37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 045
CONTENTS
Friday, April 6, 2001
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1000
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Report stage
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1005
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1010
1015
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1020
1025
1030
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1035
1040
1045
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1050
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
|
| Mr. John Finlay |
| MAURY VAN VLIET
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
1100
| PARA TRANSPO
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| CHARLES DAUDELIN
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1105
| BÉATRICE MORRISSEAU GAGNON
|
| Mr. Marcel Gagnon |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| MENINGITIS
|
| Mr. Kevin Sorenson |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Tony Tirabassi |
| CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1110
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1115
| LUMBER
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TRADE RELATIONS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1120
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1125
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1130
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Ms. Francine Lalonde |
1135
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1140
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| Mr. Scott Reid |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| PREMIER OF QUEBEC
|
| Mr. Gérard Binet |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
1145
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mrs. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| FRESHWATER EXPORTS
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Larry McCormick |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1150
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. David Collenette |
1155
| TELECOMMUNICATIONS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| BILINGUALISM
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
| Hon. Herb Dhaliwal |
1200
| TOBACCO CONSUMPTION
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. John Maloney |
| MARTIN LAVOIE
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1205
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| PETITIONS
|
| Natural Resources
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Poison Control
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| STARRED QUESTIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| JUDGES ACT
|
| Bill C-12. Third reading
|
1210
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Third reading
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. Larry Bagnell |
1230
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| Motion
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| COMPUTER HACKERS
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Motion
|
1235
1240
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1245
1250
| Mr. John Herron |
1255
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1300
1305
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1310
| Mr. John Maloney |
1315
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
1320
1325
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1330
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 045
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 6, 2001
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1000
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an act
to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in consequence,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third? time
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to be able to lead off the debate on the third
reading of Bill C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend
another act in consequence.
The bill would make certain amendments to the Judges Act that
would ensure appropriate and fair compensation for the federally
appointed judiciary in Canada. It is intended to implement the
commitments made by the government in its response to the report
of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.
I would like to emphasize that the chair of the Judicial
Compensation and Benefits Commission, Mr. Richard Drouin, who
appeared as a witness before the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, expressed his satisfaction
with the government's decision to implement most of the
recommendations enumerated in the commission's report.
The strength of Canada's judiciary is a key factor in our
prosperity and health as a nation. As the guardians of the
constitutional right of Canadians to have peace, order and good
government, judges form an important pillar in our democratic
society.
An independent judiciary is essential to the rule of law. Judges
must be free from undue influence of any kind, be it from those
with money or power. There is a growing recognition that
stability, human security and the rule of law are necessary
preconditions to economic growth, and there is a growing
appreciation that an independent judiciary with the proper
resources is the first step down this path.
The Government of Canada is committed to the principle of
judicial independence, as it is a fundamental precondition to
ensuring the vitality of the rule of law in our democratic system
of government. The three constitutionally required elements of
judicial independence are security of tenure, independence of
administration of matters relating to the judicial function, and
financial security. It is in direct support of the principle of
judicial independence that section 100 of the constitution has
conferred on parliament the important task of establishing
financial security of a federally appointed judiciary.
I am very happy to report that during the second reading debate
the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party
indicated their support for Bill C-12.
1005
The Canadian Bar Association has also expressed its support for
Bill C-12. In fact, in its written submissions to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the
Canadian Bar Association expressed the view that Bill C-12 not
only enhances judicial independence in promoting financial
security for members of the judiciary but also helps to attract
high quality candidates to the judiciary.
I would ask all members of the House for their support. This
bill would ensure that our judges are compensated fairly and
appropriately in order to maintain the quality and independence
of Canada's judiciary.
I want to make reference to the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who has proposed an
amendment for Bill C-12. His proposed amendment to Bill C-12
would require that the transcripts of testimony heard before the
Supreme Court of Canada be made more accessible to the public.
More specifically, the proposed amendment, an addition to
section 75 of the Judges Act, would require the Registrar of the
Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that testimony heard before the
court in open session be recorded in electronic format and made
accessible to the public in the same manner as the Debates
of parliament.
With the greatest of respect for the member, we cannot accept
this proposed amendment as it is not within the scope of Bill
C-12, nor is the Judges Act the appropriate place for such an
amendment.
Any matter relating to procedure before the Supreme Court of
Canada would fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of
Canada Act. Section 75 of the Judges Act applies solely to
administrative matters relating to the judiciary.
Further, as members know, Bill C-12 would make amendments to the
Judges Act that would ensure appropriate and fair compensation
for the federally appointed judiciary. It is intended to
implement the commitments made by the government in its response
to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits
Commission.
I thank the hon. members of the House for their attention today
and ask for their support in the passage of Bill C-12.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, before commencing I would ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to split my time with the member for Surrey Central.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon.
member to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Speaker, the bill amends the Judges
Act to implement the government's response to the recommendations
made by the 1999 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.
Among those recommendations is a retroactive salary increase of
11.2% for approximately 1,013 federally appointed judges. This
would cost the federal government approximately $19 million.
The increase is retroactive to April 1, 2000, and would raise
the base salary from $179,200 to $198,000 for judges who sit on
appeal courts and superior courts in each province. The salaries
for the chief justices in those courts would increase to $217,000
from $196,500. These same increases would also apply to federal
court judges.
The judges on the Supreme Court of Canada would remain the
highest paid. The eight regular judges would see an increase to
$235,700 from $213,000, while the salary of the chief justice
would rise to $254,000 from $230,200.
This is the fourth time the government has sought to amend the
Judges Act. During the 35th parliament the government introduced
Bill C-2 and Bill C-42, and during the 36th parliament, Bill
C-37, all of which were relatively minor pieces of legislation.
In April 1998, Bill C-37 was introduced to establish the
Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. Bill C-37 also
increased judges' salaries retroactively, providing an 8.3% pay
increase over two years. This meant an average $13,000 pay
increase for federal judges, with salaries increasing from
$159,000 to over $172,000.
I would be hard pressed to think of any other public servant, or
any hard-working Canadian for that matter, who received that kind
of pay increase in 1998.
According to Statistics Canada, the consumer price index from
1996 to 1998 rose 2.55%. It is safe to assume that the salaries
of most Canadians across the country would be affected by that
statistic. Not only have the salaries of judges increased at a
rate substantially higher than those of most Canadians, but their
salaries are already indexed. I think that is important to
remember.
1010
No other senior public servant or any other lower level public
employee has been given such a significant pay increase in the
last number of years. While the government indicates that the
raise is a reasonable one, it is interesting to note that senior
public servants have received raises of no more than 5.7%.
It is not only public servants and other public employees who do
not receive these types of extensive benefits. The very people
who administer our justice system, the people on the ground who
do the practical work in looking after the safety and security of
Canadians first hand, seem to be ignored.
For example, in 1998, the same year that federal judges were
given these generous salary increases, RCMP officers who had
their salaries and wages frozen for five years were finally
granted an increase of a mere 2% in March 1998, retroactive to
January. If the concern is that judges receive these raises to
ensure that there is no corruption of our justice system or any
undue influence, is the same not true for the men and women who
serve in our federal police forces?
A second pay increase was given to RCMP officers in April 1998
and later that year they received another small increase.
However, over the five years that their salaries were frozen and
in the next year, 1998, the RCMP received an increase of only
3.75%. These frontline officers are putting their lives on the
line every day for Canadians, but the average three year
constable received an increase of less than $2,000 over those
years.
In contrast, the bill would provide an 11.2% increase to judges
who are making well over $120,000 or $130,000 a year, some over
$200,000 a year. There are so many other people within our
justice system who are absolutely vital in ensuring that the
system is functioning properly but are not getting the same kind
of increase. These are often the same men and women who are
forced to cope with the results of several years of cutbacks to
the justice system.
One would assume that if money can be found to increase the
salaries of judges, then money could also be found to give local
police and RCMP the resources they need to do their jobs
effectively.
Also, in many provinces crown attorneys do not have sufficient
resources to prosecute the cases they are charged with. In this
context I am especially thinking of the new legislation the
government is bringing forward in respect of organized crime.
While I support many of the principles, I wonder about the
genuine attitude of the government in failing to provide
adequately for the resources for frontline officers and frontline
prosecutors to get the job done. There is no question that in
the Canadian justice system there is a significant amount of
delay and backlog, which needs to be remedied.
Another appalling situation in our country is the embarrassingly
low wages paid to members of our armed forces. It is ridiculous
that people who protect our nation, both at home and abroad, and
put their lives at risk to ensure some measure of security for
all Canadian citizens are fighting with antiquated equipment and
are often forced to go to food banks to make ends meet. Now we
hear that the minister is authorizing a raise in the rents that
our armed forces have to pay. I do not think that is acceptable.
I understand from the government that the main rationale for
this pay increase for judges is that the federal government must
compete with high paying law firms to attract superior candidates
to the bench. While I believe that a competitive salary is
required to ensure good candidates, I do not believe that there
has ever been any great shortage of candidates for the bench.
In such cities as Toronto and Vancouver, where a $200,000 plus
yearly income for a lawyer may not be unusual, it is not outside
the realm of possibility that such people may not be attracted to
the bench for fear of a pay cut. However, in Manitoba, for
example, I believe there would be no shortage of competent
lawyers available for judicial appointments at $190,000 and,
indeed, at perhaps even less considering the compensation
packages and extra benefits that come with such appointments.
1015
Perhaps that is a problem of the mandate of the commission and
of the restrictions it had. Perhaps those regional differences
should be reflected in salaries or expenses. The commission was
operating at a bit of a disadvantage. It did not have the
appropriate mandate to discuss those kinds of significant
differences.
Many Canadians in the legal profession, no matter what their
salary, would consider it a great honour to be appointed to a
judgeship at any level. Over the past decade there have been an
average of eight candidates for every opening on the bench. As I
understand it, the eight candidates are previously screened for
suitability. One assumes there would be at least one qualified
applicant out of the eight. I have great respect for the legal
profession. I believe there are many more than eight qualified
candidates for one position.
The majority of my constituents, and most likely the majority of
Canadians as a whole, would not consider a salary increase of
almost 20% for federal judges over a three year period to be the
best way to increase the quality of our justice system. We must
ask ourselves how the government can justify giving federal
judges a salary increase of 11.2% over and above the 8.2%
increase they received in 1998.
The increase would in no way remedy the current backlog of
federal court cases. That issue must be dealt with by the
administration of the courts, the responsibility of which
primarily lies with the judges. I have great confidence that the
judges are capable of taking steps to ensure justice is dispensed
in a timely fashion.
The pay increase would in no way help the thousands of front-
line police officers who are at a severe disadvantage in their
daily efforts to fight crime. I am not saying judges should not
be well paid. They should be well paid and most Canadians would
argue that they are. It is a question of whether they should be
paid more than they are already.
My party has great reluctance in supporting the bill on the
basis that it ignores the real problems of the Canadian justice
system and the manner in which judges are appointed. That is
another issue we could perhaps leave for another day.
The backlog of the courts would not be remedied by the bill. The
appointment process, which many Canadians believe should be
reformed to make the judiciary more independent and publicly
accountable, would remain the same.
The administrators of the justice system, the provincial
attorneys general, crown attorneys, police officers and members
of the federal police force, the RCMP, would still be handcuffed
by a lack of sufficient resources.
Perhaps nothing can be done with respect to the proposal in view
of the structure and mandate of the commission and the
constitutional obligations recently imposed upon parliament by
the Supreme Court of Canada. However I urge all hon. members to
consider a better way of dealing with the issue.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of
Surrey Central to participate in the third reading debate on Bill
C-12, an act to amend the Judges Act.
Before I begin my remarks I would like to congratulate the chief
opposition justice critic, the hon. member for Provencher, who
has made excellent comments and explained very eloquently the
official opposition's position on the Judges Act.
The purpose of the bill is to implement the federal government's
response to the report of the 1999 Judicial Compensation and
Benefits Commission regarding compensation and benefits for
judges. It would amend the Judges Act to increase judicial
salaries and allowances, modify the current judicial annuities
scheme and put into place a separate life insurance plan for
federally appointed judges.
1020
Bill C-12 makes other consequential amendments to the Judges Act
and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The commission is
appointed for a four year term and mandated to consider the
compensation and benefits of judges and to make recommendations
to government.
The commission consists of three members appointed by the
governor in council and it should be noted who nominates the
three persons. One is nominated by the judiciary, one by the
Minister of Justice and one, who acts as a chair, is nominated by
the first two members.
The government accepted the commission's recommendation of a
salary increase of 11.2% retroactive to April 1, 2000. The
salary increase will cost approximately $19 million. The 42 page
bill contains nothing but amendments, replacements or additions
to previous clauses changing the salaries of 1,013 federally
appointed judges. There are also amendments to compensation
benefits, early and special retirement provisions, pro-rated
annuities, et cetera.
The judiciary had initially proposed a salary increase of 26.3%.
It had said the federal government must compete with high paying
law firms to attract superior candidates to the bench. However
federal representatives told a hearing into judges' salaries
earlier this year that there was no shortage of candidates for
the bench, pointing out that there had been eight applicants for
each federal job over the last decade.
The last pay raise for federal judges was in 1998 when they
received 4.1%. In 1997 they received another 4.1%. The judges
received more than 8.2% in increases over two years. Judges'
salaries are also indexed so they receive annual cost of living
increases. While we have no position on judges' salaries and
pensions we favour generally that they be comparable to those in
the private sector.
In the 35th parliament the government introduced two bills, Bill
C-2 and Bill C-42, amending the Judges Act. In the 36th
parliament there was Bill C-37. All these bills, including Bill
C-12 which we are debating today, have been said to be
administrative in nature. Four times the Liberal government has
come forward with amendments to the Judges Act.
Another concern I have with the bill is that the pay increase
for federally appointed judges is higher than the increase the
federal government is prepared to grant much lower paid public
service employees. Lately it has been the practice of the
government to grant raises to senior officers in the military, to
senior bureaucrats and now to judges while dragging its feet on a
general salary increase for staff.
While we do not dispute the salaries of appointed judges and
others, they should generally be in line with the private sector.
It is apparent that staff in the lower echelons of our justice
system is being ignored. Public servants should get salary
increases in keeping with the average Canadian wage earner. The
government has awarded pay raises and bonuses to judges and
senior bureaucrats while frontline police officers and lower
level public servants receive little or nothing.
1025
On March 27, 1998, RCMP officers secured a pay raise of 2%
retroactive to January 1, 1998. They received a second increment
of 1% on April 1, 1998, and an additional 0.7% increase on
October 1, 1998. RCMP officers had their wages frozen for five
years.
The official opposition will review and closely scrutinize the
provisions of Bill C-12, including the annuities scheme.
It seems the government has tailor made legislation to fit
certain individuals and situations. Legislation tailor made to
fit an individual would compromise the impartiality of our
judiciary. The changes proposed to the Judges Act would allow a
judge who is married for the second time to another judge after
the death of his or her first spouse, also a judge, to collect
both or two survivor's benefits upon the death of his second
spouse. One could only guess why the government would
contemplate such a rare and highly unlikely situation. We will
be investigating that and we will be vigilant while debating the
bill.
We propose an independent and publicly accountable judiciary
that would safeguard Canadians from the arbitrary power of the
state. However it must remain the responsibility of parliament,
not the courts, to debate and assess the conflicting objectives
inherent in public policy development.
