37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 063
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| REGIONAL PRODUCTS
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| TEACHING AWARDS
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| GRANDS PRIX DU TOURISME QUÉBÉCOIS
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
1405
| NEUROFIBROMATOSIS MONTH
|
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| JEAN-SÉBASTIEN RENAUD
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| MARC RACICOT
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
1410
| CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
| Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| TEACHING AWARDS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| INTERNATIONAL IMPAC LITERARY AWARD
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| BASQUE PEOPLE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| OTTAWA 67S
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1415
| MIKE BULLARD SHOW
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| THE BUDGET
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1420
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1425
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
1430
| Mr. John Cannis |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| HAROUN M'BAREK
|
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1440
| Hon. John Manley |
| CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Rey Pagtakhan |
1445
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HOCKEY
|
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1450
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HUMAN CLONING
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Hon. Robert Nault |
| CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1455
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
1500
| ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Mario Laframboise |
| Hon. David Collenette |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Oral Question Period
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Bill C-300
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
1505
| Allotted Day
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| CANADIAN BOOK INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Labelling of Alcoholic Products
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1510
| Gasoline Additives
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
|
| Mr. Gurbax Malhi |
| Research
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Justice
|
| Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
| Pedophiles
|
| Mrs. Betty Hinton |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Health Care
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Hon. John Manley |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1515
| MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| Motions in amendment
|
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Motions Nos. 1 and 3
|
1520
1525
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motions for concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1530
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-7. Report stage
|
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1535
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion
|
1540
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1545
1550
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1555
1600
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1605
1610
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1615
1620
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
1625
1630
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1635
1640
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1645
1650
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1655
1700
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1705
1710
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1715
1720
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1725
1730
| CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
|
| Bill C-10. Second reading
|
1755
(Division 99)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1800
| BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
|
| Bill C-217. Third reading
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
1805
1810
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1815
1820
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1825
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1830
1835
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1840
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1845
1850
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1855
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1900
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
1905
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Lawrence O'Brien |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 063
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
The House met at 2 p.m.
.TUC Prayers
1400
[Translation]
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesday we will now sing O
Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
REGIONAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the summit of the Americas, which, I would remind hon.
members, was attended by 34 heads of state of the Americas,
including the President of the United States, a reception was
hosted by the Prime Minister. To the great pride of all the
people of Brome—Missisquoi, and particularly the people of the
town of Lac Brome, Brome Lake duck was on the menu.
An event such as this is an extraordinary showcase for our
regional products. We can be justifiably proud of the variety,
quality and originality of our local products. As well as being
a source of pride to ourselves, I do not doubt that they were
greatly appreciated by the summit VIPs.
My congratulations to Canards du lac Brome on this undeniable
recognition of their product, an honour that reflects on the town
of Lac Brome, on Brome-Missisquoi, and on the Eastern Townships
as a whole.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the
attention of the government the ongoing income crisis in the
grains and oilseeds sectors, particularly on the prairies and
throughout Ontario.
In addition, the Saskatchewan net income will be under $400
million. When we consider that it normally is up in the billion
dollar range, that in itself is evidence of this tragedy. On top
of that, in my home province of Manitoba we have extremely wet
conditions which are delaying seeding. In western Saskatchewan
and Alberta we have extreme drought conditions.
I encourage the government to take immediate action and work
with provincial premiers in looking at solutions now and deliver
the assistance that will be required sooner rather than later.
* * *
TEACHING AWARDS
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House to
congratulate Mrs. Carol Oriold, a teacher at Listowel District
Secondary School in Listowel, Ontario. Mrs. Oriold has been
selected from 215 nominations to receive a 2000-01 Prime
Minister's award for teaching excellence and a certificate of
achievement.
As a teacher of dramatic arts, Mrs. Oriold has inspired students
and increased enrolment of classes from eight to fourteen. Many
students have gone on to professional theatre schools and work in
theatre.
The Black Door Theatre is another example of Mrs. Oriold's
achievement. As the founder of the theatre, students work in
co-operation with the audiovisual club, arts and technology
students. The troupe has won more than 100 awards in the past 15
years.
Mrs. Oriold is an exceptional individual who has inspired
students and has been an excellent role model. Congratulations
to Carol Oriold.
* * *
[Translation]
GRANDS PRIX DU TOURISME QUÉBÉCOIS
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday evening, the 16th award ceremony for the Grands prix du
tourisme québécois was held in Montreal. Four Outaouais area
businesses distinguished themselves at this event, and I am
extremely proud to pay tribute to them today.
Café Henry Burger of Hull carried off the “Gold” award in the
category “restaurant development”.
1405
A “Bronze” went to les Grands Feux du Casino de Hull, in the
category “events with a budget in excess of $1 million”.
In the “tourism services” category, the National Capital
Commission was awarded “Gold” for the Gatineau Park Visitor
Centre, while Réservation-Outaouais was awarded a “Gold” in the
“transportation and travel” category.
The Outaouis region has made a name for itself as far as Quebec
tourism is concerned. Congratulations and best wishes for
continuing success to our four Quebec tourism award winners, and
to all those who work day in and day out to make the time
tourists spend in the Outaouais memorable.
* * *
[English]
NEUROFIBROMATOSIS MONTH
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to bring to the attention of our Prime Minister, members
of parliament and Canadians across the country that May is
officially recognized as Neurofibromatosis Month. NF is caused
by spontaneous mutation of a gene that every human has. This
mutation acts to promote tumour development in over one in four
thousand North Americans.
This past weekend I had the privilege of attending a fund
raising event sponsored by the Benjamin Thornewell Memorial Fund.
Benjamin was a happy, outgoing child who passed away of NF at the
age of eight and a half. The impact this fine young Canadian had
on all of us is exemplified in the fact that over 300 community
members came together to raise over $17,000.
I congratulate Benjamin's mother, Pat, and everyone involved in
this huge success. Canada should come together and leave
Benjamin a legacy of which he can be proud. Let us support the
necessary research to find a cure for NF.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, abalone harvesting licence holders on
the west coast remain second class citizens. Unlike other
licence holders in other fisheries who have been disenfranchised
from their livelihood due to closures, the federal government has
never initiated a buyback program for owners of now useless
abalone licences.
The government's approach to disenfranchised abalone licence
holders was to set up an advisory body to discuss the issue with
the native fishery and coastal communities affected by the
closure. This is nothing but an attempt to bury the issue in a
bureaucratic maze, hoping the real disenfranchised, the abalone
licence holders, would forget about the whole thing.
A year ago I asked the minister of fisheries for a meeting to
discuss the issue and to date I have not been accorded the
courtesy of a response to my letter. When will I get a response
from the minister? When will abalone licence holders get what
they deserve? When will the minister realize he is from British
Columbia? These people are suffering.
I heard why do I not ask the parliamentary secretary, that he
should know what the minister is doing if he is doing his job.
They are not answering these questions. They should answer them
and do something immediately.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our health care system in many parts of the country is under
severe stress. Our hospitals are underfunded. Our nurses and
doctors are overworked. Our residents are waiting in some
regions for over a year for critical diagnostic tests. This
situation cannot continue.
On June 28 I will be hosting a community forum on the future of
health care in Canada. The results of our discussions will be
summarized in a report which I will present to the federal
government's Romanow commission.
This forum is about engaging in a dialogue with our citizens in
search of constructive solutions. Our goal, as Mr. Romanow has
indicated, is to ensure the long term sustainability of a high
quality, universally accessible, publicly administered health
care system for all Canadians.
I invite the residents of Nepean—Carleton to join me on June 28
at the Walter Baker Community Centre as we take a positive step
toward better health care in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-SÉBASTIEN RENAUD
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to welcome to Parliament Hill Jean-Sébastien
Renaud, the grand prize winner in the “member for a day” contest
in the riding of Longueuil. In fourth year high school at
Jacques-Rousseau school, Jean-Sébastien came first among the
students in the “Histoire nationale” course.
My aim, with this contest, is to develop young people's interest
in the hectic world of politics and show them the importance of
taking an active part in our society.
These young people, who will be making tomorrow's decisions,
have once again shown me that the next generation is very
promising indeed. The finalists it was my pleasure to meet were
all very interesting.
During his visit to Ottawa, accompanied by his father, Gérald
Renaud, Jean-Sébastien will have a chance to see the
parliamentary duties of MPs.
Jean-Sébastien, on behalf of all my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, I welcome you to parliament and wish you an enjoyable
visit.
* * *
MARC RACICOT
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the national
capital Alcatel marathon was held this weekend.
I would like to mention the excellent performance by Marc
Racicot.
1410
Mr. Racicot is a faithful employee of the security services
protection unit of the House of Commons.
He completed the marathon in a time of three hours, eight
minutes and fifty-seven seconds. He thus qualified for the
prestigious Boston marathon.
My colleagues join me in wishing him the best of luck in this
next challenge.
* * *
[English]
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, there is a shocking story of a family of six being
deported by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration after
going through all the proper procedures to immigrate to Canada.
It seems there is a glitch to their coming here, and that is
that Mr. Slarzyk mistakenly underpaid the $50 head tax. This
honest mistake was further complicated by the fact that the
department of immigration cashed his original cheque and then
lost any record of the family's application. To add insult to
injury, the Slarzyks were not even notified of their imminent
deportation.
It seems there are no extenuating circumstances for this
family's deportation or refusal of entry into Canada. They have
no record of illegal dealings. They have not contravened any
Canadian law. Mr. Slarzyk even started a small business.
