus about the whole situation
concerning this bill and the application of various pieces of
legislation on organized crime.
I also wish to recognize the work of the member for
Berthier—Montcalm who, for several years, has urged the House,
effectively I must say, to raise awareness among elected
representatives of the whole issue of organized crime, which,
admittedly, has been highly and overly publicized in Quebec. Of
course, the Bloc Quebecois has done an excellent job on this
issue. During the election, it was the highlight of its platform.
This did not translate into more seats, fortunately. But the
issue is still important.
I am not a lawyer. Some will say this is good. However, when it
comes to organized crime, not being a lawyer, I do not fully
understand all the intricacies of this bill. Let us look at the
issue in its broader context.
The first time I ever heard the term organized crime—and you
will also remember this, Mr. Speaker, since we are about the same
age—was during the hearings of the CIOC, the Commission of
Inquiry on Organized Crime. It was in the early 1970s and, for
one of the first times, the television stations were on the air
for long periods of time broadcasting not the full hearings, but
enough so that we could follow what was happening on a daily
basis.
On this commission, which generated a lot of changes, sat
eminent lawyers, including two who later had political careers at
the federal level and another one who left the provincial
political arena not too long ago. That just goes to show that it
was an important commission that raised awareness about what was
called at the time the “mafia” or the “mob”. What we learned from
these hearings was absolutely incredible and the governments
reacted. The legislation was overhauled.
At the time, we were not necessarily talking about the Hell's
Angels and the Rock Machines. We were talking about the Italian
mafia, street gangs and American mobsters. The Russian and the
Chinese mafia were more or less active, but still an important
issue was addressed. A lot of people ended up in jail. Public
awareness was raised and both the police and the government
acted. A few more mafia figures and mobsters were thrown in jail.
That created a vacuum, which was quickly filled.
What we have to realize is that legislation like Bill C-24 will
not, by and of itself, solve the whole problem of organized
crime. A mere $200 million over five years will not solve the
issue.
Organized crime is changing.
What happened at the time is that small biker gangs in Quebec
began to get together and fill the vacuum. There was a biker gang
in just about every town that had a population of a few thousand
people. But these gangs moved on to bigger things. They learned
the ropes and they got organized, to fill the vacuum and work
with the various figures in the mafia and the mobs.
1730
The expression organized crime implies that criminals know how
to get organized. This means that we must be smarter—when I say
we, I am thinking of the legislators, but also of the law
enforcement bodies, of the people involved in the enforcement of
these laws and of the members of our justice system, including
lawyers, attorneys and judges—and get organized.
An act was passed in 1997, but we quickly found out that it was
flawed. During these months and years, organized crime got
organized. But the federal government kept waiting, even though
it knew there were problems with the 1997 act, which is the most
recent one. Now, Bill C-24 will correct some of these flaws.
We on this side of the House realized one thing: the government
does not have any vision when it comes to fighting organized
crime. The Prime Minister once said “Personally, I do not care
about vision and programs. Bring me a problem and I will solve
it”. He was recognizing the fact that he lacked vision.
In the case of the Minister of Justice, the problem is glaring.
People are shooting and killing each other, innocent victims are
getting hurt, but she will not move. There is a consensus in the
legal community and among police forces that the minister is not
taking action. We had an election campaign but she still was not
moving.
Finally, the minister woke up and, at last, she came up with a
bill. Thank goodness.
But again, let us not fool ourselves. This is not a perfect
piece of legislation.
We will give it our support because it is truly a step in the
right direction to correct deficiencies. However, because crime
gets organised, parliament must also get organized in the next
five years to monitor decisions, the jurisprudence, and listen to
those in charge of implementing the legislation, the difficulty
of the proof, while complying with our Charter.
We opposed the use the notwithstanding clause, as requested by
Quebec. We thought it would be excessive, given the judicial and
legislative process that the House could use. But we must get
organized, and we are able to do so.
The great thing about this legislation is that it will simplify
things. We will have to see what happens. Since a judge convicted
a number of people under the 1997 legislation—there was a big
gang of people indicted under that legislation awaiting
trial—many have admitted their guilt. Why? Because they will get
sentences which, without being reduced, will be in keeping with
the spirit of the act.
So, since the judgement convicting people under the 1997
legislation, dozens and dozens of accused people awaiting trial
have recognized their guilt. We are happy with that, because this
will save months in detention and loads of money. These people
might get away with lighter sentences. Not making out a case
restricts the amount of information made available, and there are
fewer informers.
This is why it is extremely important that Bill C-24 be passed
properly and quickly. Hopefully, the government will listen to
what opposition members—whether the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the member for
Berthier—Montcalm or some other members of the NDP or the
Alliance—have to say. Anything that comes from the opposition is
not necessarily bad but, between you and me, things that come
from the government are not necessarily good either. There is a
middle ground, however.
I hope that the good work of members in support of the
government—because members are legislators; we are not here to
complain for the sake of complaining, but to legislate—will be
taken into consideration and that the minister will listen.
1735
We wish that this bill will be effective. I am not sure that
$200 million over five years will be enough. Where does this
figure come from? How did the minister come up with $200 million?