It is interesting to note that the last bill to amend the Judges
Act, Bill C-37 in the 36th parliament, created the Judicial
Compensation and Benefits Commission which provided the federal
government yet another opportunity to make patronage
appointments. The failure of the current bill to introduce
changes to the appointment process means that important and high
paying positions in our court system will remain part of the
patronage system.
However the Canadian Alliance would like to see the patronage
appointment process in the judiciary overhauled to make it more
transparent and publicly accountable. One option would be to
strike a committee to review and interview candidates whose names
would be put forward to the Prime Minister.
The input of the provinces, which are affected directly by
decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, is required in such
matters. At the moment there is no input from the provinces in
the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Section 69 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy, which
is always dictated by the grassroots members, states:
We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent
judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards
and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore
ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open
and accountable process based on merit.
In conclusion, both Liberal justice ministers since 1993 have
failed to introduce a victims' bill of rights, address important
issues pertaining to drinking and driving or even pass a young
offenders act. Instead they occupy the justice committee with
administrative matters at the expense of more important issues.
The country is experiencing a backlog in the courts and criminal
trials are being put on hold, yet the government tinkers with the
salaries of judges.
1030
I regret that judges are somehow caught up in the legislation.
We acknowledge that judges are very hard working and want to
contribute to making our judicial system fairer and faster as
well as to making Canada a better country. We are talking about
Liberal government mismanagement.
The government's unfair treatment of Canadians who work or are
otherwise involved in the criminal justice system knows no
boundaries. Its inequitable treatment of Canadian workers
extends all the way to the federal court benches. It does not
treat the victims of crime fairly, and today we are debating a
bill that does not even treat judges fairly.
The bill does not address the multitude of concerns that many
Canadians have with the judicial system. My colleagues and I
strongly oppose the bill unless it is amended.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some
remarks with respect to Bill C-12, the Judges Act, which deals
specifically with the compensation and remuneration of judges.
We have had an opportunity to review some of the technical
amendments. These amendments correct some of the language in the
bill to ensure that there is parity, that the French and English
versions correspond exactly.
Some of the minor amendments are very technical in nature, for
example: clause 12, line 9, removes the language “plus $2,000”;
clause 23, section 44.01(6), line 9, amends the English version
with “takes effect on the day this section comes into force”.
The Conservative Party supports these amendments and any attempt
to ensure consistency in legislation. These amendments would
affect approximately 1,000 federally appointed judges. When it
comes to the issue of whether it is deserved, I would make the
case that judges deserve a fair compensation package given the
stress that is involved, the important work, and the ongoing and
increasing complexity of the law.
It is also necessary to note the importance of independence when
it comes to our judiciary. Some individuals have talked about
comparing judges' salaries to those of others in the public
sector. There is some danger in doing that. Judges play a very
unique role, as do other public servants. However, to try to
somehow bring into play the underpayment of armed forces
personnel, the need to give greater compensation to the policing
community, those in the administrative justice community, leaves
the wrong impression and tries to diminish the importance of what
judges do. It is a very complex melee that is somewhat like the
pay equity argument we have embarked on at various times in the
Chamber.
The complexity of the law, the way in which the law has evolved
and the interpretation that goes on daily in the courtrooms
across the country, is something that is very onerous for judges.
We had a comprehensive bill yesterday on organized crime. It is
a step in the right direction, but it is legislation that would
probably lead to a number of court challenges.
That emphasizes the impact of changes in legislation. It also
emphasizes the necessity for judges to deal with it and to put in
place a proper judicial interpretation of the legislative
initiatives that are taken here.
1035
Fortunately, in Canada we have not seen any active attempts, at
least that have been reported, to influence the judiciary by
organized crime, but we must be vigilant. We must maintain the
scales of justice and ensure that justice continues to be blind
to outside influences on decisions made by the judiciary. We
must ensure that it never happens. Part of this, I would
suggest, comes from a fair compensation package.
We must ensure that our judiciary is independent, at arm's
length and is feeling secure in their occupation. Thus, our
party would support an attempt for a fair salary to preserve
judicial independence. The Conservative Party has a long
standing interest in the administration of justice and in
ensuring that the judiciary are given support. Much of that
support must come from financial stability.
The government accepted the recommendations that came from an
independent Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The
board made recommendations after broad consultations and
examinations of all economic factors that should have been
considered.
First reading of the bill occurred on February 21, 2001, and the
Judges Act would implement the recommendations made by the 1999
Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The legislation
does not come out of thin blue air. It came about from
recommendations of an independent commission. It also followed a
1997 supreme court decision that established new constitutional
requirements for determining compensation, requiring every
Canadian jurisdiction to have an independent, objective and
effective commission. It takes away the normal allegations that
we often see pertaining to interference and an unfair process.
The bill would also increase salaries and allowances, improve
the judicial annuities scheme and put in place a separate life
insurance plan for federally appointed judges. It would make
consequential amendments to the Judges Act and Supplementary
Retirement Benefits Act.
In recent years, because of the increasing complexity of the
law, although there is no shortage of applicants, many judges
weigh heavily the decision to leave private practice and enter
into a new form of service to the law. That decision, I am sure,
is one that many members can appreciate for many members of
parliament have left behind other careers to come and serve their
country in this Chamber. It is very much analogous to the
decision that judges take when leaving their profession to serve
a higher calling, to serve the courts and their country in the
form of interpretation and administration of the law.
In recent years there has been growing concern for some
decisions made by judges. However, I would suggest that this is
not reason enough to deny that judges play a crucial role.
Organized crime is on the rise in Canada. It was addressed
somewhat yesterday with the introduction of a package of changes
to our laws. New legislation, such as this one, goes some
distance to addressing this very serious matter, but it is
crucial that judges would now be required to interpret this law.
Like many other institutions, we have seen judges in recent
years come under attack for their salaries and the compensation
they receive when compared to the low end of compensation. It
sometimes seems somewhat askew, but I would encourage people to
keep in perspective the salaries that are received at the high
end, that is, the salaries that are sometimes paid to athletes
and movie stars, and the role they play and the return they offer
to society. It is important to look at the entire scheme when
one considers the pay scale.
1040
The judicial compensation and benefits commission has been
appointed to a four year mandate. It is required to consider all
these factors in arriving at its recommendations. When one
considers the private sector scale in the area of the law, many
judges take a pay cut upon assuming a role on the bench. There
are many lawyers who are making modest salaries, for example
those who continue to strive to administer the law in crown
attorney offices.
Legal aid is often not mentioned in these deliberations. There
are many legal aid lawyers who later go on to make significant
contributions in courtrooms in their current occupations. They
also go on to serve the country nobly as members of the bench, as
judges.
Arguably it is the best training ground. I have often compared
it to a MASH unit when it comes to triage and the medical
profession. Legal aid lawyers and crown attorneys who are
working in provincial and supreme courts across the country go on
to become fantastic judges. I have borne witness to that myself.
I had the opportunity to work with some individuals who later
were elevated to the bench.
Referring back to the commission, its recommendations were based
on research comparing judges' salaries to lawyers' salaries in
the private sector and to performance bonuses of senior federal
deputy ministers. It looked at the importance of salary and
benefits in attracting the best of the best, the outstanding
candidates that we require to administer the law.
The Judges Act would officially establish the judicial
compensation and benefits commission, requiring the commission to
convene every four years and report its recommendations within
nine months. There is a very strict mandate and timeframe within
which it must review the adequacy of judicial compensation. The
commission would also consider the economic conditions at the
time, the cost of living, overall economic position of federal
judges, the financial security of the judiciary to ensure
judicial independence, and the need to attract the best of the
best.
Recommendations are not binding but the supreme court in its
decisions requires the government to publicly justify any
decision and acceptance of recommendations. These salary changes
have already been put on the record. They range in the area of
$200,000 for the Chief Justice of Canada, the puisne judges, and
various federal court judges across the country.
The increasing complex legal malaise that faces judges and
lawyers is something that we must consider when weighing the
question of compensation. There has been quite a lengthy
commentary about the need to compensate members of the RCMP,
members of our armed forces and other public servants.
It is not to deny in any way that those salaries must be
reviewed and elevated as well. It is not to suggest that if we
compensate judges fairly we should not be focusing attention on
these areas as well, or to deny that there are other very
important pieces of legislation in the legal field that we should
be examining.
Other members have mentioned the need to bring forward a youth
criminal justice act and the important fact that after seven
years it has not happened. There is also a need to examine a
plethora of other legislative initiatives. We have seen the
government's failings and shortcomings when it comes to
addressing issues of the day.
Our party supports the concept that we must move on a number of
areas in the near future. It is not to suggest that the bill
should be given any great priority. It is the government's
decision to set the priorities in terms of the legislative
timetable. It is in everyone's interest to move the legislation
before us forward and to get on to other important issues of the
day. When that happens it would allow some of these other fields
to be considered. When the legislation receives passage we can
then look at other areas in terms of compensation.
1045
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I will briefly say a few words about
the bill. It has come up in the previous parliament. We are
disappointed and will not support it for the reasons the critic
of my party mentioned.
I will bring up two important issues. First, I will look at the
California example which could have been adopted by this bill or
another bill. It deals with the issue of re-organizing our
criminal justice system to make it more efficient and
expeditious.
To improve convictions and make the system less expensive we
should consider a public defender system. We should work with
the provinces to implement a public defender system to ensure
quicker, fairer and less expensive convictions.
The public defender system has worked in California. It has
been compared to our present system and absolutely no difference
was found in the manner or fairness of convictions. However the
public defender system was found to be more expeditious and less
expensive. Given the backlog in our present system, I encourage
the government to look at the California model which would go a
long way to increasing the efficiency of our judicial system.
The second issue is the manner in which judges are chosen. As
we have heard today from members of other parties and my own, we
take issue with the manner in which judges are chosen. It is not
as equitable as it could be. There are other ways of doing it.
They elect judges in parts of the United States and that system
works very well. U.S. judges are not chosen in the same manner
as ours. Elections give people a say in selecting the judges
they would face in a court of law. The election of judges is
efficient at a certain level, provides for public scrutiny and
allows people to compete and be evaluated for the position who
would not otherwise be able to. Furthermore, candidates are
judged upon their record. They are also prevented from running
in the manner in which we run as members of parliament.
Lastly, I am happy to see the government's organized crime bill
move toward adopting RICO style amendments. In our country,
organized crime costs taxpayers about $17 billion a year
according to 1996 statistics. The number doubles when we take
into consideration people who are killed or injured and the
psychological damage inflicted upon their families.
I encourage the government to look at amendments similar to the
RICO act south of the border. RICO has enabled the U.S. to put a
dent in organized crime. The tools of our judicial system for
dealing with organized crime have to date been paltry. The
problem is massive. There are some 18 organized crime groups
within our country today. Seventy per cent of the money they
generate comes from illicit drugs. That is a scourge for all of
us in our communities.
The summit of the Americas will take place April 20 to 22. As
host, we have an enormous opportunity to bring forth a
comprehensive plan to deal with the illicit drug trade. For the
first time there is agreement in South America. I met with the
secretary of state and president of Colombia a month and a half
ago. During my visit a great commitment was given on the part of
that country, which has been racked by the drug trade, to put the
issue on the table. Let us talk about a pragmatic approach to
the illicit drug trade. I hope it will be put on the table and
that the 34 nations attending will address it in a pragmatic way.
Here are a few solutions that can be employed. First, remove
tariff and non-tariff barriers and double taxation systems for
countries and expand the free trade movement.
1050
Developing countries that are producers of illicit drugs, like
Colombia, Peru and parts of Brazil, do not need aid, they need
trade. If we are to help the poorest of the poor within those
countries we must remove the trade barriers that impede them from
being economically self-sustaining.
Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, stated
very clearly that people in developing countries need trade
barriers removed and that the western developed countries are
impeding their removal. It would be far less expensive, more
efficient and fairer if we removed barriers to trade.
Second, Canada and other countries of the hemisphere need to
employ RICO-like anti-racketeering amendments to attack the
organized crime gangs involved in the production and sale of
drugs.
If we are to attack organized crime gangs we must chase the
money. The people in the Hell's Angels do not wear leather. They
wear Armani suits. They hide behind the law and use it to their
advantage when they are being chased.
We need to make the law work for law-abiding citizens. We need
to make the law work for police officers. We need to make the
law work against organized crime instead of allowing crime gangs
to hide behind it. That is why enacting RICO-like amendments,
going after the money and business interests of crime gangs and
cutting the economic legs from under them are the most efficient
ways to deal with them. I encourage the government to put this
on the table at the summit of the Americas.
Lastly, we need not only tougher penalties for drug traffickers
but a new approach toward treatment. What we know today about
drugs and neuroscience shows very clearly that drug addicts have
a medical problem. I believe we need to approach addicts in a
medical fashion.
There are some very good programs. Some European models have
60% one-year success rates for hardcore narcotics abusers. That
is extraordinary. Why do those programs work? They work because
they focus not only on detox and counselling but on medical
treatment and skills and job training so that addicts can stay
away from the drug environment. Getting addicts away from the
drug environment is critical because re-entering that environment
sets off a neural cascade within their brains that prompts them
to renew the drug habit. The European model is an effective one.
I can only impress upon the government to adopt it because there
is an alignment of the stars.
The Latin American countries believe we should put more emphasis
on consumption than on production because dealing with the issue
at its source, as we have done historically, has not worked. The
Americans for the first time have said very clearly that we need
more emphasis on consumption. Senator McCain agreed when he was
in Colombia.
In conclusion, the plan is there. The government has an
opportunity to take it to the summit of Americas so that our
country and our hemisphere can be a safer place to live.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
presume that was a speech on the Judges Act. I heard a few
sentences about it. That is the bill we are talking about.
I very much believe in the three pillars of democracy: this
parliament and its elected members; a free press; and an
independent judiciary. The last aspect is very important to me
and I think to all members on this side of the House, contrary to
what I heard in the member's speech.
The hon. member advocated the U.S. model of electing judges. He
said that it was a good model. That model contradicts the
independence of our own judicial system. Judicial elections in
the U.S., as we have all seen on our television sets, are based
on a judge's conviction rates. It is a totally different system.
1055
I value as a citizen of the country a free and independent
judiciary. I do not want my judges up for re-election. I do not
want them pandering to perception, as opposed to what their job
has to be, which is interpreting the law that elected members of
parliament are here to put in place.
The judiciary has a responsibility. It is one pillar of a very
important democracy. Far too often we are looking to some
distant hill, even if it is just south of our border, when maybe
we should take the time to think through these positions and
value what we have here. I am very much in favour of keeping our
judiciary a non-elected body.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of what
the member believes is an independent judiciary. Does she
believe that the appointment by one person, for example the Prime
Minister, is an independent review of who should be sitting on
the bench?
My comments in no way, shape or form reflect on our judiciary.
We have many good judges, excellent judges, superb judges.
However some are not. I am speaking personally when I say that
at some levels of our judiciary we should give the public the
opportunity to have input into who should be judging them. It is
better if we have the public at large judge the judges rather
than one person appoint a judge, that person being the Prime
Minister.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to remind my colleagues and all Canadians that next
week will mark the 84th anniversary of one of the most pivotal
events in our nation's history.