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the kind of
hard-working people we want in Canada? Why will the government
not let the gentleman pay his $50 and keep his family in Canada?
* * *
TEACHING AWARDS
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week a select group of teachers from
across Canada received the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching
Excellence. As the Prime Minister said “These teachers are the
best of the best”.
One of the award recipients was Ms. Carol Scaini, a teacher at
Robert J. Lee Public School located in my riding, who won the
award because of her innovative learning style and her teaching
of self-esteem and respect for others.
On behalf of the constituents of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, I wish to congratulate Carol
on her achievement and encourage her ongoing work to educate the
youth of our country.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL IMPAC LITERARY AWARD
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
congratulate Alistair MacLeod for winning the International IMPAC
Literary Award, or the Dublin Prize, for his first novel No
Great Mischief. The judges commented that this book, the
story of a family emigrating from Scotland to Cape Breton in the
late 18th century, was a “monument to the universal human
spirit”.
We must salute the incredible achievement of being recognized in
the largest awards process in the world nominated by public
libraries from over 100 countries as simply the best.
This completes a great year for Canadian literature, including
Margaret Atwood winning the Booker Prize and Michael Ondaatje
winning the Prise Medici. These achievements are the fruits of
years of efforts by brilliant authors, brave and visionary
publishers and the wise public policy which has supported them
both.
May we in the House of Commons continue to keep supporting our
authors, keep our publishing industry alive and continue to
firmly fix Canada's place in the world as a country of
magnificent literature.
* * *
[Translation]
BASQUE PEOPLE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Basque
people for the political maturity they have shown by re-electing
the Basque nationalist party, by increasing its representation in
the regional parliament and by giving it another mandate to
determine their future.
The Basque people are also sending a clear message: they are
putting their faith in the democratic system to finally obtain a
constitutional status that will allow them to thrive. The result
of this election is also a victory for democracy.
They massively rejected political violence, but they will not
give up their national aspirations.
I want to make this wish for the Basque people: may they finally
achieve, democratically, the status that they are longing for.
Humanity can only be rich through the free and sovereign
expression of the peoples that make it up.
* * *
[English]
OTTAWA 67S
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with great pleasure that I congratulate the Ottawa 67s, who
yesterday won the Ontario Hockey League championship and with it
the J. Ross Robertson Cup. It is another cup on which they have
their eyes, and that is the Memorial Cup which will be up for
grabs this weekend in Regina.
[Translation]
Following this victory, as I mentioned, the Ottawa 67s will take
part in the Memorial Cup tournament, which begins this weekend
in Regina.
The team's talent makes its local supporters proud. The players
are showing excellence and determination, and they are models
for young Canadian athletes.
[English]
On behalf of all the people of Ottawa and all my Ontario
colleagues who join me in congratulating these fine athletes, we
wish them the best of luck in the Memorial Cup tournament this
weekend in Regina.
* * *
1415
MIKE BULLARD SHOW
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, so
King Jean has granted his subjects a rare public appearance on
CTV's the Mike Bullard show. Unfortunately, however, the general
public is barred from the studio audience, apparently for
security reasons and because Mike and CTV do not want to make the
king to feel uncomfortable.
These are extraordinary measures because this is not our average
Canadian. This is King Jean. King Jean must be protected from
his lowly Canadian subjects and, God forbid, a dangerous heckler.
Instead, Canadians tuning in to the Mike Bullard show tomorrow
night will be treated to a studio audience full of friendly PMO
Liberal staffers and friends of CTV. Well at least King Jean
will be assured of a few laughs even if his subjects do not see
the humour.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, instead of the usual five
year spending projections, the government will only show us two
years. Why?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not right what the Leader of the Opposition is
saying. The projections have always been based on two years
because it is a fairer way to do it. Sometimes we are invited to
project into the longer term for special circumstances, but in
terms of budgets, we always use the framework of two years.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the Finance Minister has
set a five year precedent and now we are deviating from that.
Also, it appears that we will be going two years without a full
budget being tabled. I think that is unprecedented in western
democracies. Now we will only get two years advance on
government overspending and we have an officer of this parliament
who says that the Prime Minister and his office is creating a
culture of secrecy.
Does the Prime Minister not think that Canadians would be more
assured if their government were being more open about its books
instead of more closed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is unprecedented is a government that has a surplus
budget five years in a row. We are making the projections for
two years. Sometimes we have occasion to make projections for
five years. We did that for the tax cuts but fortunately we
reduced it to two years.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, some economists are forecasting that we
will have a deficit in three years. This is not good news for
Canadians.
Could the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Finance to give us
the figures for the year 2003?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Leader of the Opposition likes to quote economists. One of
them has forecasted that, if we were to implement the Alliance's
program, we would end up with a deficit of $25 billion by the
year 2004.
This is why it is easier to make forecasts for two years than
for four or five years. In fact, the actual results have been
better than what we anticipated in our recent budgets.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, what we would do differently is less wasteful
spending for more tax relief.
Speaking of tax relief, we released a poll today which shows
that 76% of Canadians say that they have not noticed any federal
tax relief. The government continues to hype its much promised
tax cuts. How come three-quarters of Canadians have not seen a
dime of tax relief in their own pockets and how can the Prime
Minister persuade them otherwise?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nearly all the economists agree
that we have the largest tax cut in Canadian history that is
winding its way through the economy right now. It approximates
2% of GDP. If we throw in the provincial tax cuts it gets even
higher.
Everyone but the member opposite agrees that this is a huge
stimulative budget. In fact we have other initiatives as well in
terms of infrastructure at $2.65 billion which will create
economic activity in Canada and create jobs. I do not know where
the member opposite is getting his information from.
1420
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am getting it from Canadian taxpayers who have not
noticed a dime in tax relief.
Today one of the leading private sector economists in the
country, Dale Orr of WEFA, said that that small tax cuts promised
by the government “would probably be too late to help the
current weak economy”.
Surely the finance minister recognizes that given the current
economic downturn we need some serious fiscal stimulus right now
to protect Canadian jobs. Why will he not listen to these
economists? Why is the government delaying tax relief? Why does
it not provide it immediately in the economic statement tomorrow?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why the government
should be getting management advice from the party across the
floor when it cannot even keep its own act together.
Notwithstanding that, all economists are saying that this is the
largest tax stimulus in Canadian history and that we need to give
it a chance to work its way into the economy. The economists have
said almost unanimously that we will not be in deficit, that the
economy is working very well and we need to give it a chance to
work its way through the system.
The member knows full well that some of the deductions in terms
of CCP and EI max out after six months, so we are going to see
that come—
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Minister of Justice's bill on organized crime,
democratic organizations such as unions and political parties,
with absolutely no connection to the underworld, could fall
victim to criminal acts perpetrated by police officers and
authorized by those with political authority.
Will the minister admit that there is a serious risk of slip-ups
with this bill and that criminal acts that can be committed by
police officers must be limited to organized crime?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a critical new law that is very
important to the police across the country. In fact it is not a
blank cheque. There are strict limits and controls, and it has
direct political accountability.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
here we have someone who says he never interferes with
investigations, yet he is going to give permission for criminal
acts to be committed.
This is not going to be limited to organized crime. That
requires an organized crime bill. Democracy is threatened if
this right granted to policy officers is expanded to include just
any investigation into anyone and anything.
Do they realize this? Is the minister going to take this into
account? Is the solicitor general, he who claims not to
interfere in anything, gong to start meddling in something, for
once? If so, let him meddle in his own affairs, not those of the
judges.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the government wants to do is give
the police the tools they need to do their job. Do we not want
anyone to work undercover in police services across the country?
If we do not give them the ability to be able to work undercover
then they cannot fight organized crime. The government is going
to fight and will continue to fight organized crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week, the solicitor general said that there would be direct
political accountability for police immunity.
But each time we ask the minister about an RCMP
investigation—into Shawinigate, HRDC or CINAR, for instance—he
tells us that he will not get involved and that that is the way
it should be.
Does the minister understand that the direct involvement of
politicians in these investigations leaves the door wide open to
significant slip-ups and that the only logical solution is to
have the judiciary authorize these practices?
Will he admit that this is so?
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a tool that all the police forces
across the country want and need if they want to fight organized
crime. What has to happen is a report must be issued each year
to the solicitor general. If they overstep their bounds then
they also commit a criminal act and can be charged.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week, the Minister of Justice said that the Canadian
tradition was to separate the judicial function from the
investigative function.
The minister is mistaken because, in Canada, it is the judiciary
that authorizes illegal acts such as wiretapping and house
searches.
Will the minister explain why she prefers to give the police the
power to authorize themselves to commit illegal acts, rather than
give this power to a judge, as required by the universally
recognized rule of law?
1425
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is
aware of the fundamental difference between a situation where a
judge authorizes a warrant for a wiretap and the kinds of
decisions that will be made in the context of the solicitor
general or provincial counterparts as it relates to organized
crime.
There is a more important issue here. We on this side have been
listening to that party bleat on for months about why the
government does not take action against organized crime. The
government has taken action. We have given our police the
necessary tools to do their jobs. I would ask them to support
us.
* * *
NATIONAL DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 240
communities in Newfoundland today have boil orders for their
drinking water. The Newfoundland government has released a
report showing that 76 communities in Newfoundland have bacterial
levels 10 and 20 times higher than anything considered remotely
safe. Water from the Twillingate taps has so much bacteria in it
scientists say that they have lost count.