Was it just because it sounded nice?
I will, if I may, look at the costs before, during, and after
the Quebec summit. How much is $200 million? The security costs
for two Quebec summits and perhaps one APEC meeting add up to
about $200 million. Where did the minister pull out that figure?
This budget should be revised annually. We cannot say “Here is
$200 million. That is it; now forget about us”. The minister
thinks that with $200 million over five years everything will be
fine. Is that it?
I want to thank the House for its attention and reiterate the basic
principle: if criminals get organized, we must keep one step
ahead of them.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate the member. I think he has a very
good understanding of the whole issue of organized crime.
I have a comment as well as a question. My comment refers to the
comment made by the member regarding the $200 million the
minister plans to spend on implementing this legislation. We know
how good the Liberal government is at estimating costs. Members
will certainly remember that the government had estimated that
firearms registration would cost some $125 million or $135
million, and perhaps up to $150 million. These costs have now
reached nearly $800 million, which is a conservative estimate,
and only 75% of firearms have been registered in Quebec.
The government said that the system would be self-funding after
initial registration. Now we are talking about recurring annual
costs of $150 to $200 million. So we have every reason to
question the figures mentioned.
I think the minister threw this $200 million figure at us to try
to impress us. However, the opposition, which does its homework,
can very well see that $200 million to implement this type of
legislation—when we know that each investigation may cost $5
million, $6 million or $10 million if it is complicated—is
clearly not enough.
My question deals with the idea that the mere fact of belonging
to a criminal organization should be a criminal offence. Does the
member believe, as does the Bloc Quebecois, that the bill should
be amended in that regard?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for Berthier—Montcalm who, as has again been
demonstrated, is very knowledgeable on this issue, much more so
than I am.
The provisions regarding mere memberships in a
criminal organization raise the whole issue of proof. They raise
the whole issue of the charter. A balance must be struck.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to answer the member's question
as clearly as he would like, as I am not really knowledgeable
about the whole issue and the workings of the bill.
Once again, mere membership only shows an
intention and I would like to raise a few questions: proof, the
charter, the presumption of innocence. It is a right. People are
considered innocent until found guilty, with the exception of
income tax and employment insurance. In the justice system, one
is innocent until found guilty. In the case of income tax and
employment insurance, people are first considered guilty and it
is up to them to prove that they are innocent.
However, as far as the provisions regarding mere membership
are concerned, I would say that it is one where
the whole case law would have to be considered, and the member
for Berthier-Montcalm knows much better than I do the difficulty
in proving and maybe the possibility to make mistakes.
Then again, Bill C-24 solves many problems concerning
definitions and numbers. But will maintaining provisions on the
simple fact of being a member not bring back the whole problem of
a clear and easily applicable definition? It is something we must
keep working on and I certainly hope that all members, including
my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, will keep on
doing so in committee.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple
question to ask. What is new in this bill is the whole issue of
immunity granted to police officers in the course of very
specific investigations and the power of the Solicitor General of
Canada to break the law, to a certain extent.
1740
My question is very simple. Does the member think it is
dangerous to have politicians interfere in legal matters like
this? Would it not be better to let a court, like the superior
court, or a judge authorize police officers, in specific cases,
to take some steps stipulated in the legislation, if they have
enough evidence?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, when the solicitor general is
asked to take action in some matters, he answers “I cannot
interfere with the work carried out by police officers. I cannot
interfere like that. It is only normal and fair that I respect
this line between my role as a legislator and the work done by
the police”.
We are told there is a process to follow, that the minister is
not involved, that he does not really know what is happening and
that he cannot interfere. But now, he wants to stick his nose in,
with this bill, one of our toughest pieces of legislation, which
goes after organized crime. With all due respect, I am not sure
he has the capacity to do so and, furthermore, generally
speaking, politicians have no business getting involved in this.
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, for the record our party generally supports Bill C-24.
Our justice critic will put forth amendments as we go through the
debate, but generally we support it.
It is important for the listening public to understand where we
are in this debate and what prompted it. The truth is Bill C-24
would fight organized crime.
One thing that prompted the government to take action on this
was when RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli stated that organized
crime had drafted plans to use bribes to destabilize the
country's parliamentary system. This is pretty scary stuff when
we think that the members of this House or any other provincial
legislation, who draft the bills and the laws, could be subjected
to a plan by organized crime to sabotage our democratic process.
That would scare anyone. That raised eyebrows across the country
and gave a pretty clear indication of how much of an epidemic we
were really facing.
Then we can go back to last September when the Quebec public
security minister, Serge Ménard, urged the federal government to
use the notwithstanding clause to outlaw gang memberships, which
provoked a controversy in Quebec and across the country. One of
the victims of that, within just a day or so, was the Journal
de Montréal reporter Michel Auger. He was gunned down and
shot five times by organized crime, sending out a message that
the criminals were not going to stand for this. He stood fast,
as did many in that province, in an attempt to fight organized
crime. They are still working to do something about it.
Hopefully this bill will do something because it is an epidemic
not only in the urban areas but also the rural areas.