On Easter Monday, April 9, 1917, in what is considered one of
the most important allied victories of World War I, Canadian
soldiers attacked and captured Vimy Ridge. It was a costly
victory that resulted in 10,602 Canadian casualties, half the
attacking force, nearly 3.600 of whom made the supreme sacrifice.
However the Battle of Vimy Ridge also marked Canada's entrance
on to the world stage as a sovereign country in its own right.
Indeed Brigadier General Alexander Ross, a battalion commander at
Vimy Ridge, later remarked that in that battle he felt he had
witnessed the birth of a nation.
This Monday I ask all Canadians to join me in remembering those
who fought so valiantly at Vimy Ridge for freedom and their
country's nationhood.
* * *
MAURY VAN VLIET
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Dr. Van Vliet, president and
chairperson of the 1978 Commonwealth Games, died in his sleep
early Wednesday morning at the age of 87.
Dr. Van Vliet may be best remembered for his contribution to the
games that put Edmonton on the sporting map before the 2001 World
Championships in athletics.
He will also be remembered for building sports education at the
University of Alberta, first as its director of physical
education from 1945 to 1962 and then as the founding dean of the
faculty of physical education from 1962 to 1976.
Dr. Van Vliet was the recipient of half a dozen honorary
degrees. He was given dozens of awards and honours over his
lifetime. Some of the highlights include the Order of Canada and
a place in the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame in 1997 as a sports
builder. He was a member of the University of Alberta's Wall of
Fame in 1985.
On behalf of the official opposition, I express our deepest
sympathies to his wife and his children.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians were shocked when U.S. President George W. Bush
announced recently that he was abandoning the Kyoto protocol on
global warming.
As the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, the United
States has a responsibility to live up to its environmental
commitments. European leaders have acted swiftly to remind the
president of his responsibility, denouncing his about-face.
1100
Our Prime Minister has said that Canada is committed to
implementing our obligations made at Kyoto by seeking recognition
of our exports of clean energy to the U.S. and our sustainable
forest management practices.
Environmental protection is not an option for our future.
Prevailing winds spread emissions to Atlantic Canada from the
U.S. northeast, so this decision will hurt people of all ages in
our region. That is one more reason the president's decision is
so disturbing and so wrong.
* * *
PARA TRANSPO
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many of my constituents and indeed many citizens of Ottawa are
virtual captives in their own homes because of a local Para
Transpo strike. The collective agreement between the two parties
expired on December 31, 2000, and the union has been on strike
since March 10.
Despite the federal government appointing not one but two
mediators to assist the parties in their negotiations, Para
Transpo drivers remain off the job. I applaud the excellent
efforts of the Minister of Labour and her staff, but I encourage
everyone involved to do more.
This strike is having a very real impact on the lifestyles and
everyday needs of those who rely on Para Transpo services. This
regrettable and unfortunate situation cannot continue. I
strongly urge the union and the employer to return to the
bargaining table and make every effort to settle this dispute.
I also strongly urge concerned residents to call Laidlaw Transit
and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 279. Let them know that
our community needs their services now.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, because of its interest in the real concerns of
Canadians, the Liberal government yesterday announced that it
was launching a royal commission of inquiry on health care in
Canada.
Mr. Romanow will be the sole commissioner. His report is to be
submitted to the Prime Minister by November 2002.
As part of his inquiry, Mr. Romanow is being asked to examine
the long term development of the health care system.
He is also being asked to make recommendations on the amendments
needed to maintain a universal health care system in Canada,
given technological and demographic changes.
The commissioner has already indicated that he intends to
undertake a real dialogue with Canadians in order to discuss the
choices available to them in the 21st century.
This initiative is an example of the Liberal government's desire
to improve the quality of life of Canadians.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has failed to deal
effectively with the agriculture and softwood lumber crises, with
nurses' strikes and the health crisis, with the low dollar and
high taxes, with transport and the crumbling infrastructure, with
gasoline and home heating costs, and with unsafe communities and
regional alienation, among others.
We must remember that the Liberals came to power by misleading
Canadians on their promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST.
The Prime Minister refused to allow an independent inquiry into
the Shawinigate affair.
The Liberals voted against their own red book promise of
creating an independent ethics counsellor. Now, by refusing to
replace the junior minister for multiculturalism for her
deliberate smears, the Prime Minister has established the lowest
ethics standard for cabinet in our history.
What do we call this? We call it an unaccountable, arrogant,
weak and corrupt Liberal government that lacks vision.
* * *
[Translation]
CHARLES DAUDELIN
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was with
profound sadness that I learned this week of the death of a
great artist from Granby, Charles Daudelin.
Charles Daudelin was an icon of Quebec's art history. He was
one of its most versatile artists, working in almost all
artistic mediums. Particularly striking were the huge and
magnificent sculptures he produced over the years.
He made puppets and, with his wife Louise, operated them in
various parks in Quebec, much to the delight of children. He
showed work in many exhibits, some of them in other countries.
He received many awards over his lifetime, including the
Paul-Émile Borduas award, the highest distinction in visual arts
in Quebec. This award, which he won in 1985, recognized his
dynamic contribution to integrating sculpture and architecture,
and the groundbreaking role he played in the evolution of the
arts in Quebec.
Part of the legacy the great Charles Daudelin left us stands on
view in front of public buildings in many cities—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Champlain.
* * *
1105
BÉATRICE MORRISSEAU GAGNON
Mr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Béatrice
Morisseau Gagnon will celebrate her 100th birthday on April 18.
She is my mother.
The eldest of 17 children, she inherited a huge task when her
mother died in childbirth with the last one. After raising all
of them to adulthood, she saw some go off to serve in the 1939-45
war. This courageous woman had nine children herself, and now
has 105 descendants.
She knew wealth, but she came to know poverty as well when the
depression started in 1929. What sustained her was her faith in
life and in her Creator, and her love of music. Her piano was
always there when she was feeling low.
Without a shadow of a doubt, she can say “Mission accomplished”.
On behalf of her 105 descendants, including Laurent, who is but
a few hours old as I speak, and whom I welcome into this world,
I send my mother all of our love and best wishes for a happy one
hundredth birthday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on Tuesday I had the opportunity to visit Collins Bay medium
security penitentiary and the Frontenac minimum security
institution as part of CBC's Big Picture on corrections in
Canada.
During my tour of the institutions I witnessed firsthand the
life of Canada's incarcerated offenders. I met and spoke with
many inmates on the road to rehabilitation and with the men and
women who daily do great work in this dangerous and unappreciated
environment.
There is another group of individuals I met that deserves
recognition and that is the hundreds of volunteers who give
generously of their time in helping inmates turn their lives
around. They are people like Don Andrychuk, a retired school
teacher who helps in the Collins Bay learning centre by teaching
basic skills to offenders.
It is these volunteers who bring a touch of compassion and
humanity to a group of individuals that is often overlooked by
the rest of society.
I extend my congratulations to Don and everyone like him and
encourage Corrections Canada to keep up the good work.
* * *
MENINGITIS
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today out of respect for 19 year old Brent
Danylyshen, the late son of Bernie and Bonnie Danylyshen of
Veteran, Alberta. Brett died on October 4, 2000, from
meningitis. Bernie and Bonnie wrote to me as follows:
While we are devastated by his death, we still want the Canadian
public to be aware that there is a vaccine available to combat
the disease that killed him. Public awareness of the signs and
symptoms of meningococcal disease is the key to prevention as
well.
Brett's case was the 39th reported by the Capital Health
Authority in Alberta and the third death. There have now been 62
cases reported in just this one health region alone since
December 1999. Alberta has finally called for province-wide
immunization.
Mr. Danylyshen asked that the Canadian government sit up and
take notice. There have been cases in almost every province of
Canada and in some of those cases there have been deaths. Let us
become aware of meningitis disease and let us be prepared to
combat it.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today is an historic day for our country's postal service. It
marks the 150th anniversary of the transfer of postal services
from Britain to Canada. In 1851 Canada took control of its
postal system and issued the first Canadian postage stamp, known
as the threepence beaver.
In a country the size of Canada, postal services have played a
paramount role in the building of our nation. Communication was
and remains the key to facilitating the exchange of information
and the physical distribution of goods.
Our country and our people have come a long way since 1851. We
have achieved a great deal. Canada Post has issued hundreds of
postage stamps honouring distinguished Canadians and marking
important dates in our nation's history. Stamp collectors across
the country will be excited to learn that a new 47 cent stamp
will be issued today to capture the art of the now famous
original threepence beaver.
I would ask all members to join me in congratulating all Canada
Post employees for their hard work and dedication in making
Canada Post a world leader—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
* * *
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last night on CBC news it was reported that chronic
wasting disease, a close cousin of mad cow disease, has now been
identified in a wild deer in Canada. This is of great concern as
deer and elk roadkill can be sent to rendering plants where it is
ground up and fed back to cattle and other animals.
This is happening despite repeated urgings from the UN World
Health Organization and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
to prohibit the use of ruminant tissues in ruminant feed. This
is how mad cow disease is spread, not from the consumption of
Brazilian corned beef.
1110
On Wednesday officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and Health Canada admitted that the possibility of ruminant
roadkill making its way into cattle feed indeed exists.
Furthermore they said that cattle are being fed materials made
from the blood of cattle and other bovine materials. This
country has clearly not learned anything from the mad cow
disaster.
Today I urge the ministers of agriculture and health to
immediately ban these cannibalistic—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal government received
confirmation by a benefits adjudicator appointed under its own
Employment Insurance Act of something women, advocacy groups for
the unemployed and the Bloc Quebecois have been saying for
years, that the Employment Insurance Act discriminates against women and
part time workers who are also parents.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has no choice but to
acknowledge this judgment and eliminate this discrimination from
the legislation, along with the discrimination against young
workers.
This decision also confirms the necessity of a thorough reform
of the employment insurance program. The human resources
development committee has made a commitment to propose changes
to employment insurance by June 1, 2001.
She will then need to follow up on the committee's proposals in
order to restore the true role of employment insurance, which is
to protect people's income when they are unemployed.
* * *
[English]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Canadians prepare to be good hosts at the upcoming
summit of the Americas in Quebec City, let us be focused on the
work to be accomplished there: strengthening democracy, creating
prosperity and realizing human potential.
However, at the same time, it appears from previous such
meetings in Seattle and Europe that some people would provoke a
clash between demonstrations of free expression and the need to
avoid disruption and provide the high level of security needed
for the hundreds of internationally protected delegates.
If the demonstrations do not penetrate the security zone and do
not resort to the use of violence, we could have a great looking
summit. However, if some of these things do happen, I hope we
will accept that officials and police have a job to do in hosting
the summit, that life and politics are not perfect sciences and
are sometimes messy, and that as Canadians we are doing our best
to deliver a most successful summit in Quebec City.
The television images we will watch, even if they are a little
rough and tumble, will show Canada as one of the world's leading
democracies proudly playing our international role. Good luck to
us all.
* * *
EDUCATION
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Yarmouth-Shelburne Community Learning Centres and the Yarmouth
Chamber of Commerce are the winning partnership for Nova Scotia
in the Royal Bank partners in education awards category of the
Conference Board of Canada's national partners in education
awards.
The Yarmouth-Shelburne Community Learning Centres are a
partnership of Yarmouth Chamber of Commerce, the Nova Scotia
Community College, the Yarmouth County Learning Network, the
Shelburne County Learning Network, community services and the
Department of Education.
The centres offer academic upgrading on a year round basis to
persons 18 years of age and older, along with life skills and job
readiness training. Access to computer labs and classrooms is
available to individuals and non-profit organizations for evening
use on a non-fee basis, ensuring that Canada's youth and adults
are learning the right skills for today's and tomorrow's world of
work. I extend congratulations to all on a job well done.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the announcement of the commission on the future
of health care in Canada, the Landry government cried foul and
announced that Quebec would not co-operate in the work of the
commission.
What incoherence from someone who has been known to talk of
rebuilding the Canadian confederation.
It is true that the Clair commission in Quebec did appreciable
work in connection with the organization of services, as other
commissions have done in other provinces,
but by denying the federal government the legitimacy of
examining our health system over the long term, by denying
Quebec's co-operation, by delaying taking the money made
available to it by the federal government and by giving in to
ill-timed fits of pique, Mr. Landry is punishing people and
patients in Quebec.
The Landry government does not represent all of Quebec, but at
best the most narrow minded and fanatical group of separatists
in Quebec.
* * *
[English]
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this week I made public the fact that
more than a million firearms owners failed to apply for a
firearms licence before the January 1 deadline. Of course the
government has done its best to keep this phenomenal failure of
the gun registry a secret.
The Liberals ignored all the common sense advice they received
in 1995 concerning Bill C-68, and look at the jam they are in
now. This type of backlash is predictable when millions of good
citizens are treated like criminal suspects.
The government made the dubious claim that the gun registry
would somehow be useful to police, but how will a registry with
more than a million gun owners missing from it be of any benefit?
No wonder the vast majority of front line police officers are so
opposed to the gun registry.
1115
On September 22, 1998, the justice minister said that the debate
on Bill C-68 was over. If the debate was over back then, why did
she have to introduce 22 pages of amendments to it? Six hundred
million dollars sure would have put a lot of police on the
street.
* * *
[Translation]
LUMBER
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the matter of softwood lumber, the Minister for International
Trade must continue to hold the line so the industry in Quebec
can break free of the negative effects of the agreement that
choked it for five years.
The Canadian position must now support manufacturers
consistently to enable them to get through the upcoming tense
period. Nothing will justify his withdrawing from his position
and denying fair treatment for Quebec producers.
The 1996 agreement heavily penalized the Quebec softwood
industry. The return to free trade is a return to fair
treatment for Quebec, and fair treatment is the only road to the
future. This goes too for the jobs of thousands of Quebecers in
the resource regions, which need a forestry industry that can
get the most out of the American market.
The Bloc Quebecois is the voice of the Quebec softwood
manufacturers in the House of Commons and will make sure the
Minister for International Trade holds his position on the
return to free trade in the case of softwood lumber.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TRADE RELATIONS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, if the Canadian government is attempting to get itself
noticed by the Americans, it is succeeding.
While several major trade issues could affect tens of thousands
of Canadian jobs, the Prime Minister has decided that the best
negotiating strategy is to get personal with the president.
Unfortunately, that does not mean picking up the phone and having
a little chat with him. It means getting down and dirty behind
his back.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How will
insulting the president of the United States help negotiate good
trade agreements?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has not insulted the new president of
the United States. He has excellent working relations with
him, and I am sure this will continue.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid to ask what will continue.
The government does not seem to understand international
diplomacy. When it should stand up to the Americans, as in the
P.E.I. potato dispute, it chooses instead to tell our own farmers
that it is too bad and that they should grow something else.
In the early critical days of negotiations over the softwood
lumber issue, when the idea of a special envoy is up in the air
and billions of dollars are at stake, the Prime Minister
recklessly wades into this thing again and smacks the president
of the United States with some remarks.
Yesterday a White House official said “If they prefer a bad
relationship between Canada and the U.S., they can have a bad
relationship”.
What is the government planning to do to repair this damage?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government have not done
anything to create damage in our relationship with the United
States. We are working very well with the Americans on the
dossiers that the hon. member has mentioned. For example, the
Minister for International Trade has opened important new
discussions with the new U.S. trade representative on the P.E.I.
potato situation.