Will the bottled water over at 24 Sussex have to run out before
the government will be willing to spend a share of the surplus to
solve the water problems?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when the government announced the municipal infrastructure
program, a $2 billion program which will generate investments of
$6 billion in this country, we said very clearly that priority
should be given to green infrastructures, which will improve the
quality of air and water for the citizens of this country.
That is what the Canadian government has done. I understand
that the provinces and municipalities have already submitted
projects seeking to resolve this problem.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
reliable estimates are that $4 billion a year are needed to
tackle the water crisis alone and the government has offered up
$400 million.
Newfoundlanders today simply cannot drink their water. The
Prime Minister seems to think it is perfectly okay to export the
water. The government is crowing about a $5 billion surplus
higher than projected. If the government gets started today with
a billion dollars annually it could at least begin to solve the
problem.
How long is the Prime Minister prepared to wait before he will
guarantee that—
The Speaker: The hon. President of the Treasury Board.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a program of $6 billion which will help municipalities
across the country to have good infrastructure and to improve the
quality of the air and water for their citizens. This is a major
effort from our government to help municipalities achieve those
goals.
* * *
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the law requires a five year review of the activities of the
Business Development Bank. That includes the period in which two
presidents of that bank, Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Schroder,
mysteriously left their duties.
The industry minister has written me to say that the review will
not investigate those mysterious departures because they are
administrative matters. That breaks the spirit of the law and
shows contempt for parliament.
Will the Prime Minister stop the coverup and allow the full
investigation intended by the law of parliament?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery there.
Everything is transparent. The only mystery here is who is
shifting from the Reform Party to the Conservative Party.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the act allows the government to delay tabling this review until
July 13, conveniently after parliament has risen.
1430
Will the Prime Minister, not his puppet, give us a commitment
that this review will be published in full on that date?
To avoid a situation where a Liberal majority might limit the
witnesses who could be called in examination of this report, will
the Prime Minister undertake to have the review submitted to a
joint committee of this House and of the other place?
Mr. John Cannis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a shame the hon. member,
and I will use that word in addressing him, uses the word
puppets. He should be ashamed because the attack is only a sign
of his weakness in his argument and nothing else. He should pay
very close attention to his leadership and not ours.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, NORAD is vital for the security and sovereignty of
Canada.
Several prominent individuals, including Canada's own deputy
commander of NORAD, Lieutenant General Macdonald, have said that
failing to support missile defence in principle will mean the
beginning of the end of NORAD.
On this basis what possible grounds can the government have for
delaying its decision in principle?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have just signed a new five year agreement with
the United States with respect to NORAD.
NORAD does have a very strong purpose and function. It is a
useful defence of North America for Canada and the United States.
With respect to missile defence, as we have often said, we are
into consultations. In fact, we began those consultations
yesterday.
NORAD still has a very clear function, a very clear purpose and
is of value to Canada and the United States regardless of our
decision on missile defence.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told the commons that MPs
will be able to debate the missile defence issue before any
decision is taken regarding Canada's involvement.
My question for the Prime Minister is, will MPs have the final
decision on that issue through a vote here in the House of
Commons?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, decisions like that are made by the government which has
the confidence of the House of Commons. It is the way we
operate. We will have a debate and opinions will be expressed.
There will be one moment when they can vote non-confidence in the
government if we have not made the decision they want.
What is surprising is that they do not know the facts. They
have not studied the problem and they are already committed. I
think it is better to have hearings and discussions and then to
decide after that what the allies should do.
* * *
[Translation]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Justice said that our party had long fought for
legislation against organized crime, and that is true. All the
while, from the other side of the House, they said it was not
necessary.
We fought for legislation against organized crime, not a law
that allowed political leaders to intervene in police
investigations.
Will the minister realize that her bill goes far beyond
organized crime and threatens democracy itself?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I am
hearing. That is the party that asked the government to consider
invoking the notwithstanding clause to deal with organized crime
in the province of Quebec.
What my colleague, the solicitor general, and I have done is
introduce legislation after consulting with the provinces,
including Quebec, with police forces, with other stakeholders and
after listening to a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights on which the Bloc had members. I would
hope that the Bloc gets behind this legislation to protect—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister's words are the height of hypocrisy.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: They objected to such legislation for I do
not know how long and, now, they want a mechanism to enable them
to intervene, as they did in the past by torching the barns, for
example.
Will the minister admit that one of the provisions of this bill
is ridiculous to the point of giving the police permission to
commit a crime after a crime is committed? Is that acceptable?
It is in the bill. It is time she woke up.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one can readily talk of hypocrisy with this party, which told
Quebecers it would be elected only once and then leave. But they
have all come back to get their pension from the wicked federal
government.
* * *
1435
[English]
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, at the press conference yesterday the
Minister of Canadian Heritage disappointed thousands of our war
vets from across Canada who believed that the new war museum, as
promised, would be built on the 35 acres of land next to the
aviation museum and the new military cemetery at Rockcliffe.
Why did the minister not consult the war museum advisory
committee and the many veterans' organizations before making a
unilateral decision to move the war museum to LeBreton Flats?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, probably one of the most distinguished members of
the veteran community, a gentleman by the name of Barney Danson,
has worked very hard to see the war museum relocated.
I received a letter from Barney who wrote to me from Ireland. He
was unfortunately unable to attend yesterday. Do members know
what he said in his letter? He said that he thought it was an
absolutely fabulous site and that he was only too sorry that it
had not been available when we made our initial announcement. He
is thrilled that it will be at a place close to parliament for
all of Canada to rejoice in.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the vets and the Friends of the
Canadian War Museum have raised millions of dollars. They did
this after the government's announcement in 1998, just three
years ago, that the war museum would be built in Rockcliffe at a
cost of $70 million. Now the government is spending twice as
much and moving the museum to a smaller site.
Why does the government continue to treat vets and their
organizations as second class citizens by not consulting them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, not only were the Friends of
the Canadian War Museum extremely pleased with yesterday's
announcement, they were present yesterday to thank the
government.
What we have been able to do by an additional investment of $20
million is make sure that with the rebirth of LeBreton Flats, we
have the absolute best site in the whole of Canada to celebrate
the contribution made by Canada's war vets.
It is a damned shame that the Reform Party does not agree with
its critic, Cheryl Gallant.
* * *
[Translation]
HAROUN M'BAREK
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
a spokesperson for the Department of Foreign Affairs stated that
Haroun M'Barek had a fair trial in Tunisia. But we now know that
he was found guilty on the basis of testimony given under torture
by the key witness, who later retracted himself.
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that the decision to
deport Mr. M'Barek was a tragic mistake and will he intervene
with Tunisian authorities to ensure that Mr. M'Barek gets the
medical attention that his condition requires and is allowed to
see his lawyer?
[English]
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while it is not my policy to discuss
individual cases, I can tell the member that representations have
been made in this case by Foreign Affairs.
The individuals did receive full refugee determination
procedures and due process in Canada. It is always important in
every case for individuals to give full information to the
department so that a full determination can be made. It is
always unfortunate when a situation occurs where an individual
does run into difficulty that was unanticipated.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that
Canadian officials from consular affairs are trying to observe
the legal proceedings involving Mr. M'Barek. But the legal
proceedings ended on March 9, when Mr. M'Barek was sentenced. Mr.
M'Barek now wants to appeal, but his file cannot be found.
1440
Will the minister admit that Canada has a moral obligation to
help this man, since his deportation by Canadian authorities is
what led to the tragic situation in which he now finds himself?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we attended the appeal proceedings. We are continuing to
express our concerns to the government of Tunisia and we will try
to help Mr. M'Barek as much as we can.
Let us not forget that he is not a Canadian citizen. Still, we
are trying to help him.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon.
Minister of Canadian Heritage suggested that it was perfectly all
right and that veterans were certainly supportive of the new
location.
I would like to challenge the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage
and ask her, what is the point of the government setting up an
advisory committee and then turning around and ignoring it
completely before making a move like this? I think it is an
insult to the veterans who were asked to provide advice to the
hon. minister.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know there are a number of positions right now in
the Alliance Party, but I would like to refer the hon. member to
Metro Dateline and Shawn McCarthy in the Globe and Mail of
yesterday, when he said “MP Cheryl Gallant, the Canadian
Alliance cultural—”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will have to speak to the
minister's mother again. She knows she cannot use a member's
name in the House and I would invite her to refrain from doing
so.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the Globe and
Mail the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was
quoted as saying that she supports the construction of the new
museum for the veterans. I suspect that the critic and her
members should get their stories straight.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage fails to
recognize that we all support the construction of a new national
war museum. That is exactly the point. It is the process that
is at debate here. We have a Prime Minister who suggests that
whatever he says goes. His backbenchers also have to do whatever
he tells them to do. Now we have an advisory committee that the
minister goes ahead and ignores—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I do not know whether there
was a question there or not because I could not hear, but I
assume there was because the minister is getting up. The hon.
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled that we were able to make
an announcement yesterday which will do, I think, pride to the
service that has been provided by all veterans in the first, the
second, the great and the Korean wars.
I would like to comment on a statement made by Cliff Chadderton,
chairman of the 37 member national veterans council, when he said
that he expected an announcement that would please him. I think
it pleased Mr. Chadderton. I know it pleased the members of
parliament. I am not sure about the splits in the Reform Party
but you will have to figure those out yourselves.