Let us focus on some of the things that the bill might do,
should do and obviously would do if implemented properly with
some attention given to the amendments which I am sure will come
forward from the House.
Bill C-24 would simplify the definition and composition of the
criminal organization. This is very important. It would target
various degrees of involvement with these organizations. It
would make it easier for police and prosecutors to arrest and
jail gangsters and keep them in prison for longer periods of
time. It would allow law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of
crime from these criminal organizations and to seize property
that was used in a crime. In other words, it would send out a
message that crime did not pay. It would strengthen rules
protecting against the intimidation of witnesses, juries and
their families in an organized crime trial.
1745
Last on my list is to strengthen protection for federal members
of parliament and to improve protection for law enforcement
officers from criminal liability when they commit certain illegal
acts while engaged in undercover operations to infiltrate
criminal organizations.
That sounds good. We are hoping the government does eventually
come up with a bill, obviously with the help of the opposition
and some of the fine amendments which I am sure will be coming
from all of the parties on this side of the House because, Mr.
Speaker, as you will remember, last September it was the
opposition, particularly the Bloc Quebecois, that brought forward
this emergency debate on organized crime in the House.
If the history of the government is any evidence of what it
might do or what it should do, not much is going to happen. The
minister in her press release brags about the many bills that she
brought into the House to fight crime. She mentioned seven in
particular. That goes back to 1993 in the life of the
government.
I want to remind the House and the Canadian people of an
example. The youth justice bill has been introduced in the House
three times and has never passed. Obviously that in itself is
not going to fight organized crime, but it is an example of the
absurdity of the government's position on fighting crime. We do
not expect anything to happen in a hurry or at all if the
government has its way.
In terms of the money the government is putting into this, again
it brags about the $200 million in addition to the $584 million
that is being provided to the RCMP every year by the Government
of Canada, or in other words, the taxpayers of Canada. At first
glance the $200 million looks mighty good, but it is like the
funding for health care. It is spread over five years.
Instead of the government being honest with the Canadian public
and telling us there will be another $40 million this year and
again next year to fight crime, it comes up with the $200 million
because it looks better on paper. How this money starts to flow
or will flow, nobody knows. If the recent health accord is any
example, I will not be holding my breath because not much is
going to happen.
Of that $200 million, the government mentions $50 million that
is going into fighting smuggling, which I assume is smuggling of
products and people. As we well know, that is an epidemic in the
country as well. Another $150 million is going to the RCMP for
hiring new officers and training and so on and so forth.
An example of inconsistency of the government is that in 1994
there was the biggest capitulation in the history of Canada when
it came to fighting organized crime. Do hon. members remember
when the government caved in to the cigarette smugglers? That
was a double-edged sword. Not only did the government capitulate
to the smugglers and turn a blind eye to smuggling, there was a
reduction on the excise tax on cigarettes. Instead of enforcing
our laws and cracking down on smuggling, the government
capitulated and reduced the tax.
The result of this obviously was not good. It was not good
simply because every year 45,000 Canadians—I am getting off
topic a little bit—die from smoking cigarettes. Instead of the
government attacking smuggling in 1994 and putting the resources
back in when it could have made a difference, it chose not to do
it.
It has only taken seven years for the government to get the
message on both of these areas, smuggling and health care. There
is a connection between the two of them. If past history is any
example of what the government can do, let us not hold our
breath. We will not expect much. Of course the government
always falls back on whether or not it will be charter proof.
Basically the government makes it up as it goes along and hopes
that it will work, but it does not do the research and the
fundamentals before bringing in the legislation. This issue is
important to all Canadians, both rural and urban.
1750
Another point I want to make is in reference to the port police.
If you remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, in the House the member
for Saint John, the former mayor of that New Brunswick city,
suggested that when the government did away with the port police
it was a huge mistake. Obviously ships come in from all parts of
the world and there are no police to enforce Canadian law at the
ports. The government has recognized that it also made a mistake
there, so it is going to put more money into this. The
government is going to put more money into securing our borders.
Maybe it is time we take the examples of other jurisdictions,
possibly the U.S. The U.S. has a border patrol to protect the
sanctity of its borders.
We do support the bill. We will bring in amendments. However,
as is the case with much of the legislation the government brings
in, it is just a first start. We are prepared to support that
first start.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the bill introduced by the minister this morning contains almost
80% of what the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for over the last
five or so years.
One point, however, is missing from the bill on organized crime
now before us and that is the whole issue of reversing the burden
of proof and the proceeds of crime.
My question for the member is a very simple one. Everyone knows
that money is the sinews of war, whether politics or organized
crime are involved.
The comparison may be slightly imperfect, but it boils down to
the same thing; there is organized crime because there is money
to be made. The more money they make, the stronger and more
organized they will be.
There is really nothing in the bill to facilitate the work of
the police and crown prosecutors, to reverse even somewhat the
burden of proof, so that it is not up to the crown to prove the
illegality of an acquired asset, but rather up to organized crime
to prove the legality of its origin.
My question for the member is as follows. Will he be able to
support this, when he talks of amending the bill? Is it in this
sense of giving additional tools to the police and crown
prosecutors to facilitate proof with respect to such things as
money which is, as we know, the sinews of war?