I might also point out that our Prime Minister is the senior
statesman among the G-8 leaders. He is widely respected for his
experience and his contribution to world affairs. He will
continue to have very good relations with—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we are not that worried actually about the international
trade minister. We know he is trying his best. We are worried
about the comments that the Prime Minister seems to make every
time he gets into this. I would like to give him a few hints
that may perhaps help in the negotiations.
First, he should not muse about preferring Gore to Bush. That
is a bad idea.
Second, he should not make derogatory comments about cowboys.
He might want to consider that when he is out west this week, as
well.
Third, he should send clear signals to the Americans that we
value our trading relationships, we expect fair and free trade
and we respect the president.
Does the Prime Minister expect to call the president of the
United States today to get—
The Speaker: The hon. the Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the press reports on which the hon. member is basing his
question are not accurate. The Prime Minister has not spoken in
a derogatory way of the new president, for whom he has the
greatest respect and with whom he has established a very strong
and friendly relationship. Our relations continue on a good
foundation and my hon. friend is not helping to keep these
relations on a good basis by making these unfounded allegations.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
on Wednesday, the Prime Minister did insult the Americans.
Yesterday he terrified Albertans by musing about a national
energy program, such as export tax on energy.
Here is an opportunity for the Deputy Prime Minister to stand
and say that there will not be any NEP, such as export tax on
energy, period.
1120
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's assertions are without foundation.
The claims that the right hon. Prime Minister has spoken
disparagingly of the U.S. president or of the province of Alberta
and its major industries are totally unfounded allegations.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Deputy Prime Minister missed what I said.
I did not say there were disparaging comments about Alberta. I
said that the Prime Minister mused about an export tax on energy.
The Deputy Prime Minister could make this very simple if he
would just stand and say that there will be no such export tax on
energy. This is his opportunity.
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to thirdhand press
reports that clearly are false and wrong.
Today the Prime Minister is addressing the Canadian Petroleum
Producers Association in Calgary. He will make the position of
the Government of Canada very clear. It will be very, very
positive.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
contradictory statements have been accumulating for two months
regarding the Auberge Grand-Mère affair.
Considering that the statements of the Prime Minister, those of
his ethics counsellor and the documents provided raise many more
questions than they provide answers, we understand why the
public wants an inquiry.
Will the government comply with the public's wish and do the
right thing, which is to respect the public and set up an
independent commission of inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no conflict of interest, as evidenced by the ethics
counsellor's investigation and the RCMP report.
If the hon. member did her job seriously, she would congratulate
us for introducing another anti-gang act, because this is a very
important measure, but not for the hon. member, it would appear.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Prime Minister does not understand that my constituents want to
know how the Prime Minister could have got himself into such a
mess.
I cannot give them an answer, because the government keeps
providing us with meaningless replies that satisfy neither the
opposition nor the public.
Could the Prime Minister take the next two weeks, the Easter
recess, to think the whole thing over, come to the only logical
conclusion and realize that the public will not accept anything
less than an independent public inquiry?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have provided clear and specific information to this House many
times.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and myself have
tabled the documents requested by the Bloc Quebecois and the
other opposition parties.
They will not recognize that there is no conflict of interest.
They are only interested in carrying on their smear campaign and
that is against the best interests of our country. Why do they
not have any real interest in the real issues that concern
Canadians?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
paragraph 3(2) of the government's code of ethics says:
Public office holders have an obligation to perform their
official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner
that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that
is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the behaviour of the
Prime Minister in the Auberge Grand-Mère affair does not pass the
test of paragraph 3 of the code of ethics, and completely fails
to meet its requirement of transparency?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Absolutely not,
Mr. Speaker. The answer is no. There is no breach of the code
of ethics.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the same code of ethics requires that “...on appointment to
office, and thereafter, public office holders shall arrange
their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real,
potential or apparent conflicts of interest from arising but if
such a conflict does arise between the private interests of a
public office holder and the official duties and
responsibilities of that public office holder, the conflict
shall be resolved in favour of the public interest”.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister seriously maintain that the Prime
Minister was serving the public interest when he contacted the
Business Development Bank of Canada about a loan for the auberge
owned by his friend Yvon Duhaime, given his personal interest in
getting paid for his shares in the neighbouring golf club?
1125
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member's premises are completely false. The Prime Minister
had no interest in the golf club when he made these
representations to the Business Development Bank of Canada.
I wonder why the hon. member did not mention Quebec's justice
minister when he was talking about our anti-gang legislation.
The PQ justice minister said “We now have a text that, at first
blush, seems to be headed in the right direction”. Why no word
of congratulation on this initiative?
* * *
[English]
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in answer to a question from my leader about water
exports, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:
However, he also clearly said that there was an entirely
different category of water, and that was water entirely within
the jurisdiction of the provinces, such as, for instance,
Gisborne Lake in Newfoundland.
Does the Minister of the Environment remain concerned about the
proposal to export water from Gisborne Lake and, if he does, what
is the government's plan with respect to this particular
situation? Is there a government plan to prevent the export of
water—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Yes, we
do remain concerned about the export of water from Gisborne Lake
and other jurisdictions in Canada. We believe the best approach
is to prevent interbasin transfers of water at source rather than
attempting to deal with it at the border.
I have spoken with Newfoundland's minister of natural resources
and have explained to him the Canadian position. I have followed
the media quite closely. I gather there is substantial
opposition within Newfoundland to the proposal. It may be that
this suggestion will not proceed.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
while we remain concerned about treating water as a commodity, we
are also concerned about treating other things as commodities
that should not be. I am talking about life forms.
I have a question for the Minister of Health as to what the
government position is with respect to the patenting of life
forms. Many in the medical community are concerned about the
patenting of the use of gene sequences for human genetic testing.
This would have serious consequences for our health care system
both in terms of cost and the ability to care for patients.
What is the government's plan with respect to the patenting of
life forms? Is the government against it and, if so, what—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Industry.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member will know, we recently announced
funding for five regional centres for genome research in Canada.
As part and parcel of the first funding announcement of $136
million, each centre and each project selected, some 22 across
the country, have funds put in place for proper analysis of the
legal and ethical questions and, of course, the question of
Canadian values associated with this research.
In addition to that, CIHR is giving government advice on this
issue. The Canadian biotechnology advisory committee is giving
advice—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, after
three years of study and $12 million in spending, the national
forum on health submitted its exhaustive report to the Prime
Minister.
Most of the provinces have done studies or established
commissions on the health care system. The other House is
working on this very issue. Despite all, the government is
setting up a commission of inquiry. Why?
Why not ask the members of this parliament to study this and
draft policies, as they already know all the ins and outs of the
problem?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are
very happy and very proud that Mr. Romanow has agreed to act as
commissioner in examining the long term future of our health
care system.
The viability of our health care system is a matter of great
importance. This is why we appointed Mr. Romanow. He will be
working with our partners, in the provinces and elsewhere, to
ensure we have a health care system not only today but in the
future.
[English]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, if parliament is mature enough to study the impact of
bulk water exports, should it not be mature enough to study
health care? The problems within the system are well known.
Elected representatives know what is at stake.
1130
They have a vision of what could be done. They talk to people.
They meet people. Why on earth by creating this commission is
the government making official its immobility for at least 18
months?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think it was evident from the reaction to Mr. Romanow's
appointment that the public and governments throughout the
country see the wisdom of going to someone with experience in
running a provincial system who believes strongly in the basic
values of Canadian health care; someone, a third party
independent, to assess the present state of play, engage in a
dialogue with Canadians and come back with recommendations for
constructive change as Emmett Hall did some 40 years ago.
Obviously any proposals that involve legislation would come to
parliament and we would consider any such legislation. Mr.
Romanow has a remarkably important contribution to make.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I guess it is true that Canadians
would applaud any sign that the government is taking the crisis
in our health care seriously.
I remind the minister that many Canadians are facing long delays
in receiving the medical treatment they need. We have obsolete
and inaccurate diagnostic equipment. There is a crisis as a
result of the shortage in health care providers. Why the long
delay in dealing with these very important matters for Canadians
today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have had very recent and a very personal occasion to observe
for myself how hard health care providers are working, sometimes
under very difficult circumstances.
May I take this as my first opportunity today in the House since
my return to express on behalf of myself and my family my warmest
thanks to friends and colleagues on all sides of the House for
their generosity and their thoughtfulness and the very many warm
greetings I received from them.
In response to my friend's question we take very seriously the
problems to which she has referred. The whole accord with the
provinces last September was about reinvesting and working on a
plan for renewal. Mr. Romanow will look at the long term and it
is that to which he will now turn.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the short term Canadians are
experiencing some real problems with receiving prompt, quality
health care when they need it and medical providers are stretched
to the limit. What is the minister proposing to do today to
address these very serious issues?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is right. They are serious issues and they deserve
our attention today.
That is why the Prime Minister marshalled all governments and
last September arrived at an agreement to which they all
subscribed: $23 billion of additional federal transfers and,
apart from that, a concrete plan to deal with key issues such as
a shortage of doctors and nurses, renewing equipment and adding
information technology to the system.
We are working on those today. We are working on that plan this
week and next. Those are the short and medium term steps which
we are taking urgently. We agree with the member. We will
continue that work.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while business
figures had access to the texts we are still being denied and
will have access to the heads of state during the Quebec summit,
ordinary members of the public will be restricted to a parallel
event.
Thousands of individuals, parliamentarians and other
members of civil society from all countries in the Americas,
Cuba included, will be meeting in the people's summit. No
bridge has been constructed between these two summits.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment to providing access by
representatives of the people's summit to the heads of state of
the Americas so that they may make known their—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people's summit is an
important approach to the summit of the Americas.
Both levels of government have a hand in its funding, the
Canadian government having made $300,000 available to the
organizers and the government of Quebec another $200,000 to
assist in its organization.
It is of course important for civil society to have an
opportunity to be heard.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, so far the
government has been talking the talk about transparency,
democracy and dialogue in connection with the integration of the
Americas, but it has not walked the walk. Parliamentarians are
excluded from the summit, other members of civil society are
excluded, the provinces are excluded, and there is much public
concern because no one knows exactly what is being negotiated.
1135
What steps is the government going to take to prevent the Quebec
summit from going down in history as the summit of exclusion?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, picking up on the end of
that, I will just state that parliamentarians are absolutely not
excluded. A debate was held here in the House.
Our standing committee on foreign affairs has been sitting for
several weeks to hear representations from civil society, from
organizations, and will continue to do so until the summit.
It is therefore totally wrong to claim that parliamentarians are
excluded.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, members of the Canadian forces are getting hit with
another rent increase that will overshadow the recently announced
pay raises. Here is a quote from one member of the military:
Being a member of the military I feel you should be made aware of
the real facts the defence minister does not understand. My pay
went up $74.63 a month. As of September 1, my rent will be
increasing $100 a month.
On behalf of members of our forces, why does the defence
minister boast about pay increases when in reality he is clawing
it all back in rent increases?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it all wrong. There was not
only the pay increase on April 1 to which he refers, but there
was a retroactive one that goes back to October 1999.
When we look at the rent increases over the last three years and
we compare them against the pay increases we have given over the
last three year period as well, the pay increases are far in
excess, 10 times in excess of the rent increases which, by the
way, are levelled off at 25% of the gross family income and meet
the provincial general guidelines on rent increases.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the soldiers do not see it the
same way as the minister. Here is another quote that I would
like to put to the minister from a family member of a soldier:
Everyone was so happy when it was announced that our soldiers
were finally getting a pay raise, and it is true that this was a
slap in the face when the defence minister gave his okay to up
our rents. We are back to square one.
My question is for the minister. Why will the defence minister
not drop this ridiculous rent increase and give our soldiers and
their families a break for once? Roll back the rents.
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for example a corporal would be getting a rent
increase in the area of $35 to $40 a month but over the last
three years has had a pay increase of some $600 a month.
Some 70% of the people who work for the military live in market
accommodations. The other 30% do not. We as a government have
an obligation, not just the military, to make sure that we are
charging market rent. We also make sure that their rent is below
25% of their gross income and that their pay increases are far in
excess of the rent increases.
* * *
[Translation]
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister for International Trade has always assured us that
Quebec would be well represented at the Quebec City summit,
because he and the Prime Minister are Quebecers.
However, the negotiating documents on the FTAA currently
accessible to Quebec parliamentarians are not available in
French.
How can the Minister for International Trade reconcile his
statements with the fact that French, the language spoken by
Quebecers, is excluded from the basic texts?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be four official
languages at the summit and official texts will be in French,
English, Portuguese and Spanish.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Deputy Prime Minister realize the absurdity of the
situation? The summit is taking place in Quebecers' national
capital, in the largest French community in the Americas, yet
Quebec is excluded and French is absent.
The only way for Quebecers to avoid such absurd and insulting
situations is for Quebec to finally become a sovereign state.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
question is based on an utterly false premise.
French will not be excluded from the summit of the Americas. At
this summit, Canada will welcome the heads of all the countries
from the Americas, and talks will be conducted in the four
languages mentioned a few moments ago by my colleague.
* * *
1140
[English]
HEALTH
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tells us that it has
put together a comprehensive plan to deal with an outbreak of
foot and mouth disease in Canada. Unfortunately it has not
advertised and circulated this plan to industry stakeholders.
This means that municipalities, local veterinarians and farmers
do not know how they fit into contingency plans to contain an
outbreak.
Yesterday at committee the CFIA stated that its plan would be
put on its website before the end of the day. It was still not
available this morning. Why is the CFIA still failing to
adequately inform all industry stakeholders about its
responsibilities in the event of an outbreak?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were very
glad to have the CFIA at committee yesterday morning, along with
the armed forces and one of the veterinarians from Kingston who
was overseas to look at the situation firsthand.
We have many people from across Canada co-operating with the
CFIA, the RCMP and the police. A plan has been in place and the
plan is being updated and added to daily.
The CFIA had a rehearsal, an emergency preparedness planned with
Mexico, the United States and Canada last November. We are doing
everything possible.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease would shut
down Canada's beef exports and that could cost the country
billions of dollars.
The CFIA is only now developing a communications plan with
Canadian travellers. It has failed to communicate its
contingency plans to Canadian livestock producers. Good
communications is one of the most valuable tools for keeping this
disease out of Canada. It is crucial to contain foot and mouth
disease if it arrives on our shores. Why has it taken the
government so long to develop any communications plan?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have had a
plan and it is in place. It is ready in case of any emergency at
all. We are ready.
Besides the plan, we have videos that are being shown on all Air
Canada flights. We have points of information at all the
international airports. We are handing out literature in five
languages on all incoming airplanes. We have staff working along
with the Customs and Revenue Agency interviewing people who come
from offshore. We are there and we have had this plan available
for years.
* * *
[Translation]
PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec's
premier, Mr. Landry, continues in his unjust attacks on Canada.
He continues to use the expression “night of the long knives”,
in reference to the patriation of the constitution. And now he
is accusing the Government of Canada of “viol des foules” or
rape of the masses.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell the House
what he thinks of this attempt to sidetrack the public debate?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the night of the long knives was a bloody settling
of accounts between Nazis in Germany in 1934.