The Speaker: I know all hon. members will want to address
the Chair as well.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific.
Nortel Networks corporation in my riding of Brampton Centre has
signed a $275 million U.S. contract with China Unicom to supply
equipment for a wireless network in China.
What is the Government of Canada doing to assist companies like
Nortel to secure trade and investment opportunities in China?
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada applauds this
business deal on the part of Nortel. The hon. member for
Brampton Centre can take pride in it. This kind of business deal
means more jobs for Canadians and a more secure place for
Canadian innovation and technology in the Chinese marketplace. As
well, it builds on the broad partnership between Canada and China
and thereby more people, more people linkages and a more open
society. This is evidence of the dividends coming from team
Canada, led by the Prime Minister.
* * *
1445
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The widening gap
between the rich and the poor has been one of the biggest
failures of the Liberal government in the last eight or nine
years. Every reputable study in the country shows that the rich
are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
Why did the Prime Minister not use some of the $15 billion
surplus he applied to the national debt toward reindexing
transfers to the provinces and municipalities as a way to fight
poverty? Why did he not invest in the human deficit instead of
paying down the national debt?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party,
this party and this government believe in a balanced approach.
Paying down debt is a good thing because it gives us greater
flexibility moving forward. We are able to redeploy resources
into social and economic programs, cutting taxes more and a whole
host of things.
We are doing everything to the very best of our ability. We are
cutting taxes. We are paying down debt. We are investing in
important social and economic programs. We will continue this
balanced approach.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if this
is a balanced approach, they could have fooled me.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed, before the Minister of
Finance, that the government will have a $15 billion surplus. But
Canadians face a huge deficit, a growing gap between the rich and
the poor. It is a serious problem.
Will the Prime Minister tell us how much of the $15 billion will
go specifically towards narrowing this gap?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member should recognize that the government has, for several
years, been transferring significant amounts to Canada's poorest
families through billions of dollars in child tax credits, for
poor families, an unprecedented move. This has narrowed the gap
between the rich and the poor in Canada.
* * *
[English]
HOCKEY
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for culture and
heritage. The Minister of Industry has given government approval
to sell the fabled Montreal Canadiens to a United States
entrepreneur.
Despite assurances to keep the team in Canada for a short
period, it is still a sale of one of Canada's most prized
possessions. What message does this send to Canadian youth and
Canadians generally? What could be more Canadian than les
Canadiens de Montréal? Why can we not just sell the Minister of
Industry instead?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for any hon. member who has been watching the NHL I
think probably one of the saddest moments was when the final
Canadian team was knocked out last week.
We have exported an incredible asset, Canada's hockey. However,
in terms of investment in our youth, we have to start at the
local hockey rinks. We have to start in Corner Brook. We have
to start in St. John's. We have to start in Gander. That is
where they build the dreams. They do not build them once they
reach the NHL.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
immigration department is hiding something even more un-Canadian
than selling the Habs. Immigration Canada is preparing to deport
a Toronto couple with four children, two of whom were born in
Canada, to an uncertain future.
This is despite the fact that an Ontario court judge, Romain
Pitt, stated that this family was no threat to Canadian society
and that this was as a result of an administrative foul up. The
judge went on to state that the application fees were paid twice
and they still had not received a refund.
For the sake of the children, will the minister—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I do not speak to individual cases
I do read the newspaper and I can assure the member and all
members of the House that no one gets deported over a $50
administrative error, not while I am Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
However people who are failed refugee claimants and have had
full due process, people who come to Canada and overstay visitors
visas, have had due process and are queue jumpers do get deported
but only after due process in Canada.
* * *
1450
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has lost an
important test case involving residential schools. Yesterday in
Saskatchewan, Justice Ted Malone ruled that the federal
government could not go after the Anglican Church to help pay the
costs of lawsuits brought against it by former residential school
students.
Will the government settle these lawsuits now and not only help
former students who have suffered years of hardship but also save
Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars by settling these lawsuits
now rather than later? It has the choice of paying the victims
now or paying the lawyers forever.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the court case in question is one decision at the trial
level. It stands on its own facts, but I say to the hon. member
that we are moving to work out settlements in a way that will be
fair, above all, to the victims, to the churches, and to Canadian
taxpayers. I look forward to having my hon. friend's support for
these continuing efforts.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has always been the
legal guardian of every residential school student. It has
frequently ignored this responsibility and continues to ignore
its responsibility while dithering in the courts.
Thousands of former students are struggling just to survive. The
Saskatchewan court has ruled that it is the government, not the
churches, that has responsibility. It is a responsibility it
cannot cast off.
Will the government settle these lawsuits now, save Canadian
taxpayers billions of dollars and help former students begin the
process of healing?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend has finally slipped into the Alliance
trap of having unsuitable premises. The case in question is not
one that applies across the whole spectrum of cases. It is only
one case at the trial division, but we are working to move toward
settlements.
We are not dithering. We are working actively with the
churches. My hon. friend should work with me in expediting the
issue instead of trying to politicize the issue.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN CLONING
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
Geneva, the Minister of Health put forward the idea of drafting
an international convention to ban reproductive technologies such
as human cloning.
How can the minister claim to be a world leader with respect to
reproductive technologies, when we know that he allowed the
recommendations of the Baird commission to languish for seven
years before recently introducing a draft bill, which will put
off any decision in this regard for yet another year?
[English]
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said
that because of the importance of cloning, not only to Canada but
to the rest of the world, he would be working with his colleagues
across the globe to prepare and look at developing a convention
among governments prohibiting this practice, one which we support
as a government and I am sure all members of the House support.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is well aware that there is a broad consensus in Canada that
human cloning should be banned, and another year of consultations
is perfectly pointless.
If the government seriously wishes to ban human cloning, why
does it not move quickly to introduce a bill with that in mind?
[English]
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious because
of the importance of the issue that it is not a political or
partisan issue but one that needs a lot of study and thought by
Canadians in general.
The objective of the draft piece of legislation and the proposal
is to get input from all Canadians at the provincial level, at
the municipal level, and at the first nation level. We would
then go ahead with a consensus in the country on something as
important as cloning of human beings.
* * *
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a scathing report on the Canadian
Human Rights Commission has been released, indicating that the
commission is nearing collapse due to bitter infighting and
turmoil.
It is not the first time that the commission has come under
indictment. In 1998 the auditor general rapped the commission
for what it called a slew of problems. The chief commissioner
says she has a plan of action to address the concerns.
Could the minister tell the House why the chief commissioner is
off to Indonesia on another of her well-known expensive junkets
rather than working on a plan of action in Canada?
1455
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Canadian Human
Rights Commission for recognizing that it has a problem internal
to the commission and to its management. I certainly commend it
for initiating the workplace study, the report of which we became
aware late last week.
Let me reassure everyone in the House that we take the role of
the Canadian Human Rights Commission very seriously. I am
reviewing the recommendations of former Justice Gérard La Forest
and his committee. They made recommendations for structural
change. We are looking seriously at those and I will be working
with Madam Falardeau-Ramsay and others to ensure—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, one of the findings of the recent
report said that the commission leadership should concentrate on
promoting human rights in Canada rather than on taking trips
abroad. The only action thus far was the suspension of a senior
lawyer who stated that the commission had lost its moral
authority to act on cases.
Will the minister immediately advise the chief commissioner to
come home, stay at home and address this report's scathing
indictment?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that
the senior management of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
will address the serious concerns identified in the workplace
study released last week.
Let me again reassure the House that I will be working with the
human rights commission to ensure that we have a functioning,
effective and efficient commission that can concentrate on
protecting the rights of all Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
global security situation is expected to be even more complex by
the year 2020. Pockets of political instability are multiplying
and disputes over human rights, arms control and economic reforms
involve many nations and international bodies.
If Canada is to function well in this unstable environment the
full range of military, political, diplomatic and economic
expertise and resources will be needed, including a strong
officer corps.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House how the
Officership 2020 program will assist the officers of the Canadian
forces to meet these challenges?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Officership 2020 is a new blueprint for leadership
and professional development for the Canadian forces. In fact
our aim is to help make the Canadian forces into a learning
organization.
To that end we are putting a number of new programs in place:
for example, a personal enhancement program that will increase
the amount of reimbursement for educational courses from $5,000
up to $20,000, not just for officers but for all ranks of the
Canadian forces. An additional $19 million is going into
post-graduate work as well. All together we are helping to
prepare our officers for the 21st century.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration seems
intent on deporting a family of six back to Poland.
Mr. Sklarzyk filled out all the correct paperwork in his
family's bid for refugee status and even paid what he thought was
the full fee for entering Canada. In fact he actually underpaid
his fee by $50.
Two months ago the department of immigration notified them that
they were being deported. I would like to ask the minister of
immigration why Mr. Sklarzyk and his family are being deported.
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to give full
details of the case if the member would give me a consent form
and a release under privacy legislation. Until he does that I
cannot answer his question as fully as I would like.
I can tell him this: No one is deported from Canada because of
a $50 administrative error. I am pleased however to hear that he
and his party support due process. I also hope that they support
our ability to be able to remove those people who are failed
refugee claimants, those who have no reasonable right to stay in
Canada and have had due process.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, these people came from Poland in 1994 initially on a
refugee claim on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Two of
their four children are Canadian born. There is no record of any
illegal activity. Mr. Sklarzyk has even started a small company
in Canada.