[English]
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this goes back to
previous comments and to questions answered by my colleagues in
the House. There is always that balance between charter rights
and the willingness or the desire to crack down on criminals.
There is a balance to be struck. Certainly that reverse onus is
something worth looking at.
However, the truth is that organized crime has the resources.
The government brags about the money it is putting in, but there
are some prosecutions that have been going on in the country
against organized crime by the Government of Canada where the
cost is in excess of $10 million. The money being put in is a
drop in the bucket. Not to discount the fact that $200 million
over five years is a lot of money, but in comparison to the
proceeds of crime, which are reaching into the billions, the
point has to be made that we have to fight back with the
resources we have and often that means money to fight crime.
Bringing in legislation that is tough yet honours the charter is
the challenge for the government.
We are hoping the bill will do that given some of the amendments
we will put forward from this side of the House.
1755
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill
C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It deals more
specifically with organized crime and law enforcement. As usual,
when such a bill is presented, it also makes consequential
amendments to other acts.
I would first like to say that the Bloc Quebecois will also
support this bill. We feel somewhat involved in this bill, since
the minister has included in it approximately 80% of what our
party has repeatedly asked for since our arrival in the House.
There is a small portion, about 20%, left that we would have
liked to see included also. But we can talk about this later,
when the bill is considered in committee and when the time comes
for amendments.
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm will certainly be happy to
remind the minister that we would like to bring forward some
amendments. We will also have our say at the third reading stage,
but we hope that the minister will keep on thinking about it
until the end of the third reading stage, so that she really can
try to put it on the agenda for 2001.
For the benefit of the people who are watching and who may read
the proceedings, I would like to give a brief historical
background.
You surely remember, Mr. Speaker, when you were with us in the
House at the time, that, in 1997, in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, a boy
of only eleven, who was playing quietly on the sidewalk, became
the unfortunate victim of organized crime because some gangs were
fighting each other. Poor Daniel Desrochers was killed, a totally
innocent victim of organized crime.
For us, it was quite a shock. We felt as though everyone knew
this dear Daniel. We thought that something had to be done to try
to make the government react.
Then, as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party
was reminding us, there was the unfortunate event where reporter
Michel Auger was shot. However, he was luckier and received
medical attention. He recovered and went back to work.
Another person who had no luck was Francis Laforêt, a young man
from Terrebonne who was a bar owner and who thought he was able
to live in our society. Unfortunately, organized crime also got
him.
These three cases are very fresh in our memories and are
painful. There was also, a little later, an event related to the
bikers' war that traumatized the village of Saint-Nicholas, on
the south shore, just outside Quebec City. There was a bunker, a
hideout for criminals. When some bombs exploded, they damaged a
youngster's room.
1800
We are very glad to see that the minister has taken the issue of
organized crime seriously. In Canada, it has become an industry.
We are told that drug sales alone reached $5 billion. During the
weekend, at the Summit of the Americas, it was the president of
Columbia, I think, who expressed the hope that we could help him
deal with the drug problem in his country.
In February 1999, during a Commonwealth mission to Barbados, the
justice minister told us that one of the biggest problems in his
country was drug trafficking.
With $5 billion in sales only in Canada, it has become a
thriving business that causes a lot of problems. If we consider
only the Hells Angels who were arrested recently, their drug
sales generated $100 million in profits. That is quite an amount
of money, enough to realize that we need to deal with this
problem.
The 1998 data released by the RCMP are troubling: 79 murders, 89
attempted murders, 129 cases of arson and 92 bombings, and that
only includes offences committed during gang wars where bikers
fight against each other. It does not include the people who were
killed or forced to commit suicide, as is often now the case,
because they could not pay back the money they owed. The RCMP's
numbers for 1998 only cover the gang wars.
In 2001, “Printemps 2001”—spring is the time of year where
everyone gets into a cleaning mode—allowed police forces to do
some spring cleaning of their own: they arrested 160 criminals in
74 municipalities in Quebec.
Had the minister heeded what we have been telling her since we
have been here, we would have had Bill C-24 long before 2001.
Today, we would be reassured if the 160 people who were arrested
could be judged under Bill C-24. We would be reassured about the
end result of this spring cleaning exercise.
With the current act as it is—those who were arrested will have
to be judged under the current act, not under the new one that is
coming—how many of these 160 people will remain incarcerated?
Out of 160, how many will be prosecuted with all the evidence and
convicted? Two, three? Maybe ten if we are lucky.
However, if these people were to be judged under this bill,
about 120 or 130 out of the 160 could be proven to be criminals
and remain incarcerated.
As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, this bill
responds to about 80% of the Bloc's wishes.
1805
One thing is extremely interesting, and I refer to clause 5 of
the bill, which amends section 2 of the act. It says that anyone
who directs threats against a member of the Senate or the House
of Commons is guilty of a serious offence. It then goes on to
list other persons, including:
(i) a prosecutor, a lawyer—
When we look at the list of persons mentioned here, we cannot
help thinking that it would have been nice to include our
colleagues from the provincial legislatures and the Quebec
National Assembly. It would have been interesting to see
paragraph (a) read as follows: “a Member of the Senate, a Member
of the House of Commons, a Member of a provincial legislature or
a Member of the Quebec National Assembly”. We must think about
our colleagues who occupy the same position as we do, but at
other levels of government.