Le viol des foules is the title—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, Le viol des foules is the title
of a classic story by Serge Tchakhotine about propaganda in
totalitarian regimes. These attempts to establish a subliminal
connection between Canada and the worst horrors of the 20th
century are unworthy and serve only to discredit their
perpetrators.
We continue to hope that the premier of Quebec will show himself
worthy of his office and that he will agree to work more
constructively with Canada.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in 1996, crab
fishers agreed to contribute to a solidarity fund in order to
provide financial assistance to crew members and plant workers.
Crab fishers' contribution to this fund has dropped from 15
cents a pound to 5 cents a pound.
Today, the fishery is still in crisis and thousands of people
are affected.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans prepared to give the
solidarity fund a quota so that, once and for all, a solution
can be found to this situation and we do not have a repeat of
the confrontations we have seen in recent years?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the solidarity fund was something that
crab fishermen participated in. It is a voluntary program. I
congratulate them for taking the step. I know they are very much
interested in participating again in that program, and I
encourage them to do so.
1145
As far as the quota system goes, we have a five year agreement
with crabbers. We will continue to make sure we maintain that
five year agreement until next year.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
transport minister acknowledged that Canada's highways are in
terrible shape. Studies say it will take $17 billion to bring
our highways up to minimum standards. It is that bad because of
years of government neglect.
The $600 million the government is investing in highways over
the next four years is not nearly enough. The minister has
stated that if we have the resources we need to invest in
infrastructure, but he also said toll roads are okay.
Toll roads are not okay. Privatizing our roads is not the
answer. Will the government make a commitment to dramatically
increase funding for highways?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind my colleague that highways are primarily a
responsibility of the provinces, although there is a tradition
going back 80 years for federal involvement using the federal
finance power.
A year ago the Minister of Finance announced $600 million for
highways. I said publicly that this was just the start and I
hoped there would be additional resources.
There are lots of calls upon the government's resources. The
hon. member's party has been first and foremost in asking that
money be allocated to health care, on which we all agree. We
have to live within our means. We have to live within our own
priorities.
* * *
FRESHWATER EXPORTS
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, a few
minutes ago I gave notice to the government House leader of a
question.
The member for Toronto—Danforth has produced in the past
disturbing literature endorsing the export of bulk water. Last
evening the same member said in interviews that the House had
struck a committee on water with him as chair.
Will the government House leader confirm to the House that no
such committee has been struck or established?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed no such agreement has
been reached, either among House leaders or otherwise, and no
order has been passed by the House.
Reading the media quotes of some people in House leadership
positions this morning, it does not appear that one will be
forthcoming soon.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, if there is a blight for P.E.I. potato farmers, it
is the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and
his callous comments to P.E.I. farmers that they should consider
getting out of the potato industry. He should be protecting, not
provoking island farmers. One Liberal backbencher from Malpeque
has denounced the minister. The rest are stony silent.
Today the P.E.I. legislature is debating a unanimous resolution
calling on the federal government to close Canadian borders to
potatoes from the United States.
Will the minister of agriculture retract his insults, travel to
Prince Edward Island and personally meet with potato farmers?
Will he support the island initiative to ban U.S. potatoes? They
have to start planting—
The Speaker: The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be
perfectly clear. At no time did the minister tell the producers
of P.E.I. not to grow potatoes. The minister encouraged
producers to make sure of their market before they grew more
potatoes.
In fact, the minister continues to work hard, along with his
officials, to develop further markets across Canada for our
producers of potatoes in P.E.I. He should check the facts.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, industrial construction waste is being dumped
straight into the ground at an illegal landfill site on the Cheam
Reserve in the Fraser Valley in B.C. Even the Canada Land
Company has dumped construction waste into the site next to the
Fraser River.
Why does the government continue to turn a blind eye when it
knows that this illegal landfill site is in full operation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter up with the provincial
minister. I would suggest, however, that the Alliance Party make
clear whether it is asking the federal government to assume
jurisdiction in a provincial sphere on issues of this nature
before proceeding with questions of this type.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that there is a shared
jurisdiction here, that there is an illegal landfill operating
and that industrial waste is being dumped straight into the
ground.
When a Global Television news crew went to this illegal dump it
was assaulted, had its camera and van taken away, and was told to
get out.
Why does the environment minister protect this kind of activity
rather than the environment and those people? What is his answer
to this?
1150
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should apologize for his comments. I
have in no way endorsed any violence on any reserve or in any
situation with the Global Television Network. His statement that
we are somehow protecting this is outrageous. I suggest he
apologize for it.
There are areas of shared jurisdiction, but I would explain to
him a constitutional point that sometimes shared jurisdiction
does not mean the federal government can take over that part of
it which is provincial. Is that the position of his party?
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Opération Printemps 2001 in Quebec has proven that organized
crime generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In
the case of the criminal group, Les Nomades, alone, the Quebec
provincial police estimate profits of $100 million.
In view of the scope of the problem and the millions of dollars
that go untaxed, will the Minister of National Revenue set up a
special team of experienced investigators to comb through the
tax returns of these wrongdoers currently on the inside?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, permit me to congratulate my
colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General and
this government on the absolutely incredible and wonderful
legislation, which, really, will enable us to go after organized
crime.
Obviously, I cannot discuss specifics, but I would simply like
to say that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has a special
program pertaining to the application of the law and audits of
the application of the law in the area of organized crime as a
whole.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister could have been a little more loquacious in his
response and he could have congratulated the Bloc Quebecois,
because we have been calling for this legislation for five
years. I am pleased to learn that the minister will do
everything he can to recover this money.
I would remind him that there are some zealous employees in his
department, who bleed the poor for $5,000. I would hope that
the department will do everything, put its best investigators to
work, and that each of the files of these criminals will be gone
over with a fine tooth comb to recover the hundreds of millions
of dollars they are not paying in taxes each year.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, allow me to thank the
Liberal members on this side of the House. They have done a
remarkable job in our caucus to enable us to set up this
legislation.
Second, in reference to the remarks of my colleague, he should
perhaps look at the mandate of the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency and at some of the initiatives undertaken respecting
taxpayers as a whole, and, more specifically, the initiative on
equity, considered a fine initiative for all taxpayers, both
corporate and individual.
Third, I say what I promised. We have a special team doing
audits and ensuring the law is applied to organized crime.
* * *
[English]
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we were told that the Trans-Canada Highway was the
lifeline of Canada, yet in 12 short years 126 people were killed
and more than 2,278 were injured on a short section of the
highway out of Revelstoke, B.C.
Why is Canada still the only G-7 country with no national
highway investment program?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend has been for the last
number of years. The fact is that for 80 years the federal
government has contributed in some way to provinces for the
construction of highways. We agreed on a basic 25,000 kilometres
of the national highway network. The Minister of Finance
announced $600 million for that purpose last year.
Yes, we would like more money and I am hopeful that more money
will be applied. We have just announced funding allocations to
the province of British Columbia. Hopefully that will deal with
the very pressing problem in Revelstoke.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, funds are not lacking. In B.C. alone
last year the minister took more than $750 million in fuel taxes
but put zero back into B.C. highways. How does the minister
justify that?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been accused of a lot of things in my life but
not of being a thief.
The fact is the Government of Canada uses fuel taxes as part of
general revenues to fund the many government programs Canadians
demand, including the $600 million that the Minister of Finance
has announced.
1155
It seems to me that the hon. member said in the preamble to his
question that there is no funding problem. If that is the case
then he should go to the British Columbia government to deal with
the Revelstoke problem on an urgent basis.
* * *
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of
the Treasury Board. The Government of Canada has set an
ambitious goal of becoming the most connected government in the
world to its citizens by 2004. How is the Government of Canada
progressing with its government online initiatives?
[Translation]
Is progress being made with the government online project?
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member
for Hull—Aylmer for his question. Government services to every
citizen in Canada, whether they live in Toronto or Iqaluit, has
been the goal of the government. A recent study ranked Canada as
number one of all industrialized countries in connecting its
citizens online.
I am proud to announce that in addition to the $160 million we
have already put into this initiative, we have now put another
$120 million into our budget for the 2001-02 fiscal year.
Empowering Canadians and giving them access to government
information will ensure that Canadians and their parliamentarians
will be more effective in addressing the needs of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
* * *
BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, treasury board numbers confirm that for every
increase in the number of federal public service jobs designated
bilingual, there is a corresponding decrease in the participation
rate of anglophones.
I should like to know what steps the government is prepared to
take to end the systemic discrimination against English speaking
Canadians with respect to federal public service hiring and
promotion.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most
insulting questions I have ever heard in the House.
I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition on the first day
back will do what another member did yesterday and ensure that
this member apologizes as well.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal government that should apologize
for the fact that its application of forced bilingualism is
costly, discriminatory and a source of national divisiveness and
disunity.
Notwithstanding, I ask the justice minister why she demanded and
received intervener status on behalf of Ontario francophones in
the Montfort case but has not requested intervener status to
protect Quebec anglophones from that province's bill 170.
She is prepared to defend the interests of French speaking
people in Ontario, but she is not prepared to defend the
interests of English speaking people in Quebec. Why the double
standard?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that is not the official position
of the Alliance Party. If it is, it is a complete departure from
the very honourable statement made by the former leader of the
Reform Party, Preston Manning, when he said he understood the
benefits of bilingualism to all Canadians.
The Speaker: The hon. member knows she meant the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest and not his name.
[Translation]
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, he went so far as to work in
French, to try to learn French, because of his belief in a
country where both official languages are recognized. I hope
that this is not the new Canadian Alliance policy.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order to
settle the dispute between the Quebec and Newfoundland fishers
over the Greenland turbot, the minister has mandated a group of
three experts to provide him with recommendations.
The experts from Newfoundland and New Brunswick recommend that
Newfoundland be given a share of Quebec's traditional quota,
while the Quebec expert proposes increasing Quebec's share.
Which recommendation does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
intend to follow, the one from the maritimes experts, who again
propose to trample on Quebec interests, or the one from the
Quebec expert?
[English]
Hon. Herb Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to
Greenland turbot-halibut.
We set up a panel with Judge La Forest and two other members. It
looked at the whole issue and listened to both parties, the
Quebec fleet as well as the Newfoundland fleet. It submitted a
report, which I will be reviewing closely before making a
decision.
* * *
1200
[Translation]
TOBACCO CONSUMPTION
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am now
speaking the second official language.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the
government announced a strategy to reduce tobacco consumption
and increase taxes to deter contraband.
[English]
There is a fivefold increase in the financing. Would the
minister tell us what programs that money will finance?
[Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we announced an integrated strategy that will be
adequately funded and that was developed here by the government
caucus.
[English]
This caucus, over the course of the last 18 months, has worked
very hard to develop a strategy that involves various elements,
which we will finance and pursue in an integrated way to bring
down the level of smoking in this country, the number one public
health issue we face.
We have set as our objective, over the coming 10 years, to
reduce by 20% the number of smokers, by 30% the number of
cigarettes sold and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the government introduced the organized crime
bill at first reading. I really appreciate the fact that the
government has taken some tough measures and that it has also
listened to the Alliance Party.
However, I have one concern with the bill. According to the
bill, there is a list of people who will be charged with first
degree murder if they shoot or kill as a result of gang wars or
organized crime but it does not include the killing of innocent
bystanders such as a 10 year old in Quebec or reporters. Why
are—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question and for acknowledging that
this is an excellent piece of legislation.
Certainly intimidation is a very serious factor in organized
crime. Police officers, prosecutors and all sorts of people,
even members of parliament, have been intimidated.
The legislation introduces significant penalties that would
certainly prohibit or work against that type of activity by
organized crime. This is for the betterment of the entire
country.
* * *
MARTIN LAVOIE
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of
all hon. members that Martin Lavoie, Deputy Principal Clerk,
Committees and Parliamentary Associations, will be leaving the
House of Commons this month after 22 years of service to take up
new challenges with the National Democratic Institute in Niger.
[Translation]
Martin is sitting at the Table right now and I know that you
will all want to join me in saluting his long and successful
career here.
Martin, we wish you success, health and happiness in your new
career. Congratulations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of today's
question period.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food stated that the minister never told Island potato
growers to stop growing potatoes. Il est dans les patates.
I would like to quote from the minister's proceedings at the
standing committee—
The Speaker: It sounds to me as though we are getting
into a very jolly argument but that is not allowed on points of
order.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
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 have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
* * *
1205
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first
report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends
that pursuant to subsection 52(2) of the Oceans Act, the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be granted an extension for its
report on the review of the provisions and operation of this act,
from January 31, 2001 to October 1, 2001, and I should like to
move concurrence at this time.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions today.
The first petition is signed by British Columbians who are
calling upon parliament to proclaim natural gas an essential
commodity and give it back to the people of Canada.
CANADA POST
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from concerned citizens who
are calling upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the
Canada Post Corporation Act.
POISON CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this petition comes from residents in
the province of Saskatchewan who want to draw the attention of
the House to the fact that since 1992 concentrated liquid
strychnine poison has been available for purchase by farmers for
use in the control of the Richardson's ground squirrel.
However, since 1992 Health Canada has restricted the sale of
strychnine such that it is currently available only in a premixed
form with the amount of ingredient limited to .4% by volume.
The current allowable limits for strychnine have greatly reduced
the effectiveness of the poison with the result that the
populations of Richardson's ground squirrels are steadily
increasing. The crop and hay land damage caused by this squirrel
is very costly to farmers in regard to productivity, equipment
repairs and injury to livestock. They petition parliament to
amend the relevant regulations so as to permit the sale of
concentrated liquid strychnine to registered farmers until such
time as an effective alternative can be found.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have three questions to deal with today. Question No. 19 will be
answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 19—Mr. Peter Adams:
With respect to the Antarctic treaty system: (a) what does
Canada contribute; (b) which department is in charge; and (c)
what is the total cost incurred by Canada?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade has overall responsibility for the
co-ordination of Canada's participation in the Antarctic treaty
system. A number of other departments and agencies, notably
Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport
Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Polar Commisssion
and the National Museums of Canada provide expertise on specific
issues under consideration in the context of the Antarctic treaty
system.
Canada's status as a contracting party to the Antarctic treaty
does not entail any assessed or voluntary financial
contribution.
Over the current fiscal year, April 2000 to March 2001 costs
that can be directly attributed to the Antarctic treaty system
include the following two items:
Participation in the Antarctic treaty meeting of experts on
guidelines for Antarctic shipping held in London, U.K., April
2000, $7,500; and participation in the special Antarctic treaty
consultative meeting held in the Hague, Netherlands, September
2000, including costs of preparation and production of reports,
$18,750.
In addition, the following items, while not directly ascribed to
the Antarctic treaty system, represent cost incurred to support
the various international organizations associated with the
treaty that support international scientific co-operation in the
Antarctic:
Scientific committee on Antarctic Research, SCAR, annual
contribution and participation in biannual meeting in Tokyo,
Japan, $15,000; Canadian committee for Antarctic research, CCAR,
which constitutes Canada's national committee for SCAR, support
for secretariat, publications, participation in biannual meetings
of SCAR working groups in Tokyo, Japan, and costs of annual
meeting, $42,5000; and Council of managers of Antarctic programs,
COMNAP, annual contribution and participation in annual meeting
in Tokyo, Japan, $7,200.