I find it impossible to believe that the minister is less intent
on deporting criminals than innocent families. Is the Sklarzyk
family not the kind of people we want to bring into Canada?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that Bill C-11
in fact expedites and allows us to remove criminals, those who
have committed serious crimes in Canada and those who are
inadmissible to Canada because of criminal activity, even faster.
1500
I will say to the member opposite that if he or any member of
the House wants to make representation on an individual case
where there is concern, I am always happy to share all the facts
of the case and review that case to ensure that no one is
improperly removed from this country.
If they should be given another opportunity, I am certainly
prepared to hear that.
* * *
[Translation]
ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, on May 9, the Quebec Minister of Transport wrote to
his federal counterpart as follows:
During the last election campaign, your government announced
investments in excess of $3 billion for Quebec highway
infrastructures. There was not even a mention of completing
Highway 50.
Can the minister make a commitment on Highway 50 and can he tell
us how much money he is prepared to put into it, given the
importance this project holds for the people of the Outaouais?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, over the past 30 years, we have invested $100 million in
Highway 50 in Quebec. There is now an $11 million project for the
extension of this highway.
It is obvious that the federal government is really doing its
part in constructing this country's highways.
* * *
[English]
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last year the federal government provided a host of
tools to the RCMP to fight money laundering. It gave it a
significant budget increase. It gave it tools. We also adopted
money laundering legislation.
Could the solicitor general tell us what results Canadians can
expect from the RCMP, our national police force, with what it has
been given?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we speak the RCMP is holding another
news conference in Montreal to highlight the conclusions of a
major police operation aimed at dismantling illegal activities of
three international criminal organizations specializing in drug
trafficking and money laundering.
This again highlights that when we give police forces the tools
to do the job they do the job.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of his Excellency Carlos Quintanilla
Schmidt, Vice-President of the Republic of El Salvador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, not only did the Minister of Canadian
Heritage use my name twice in the House, she incorrectly stated
facts.
She made inference that the Canadian Alliance had conflicting
views within the caucus on the point of the War Veterans Museum.
I wish to say to that we do agree.
The Speaker: I caution that if we are to have a point
of order there is no point in getting into debate. I chastized
the Minister of Canadian Heritage for using the hon. member's
name on the occasion I heard it. I heard rumours it was used a
second time, which I missed because of the very substantial noise
in question period today.
If the hon. member has another point of order I would be happy
to hear it, but I do not want to hear about disagreement over
facts because I am afraid that is a matter of debate, not of
order.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-300
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of
the House to have Bill C-300, an act to amend the criminal code,
wearing of war decorations, standing in my name on the order of
precedence withdrawn and the order discharged.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
proposition of the hon. member?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Accordingly the bill is withdrawn and the
order for second reading discharged.
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)
1505
ALLOTTED DAY
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
wish to designate Thursday, May 17, an allotted day.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
CANADIAN BOOK INDUSTRY
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to the report by
the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, tabled during the
second sesssion of the 36th parliament, and entitled “The
Challenge of Change: A Consideration of the Canadian Book
Industry”.
* * *
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 five petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have three reports to present today.
First, I have the honour to present the 17th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its
order of reference from the House of Commons on Tuesday, February
27, 2001, in relation to the main estimates for fiscal year
ending March 31, 2002, vote 5 under Parliament, House of Commons.
The committee reports the same.
Second, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
associate membership of some standing committees.
Third, I also have the honour to present the 19th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding radio
and television broadcasting of the proceedings of House
committees.
These rules creating a test period would expand the potential
for a television broadcast and recording of committee
proceedings.
If the House gives its consent, I should like to move
concurrence in the 19th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs at this time.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its
consent, I should also like to move concurrence in the 18th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
at this time.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, following consultations, I
seek unanimous consent of the House that Mr. Harris and Ms.
Gallant be substituted for Mr. Strahl and Mr. McNally as members
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have
unanimous consent to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to be able to present
several petitions signed by hundreds of Canadians who are very
concerned about the matter of health problems caused by drinking
alcoholic beverages.
In fact the petitioners acknowledge that fetal alcohol syndrome
and alcohol related birth defects are preventable by avoiding
alcohol during pregnancy.
1510
They call upon parliament to mandate the labelling of alcoholic
products to warn pregnant women and other persons of certain
dangers associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of citizens in and around Grand Bend who call
upon parliament to protect our health and environment by banning
the questionable gas additive MMT.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the
honour of presenting a petition to the House of Commons. The
petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that the
CBC decided to take its service away from one million Canadians
who have watched the CBC on C-Band satellite dishes for 20 years.
Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to request the
CBC to return its service to C-Band viewing Canadians.
RESEARCH
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of introducing two petitions.
In the first petition the petitioners are asking parliament to
pass legislation that would prohibit the harvesting of aborted
fetuses for research purposes.
JUSTICE
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by approximately
10,000 Canadians. The petitioners ask parliament to take
measures necessary to ensure that public citizen rights and their
safety are paramount over the rights of known violent sex
offenders, and that federal laws be directed to give priority to
enforcing and tightening parole conditions so that each sentence
of sexual assault is served consecutively to better protect the
public.
PEDOPHILES
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing
the signatures of well over 5,000 people in my constituency of
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. The petitioners want
changes made to the justice system that would put a stop to the
early release of pedophiles from prison.
They call on parliament for tougher sentencing to be brought
about for pedophiles and others who commit violent crimes against
children. They also want to see pedophiles deemed as dangerous
offenders and changes made in the parole system to better guard
against repeat offenders.
The petitioners hope the federal government will take seriously
the dangers posed to children when pedophiles are released back
into society before they have fully paid their debt.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by many people
throughout Saskatchewan who are concerned about changes to the
Employment Insurance Act. This petition notes that the federal
government has taken about $30 billion out of the EI fund.
The petitioners call upon the government to re-establish
employment insurance as an earnings replacement program that once
again supports unemployed workers, their families and their
communities.
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured today to present a petition consisting of
3,226 signatures from people who are concerned about the
incursions on their freedom with regard to health care choice.
The petitioners are opposed to the government's abuse of natural
health products, the regulation of those products and their
ability to augment the nutritional quality of their diet with
vitamins, minerals, herbs and amino acids.
They simply want to prevent disease with the nutrients available
to them without government regulation interference. There are
3,226 people opposed to the bill.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 13 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 13—Mr. Svend Robinson:
For each of the last five years, 1996-2000: (a) on how many
occasions were Canadian diplomats overseas alleged to have
violated national or local laws in the host country; (b) in
each instance, in which country did the alleged violation occur:
(c) what was the alleged infraction; and (d) what was the
response of the host country?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): The
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is aware of
five incidents in the last five years in which Canadian diplomats
overseas are alleged to have violated national or local laws in
their host country. Not included are tickets for traffic
offences, which departmental policy requires diplomats to pay
themselves. Provisions of the Privacy Act prevent the department
from releasing personal information; for this reason, the
identity of individuals must be protected.
Three of the five incidents involved minor dependants of
diplomats.
The first incident involved an alleged misdemeanour of arson by
a minor dependant. A waiver of immunity was requested but not
granted in this case. Given the very minor nature of the offence,
the government of the host country took no further action.
The second incident involved an allegation of driving while
impaired by a minor dependant. The department was advised by the
host country that a refusal to waive immunity would result in
loss of the dependant's driver's licence. The family returned to
Canada shortly after the incident.
The third incident involved a Canadian consular officer alleged
to have uttered a death threat. No charges were laid against this
individual in the host country. However, a foreign court ordered
the individual to stay away from a certain area. Since consular
officers have more limited immunity than diplomats, the
individuals was subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The
individual was recalled to Canada by the department.
The fourth case, involving a diplomat formely posted to Israel,
is generally considered public knowledge. This individual was not
charged in the host country and thus no issue of immunity arose.
The incident led to the laying of criminal charges in Canada last
year for trafficking in narcotics.
The fifth case involves a recent allegation of an indecent act
in a park by a minor dependant. The department waived immunity in
this case and the matter is before the courts.
1. The word “diplomat” is used in a generic sense to cover all
persons enjoying consular and diplomatic immunities and
privileges.
* * *
[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
Questions Nos. 12 and 37 could be made orders for returns, these
returns would be tabled immediately.
1515
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 12—Mr. Svend Robinson:
For each of the last five years, 1996-2000, (a) how many
foreign diplomats were alleged to have violated Canadian,
provincial, and local laws, (b) in each instance, what law was
alleged violated, (c) what was the nationality of the alleged
offender, and (d) what was the response of the Government of
Canada?
Return tabled.
Question No. 37—Mr. John Williams:
With regard to performance pay for public servants in the
Executive (EX) category and the Deputy Minister (DM) category in
fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 for each department, agency
or Crown corporation: (a) how many employees received
performance pay, broken down by EX level (e.g. EX-1, EX-2, etc.);
(b) how many employees are there in each EX level; (c) how
many employees received performance pay, broken down by DM level
(e.g. DM-1, DM-2, etc.); (d) how many employees are there at
each DM level; and (e) what was the total amount paid out in
performance pay?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-7, an act in
respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and
repeal other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: There are three motions in amendment
standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-7, an
act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend
and repeal other acts.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1 and 3 will be grouped for debate, but voted on as
follows: a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 3.