It would also have been a good thing if that list had mentioned
the members of municipal councils, individuals who occupy
elective positions, who represent the people, who serve the
public in their community, their county or their riding. These
persons give their time for the collective good and are, all of
them from the first to the last, worthy of being protected by the
law.
I hope the necessary amendments will be implemented. I hope the
minister will be sensitive to those comments and that she will
also add a category which seems extremely important to me, that
of journalists. We know that Mr. Auger was the first victim and
I hope he will be the last. It might be appropriate to add a
dissuasive measure specifically for journalists so that they are
included in the category of threatened persons. If they were in
that category, then the criminals attacking them would receive
appropriate sentences and those persons could continue to work in
peace.
One significant plus of this bill is that the minister has
finally accepted to define gangsterism.
In the bill she had passed in 1999, which initially amended the
Criminal Code and provided a few more teeth to deal with
organized crime groups, there was what is known as the rule of
three fives, which provided that conviction required a group of
five persons. That was the first five.
For the second five, the five individuals had to have had a
police record during the last five years. They were to be
arrested, and these five people with a police record in the
previous five years had to have committed a crime serious enough
for them to be charged under the Criminal Code and liable to five
years or more of imprisonment, hence the rule of the three fives.
This time, the minister is going further. For the benefit of all
of us, I think it is extremely important to refer exactly to the
text to see what clause 27, which amends section 467.1 of the
Criminal Code provides.
1810
It provides, and I quote:
“criminal organization” means a group, however organized, that
is composed of three or more persons—
This is progress. From five to three. I continue:
There is one or other of the alternatives.
—of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would
likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material
benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group or by any of
the persons who constitute the group. It does not include a group
of persons that forms randomly for the immediate commission of a
single offence.
So here they distinguish between the two. It does not mean three
people, for example, who decide that to pay for their drugs, they
will hold up the Caisse populaire at the corner. They have never
seen one another or met, but the three of them know that, by
chance, they all owe money to the same gang. They say “Tonight
we will do a hold up”. That is not it. They have to be an
organized gang.
So, if we continue reading this magnificent bill, we will see
interesting things on prosecution. I quote:
It is the offence I have just read. I will read it slowly enough
so you will remember it:
This is interesting because, from the outset, it excludes
certain things which do not have to be proved beyond a doubt.
(a) the criminal organization actually facilitated or
committed an indictable offence;
(b) the participation or
contribution of the accused actually enhanced the ability of the
criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable
offence;
(c) the accused knew the specific nature of any
indictable offence that may have been facilitated or committed by
the criminal organization;
Here we have some extremely interesting elements that were
introduced into the bill to facilitate the job of those who have
to do so.
Now there is an interesting element. As I said at the beginning
of my speech, we were 80% satisfied with this bill and 20%
dissatisfied. Those might be considered good stats but there is
still room for improvement.
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm has asked a question of
the hon. member who spoke just before I did, in connection with
merely be a member of a criminal organization. Might steps not
be taken to ensure that mere membership in a criminal
organization is an offence in itself?
The reason we stressed the need for this so heavily was that we
wanted to be able to get the gang leaders. They are the
masterminds. They are the ones pulling the strings. They send out
the new recruits to earn their colours by doing the dirty work
for them.
1815
I see the clock is moving on and there are still a lot of things
I could say. This is an amendment we find extremely interesting.
There is also the matter of reversal of the burden of proof in
connection with the proceeds of crime, to which we shall return
in committee and in subsequent debates.
In the short time I have left, I would like to say how important
it is for the minister to proceed with this bill, to get it in
force promptly, for the House not to be recessed before it
is passed, and for her to ensure the funding is made available,
the cash required to make it enforceable.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to congratulate my colleague for
Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis. She understands very well the
problem with this bill.
She ended her remarks talking about “cash”—
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: L'argent comptant.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If I were the minister, I would
mind my own business—free trade—instead of correcting me.
I believe he has his hands full.
Moreover, since he is a Quebec minister, I would like him to
speak up for Quebec once in a while instead of coming to the
rescue of his prime minister.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew: I do day in and day out.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As I was saying, it is all very nice
to introduce a bill, but we need cash to implement it. We need
to put money on the table so that enforcement officers will have
what it takes to do the job.
The minister is forecasting $200 million over five years. In my
mind, it means $40 million a year. This is not enough to put in
place such an act, when we know that one investigation alone,
such as Opération Printemps 2001, the big cleanup operation my
colleague referred to, will cost close to that in Quebec alone,
that is to say around $20 million. If we add the cost of building
a prison, a court and all the other measures, we will need $40
million for this much needed operation.
Does the member agree with me that the minister should invest at
least five times this amount over five years, at least $200
million a year, to successfully fight organized crime?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, this is an very
interesting and important issue. I thought I would have time to
discuss it during my speech, but I am glad to be asked about it.