On the broader issue of Canada's scientific contribution to the
Antarctic treaty system, since acceding to the Antarctic treaty
in 1988, Canadian government and university scientists and
experts have participated in the work of many technical and
scientific groups and contributed in several fields. Specific
examples include expertise in oil spill prevention and
containment in ice infested waters; waste management in polar
regions; and development of a code for polar shipping, of an
Antarctic flight manual, of the environment management plan for
the McMurdo Dry Valleys, of environmental monitoring guidelines,
and of a system of protected areas for Antarctica. These
activities receive support from a number of government
departments and institutions.
Canadian scientists continue to contribute to the work of SCAR
working groups and as active scientists. Between mid-1997 and
mid-2000, Canadian scientists wrote or co-authored some 85
publications on Antarctic and bipolar science in a broad range of
scientific disciplines. The Arctic-Antarctic exchange program
promotes collaboration and exchange between scientists working in
the two polar regions.
Finally, Canada also contributes to the exchange of information
between the Arctic Council and Antarctic treaty meetings.
* * *
[English]
STARRED QUESTIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would
you be so kind as to called Starred Questions Nos. 3 and 4.
I would ask that the question and the answer to Question No. 3
be printed in Hansard as if read.
.[Text]
*Question No. 3—Mr. Jim Pankiw:
With respect to the Canada foundation for innovation, what
amount of additional funding has been attracted from: (a)
provincial governments, (b) universities; (c) the private
sector, and (d) the voluntary sector?
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): The following table
lays out the sources of matching funds by category. These figures
apply to projects where final agreements have been concluded. This
represents 470 projects for a total CFI share of $164.5 million.
Many larger projects are still being brought to the final
agreement form. The total project dollars, CFI plus matching,
amounts to $431.9 million so the CFI share is 38.1%. All cash
values are in millions of dollars as of April 2000. The most
recent figures available are as follows:
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the answer to Question No. 4 could be made an order for return,
the return would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 4—Mr. Pankiw:
With respect to
the Canada Foundation for Innovation and its Board of
Directors: (a) what are the names of those organizations
and/or persons represented on the Foundation's Board of
Directors; (b) what is the criteria for being selected to
the Board; and (c) what is the duration of service for Board
members?
Return tabled
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
JUDGES ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, an
act to amend the Judges Act and to amend another act in
consequence, be read the third time and passed.
1210
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, before we began question period my
hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca used his speech to
express his concerns with the judicial process in Canada. One of
the government members got upset with him and said that basically
the status quo is acceptable.
We have to be proud of our judiciary. We have some great people
involved in the justice system. Most Canadians would not dispute
that. We have to focus on how we can make our current systems
better. In many cases the status quo is not acceptable and I
think most Canadians feel that something needs to be done to keep
the judiciary at arm's length from the government to some extent.
My hon. colleague mentioned a number of solutions. He mentioned
elections. I do not know whether he necessarily supports them
but he mentioned them.
Another option I would like him to comment on is the idea of
setting up an independent body that would review the applications
for judges and the process of appointments so that they would be
taken out of this place and out of the hands of the Prime
Minister. That would make the system work a little better and
would keep the judiciary at arm's length from the government and
from this place.
I would like my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to
comment on that particular area of improving the justice system.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has
asked a very good question and has basically articulated the
solutions I have put forth here.
The issue is accountability. The issue is about removing power
from the Prime Minister and giving it back to the people. While
we have an excellent judiciary, we can do certain things, such as
having an independent body, which the hon. member spoke about,
such as having supreme court appointments made not by the Prime
Minister but ratified by parliament on an advisory from the Prime
Minister. The same thing could happen in provincial legislatures
across the country.
On the issue of elected officials, it happens at a certain level
in the judiciary. It happens in California and it works very
well. It takes the power away from a single individual, which is
what we have in our country today, gives a little broader
accountability and gives members of the public the opportunity to
have some say about who will judge them when they are in front of
the courts. It works very well in California. Very few judges
are removed. Most of them stay. Only those who are really not
doing a good job are removed.
In Canada, as my colleague mentioned, we have an excellent
judiciary. These solutions are just a way to perhaps make it a
little better.
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.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CANADA FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGY ACT
The House resumed from April 5 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.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, the Canada
foundation for sustainable development technology act.
The premise of the legislation is that it will establish a
foundation to fund innovative projects, primarily within the
areas of climate change and air quality. This is a premise that
the PC Party supports.
We all know that Canada made a strong commitment at Kyoto to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put into place measures to
help reduce the impact of climate change.
In fact it was the Conservative government, in 1992 at Rio,
which first established a strong position respecting the
environment, one that the current government has allowed to
lapse.
1215
The legislation before us fails in its effort to improve the
environment and to bring forward new sustainable development
technology. The fault is not with the premise of the bill but
with the specifics or lack thereof.
The bill clearly states that the foundation would be established
with an initial fund of $100 million. Although the fund may be
increased over time, it is unlikely that it is the government's
intention to do this. That would be determined based on the
success of the foundation to meet its objectives. However I
question how the foundation would determine whether its
objectives are being met.
The amendment put forward in committee whereby the foundation
would be required to submit detailed reports on specific
projects, namely the extent to which they were successful in
meeting their goals, was denied. At most steps in the process
the government has refused to accept amendments from any of the
opposition parties.
It has been a very trying job in committee listening to
government deliberations and listening to it defending its
position on particular aspects of the bill. If all parties had
gone to committee with an open mind, the bill could have been
improved. The Conservative Party would have supported it along
with the NDP, the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance.
We are left with legislation that promotes sustainable
development but without guidelines in place to allow the
foundation to determine whether those objectives are being met.
There are some air quality issues that are difficult to
accurately measure, but that does not mean there should be no
standard in place to do it.
The government has been widely criticized by the auditor general
for its lack of accountability on various projects or programs.
Too little information is being made available regarding the
spending of public funds. Yet the government will continue the
tradition with the legislation.
Another amendment that would have improved the legislation
proposed that access to information be applied to the foundation.
That amendment as well as the one I just mentioned would have
improved the accountability and openness of the foundation and
would have allowed an unbiased view of the projects. It would
have enabled the foundation to better determine whether it was
meeting its objectives. Without such requirements in place, the
foundation becomes yet another institution which allows the
government to give out money as it pleases.
We all recognize that some projects would fail. Not every
project, in particular those that promote new technology and
innovative ideas, would be able to overcome obstacles and
setbacks. That is understood and it is not the objective of
accountability and quantitative reviews to restrict projects or
call into question their ability to succeed.
Furthermore, if it is impossible to quantify the ways in which a
project could reduce greenhouse gases to improve air quality, it
is not to say that such a project is not good. There should be
overall guidelines in place, at least general guidelines, to
allow the foundation to achieve some level of accountability for
public funds.
Speaking of funds brings me to another problem with the
legislation, another area where a lack of detail prevents me from
supporting the bill. It is one more example of inconsistency
between what the minister said about the legislation when it was
introduced in the House and what is actually entailed in the
legislation.
As I mentioned, the foundation would be funded with $100 million
of taxpayer money. When the minister appeared in committee he
continually stated that it would be the intention of the
foundation to leverage projects on a 1:4 basis. In other words,
the foundation would provide 25% of the total funding required to
bring a project to fruition and other private or public sources
could be accessed to supply the remaining 75%. In no way is that
an inconceivable or unnecessarily restrictive objective.
There are many other government programs available to help fund
projects such as the ones that would be considered by the
foundation.
I have a list of other public programs. There is the annual
allocation of $58 million for the energy research and development
program. On March 8 the Minister of Industry announced $62
million in scholarship and fellowship funding to the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. On March 12
there was an announcement of funding of $73 million for four new
networks of centres of excellence.
1220
The budget of the Canada foundation for innovation is $2.4
billion, plus a recent addition of $750 million announced by the
government on March 6. Technology partnerships annual allocation
is $300 million. The industrial research assistance program
annual allocation is $7 million. Technology early action measures
allocation is $57 million. What the list shows is that there are
other avenues available for funding for sustainable development
projects.
It does not mean that the legislation is redundant. It means
that there was ample opportunity for the government to set out
specific limits on funding flowing from the foundation. With
other options available, the government did not have to worry
about funding a project at 100%. The minister said that the
object would be to fund projects at 25%, and yet nowhere in the
legislation is there any mention of any sort of limits.
I proposed an amendment at committee stage that would have
established a limit of 50% funding although the minister had been
indicating at the time that the $100 million would be leveraged
into $400 million. The amendment proposed a 50% limit so that
the board of directors of the foundation would not be unduly
restricted or bound by unnecessary limitations. The amendment
would have established a guideline for the board, one that was
consistent with the intent of the bill as the minister outlined.
The amendment was voted down.
The lack of detail within the legislation may be dismissed. The
government may say that the legislation should not needlessly
restrict the board of the foundation. It is an example of sloppy
legislation, one that is loosely worded and open to misuse.
I also proposed in committee an amendment which was successfully
adopted with the support of Liberal members of the committee. The
amendment changed the date on which the legislation would take
effect. As it was worded, the provisions of the act could come
into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the governor
in council. It meant that the government could choose to
implement certain sections of the act while allowing other
sections to be implemented at later dates or not at all.
It also meant that the government could choose not to have the
Official Languages Act apply or maybe it would not require annual
reports by the foundation to parliament. Such a provision opened
the process to abuse. It is one more example of the original
looseness of the legislation. While the clause has been amended,
other clauses have not.
I do not wish to give the impression that the PC Party does not
support the objectives of the bill. Improving air quality and
reducing the impact of climate change are objectives that all
Canadians support. There are numerous alternative sources for
fuel that need to be advanced, particularly as the world
continues to deplete its oil and gas reserves. These fuel
sources are not only slowly disappearing, but their environmental
impact is causing undesirable consequences.
Canada has been a world leader in such areas as fuel cells and
solar energy. These are areas that need to be developed so that
the ideas and technologies can be applied in the marketplace,
even at national and international levels. The Ballard fuel cell
is one of the more recognized examples of Canada's innovative
leading edge in this area.
One of the parts of the legislation that I appreciate is that
the ideas generated with the assistance of funding from the
foundation are to be widely applied in the interest of improving
air quality for all Canadians. It means that if there can be
broad application of the technology or other uses of the idea
then it should be promoted since the overall goal is to improve
air quality across the country. That is one reason the
foundation would assist with the development of projects.
While it is admirable and something that the PC Party supports,
I refer back to the way the legislation has been crafted. The
legislation states that at the time of dissolution of the
foundation any money remaining would be divided among the
projects currently being funded.
While it may sound reasonable at first glance, it is really
saying that a project may receive unneeded money simply because
it is still considered an active file at the time the foundation
ceases to exist, when and if that ever occurs. Understanding
that there is no sunset clause in the legislation, the
legislation could conceivably go on forever. A project that has
received funding may at a latter part of its development no
longer require money, but because it is still one of the
foundation's projects it would receive a portion of the unused
funds.
1225
I am not suggesting it will happen but it could happen. The
foundation could literally have tens of millions of dollars on
its books and 12 or 50 projects. The money by law would be
legally divided among those projects, whether or not they
required additional funds. As long as they are open files they
would get a portion of those funds.
I proposed an amendment in committee to the clause that would
have seen the money revert to the government at the termination
of the foundation. Canadian taxpayers would get back any money
that had not been allocated at the time the foundation
terminated. It would make sense since taxpayers would have
contributed to the original funding of the foundation. Therefore
any leftover funds should revert to the government. Again the
amendment was voted down.
It is important to understand that it is not inconceivable to be
dealing with tens of millions of dollars, perhaps even $100
million. There is no limit on the amount that has to be in the
foundation, if and when it is dissolved.
There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the
government from providing new funds at any time to the
foundation. There is an unrestricted ability for the government
to increase the moneys available to the foundation without any
guideline in the legislation covering such actions.
It is another example of how little control the legislation
would have on how the government manipulates the foundation. The
PC Party would tend to support legislation aimed at improving air
quality, promoting sustainable energy and developing new
technologies. It is the sloppiness of the legislation that
prevents me from supporting the bill.
I will now review what is lacking in the legislation. First,
there are no controls on spending. Nowhere in the legislation is
there a limit on the amount of money the government plans to put
into the foundation over the long term. More important, there is a
limit on the amount of money that would be provided for specific
projects. Even though the minister stated that the foundation
would likely provide one-quarter of the necessary funding,
nothing was mentioned in the legislation to provide guidelines to
the directors.
Second, the foundation is not open to access to information
inquiries or to review by the auditor general. Third, the bill
lacks clearly defined terms for directors, something that I tried
to address through amendments. These are all problems that could
easily have been addressed by the government in the legislation.
It is disappointing not to be able to speak in favour of the
legislation. Sustainable energy is something that we all need to
strive to achieve, particularly given the fact that fossil fuel
supplies are decreasing. Moving to fuel cells or using existing
fuel sources and more environmentally friendly ways are goals
that we should all support if we want to improve air quality.
It is the job of the opposition parties to improve legislation
where necessary. In this case the legislation needs to be
amended. We have tried to do that. Unfortunately we were unable
to improve the legislation to the point where the PC Party could
support it.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have one
quick comment on one of the member's points regarding limits on
the contributions to projects.
The minister made it clear that the contribution agreement with
the foundation would set those limits. The reason he did not
want to put that in the legislation was to avoid cases where a
good project that went over some arbitrary limit could not be
handled. If it is put into the contribution agreement or into
the regulation the same function everyone was in favour of in the
legislation would be accomplished.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
comments, but I do not agree with him. If the intent of the
legislation is to be clear on the limitation of funding, the
legislation should clearly state that and not leave it up to the
board of directors.
Regarding the fact that some projects may require 100% funding,
such as projects that would be under the purview of hospitals and
universities where limited funding is available from other
sources, they would still be available for funding under the
agreements I have listed.
1230
Although I did not add them up, there was somewhere around $3.5
billion or $4 billion worth of additional government funding
available from other projects. In no way would any good project
need to be turned down on the basis that it could not be funded
100%, because there would be funding available from other sources
which could take up that other 50% or 75% that may be required.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House
for the following motion:
That this debate do now adjourn and that we proceed immediately
to the consideration of private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the chief government whip to put her motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy 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)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
COMPUTER HACKERS
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That, in the opinion of
this House, the government should immediately amend the
Criminal Code to create a separate category of offences and
punishments for computer hackers and persons who wilfully or
maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose
activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic
business in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will start my speech with a discussion
about the Internet and personal computers.
Obviously we live in a world environment where technology is
changing at an ever increasing pace. It is creating a lot of
opportunities but it also is creating some problems as well.
The Internet is a great tool to use for research. Many people
are now shopping on the Internet. E-mail of course is a very
efficient and effective method of communication and is becoming
increasingly popular. People do banking online. Many companies
or individuals for various reasons host websites, which are great
sources of information for people to access.
Furthermore, the use of computers in today's world is an
absolute necessity. Businesses use them for data management and
for accounting purposes. As members of parliament, we rely on
computers extensively for our word processing and all of our
communications efforts.
Because technology, computers and the Internet are so pervasive
in our society and becoming increasingly relied upon, consumer
and customer confidence in the case of people who do business
online is being questioned. There are issues of privacy.