[English]
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
[Translation]
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 and 3 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-7 be amended by adding after line 43 on page 7
the following new clause:
“3.1 The lieutenant governor in council of a province
may, by order, fix an age greater than ten years but not
greater than eighteen years for the purposes of exemption
from the application of this Act and the provisions of any
other Acts amended by this Act, in which case the Young
Offenders Act, as it reads at the time the order is made,
continues to apply in that province.”
That Bill C-7, in Clause 199, be amended by replacing line
18 on page 169 with the following:
“199. This Act replaces the Young Offenders Act,
except in a province that makes an order under section 3.1,
in which case the Young Offenders Act remains in force in
that province.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to say
that the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois are inspired, and
this is easily understandable, by the situation in Quebec.
I wish to remind the House that the member for
Berthier—Montcalm has recently travelled across Quebec to
explain to young stakeholders the threat that Bill C-7
represents.
If there is a warning we should issue to this government, it is
to say that it should not try to impose on teenagers a criminal
justice system made for adults.
In recent weeks, the member for Berthier—Montcalm has met many
people, including teenagers, directors of youth centres, law
enforcement officers, social workers in local community service
centres or elsewhere.
The member for Berthier—Montcalm has travelled from one end of
Quebec to the other. He went to Jonquière, to the Lower St.
Lawrence, to the Matapédia, to Bonaventure.
Stakeholders and teenagers who were made aware of the possible
consequences of Bill C-7 all had the same reaction. They all
wanted to know what these consequences would be. The fact is that
the youth justice system will no longer be focused on teenagers
and their characteristics, but on the nature of the offence.
1520
This balanced attitude towards the young offender, his past and
his rehabilitation will now be replaced by a plan exclusively
focussed on the offence. Let us be straightforward about this:
all other factors related to the personal history of the young
offender, and to his rehabilitation potential will take a
backseat. Our amendment would allow Quebec to keep its tradition
and programs of the last 20 years and more.
My colleague, the chief whip of the Bloc Quebecois, will
certainly agree with me that caucus proceedings are secret. But I
think he will let me break this well established rule in our
institutions by saying that we had the visit of a young actor in
caucus this morning.
Marc Beaupré, the actor who plays the role of Kevin Teasdale in
a very popular TV series, Les deux frères, has agreed to join
the Bloc Quebecois campaign. What is this campaign about? The
likeable and dynamic member for Berthier—Montcalm has already
travelled throughout Quebec for this campaign. A pamphlet has
been put out, and I would have liked to have it here, but
logistical problems have made this impossible.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has lead this campaign on
behalf of all his Bloc Quebecois colleagues. It is called
“Donnez-nous une chance”. What does that mean? It means we should
refrain from automatically criminalizing young offenders.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I hope the hon. member will excuse me. There have been further
consultations which are moving us all toward further
enlightenment. I think you would find consent in the House to
revert to routine proceedings for the purpose of three items.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
revert at this stage to routine proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard : Mr. Speaker, obviously there seems to be some
misunderstanding among the House leaders and I invite them to
work it out. I do not like to be disturbed when I am in the
middle of something.
The member for Berthier—Montcalm led a campaign that took him
all over Quebec. What we heard from young people during that
campaign was “Give us a chance”. I see that the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice is with us today. I would
like to remind him that there is a consensus in Quebec. I
challenge anybody on the government side, including Liberal
members from Quebec, to give us one example of a person working
with youth who does not support the Quebec consensus.
I was saying a few moments ago that the actor who plays the role
of Kevin in the television series I mentioned, Marc Beaupré, a
talented actor—and he is not partisan—accompanied the member
for Berthier—Montcalm when he went to Jonquière,
Rivière-du-Loup, the Lower St. Lawrence, the North Shore, all
over Quebec. I was told about the warm welcome he got from the
residents of the North Shore, and we all know the tradition of
hospitality that is personified by the member for Charlevoix. It
must be realized that a consensus does exist.
Marc Beaupré, the actor, gave us an example that I will share
with the members. It may be a minor violation of caucus
confidentiality, but it will not cast a shadow over my legendary
discretion.
Marc Beaupré was leaving the Joliette area in his car. He
accepted to give a ride to a female hitchhiker whose exact age is
unknown but who looked to be in her early 20s, maybe less,
perhaps not quite 18.
An hon. member: Sixteen.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, remember when you were sixteen.
1525
So, Marc Beaupré accepted to give a ride to this young girl who
had had a difficult life and had been placed in a drop-in centre,
a youth centre. She talked to Kevin, played by actor Marc
Beaupré, and said that notwithstanding the difficult
circumstances of her life that had brought her to commit an
offence, she had a good experience in the youth centre, because
she became aware of a number of things, developed certain
talents and, more importantly, established a meaningful
relationship with a youth worker.
With the new Bill C-7, which puts the offence at the heart of the
decisions that the judiciary will have to make, if that person
had been held in a regular institution, a penitentiary or any
similar institution, could she have had the same meaningful
relationship she had in a youth centre? Of course not, because
the prisons are not focused on rehabilitation.
In keeping with the consensus in Quebec, when young people
commit offences, misbehave, violate the law, we are not saying
that they should not be punished or that we should grant them
absolution, we are saying that efforts must be made to try and
understand why they acted the way they did. These young people
should be allowed to benefit from rehabilitation experiences.
In Quebec there are youth centres, specialized institutions that
allow young people to have a meaningful relationship with a youth
worker and to get some learning experience. This learning
experience is sometimes more focused on the professional aspect
and sometimes more of a soul-searching exercise. Some young
people need to do some soul-searching, to understand why, in
certain circumstances, they tend to have a violent behaviour.
Where did they learn that, in society, when there is a conflict,
when there are problems to be solved, mediation must be through
violence? Some youth workers provide training workshops.
Sometimes these are about professional life, sometimes young
people learn a trade. And sometimes, these workshops have
nothing to do with that, they deal with the soul-searching some
young people must do.
Frankly, if Bill C-7 is passed, we do not believe that such a
thing will be possible. We do not believe this is desirable for
the mental stability of young people.
Another argument was brought to our attention. I ask the
government to consider the approach taken by the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm, to consider that there is a special
rehabilitation system in Quebec and to allow some sort of opting
out, so that Quebec can apply the whole system, whose value has
been proven, a system that defence lawyers, youth workers and the
CLSCs are calling for. With current system, whose value has been
proven in Quebec, I believe it will possible to rehabilitate
young people.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following renewed and successful consultations among all parties
in the House, I wish to deal with three items.
First, if the House gives its consent I move that the 18th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
Second, if the House gives its consent I move that the 19th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motions agreed to)
* * *
1530
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
the third item, I believe you would find consent for the
following motion. I move:
That Bill C-222 and Motion No. 241, both private members'
business items, be substituted for one another in the order of
precedence.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-7, an act in respect
of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and
of Motions Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to be able to respond today to the opposition's motion
to amend Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act. Motion No. 2
calls for section 125 to be amended to make disclosure of
information about young persons mandatory rather than permissive.
Section 125, like the Young Offenders Act, specifically
recognizes the interest of schools, professionals and other
persons engaged in the supervision or care of a young person in
receiving information when a young person is dealt with under the
youth criminal justice system.
Section 125 allows the provincial director, the attorney
general, a peace officer or any other person engaged in the
provision of services to a young person to disclose identifying
information with any professional or other person engaged in the
supervision or care of a young person, including a representative
of a school. It does so under the following circumstances: to
ensure compliance for the young person with a court order; to
ensure the safety of staff, students or other persons; or to
facilitate the rehabilitation of the young person. This can be
done without a court order.
The section expands the Young Offenders Act provision that was
included in 1995 by adding the authority to disclose information
to facilitate rehabilitation of a young person. It is important
that privacy protections are a hallmark of the youth justice
system in Canada. Any disclosure of identifying—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The Table needs to know
whether the hon. member is speaking to Motion No. 1 or to Motion
No. 2?
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I am actually speaking to
Motion No. 2, but I will be getting to Motions Nos. 1 and 3
subsequently.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to inform the
member that we are on Motions Nos. 1 and 3 and the hon. member
should limit his remarks to those motions. We will come to
Motion No. 2 a bit later.
Mr. John Maloney: Mr. Speaker, Motions No. 1 and 3 would
allow a province to opt out of the youth criminal justice act and
continue to apply the Young Offenders Act. Although some have
questioned the need for new youth justice legislation, it is
apparent that most Canadians feel that the Young Offenders Act is
not working effectively as a legislative base for the youth
justice system in Canada. More than 16 years with experience
with the Young Offenders Act backs up the perception that there
are many real problems with the law.
The proposed youth criminal justice act would address key
problems with the Young Offenders Act. It does not reflect the
coherent youth justice philosophy. Its principles are
conflicting and do not effectively guide decision makers in the
youth justice system. It has resulted in the highest youth
incarceration rate in the western world per capita, including
that of the United States. It has resulted in overuse of the
courts for minor cases that could be better dealt with outside
the courts. It has resulted in disparities and unfairness in
sentencing. It fails to ensure effective reintegration of a
young person after being released from custody. Its process for
transfer to the adult system has resulted in unfairness and
delay. It fails to make a clear distinction between serious
violent offences and less serious offences. It fails to
recognize the concerns and interests of victims.
The proposed youth criminal justice act effectively addresses
these problems in a manner that also provides considerable
flexibility for the provinces to implement the legislation to
reflect local needs and circumstances. However there are
appropriate limits to this flexibility. The youth criminal
justice act is founded on federal criminal law and criminal
procedure power. There should be only one youth criminal justice
law operating in Canada and fundamental legal principles would be
respected.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have been waiting since 1993 for significant changes
to the Young Offenders Act that have not come from the
government. I am afraid, even with the new bill, that the
changes are not the kind of changes most Canadians are looking
for.