It must be realized that it takes money to conduct
investigations and to be fully prepared to make arrests. This
implies, among other things, electronic surveillance. We may also
have to pay informants, something which is costly. The police may
have to conduct investigations and shadow people. All sorts of
very important things are necessary to conduct investigations
effectively and the costs are in the millions of dollars.
Sometimes, as will be the case in Montreal with the trial, a
special courthouse must be built.
There are also attorneys who are not very pleased. They feel
that they are underpaid and if we want them to continue to do a
good job, we will have to put more money into this.
The police is no longer present in Canada's ports and harbours,
but containers full of goods keep entering the ports of Montreal
and Quebec City. It seems that all sorts of things can be found
in these containers. The same goes for Vancouver.
It is very important to realize that the government must be
logical and consistent. Canada is a very large country and we
have the longest boundary. The St. Lawrence River, the gulf and
the estuary are used to smuggle all sorts of things. The
government talks about investing $200 million in this, but it
also wants to eliminate jobs in the RCMP and so on. The government
will have to sit down, be reasonable and consistent and allocate
the necessary budgets. The amount of $200 million per year seems
a minimum.
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for her speech in this debate.
A very important issue has been raised. The hon. member is
saying that we must act quickly with this bill, so that it will
be passed and become law. I agree with my colleague.
1820
It is said that 80% of the bill is the result of previous
discussions or proposals generated by the Bloc Quebecois. There
is 20% missing. Could that 20% be dealt with quickly, through
amendments in committee? What would be a reasonable timeframe for
this bill becoming law?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think the Bloc Quebecois
is willing to do everything it can so this bill can be read the
third time and passed in June. We are willing to put in the
necessary time and effort. We have a few amendments to propose to
the committee. We think it is extremely important.
The minister will have to be reasonable and to take into account
the fact that the rules for proposing amendments have been
considerably changed. That means that the work of the committee
will have to be taken seriously, that the amendments proposed
there will have to be looked at closely. It may not be possible.
My colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska raised the charter issue.
If there is a problem in that regard, we should take the time to
examine it and to ensure that it can be overcome.
But I am certainly not forgetting, for example, that the
government did not hesitate, during consideration of the bill on
employment insurance—it is the current Minister for
International Trade who was at human resources development when
these amendments were passed—to impose special EI eligibility
requirements for young people and for pregnant women, who have to
work respectively 910 and 700 hours. It is now down to 600 to
qualify, compared to 420 hours for a regular worker who is not
young or pregnant. Therefore, if the government can discriminate
against women and young people, maybe it can forget about the
charter and discriminate a little less.
In the case of criminals, we certainly have to be careful, but I
think we must not allow people to invoke the charter too easily
either.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have one final question for the member for
Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis.
As I said this morning, the minister did not have a lot to say
in that because, barely three weeks before she introduced the
bill at first reading, I asked her questions in the House and she
said that the criminal code contained all the provisions
necessary to wage an effective battle against organized crime,
when we knew that the department was in the process of drafting a
bill. What departmental officials included in the bill concerns
immunity for certain actions by the police.
This is somewhat the same question I asked my colleague earlier.
Under this bill, the police will be able to commit offences such
as selling and buying drugs in order to win the acceptance of a
criminalized group. This is dangerous, and I think that everyone
would agree. There is some protection, but it takes the form of
an agreement, of authorization from the Solicitor General of
Canada.
My question to the minister—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: —to the member. She could very well
be a minister, and she would probably be much more competent than
those opposite.
Does my colleague agree with me that it is dangerous to leave
this up to the solicitor general? Should this not be the
responsibility of an appointed judge, who enforces the law on a
daily basis, who knows how things work in these cases, just as he
has responsibility for authorizing wiretaps or certain seizures?
Would she not agree that it would be preferable for a judge to
authorize such actions, which would otherwise be illegal?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely
important that this decision be left to a judge only because, to
become a minister, whether it is the solicitor general or another
minister of the crown, one does not need to produce a resume and
to have studied in the area one will have to manage.
We could end up with someone who is not quite familiar with the
law. I believe it is extremely important that the solicitor
general not be caught in such a situation. As the hon. member for
Richmond—Arthabaska so rightly pointed out, every time we put
questions to the solicitor general in this House, he was unable
to provide us with answers. The same can be said of the revenue
minister.
1825
In fact, I wonder why these two people are ministers. They can
never answer our questions because everything must be kept
secret, everything is confidential, and they have nothing to say.
They can never tell us anything.
I think it would be better for the decision to grant immunity to
be handed down by a judge.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted to take part in this debate, an important debate.
Why is it important? Bill C-24 amends the Criminal Code and
related laws, specifically to clarify a major social problem.
The Bloc Quebecois, long before this bill, wanted to do battle.
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm naturally headed this
battle. He spearheaded this important bill, which he could have
tabled, but which the government tabled.
This bill could very easily have been tabled by a member of this
party, the Bloc Quebecois, because for many years the Bloc
Quebecois has called for a vigorous law, tighter legislation, to
limit and reduce crime, and criminal gangs in Canada.
My colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was not the only one. I
recall very clearly from an event in the Montreal riding of
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that my colleague who represents that
riding introduced a motion under private members' business and
initiated this debate in this House to ensure that the government
was taking the necessary steps to establish legislation to fight
organized crime.
What is being tabled today concerns basically six elements,
six legislative means to fight organized crime. One concerns the
question of participation in a criminal organization, which
becomes an offence under the bill.
Another is the whole issue of protection given to persons
participating in the legal system against certain acts of
intimidation.
The third aspect is the simplified definition of criminal
organizations. This is essential, essential because we wanted to
see a clear definition of what a criminal organization, what a
gang, is. Right at the start of the bill, in clause 1, in the
explanatory notes, the definition is clear:
—“gang”. Group or association or other body consisting of
five or more persons, whether formally or informally organized,
(a) having as one of its primary activities the commission of an
indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament for
which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or
more;
(b) any or all of the members of which engage in or have, within
the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series
of such offences;
This bill provides clarification of what a criminal organization
is, because we feel that the current legislation—not the bill we
are looking at today but the present legislation—is in my
opinion complex and to some extent provides organized groups with
loopholes about which we as parliamentarians have a duty to do
something.
The other aspect addressed by this bill is the whole matter of
seizure and forfeiture of the proceeds of crime.
There is also the matter of protection for those mandated to
monitor application of the legislation, what is termed immunity.
Lastly, there is the matter of non legislative measures, the
budget in particular.
1830
I will close on this point. It is not merely a matter of
equipping ourselves with legislation. We also need the financial
means to be able to enforce it. We are waiting for a budget that
will allow us to meet the challenge.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
The House resumed from April 5 consideration of Bill C-9, an act
to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 6.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions
at report stage of Bill C-9.
Call in the members.
1850
Before the taking of the vote:
The Deputy Speaker: The first question is on Motion No. 1.
1900
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Bourgeois
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Burton
| Cadman
|
Chatters
| Comartin
| Cummins
| Dubé
|
Duncan
| Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
|
Godin
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Mark
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pallister
| Pankiw
|
Paquette
| Penson
| Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Sorenson
| Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
| Yelich – 84
|
NAYS
Members
Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bagnell
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Duhamel
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Eyking
| Farrah
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
|
McTeague
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 147
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think if you were
to ask you would find consent that those who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before
the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree to proceed
accordingly?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present will vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote yes
on this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party
vote yes to this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the
Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am voting with the government on this and future votes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
|
Godin
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
|
Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McCallum
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
| McTeague
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murphy
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Venne
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 178
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
| Burton
|
Cadman
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Gallant
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
|
Obhrai
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Vellacott
|
Williams
| Yelich – 54
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT
The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-17, an act to amend the Budget Implementation Act, 1997
and the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the
second reading stage of Bill C-17.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yes.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members vote
no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP vote no
to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Comartin
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
| Yelich – 91
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Consequently, the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on
Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-22, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax
Application Rules, certain acts related to the Income Tax Act,
the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act and another act
related to the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the
second reading stage of Bill C-22.
1905
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent to apply the vote just taken on Bill C-17 to Bill
C-22 and to Bill C-4.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Comartin
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
| Yelich – 91
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an
act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development
technology, be read the third time and passed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bagnell
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jordan
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Bourgeois
| Breitkreuz
| Brien
|
Burton
| Cadman
| Chatters
| Comartin
|
Cummins
| Doyle
| Dubé
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gauthier
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Laframboise
| Lanctôt
|
Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mark
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Merrifield
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Moore
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
| Penson
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Schmidt
| Solberg
| Sorenson
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Williams
| Yelich – 91
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LABELLING
The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking
of the deferred recorded division on Motion No.155, under private
members' business.
1915
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
|
Brien
| Brown
| Burton
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comartin
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cummins
| Cuzner
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duncan
|
Duplain
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gauthier
|
Godfrey
| Godin
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proulx
| Redman
| Regan
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
|
Yelich
– 217
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Chamberlain
| DeVillers
| Easter
|
Gallant
| Gallaway
| Jaffer
| Keyes
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Venne
| Whelan – 11
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
[Translation]
WAYS AND MEANS
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that a ways
and means motion relating to tobacco products, laid upon the
table on Thursday, April 5, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made earlier today,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on Ways and Means Motion No. 4.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent in the House that those who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes with the exception of the
member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.
Mr. John Reynolds: Canadian Alliance members present vote
yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote
yes on the motion, except for the member for Berthier—Montcalm,
who withdrew from the vote, and the member for
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the New Democratic Party vote yes on this motion.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Members of the Conservative Party vote
yes this motion.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Binet
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brown
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comartin
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cummins
| Cuzner
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dubé
| Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
| Eyking
|
Farrah
| Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guimond
| Harris
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Hearn
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hinton
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
| Laliberte
| Lanctôt
|
Lastewka
| LeBlanc
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Longfield
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Marcil
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
|
McTeague
| Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
|
Myers
| Nault
| Neville
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Owen
|
Pagtakhan
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Paquette
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peschisolido
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
| Robinson
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibault
(West Nova)
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tirabassi
| Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
|
Yelich – 229
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[English]
NUCLEAR FUEL WASTE
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that a ways and means motion respecting the long term management
of nuclear fuel waste, laid upon the table on Thursday, April 5,
be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made earlier
today the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on Ways and Means Motion No. 5.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think you would
find consent again that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yes.