My private member's motion is designed to fill a void that
currently exists in the criminal code.
When the Internet was first developed and its use expanded upon,
I do not think a lot of the pioneers who were behind the
development of the Internet and the entrepreneurs who broke
ground in improving the way computers worked ever envisioned that
the Internet could be used for such perverted and corrupt
purposes. I am speaking partially about the fact that children
in some cases are being targeted and lured into situations where
they might be abused by sexual predators.
1235
My motion seeks to specifically provide new criminal code
provisions to deal with people who disrupt electronic commerce on
purpose. I am talking about computer hackers who hack into
computers in an attempt to steal or retrieve data or to simply
cause a computer malfunction. One of the most terrible acts occurs
when people wilfully and maliciously export computer viruses for
the purpose of disrupting business and commerce.
As part of my research for my motion, I contacted a constable
with the RCMP commercial crimes division. I asked how the police
would deal with people who with premeditation and malice exported
a virus. I asked if they exported the virus for wide
dissemination or if they were targeting a different organization,
would that be dealt with differently. One would think that
different acts would have different consequences in terms of the
criminal code.
The constable's answers were vague and he was not forthcoming. I
told him that he was not giving me the answers for which I was
looking. He told me that that was because there was a vacuum in
the criminal code. He said they did not have the tools to deal
with this. He informed me that in many cases people were charged
under a section of the criminal code termed mischief to data.
However, it was not specific and not targeted.
My motion seeks to have the government introduce a bill that
would have specific provisions in the criminal code which the
police could use to charge people who engaged in activities such
as hacking or exporting computer viruses.
I hope I receive all party support for this motion. I am
proposing that provisions be put in the criminal code. I have
not delved into what specific crimes should be delineated or
added to the code nor have I made any reference to what the
penalties ought to be.
If the bill came before the House of Commons, it would receive
second reading, go to committee and would come back to this place
for report stage. There would be many opportunities for us to
debate the specific charges and what the penalties associated
with them would be. This is the appropriate place for that.
I would like to offer my opinion. The penalties associated with
criminal acts of computer hacking and exporting of viruses ought
to be quite severe. I see these as wilful acts of malice and an
attack on personal property. I see these acts as no different
from those of an arsonist or somebody who breaks into a home and
robs it. The penalties associated with these types of activities
ought to be in that type of category which would act as a
deterrent to the crimes themselves. We currently do not have
appropriate provisions in the criminal code for the police to
deal with individuals who are engaging in these activities nor do
we have appropriate deterrents.
I would like to state for the record that my constituency office
in Saskatoon had a problem with a hacker. My staff had to
establish what is called a firewall. I do not know the
technical aspects of that, but it is a situation whereby a
computer system is set up so nobody can hack into it.
The Anna Kournikova virus which hit earlier this year infected
many members' computers. My staff in Ottawa informed me that my
computer received 130 of the Anna Kournikova viruses. We should
take whatever reasonable measures we can to prevent that type of
thing from happening.
I also have some resolutions of the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police on such things as Internet luring and the
exploitation of children, criminal activity involving Internet
and sexual activities with young people and other regulations and
enforcement provisions of Internet matters. The Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police has recognized that there is a
need to be filled.
1240
While my motion is specific and restricted only to computer
hackers and virus exporters, there are obviously other things
that need to be addressed as well. However I believe it has a
basis of common sense and practicality. I hope it will receive
the support of all members of the House.
I also want to take this opportunity to say that I am fortunate
that this motion was drawn. For the viewers watching who do not
know how it works in this place, private members of parliament do
not have the privilege of proposing legislation to the House,
except through the private members' lottery system. While we can
table bills or motions in the House of Commons, they simply sit
there in a state of suspension for an indefinite period of time.
Periodically a lottery is held in which members' names are drawn.
If we are fortunate enough to have a motion or a bill drawn, we
then appear before a committee and a select few of those bills
are actually deemed votable.
While I am fortunate enough to have had that happen to this
motion, a member should not have to rely on good luck or fortune
to have a proposal such as this come before the House of Commons.
We should look at reforming the system of private members'
business.
As a private member, if I had an initiative, a suggested
proposal or an amendment to legislation that I wanted to bring
forward on behalf of my constituents, this would be an effective
means me to do that. It would also be a means to hold the
government accountable for the laws and rules. If I am not
afforded the ability to do that, it restricts my ability as a
member of parliament to act as an effective member of the
opposition.
I submit to the House that while it may be politically expedient
to try to restrict initiatives from coming forward, we all
benefit if opposition members are afforded an ability to be as
effective as possible. The ability to bring forward motions or
bills is something that should not be restricted.
I think I have effectively covered the premise of my private
member's motion which is the need to fill a void in the current
Criminal Code of Canada and set out specific offences related to
people who willfully disrupt electronic business and commerce in
Canada. Their behaviour is very offensive.
I hope I will have the support of all members of the House to
have the government bring forward legislation to fill that void
and properly address what is a growing problem in Canada.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on
private member's Motion No. 80 which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category
of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who
willfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose
activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in
Canada.
I would like to begin my remarks in support of this common sense
initiative by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt, for bringing this matter to the floor of the
House for consideration. My colleague introduced the motion in
the last parliament as well but the Liberals ignored it.
1245
My colleague's motion is forward thinking and responds to the
needs of consumers and businesses who are very concerned about
the shenanigans caused by computer hackers and those who enjoy
sending out e-mails that crash computers.
Under the Criminal Code of Canada, law enforcement agencies and
the courts are not properly equipped to lay criminal charges nor
prosecute matters that involve Internet hacking. Creating a
separate category would facilitate the prosecution of such crimes
in a consistent manner and would act as a deterrent for those who
intend to hack computers with malintent.
I will describe the seriousness and the losses that can be
caused by such hacking. Recent events show how much money can be
lost because of hacking or computer viruses. Not long ago
egghead.com was attacked and three million credit card numbers
were stolen.
Last February, a 16 year old boy from Quebec, known as mafia
boy, was charged with conducting a denial of service attack on
the world's leading Internet sites, like amazon.com, e-bay, CNN,
yahoo and e*trade. The high tech crime spree prompted an FBI
investigation. The mafia boy is facing a maximum of two years in
custody. These attacks were estimated to have cost the firms
$1.2 billion U.S. based on lost revenue, loss in market
capitalization and dollars spent upgrading security systems.
In the first quarter of 2000, the FBI reported that 800,000
credit card numbers were stolen over the Internet in three
incidents. In May 2000, the “I love you” virus wreaked havoc
worldwide and caused an estimated $10 billion in losses.
In December 2000, the University of Washington Hospital had a
website security issue, making all its confidential patient
information available on the web for three days.
Those are some of the examples that come to light regarding
Internet hacking.
International airports, banks, governments, defence departments,
science labs and power companies are all vulnerable to computer
hackers and viruses. Organized crime is a serious threat in this
century. What would happen if a hacker managed to trigger
missiles? Because they are computer based, someone could hack
into the computer, fool around and trigger a missile. This kind
of threat must be taken seriously, not only in Canada but
internationally.
Internet use has increased markedly in the past five years.
Many homes are logged on to the Internet. Young people are at
the cutting edge of our computer oriented society. We must
impress on our younger generations the serious nature of
tampering or playing with this technology.
I will now talk about liability, responsibility and lack of
protection in this case. Security flaws sometimes may not be
detectable. When a technology is created sometimes the security
flaws cannot be detected because they may be in a particular area
or be service oriented. If unethical people find the flaw, they
could exploit it for personal or criminal gains.
The software companies are not liable for security flaws in
their products since they have liability clauses in their
agreements. Consumers are not protected by industry standards or
government regulations. There is no guarantee of security being
offered for Internet use.
These kinds of crimes affect our livelihood, our lives and
invade our privacy. They threaten the e-commerce worldwide.
1250
The Canadian centre for information technology security was
founded by the University of British Columbia as well as the
justice institute of B.C. to lead the way in information
security. It is an effort in the right direction but such
efforts need the support of government and law enforcement
agencies. There needs to be a law with teeth in this regard.
The problem is serious as peace is threatened. International
co-operation is imperative. There may be a disruption in our
international security if the issue is not handled properly.
There has been no Liberal action on the issue. The weak Liberal
government that lacks vision is not doing anything to address the
situation. It is a serious matter. Rather than making the
motion votable, the Liberals have ignored it. I do not know
whether they will even speak to the motion.
The Liberals should have taken their cue from my colleague and
stolen his motion so that Canadians could be protected from
hackers. There should be a bill coming from the government, but
the weak Liberal government that lacks vision has done nothing on
the issue so far. Leadership is needed on the issue and it is
not coming from the Liberal government. That is why my colleague
has introduced the forward thinking motion we are debating today.
Prevention is always better than cure. Preventive measures such
as criminal sanctions need to be adopted. There should be a
specific reference in the criminal code for offences related to
Internet sabotage or hacking. We are living in a computer age
and it is necessary to have laws in statutes that reflect that.
The debate should wake up members opposite. I urge all members
of the House to support Motion No. 80.
It is a common sense motion. Motion No. 80 requests that the
criminal code be changed to include a section on offences that
would allow police to lay charges against any person or persons
who deliberately export a computer virus or engage in any
activity designed to disrupt e-commerce and business in Canada.
All members are asked to support the motion so that we can take
the right action at the right time and prevent mishappenings in
the future.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
participate in the debate on behalf of our justice critic, the
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, and present our
party's position on the motion. We see it as a justice issue.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
immediately amend the Criminal Code to create a separate category
of offences and punishments for computer hackers and persons who
wilfully or maliciously export computer viruses, both of whose
activities disrupt the normal conduct of electronic business in
Canada.
In recent years we have heard of the love bug virus and the Anna
Kournikova virus. The latter was sent to the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and to me from a former high
school chum, Mike Wells. We make it a point to address issues of
this nature to rid us of the capacity for hackers like Mike Wells
to contaminate personal computers.
In today's computer age some have immortalized people like mafia
boy in the same manner in which the public immortalized Al Capone
in the 1930s.
These computer hackers have not killed anyone, but like Capone
these immortalized computer hackers are nothing more than common
criminals.
1255
The current criminal code is adequate to deal with computer
hackers. It covers mischief in relation to data in subsections
430(1.1) and 430(5). A hacker is liable to imprisonment not
exceeding 10 years or punishable on summary conviction. It also
includes references to the unauthorized use of a computer where a
hacker is liable to imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or
punishable on summary conviction.
Given the fact that the world is becoming increasingly wired,
the antics of computer hackers and the creation of viruses have
become a serious threat to some of the most powerful companies in
the world. It has been a real threat to businesses and
governments around the world.
Families and individuals who store valuable personal
information, priceless family photos, et cetera, on their hard
drives can have these personal records taken from them, lost for
perpetuity, through the commission of a thoughtless and callous
crime committed by a computer hacker.
The problem is that society has not treated the problem
seriously. Many people still consider such actions to be a
practical joke. We take it cavalierly and as such we have not
created any deterrent.
Many hackers are teenagers, as in the case of mafia boy, who
think it is a prank. The creation of a separate offence would
send the message to society that computer hacking is
irresponsible and causes serious harm. Those who cause such
problems should be held properly accountable.
On behalf of the learned member, our justice critic and the
House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, it is my pleasure to
enter these remarks into debate this afternoon.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in this
place on a Friday afternoon to speak to the motion. There is
always such excitement in this place on Friday afternoons that it
is a real pleasure to be able to share that with all my
colleagues.
I congratulate the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who in
his wisdom saw the increase in the amount of Internet trade that
takes place in Canada and around in the world. In trying to
facilitate that sort of trade and growth he has introduced a
private member's motion which would require the government to
amend the criminal code to create a separate category of offences
and punishment for persons found guilty of wilfully disrupting
the conduct of electronic business.
The motive of the motion is definitely in good standing. There
needs to be some concern when it comes to security and protection
of information, protection of privacy and protection of very
important documents as they travel across the Internet,
particularly as Internet trade continues to increase. Yet as my
colleague said earlier, the criminal code, law enforcement
agencies and the courts are not properly equipped to lay criminal
charges and prosecute matters that involve the Internet. Creating
a separate category would facilitate the prosecution of such
crimes in a consistent manner.
It gives us the chance to talk about the issue and at least
evaluate it to see what can be done to improve the measures of
security around Internet trade.
Most of my colleagues would remember from the last parliament a
landmark bill that was passed. Bill C-6, the Personal
Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, dealt with
electronic commerce and specifically private protection of
information. I was fortunate enough to work on that bill because
I was a member of the industry committee.
1300
There was a lot of good work in that bill which laid a
foundation, with help from all parties in the House to move it
forward. However, the issue that still needs to be addressed is
the one my hon. colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt brings up
today. That is the issue of security and the measures that are
needed in order to be able to lay fraud charges against people
who are abusing the Internet or abusing e-commerce or doing
anything else that may arise from wilful wrongdoings.
Bill C-6 initially created a legal and regulatory framework for
electronic commerce by introducing measures to protect personal
information in the private sector, creating an electronic
alternative for doing business with the federal government, and
clarifying how the courts assess the reliability of electronic
records used as evidence.
The framework of the bill obviously was suited to putting a
mandate on the future growth of electronic commerce in the
country. However, again the area that I think was a bit weak,
which we talked about—and I believe the government said it
planned to work on that area—was the area of security.
What was supposed to be developed in that bill, which I think
also touches on this private member's motion, was the idea of
improving the security of electronic signatures through the use
of encryption. That was going to be part of the bill. I know
there is still an effort going on to develop that, but ultimately
we would like to see it brought in sooner than later.
The private member's motion today at least addresses that to
some extent. It opens up that debate, not only to look at the
criminal aspects of what can be done to make sure we try to deter
illegal activity within Internet commerce, but as well to look at
ways within the framework of the legislation the House has
already produced to increase security through forms of encryption
or other forms of security currently on the Internet, perhaps
without even looking at going down through the criminal side, as
my colleague suggested. That at least gives us the opportunity
to be able to debate it.
Bill C-6 also went beyond the scope of electronic commerce in
that it created a legal and regulatory framework to be applied to
the commercial use of sensitive and private information in all
areas of business. During that debate there was much concern
from people in health care, areas of commerce, small businesses
and obviously consumers. Consumers are one of the most important
aspects of Internet commerce. They want to make sure their
information is protected if they are doing transactions over this
new medium, the Internet. Their information, whether it be
financial records, Visa numbers or whatever, is being submitted
and can be accessed almost anywhere, especially, as my colleague
mentioned, by hackers or by others trying to do wrong on the
Internet.
There is no doubt about it. This is a concern to many Canadians
and we need to address what we can do to deter criminal activity
on this new medium, which increasingly the majority of Canadians
will be using. We need to address how we can do it.
There is one thing I encourage my hon. colleague to consider,
especially as we continue to deliberate on his motion. Hopefully
the motion will continue on its way and maybe even get to
committee so we can make amendments to it. We should look at
ways to continue to work on the area of security through
encryption. That is something that is within the mandate of the
government and the House. We can look at ways to improve that
legislation, as we talked about prior to it passing in the House
and receiving royal assent earlier this year. Also, we can look
at ways to see how that can be co-operatively strengthened on the
criminal code aspects.