1535
I have heard from a number of individuals from Quebec over the
last eight years. The polls indicate very strongly to me that
the people of Quebec are not happy with the Young Offenders Act.
The Bloc would like to keep the legislation intact because it
claims that it is highly successful and popular in the province
of Quebec. I would question that as being a fact. All victims
of various incidents of violence and crimes by young offenders
who reside in Quebec and to whom I have talked tell me quite the
contrary to what I am hearing from Bloc members. I believe it is
time for a change.
Unfortunately I cannot personally support the bill because it is
not the kind of change that Canadians are looking for with regard
to young offenders. We want to see some very serious things
happen. The Bloc's reason for not supporting it is that it wants
to keep the status quo. The status quo is not satisfactory
anywhere in Canada.
The bill was adopted in 1984. In 1994 it was supposed to come
under a 10 year review. The justice department came out with a
report. It indicated that crime, particularly violent crime
among young people, was increasing at an extremely high rate. In
1994 it was reported to be nearly 300% to 350% higher than it was
in 1984 when the Young Offenders Act was brought in. It is going
in the wrong direction.
Now we hear the rhetoric that everything is all right and that
it is decreasing by 3% or 2%. That tells me it has levelled off
for the time being, but it is still 300% higher than it was when
it was first brought in. Surely it cannot be acceptable to the
people in Quebec that they would have this high increase over a
10 year period since the act was introduced. There has to be
something wrong somewhere.
I encourage Bloc members to go back and visit with people
throughout their province to make certain the happiness they
claim exists with the bill really and truly does. I believe they
would find that not to be the case. Our party will be opposing
the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations between
all the parties in the House and I think you would find consent
for the following motion.
I move:
That the amendments moved by the hon. member for
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve at report stage with respect to Bill C-7, an
act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to
amend and repeal other acts, be identified as standing in the
name of the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Does the hon. member have
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1540
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have a few remarks on why the NDP will not be supporting
Motions Nos. 1 and 3 in the name of the Bloc member. These
motions, if passed, would have the effect of allowing the
province of Quebec to opt out of the youth criminal justice act.
That would not be acceptable.
I say this in the context of belonging to a party which on other
issues and at other times has supported the ability of Quebec to
opt out of certain national social programs with compensation. In
the past our party has supported the recognition of Quebec as a
distinct society in terms of its civil law, its French language
and its culture, et cetera.
However allowing Quebec to opt out of the youth criminal justice
system, which would be applicable in every other part of the
land, would be going much further than anything we have agreed to
so far. It would not be in keeping with the arguments we have
advanced with respect to opting out when it came to other
matters.
I say this with some regret, because I have some sympathy for
what members of the Bloc Quebecois have been saying about the
youth criminal justice act. They have indicated that in their
home province the Young Offenders Act has been made to work
better than in many other provinces. As some would argue, the
Young Offenders Act has worked in Quebec closer to what was
intended when it was passed in 1984.
However that is not reason enough to make the leap that Quebec,
or any other province for that matter, should be allowed to opt
out and have its own separate youth criminal justice system. That
is not something Canadians in general would find acceptable. They
may not find the youth criminal justice act acceptable either.
They may find, as we do, that the bill is imperfect to the point
of not deserving our support. They may find that it is
cumbersome and complex, that it lacks the appropriate resources,
and that all other things said about it by various critics at the
provincial government level and others are correct.
Nevertheless the principle of there being one criminal law,
whether it is criminal law for youth or a criminal law for
others, for all Canadians no matter where they live is something
I would want to uphold in this instance. That is why the NDP
will not be supporting Motions Nos. 1 and 3.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, the Progressive Conservative Party cannot
support this amendment.
[English]
Much like the position that has been articulated by my colleague
from Winnipeg—Transcona there is ample evidence, both in
committee and before the House, that the province of Quebec has
done exemplary work in the administration of the current Young
Offenders Act.
It has arguably set the standard for the rest of the country in
the way in which it has been very innovative in early
intervention and restorative justice model type programs aimed
specifically and very directly at troubled youth before they
enter the criminal justice system.
1545
As was enunciated by the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona,
the Progressive Conservative Party has in the past made
monumental efforts to recognize the distinctness of Quebec not
only in the area of justice but in the areas of culture and
language.
However in this instance we are dealing with a federal statute
that pertains directly to the administration of justice. This
amendment would allow provinces to opt out completely, to take
away federal jurisdiction and leave jurisdiction solely in the
hands of one province. That is dangerous and inconsistent with
the administration of federal laws.
I think all members would agree that an opting out provision on
criminal law is a recipe for disaster. Criminal law must apply
evenly and be administered with fairness and with balance across
the country. We cannot have bizarre sentencing schemes or
justice that is seen as biased in any province.
Quebec's approach to criminal justice and youth criminal justice
is arguably superior to that of other provinces and should be
admired and emulated. However, an amendment to opt out and
administer separately and apart from the rest of the country
would not be in keeping with federal legislation.
I commend the intent and spirit of what the hon. member has put
forward but I cannot support the amendment. We will have ample
opportunity to debate this cumbersome and confusing bill in its
entirety and to look at its many shortcomings.
For all its good intentions and emphasis on early intervention,
the new law would shortchange provinces which try to administer
it. It would expand the existing Young Offenders Act twofold.
The provinces would cry out for resources because the bill
permits and alludes to the expansion of early intervention
programs.
The provinces would be left to live up to the standards the bill
calls for without being given the resources to do so. The
Minister of Justice has given the provinces a postdated cheque.
The bill would come into being after being rushed through
committee, as we have seen in this session. It would be foisted
upon the provinces without the additional resources they would
need to start and administer many of the programs.
Those are not my words or the words of the Progressive
Conservative Party. Those words came directly from provincial
representatives who appeared before the committee. They
expressed grave concerns that the federal government, through
Bill C-7, was trying to raise public expectations that all would
be well if the bill came into being. They said that the notion
of putting in place early intervention programs and restorative
justice models without the resources to back it up, both human
and monetary, was a fallacy. The provinces, given the option,
would have preferred to keep the old bill. They would have
simply asked the federal government for the money, the know-how
and the support to put programs in place to make the existing
system work.
I have worked in the justice system in administering the YOA. I
think Quebec recognized very early on that although there are
flaws in the Young Offenders Act there are ways to make it work.
Quebec has set the standard and raised the bar in terms of its
ability to work within the parameters of the old law.
1550
It was a matter of giving more resources to provinces to allow
them to fully administer programs, be innovative, make early
interventions and set up programs for counselling. Such programs
were aimed at putting youth on the right path as opposed to
attempting after the fact to usher them through the criminal
justice system.
I will touch for a moment on the upshot of what the new bill
would do. It would cause incredible delay by introducing new
procedures and processes pertaining to parole and early release,
to the determination of violent versus non-violent offences, to
new types of conditional sentences and to new types of tracking
systems, so-called extrajudicial remedies that police officers
would administer. All this would result in more appeals and more
confusion over what the law means.
Judges came before the committee, judges with incredible
experience in the criminal justice system and with the Young
Offenders Act, who said they did not understand the bill and how
it would work. They said they did not believe it would in any
way improve the criminal justice system. They believed it would
result in further delays.
The holding of young people to account, the protection of the
public and the involvement of the state in rehabilitating young
people would simply not occur. The resulting delays would
perpetuate a system which is already confusing and frustrating
for all participants, not only police, prosecutors, lawyers and
judges but the young people themselves.
It will take an incredible amount of time to weed through the
new bill to discern and comprehend what the drafters intended. It
has a very academic feel as opposed to a practical, pragmatic
and, dare I say, streamlined one which was likely the drafters'
intent when they undertook the task of rewriting our youth
criminal justice law.
The bill before us does the complete opposite. It is not
streamlined. It is thicker. It is more cumbersome. It is more
confusing. It adds new procedures. It adds new elements of
delay.
I will conclude on this note. We all know the old legal maxim
that justice delayed is justice denied. The bill would do just
that. It would allow lawyers, on behalf of their young clients,
to exploit these new procedures and cause lengthy delays that
would deny the administration of justice. For that reason and
those I have enunciated I cannot support the amendment. Nor do I
support the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to all the remarks since the beginning of this
debate, and I would like to go back on some of the questions
that have been raised.
For example, the Alliance member for Wild Rose said “I encourage
Bloc members to go back and visit with people in Quebec. They
will find out that they are against this and want changes to the
Young Offenders Act”. The hon. member is certainly not reading
the papers these days. Since Sunday, May 13, I have been on a
whirlwind tour of Quebec, which has already taken me to
Montreal, Laval, Bonaventure, Sept-îles, Jonquière, and
Sherbrooke.
Just before coming to the House today, I gave a press conference
and I met people in Hull, Gatineau, and Aylmer to discuss the
Young Offenders Act and Bill C-7 of the Minister of Justice.
During this tour, I met experts, but also ordinary citizens,
mothers and fathers. I will meet more people, because I will be
touring for five or six more days.
1555
All these people told me the same thing: We do not want the
federal government to tell us how to raise our children. We have
legislation called the Young Offenders Act and if it is applied
properly, that legislation gives good results.