Mr. John Reynolds: Canadian Alliance members present vote
yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: The Bloc members will vote yes on the
motion, including the members for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and
Berthier—Montcalm.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party vote
no.
[Translation]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes on the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Allard
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Anderson
(Victoria)
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bagnell
| Bailey
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Binet
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bourgeois
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
| Brien
| Brown
| Burton
|
Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carignan
| Carroll
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cummins
| Cuzner
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
| Dubé
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Duplain
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Fitzpatrick
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guimond
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hinton
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laframboise
|
Laliberte
| Lanctôt
| Lastewka
| LeBlanc
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
| Lunney
(Nanaimo – Alberni)
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Macklin
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Marcil
| Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Mayfield
| McCallum
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
| McNally
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Merrifield
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Moore
| Murphy
| Myers
|
Nault
| Neville
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Pallister
|
Pankiw
| Paquette
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peschisolido
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
(Halton)
| Regan
| Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scherrer
| Schmidt
|
Scott
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Solberg
| Sorenson
| St. Denis
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibault
(West Nova)
|
Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tirabassi
|
Toews
| Tonks
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vellacott
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood
| Yelich
– 220
|
NAYS
Members
Blaikie
| Comartin
| Godin
| Lill
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Stoffer
| Wasylycia - Leis
– 11
|
PAIRED
Members
Bergeron
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Cardin
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Desrochers
| Drouin
| Duceppe
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Girard - Bujold
| Guay
|
Harb
| Jennings
| Karetak - Lindell
| Lalonde
|
Manley
| Matthews
| Ménard
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Perron
| Peterson
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Savoy
| St - Hilaire
|
Tobin
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1920
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on February 5 of this year, I asked the new Minister of
Industry a question regarding shipbuilding. Without rereading the
text of the question, which anyone may consult in Hansard, I
asked him when he intended to develop a shipbuilding policy, as
promised two days before the election was called.
Furthermore, given that my Bill C-213 on shipbuilding had been
through all stages except one hour of debate, which was refused
me in the very week before the election was called, I asked the
minister if he intended to introduce a bill on shipbuilding.
Although he was sympathetic to the spirit of my bill, he hid, as
it were, behind a committee he had created on October 20, two
days before the election was called, to study the issue of
shipbuilding.
On March 30, the National Shipbuilding and Industrial Marine
Partnership Project released a report in Halifax. This report
contained 30 or so recommendations having to do with some very
important topics, such as financing and tax exemptions. To a
certain degree, it improved on my bill with respect to such
issues as training and all aspects of technological innovation.
Now that all this has been done and the report submitted, I
would expect the minister's representative—the minister not
being here today—to tell the House exactly when he will be
following up on the committee's report.
It was two years ago, on April 15, that I tabled a bill along
these lines and everyone knows the procedures. First of all, my
name had to be drawn, and I got 100 MPs to sign so that the bill
would be given priority. This bill made it through all stages,
including second reading and clause-by-clause study in committee
of the whole.
Six months have elapsed since the election and nothing more has
been done for the shipbuilding industry. When he was asked to
comment on the report, the Minister of Industry said “Since the
committee that I set up took six months to table its report, you
will understand that I will take some months to review it”.
Again, this is a committee that was set up by the minister
himself. This means that committee members met him at various
stages. Two years after I tabled my bill, we should expect to
have more details as to when the government will table a
shipbuilding policy.
Since the tabling of my bill, an additional 2,000 workers have
been laid off and two major shipyards, those of Saint John and
Marinestown, have shut down. The situation is even more urgent
and critical than before.
Will the minister wait until every shipyard in Canada and in
Quebec is closed before making a move?
Eight years after the promise made in 1993 to develop a
shipbuilding policy, can the Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Industry tell us when the minister and the Liberal
government will finally act?
1925
[English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 2001,
the hon. member asked the Minister of Industry whether he would
make a commitment to table as soon as possible a bill providing
the country with a true shipbuilding policy.
The minister responded that he was pleased that colleagues on
all sides of the House had discussed shipbuilding in Canada with
a view to identifying ways to improve the situation of this
sector. Most important, the minister noted that he was waiting
for the report of the national shipbuilding and industrial marine
partnership project, which was recently released on April 5,
2001. This was a private sector task force which the minister
established to provide views to the government on practical and
workable approaches to improving the shipbuilding industry.
The report, which was tabled earlier this month, sets out a
range of possible measures. It identifies a wide variety of
policy recommendations and options for the federal government as
well as for provincial governments and other stakeholders,
including industry and labour, to improve the quality and
productivity of the shipbuilding industry. The report is being
carefully analyzed, and the minister is consulting with his
federal colleagues and provincial counterparts so he can respond
to the report's recommendations within the next few months. I
assure the hon. member that the minister will be giving the
report very careful consideration in the coming months.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.27 p.m.)