Based on my hon. colleague's comments when he made reference to
the RCMP and a few other police organizations, there is no doubt
that they are feeling left out in the cold in regard to doing
their part in strengthening the security around Internet
transactions. They need to be able to prosecute and lay criminal
charges against people who disrupt e-commerce business in Canada.
There is obviously a reason to debate this. There is a reason
to strengthen what we have done already in the House. Hopefully
we will keep strengthening the ability of Canadian consumers to
use the e-commerce medium and to be able to trust it. We need to
work in a voluntary and co-operative way with industry, because
there are a lot of great innovations happening out there that do
increase security on the Internet. I believe there are many
things we can do.
1305
I will take a moment to once again congratulate the member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt, who I think brings a very important motion
to the House to at least begin the debate on how we can continue
to improve the medium of electronic commerce in the country.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I add my chorus of congratulations to
those for my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt for his foresight
in bringing the motion to the floor of the House. We know the
issue has been raised before. It has been dealt with by the
banks, by the police and by a wide variety of individuals across
the country, including the Minister of Justice, who has shown
great interest in it. I can only ask her at the outset of my
comments to please work with the member to address the issue.
As has been articulated, the Internet has exploded into our
lives. It truly has been an explosion. It is interesting to
note that it took 25 years for cable television to reach 10
million people and it has taken only 5 years for the Internet to
reach 10 million people.
With those growing numbers in terms of users, we have seen an
explosion in criminal opportunities. We have heard about the
opportunities for money laundering and computer hacking, which
not only compromise economies and businesses but can also have a
profound impact on personal lives with respect to any health care
data that is shared. It can also have a devastating effect on
security issues.
We have seen some very frightening examples of individuals in
other countries hacking into security systems. These security
systems control and involve missiles and they control other
defence capabilities that can obviously have a profound impact on
the country or countries and, indeed, on international security
at large.
Therefore we need to have some kind of rules based mechanism and
some laws with which we can identify problems with respect to
security within our Internet e-commerce, problems such as we have
today, and with which we can also develop tools to go after the
people who have shown a wilful disdain for the system and for
individuals.
We know that computer networks have an increasing importance in
our lives. We need to develop some rules to deal with this
because of the profound impact that people hacking into the
computers can have. My colleagues have actually articulated that
already.
I draw attention to the need to involve various partners. I
know the justice minister and my colleague are interested in
this. There is a need to involve police officers, banks and
government and bring them together to develop a rules based
system which will allow us to go after the money launderers, the
people who are using credit cards illegally and the people who
are shunting large sums of money from their criminal actions into
other avenues that are legal. I think it is the biggest
challenge with respect to organized crime.
Some people see Hell's Angels individuals with their leathers and
their hogs and think of them as unintelligent, brutal killers who
terrorize individuals. Certainly some of them are, but a much
larger percentage of them are individuals with $1,500 Armani
suits who are highly intelligent business thugs using the law
against us and hiding behind the law when it suits them.
One of the best things our country can do is follow on the
example of my colleague, follow on the interests of the justice
minister and have a round table with representatives of banks,
law enforcement officers, government representatives and members
to pull together a series of bills that will enable us to go
after these people on the basis of their money. We have to find
ways of tracking the money. When we track the money, we have a
way of dealing with the most vulnerable aspect of organized
criminals.
Of course it is indeed a balance. We have to balance the issue
of privacy of individuals and companies with the greater need to
enable law enforcement officers to apprehend and prosecute
individuals who are using the Internet and using banking systems
in this illegal way. Historically the banks have had a voluntary
system of transaction reporting, whereby bank managers are asked
to report large transactions if they are somewhat suspect.
1310
Even the banks recognize that this is not working very well.
They clearly recognize their internal checking mechanisms are not
working well. Organized crime knows that and is manipulating the
system to its advantage.
As a country we are known as a major conduit of illegal funds, a
place where it is very easy to launder funds. We need to change
that. I know there is great political will in the House and
across the country to do that.
My colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt and other members of the
House are demonstrating an interest, a knowledge and an expertise
in this area that would allow Canadians to feel a lot safer and
secure with respect to their funds and resources.
It is not only that. There are many other issues with which we
have to deal. We spoke about the illegal use of the Internet for
pornography, specifically child pornography. This is an issue
that is very difficult to deal with, but as a nation we must work
with our partners. The Internet is international. We have to
influence and suggest solutions in an international sphere.
Once we get our house in order, we can actually bring these
solutions to the international forum.
I believe in 1998 the Organization of American States signed a
declaration of principles. This was a series of recommendations
which the representatives were going to take back to their
countries. The declaration was intended to bring us together in
dealing with Internet crime and money laundering. I have not
heard anything in the House to date on that. It would be very
encouraging for the minister to bring this to the floor of
the House. By working with like-minded colleagues, such as the
member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and others, we could pull together
a good bill that would address these issues.
This is a new issue. It is an important and pertinent issue to
Canadians because of the vast exponential expansion of the
Internet and the impact it has on our society. The potential is
there for individuals to hack into systems and use the
information for their own criminal intent.
I encourage members of the House to support my colleague's
motion. It is a good motion that will help Canadians. We look
forward to a positive response from the minister on this.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 80. I
would thank the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for raising
an issue of national and international importance.
Issues relating to cyber-crime, such as hacking and malicious
virus dissemination, have been widely reported over recent months
and has caused government and industry and the public to turn
their attention to these matters.
The government shares concerns related to issues surrounding
cyber-crime. However, it is important to find out that our
concerns are related to the proliferation of such activity and
not about our ability to prosecute such offenders as we have laws
that address the problem on the books already.
Although the Minister of Justice agrees with the principle of
the motion, she cannot support it as presented. The simple
answer or reason is that our current criminal code provisions
already criminalize this type of behaviour.
A short 10 years ago the Internet was in its commercial infancy.
Now the expansion of the Internet and the technologies associated
with it in a very real manner have revolutionized our world. The
Internet has changed the way we communicate with one another, the
way we share information and the way we relate to each other.
Computer networks and the Internet in particular have managed to
shrink our vast world.
Today's technology allows us to share information with people in
other countries and on other continents with minimal expense, but
the Internet has also created corresponding opportunities for
criminals.
Like everyone else, criminals have embraced high technology to
further their goals. We are becoming increasingly aware of the
threats posed by individuals using the Internet. Hate literature
and child pornography can be disseminated easily. Even
traditional crimes such as fraud and forgery can now be committed
with the aid of the Internet.
Hackers, which are addressed in the member's motion, can wreak
havoc on our economic infrastructure by bringing down critical
computer and communications systems. Serious havoc can even
result from a prank.
There have been incidents where teenagers either unknowingly or
fully understanding the implications of their actions have hacked
into sensitive websites.
The potential damage from a concerted attack by cyber-terrorists
on a country's critical infrastructure could be catastrophic.
This is what makes this type of behaviour so troubling.
1315
That being said, Canadians are fully protected from and equipped
to deal with the conduct described in the member's motion. In
fact laws covering this type of behaviour have been on our books
for over 15 years. In 1985 parliament created a separate
category of offences for hackers, now section 342.1 of the
criminal code. This provision makes it illegal for any person to
obtain unauthorized access to a computer service. Parliament at
the time recognized that this could be a serious crime, and it is
therefore punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment of 10
years.
With respect to persons knowingly and maliciously disseminating
computer viruses, parliament also made amendments in 1985 to the
crime of mischief which is also punishable by a maximum term of
imprisonment of 10 years. If actual danger to life is caused the
maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
These 1985 amendments make it a crime to wilfully tamper with
computer data. This includes conduct such as obstructing or
interfering with the lawful use of computer data or a computer
system. Additionally the traditional laws of attempt, conspiracy
and aiding and abetting will apply to these offences.
It is clear that our current laws already criminalize the
malicious dissemination of computer viruses that cause harm, as
well as attempts and other forms of complicity in such crimes.
Law enforcement has and will continue to use these provisions
successfully as in the recent mafia boy case, where the accused
was charged with 64 counts of hacking and mischief.
As stated earlier we are appreciative of the member's motion.
However the motion may give the impression that Canada is not
prepared or equipped legally to deal with such crimes. This is
obviously not correct.
In a recent independent international study on the readiness of
national laws to deal with cyber-crime, McConnell International
found that Canada's cyber-crime laws are among the world's
strongest.
Although Canada is a world leader in this regard, the government
is committed to ensuring that our laws speak to our changing
technological environment, while having due regard for
fundamental human rights.
Canada is an active participant in many international fora which
are currently studying both the effects and solutions to the
issues raised by cyber-crime. These include among others the
G-8, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, the Commonwealth
Secretariat, OECD and the Organization of American States.
As observers to the Council of Europe, Canadian delegates have
been integral in negotiating a draft convention on cyber-crime
that will be adopted later this year and that will stand as a
benchmark for international instruments in this area. At the G-8
Canada continues its leadership role on cyber-crime issues and is
looking forward to its presidency in the year 2002.
In summary, the existing provisions of the criminal code protect
Canadians fully against those who would use technologies such as
the Internet for the criminal purposes outlined in the motion.
The government, in co-operation with its international partners,
the law enforcement industry, provinces, territories and civil
liberties groups, is working to ensure that the tools and laws it
employs are relevant and appropriate in today's fast paced
environment.
In response to this international work, Canada is reviewing its
laws to ensure that Canada's laws remain up to date and that
Canada remains a world leader in this area.
[Translation]
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for this opportunity to take part in the debate on this
motion. I will not be supporting the motion because, in my
opinion, the criminal code provisions already deal with the
offences referred to in the motion.
As a matter of fact, a separate category of offences dealing
with hackers was created in 1985 under subsection 342.1 and
provisions dealing with mischief under subsection
430.1 specifically cover the transmission of computer viruses.
Even though no amendment is necessary as a result of this
motion, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the
Department of Justice reviews its acts on an ongoing basis to
ensure they are up to date.
Earlier my opposition colleague asked that we show leadership. I
believe the government has shown leadership in the past and
again yesterday when it announced new bold measures and the
allocation of new money to fight organized crime.
1320
The government was following up on a commitment made in the
throne speech. This commitment reflected the work of the House
of Commons subcommittee on organized crime and was in response
to a number of issues raised by the federal, provincial and
territorial justice ministers at their last meeting, in
September 2000.
[English]
In September 2000 ministers of justice declared organized crime
a national priority to be dealt with at all levels through a
multidisciplinary approach.
[Translation]
The ministers have agreed to a national program on organized
crime, with a very strict timetable in four areas, including
national and regional co-ordination, research and analysis,
legislative and regulatory instruments, as well as
communications and public education.
The criminal code is a national statute that is very important
to keep the peace in this country. Therefore, we must amend it
with caution. As my colleague was saying, since 1997 the
government has not hesitated to amend it when necessary. In
fact, it amended it eight times.
It did not hesitate to amend it to give increased powers to
police officers with regard to search and to impose restrictions
on release on bail.
It did not hesitate to amend it to enact provisions dealing with
organized crime, including creating a new offence that makes
participation in the illegal activities of a criminal
organization an indictable offence punishable by up to 14 years
in prison.
That particular piece of legislation broadened the investigative
powers of police officers, by making it easier, for example, for
law enforcement agencies to use electronic surveillance. It also
increased public protection by reversing the burden of proof for
a person accused of an organized crime offence who is requesting
bail.
This government did not hesitate to amend the criminal code to
modernize Canadian anti-drug legislation. It also enacted
provisions so that persons found guilty of organized crime
activities would not be entitled to any sort of accelerated
parole review.
In March 1999, new offences under the criminal code connected to
fraudulent telemarketing were created. Canada's power to
extradite fugitives and to address the problems relating to
borderless crimes such as organized crime, fraudulent
telemarketing and Internet fraud, was enhanced.
Last year, the government enacted proceeds of crime legislation,
which made it mandatory for financial institutions and middlemen
to report suspicious transactions and cross-border currency
movements.
The act also created the Financial Transactions and Reports
Analysis Centre of Canada to receive and administer the
information provided.
More recently, in February 2001, the Minister of Immigration
introduced Bill C-11, the immigration and refugee protection act.
This bill proposes fines of up to $1 million, and a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment for people smuggling and
trafficking in human beings.
As can be seen, this government was not afraid to adopt measures
to strengthen these laws, to strengthen the ability of existing
agencies to fight organized crime. In 1997, 13 joint integrated
proceeds of crimes units were created. In 1999, $115 million
went to the RCMP to modernize the Canadian Police Information
Centre.
In June 1999, the RCMP received $15 million to fight organized
crime at the three major international airports: Montreal,
Toronto and Vancouver.
1325
Again in 1999, we invested an additional $78 million in an
anti-contraband initiative to provide resources to the RCMP, the
federal Department of Justice and the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, to help these organizations target contraband and
distribution networks at Canada's border.
In budget 2000, an amount of $584 million was allocated to the
RCMP, over a three year period. I should also point out that our
government passed the Witness Protection Act in 1996. Under that
legislation, a formal national program was set up to help
protect people who risk their lives to help the police in its
investigations.
Incidentally, the new measures announced yesterday by the
Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada provide
that an additional $200 million will be allocated to the fight
against organized crime. The amendments to the criminal code are
major ones.
We are proposing to create three new types of offences and
impose harsh penalties on those who participate, in various
degrees, in gang activities; to improve the protection of people
in the judicial system against acts of intimidation against them
and their families; to streamline the current definition of
criminal organization; to expand the powers of those involved in
law enforcement activities; to confiscate the proceeds of crime,
particularly the profits of criminal organizations; and to seize
the goods used to commit a crime.
We are also proposing measures to establish an accountability
process to protect law enforcement officers against any criminal
liability when they take actions relating to an investigation or
to undercover activities in a criminal organization.
Clearly, this government is taking on its responsibilities, and I
am convinced that it will continue to do so whenever it
identifies a need for new measures to prevent the type of crime
mentioned in the official opposition's motion.
These are the reasons why I will not support the opposition's
motion.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for his
private member's motion, Motion No. 80, that would require the
government to amend the criminal code to create a separate
category of offences and punishments for people who wilfully
disrupt electronic business in Canada.
Some years back, when I was a member of the Calgary police force
and computers were coming into their own, there was already ample
evidence that people outside the mainstream of business were
hacking into sensitive files and databases. It was well known
even then that hackers were plying their trade to enter into
security files, sometimes within the police department or the
Department of National Defence. It became a form of espionage
that was sometimes difficult to protect against.
At that time, of course, like the present, there was not a lot
of legislation to help investigators compile data against those
who committed such activities. Without sufficient data it is
difficult to prosecute hackers to the full extent of the law and
thereby deter that kind of activity.
Hackers use all kinds of sophisticated means to be able to do
what they do and protect themselves. Police officers trying to
solve the problem must first get around all the firewalls that
hackers put up.
1330
The legislation would enable police officers to become very
effective at these types of investigations. However that takes
money. The federal government should recognize that because it is
a global crime it can happen almost anywhere. It takes money to
compile enough evidence to knock hackers down to their knees and
curtail their activities.
I hope the legislation will include resources to effectively
deal with the problem. I am sure the member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt has thought about that.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of private members' business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on
the order paper.
[Translation]
It being 1.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday,
April 23, 2001, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and
24.
(The House adjourned at 1.32 p.m.)