To the hon. member wondering if I know what is going on in my
province, I can say that I do. I do not claim to know everything,
and that is why I keep on touring Quebec. However, I have not
seen anyone who was happy with the minister's amendments. No one
in Quebec wants to see the Young Offenders Act amended.
Of course, there is room for improvement. If we had more money
in order to apply that legislation even better, we would get
better results. The justice minister said the implementation of
Bill C-7 would cost Canadian taxpayers between $200 million and
$250 million. That is just for implementing Bill C-7.
If the federal government has money it does not know what to do
with, here is what I say: “Do not allow yourselves the luxury of
a new act that no one wants and that everyone, even in the
western provinces, finds complicated; invest more money so that
provinces know and implement the Young Offenders Act better”. The
success of a good implementation lies in knowing the tools.
They come up with extrajudicial measures as if it were something
new to Bill C-7.
But the Young Offenders Act already provides for alternative
measures and we have been enforcing them for a long time in
Quebec. This no doubt explains why we have the lowest crime rate
in Canada. The province also has the lowest recidivism rate and
the lowest detention rate. This may be because we enforce the
law correctly.
The justice critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, spoke highly of
Quebec. He said that Quebec is more successful than any other
province. This is true. He praised Quebec's approach. And
government members made similar comments. Do members realize that
the bill they are about to pass—and I do hope they will not pass
it—, the bill the government wants us to pass will put an end to
this excellent success by Quebec?
Quebec's whole approach is now jeopardized. If members do not
wish to listen to me, the member for Berthier—Montcalm,
hopefully they will listen to all the Quebecers who daily enforce
the Young Offenders Act. This is why Quebec has such good success
rates.
Members should listen to the Commission des services juridiques,
the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse, the Centrale de
l'enseignement, university teachers, criminologists, Jean
Trépanier, a well-known expert on the issue, the Fondation
québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, Institut Pinel, the
Conférence des régies régionales de la santé, Les Centres
jeunesse du Québec, defence counsel and prosecutors.
The court judges who appeared before the committee said so.
Justice Michel Jasmin appeared before the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights.
This is not someone who knows nothing about the law. Justice
Michel Jasmin is the co-ordinating judge of the Youth Court of
Quebec. He came and told us that what the federal government was
about to do was a mistake. We should at least listen to those
individuals.
The Quebec coalition for youth justice is a group of thirty to
forty agencies that enforce the Young Offenders Act on a daily
basis, and it said the same thing. They told us that the problem
was not the Young Offenders Act, but the way it is implemented.
It has to be better enforced. But to be better enforced, this
legislation needs to be better understood.
It seems to me that, as members representing ridings, as
legislators in this House, before we amend the law, we should try
to find out what the problem is. The problem is not the law but
its enforcement. Let us work together to find a better way to
enforce the law and inform the other provinces about the success
achieved in Quebec.
1600
Furthermore, the minister made some 166 amendments to the bill
as it existed before the election of November 2000, in order to
satisfy Quebec she says.
The government across the way refused to hear what witnesses
from Quebec had to say about his proposed amendments. The
government is embarrassed because it is fully aware that these
amendments, as well as Bill C-7 we are now debating, are not in
line with what is done in Quebec, and in fact go against
everything that has been done in Quebec for at least 20 years.
The government did not want to hear this. It lacked the courage
to hear those individuals who enforce that law.
When I toured the province a woman told me: “Everything you said
about implementing the legislation and what a teenager needs to
get back on the right track is true. The good thing about the
Young Offenders Act is that it takes the human factor into
account. The YOA is also good for families and for parents
because it gives them something to do. The legislation gives them
the right to act in order to help their children get out of
trouble”.
If there is one area where there is no discrimination it is
youth crime. We find young offenders in poor families as well as
in rich ones. No one is immune to the phenomenon.
I myself have kids. If one day because of peer pressure from
friends or a street gang, or because of school or for any other
reason, one of my kids or both of them stray from the path, I
would prefer them to come under the Young Offenders and not the
legislation the minister wants to shove down Quebec's throat
because the YOA gives me, the parent, a say in what happens to my
kids,
Bill C-7 contains a series of automatic responses and measures.
Everything is left to the justice system. The cases are withdrawn
from stakeholders who know very well how to deal with young
offenders.
If their offence is serious, they will be given a pre-determined
sentence while if it is not so serious, they will be given a
simple warning.
It will not be possible to intervene at the right moment, do the
right thing, and treat young offenders properly. That is what is
catastrophic and what the government does not seem to understand.
I am told that I only have one minute left. I could speak for
hours on this issue because it is a subject that is close to my
heart, and this has nothing to do with party politics. I met
people and I will meet many more still during the tour I am doing
with an excellent spokesperson, Marc Beaupré.
Marc Beaupré is not in politics precisely because he pursues
social causes. He is an actor playing the role of Kevin in the
series Les deux frères. He is a talented young actor who
decided to join us, not the Bloc Quebecois, but all those of us
who want to fight for children in Quebec.
He wants to convince the minister and the government that they
are on the wrong track. He is trying to reach out to them, as we
do, to make them understand.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased, for various reasons, to speak to Bill C-7. I want to
start by paying a most sincere tribute to the member for
Berthier—Montcalm for the colossal work he has done on this
issue, as he does on all issues in which he is involved.
But his work on this issue is particularly remarkable. We know
that he has been trying for months to get through to the
government. He did it, among other things, by proposing 3,000
amendments in committee, 2,977 of which were ruled in order by
the chair.
He also did it in a colossal way by speaking in committee for a
period equivalent to almost 27 hours without interruption,
probably to the great joy of his colleagues opposite.
He did it very effectively, all things being relative of course.
Let us say it was a relative joy—
1605
Mr. Gérard Asselin: We did not get to vote.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: My colleague reminds me that we did not get
to vote. We know how timid this government is when it comes to
using all the powers available to it, particularly to limit
debate. We know how, in this great Canadian democracy,
parliamentarians are free to express their opinions. We know how
much we like to tell other countries how to run their affairs.
This is part of the hypocrisy we were talking about a moment ago
during Oral Question Period.
Speaking of that, I hope that the Bloc will find a way to set
the record straight, faced as we are with a government that is
becoming more and more arrogant, and even more so since the last
election.
So I want to salute my hon. colleague for Berthier—Montcalm, who
is touring all the regions of Quebec now to focus public
attention on the fact that this bill contains certain totally
unacceptable things which are absolutely contrary—and this is the
aspect I want to bring to the attention of the hon. members—to a
way of doing things which is really unique to Quebec and which,
moreover, is a great success.
We must bear in mind that young Quebecers represent 23% of young
Canadians but only 11% of young Canadians who are in trouble
with the law. This is a sign that the Quebec approach is
effective. While there are 201 cases involving young people
before the courts in Quebec, there are 435 in the rest of
Canada. That is the proof that the approach of Quebec is
effective, valid and personalized.
In the 1970s, there was a slogan in Quebec “Québec sait faire”,
or if you prefer “Quebec has the know-how”. Quebec does have the
know-how in the field of juvenile delinquency. Quebec knows how
to do things well, by respecting individuals and giving them a
chance.
Given our tradition, Quebec's rehabilitation rate is very high
compared to the Canadian approach which is focusing more on a
punitive approach and on repression, the words are delicate
here, as we tend to make everything we can to rehabilitate the
individual and get him back into society.
It is this approach that is now being challenged in the federal
bill; it is challenged in what I call our soul. Crime is always
a touchy subject in any society, all the more so when it
concerns young people.
We have developed a model that works very well and that makes a
wide use of the Quebec expertise.
We are faced here with a process that does not recognize
Quebec's performance and originality, that even holds it in
contempt. It crushes this specificity and distinctiveness—I am
sure members understand what that means—that come perhaps from
being a distinct society. I am using the very words used by the
Prime Minister in his post-referendum motion when he declared
that Quebec is a distinct society.
However, the government does not recognize this so-called
distinct society that the member for Saint-Maurice has in mind,
whether it concerns young offenders, parental leave or the $5 à
day day care.
It indicates an obvious lack of courage.
All we are asking as Quebecers, all my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm is asking as a member of the House of Commons,
all the coalition is asking for, based on a consensus among
Quebecers, is that Quebec be allowed to use its own approach and
that it be allowed to withdraw from this bill, if only on the
basis of its distinct character.
What is the use of having a consensus in a society which
purports to be a democratic society—and Quebec is a democratic
society—and of asking every Tom, Dick and Harry and various
prestigious organizations—my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm
listed them earlier—as well as criminal lawyers, youth centers,
youth protection services, psychologists, etc., when everyone
agrees that the Quebec approach is the best?
1610
Its the best because
it is focused on the individual and his special needs. The
justice system examines every individual on a case-by-case basis
to understand his personal development, to see if he can be
rehabilitated, if he cooperates, if he has a good behaviour. This
formula works.
When all those in the know say that we should keep the status
quo, what gives members opposite the right to do what they are
doing? They are obeying a mean western right wing anxious to
stomp on those who have made mistakes in their youth without
giving them a chance to make amends. They would lock them up and
throw away the keys. Why should Quebec have to submit to such a
process?
This is a wonderful example—and you can be sure that your
humble servant will use it to the best of his intellectual
capacities—of the price Quebec has to pay for its dependence,
its non-sovereignty. This is the result of having voted no in the
1995 referendum.
They are ramming down our throats legislation which is
steamrolling over Canada and from now on, things will be decided
here and no longer in Vancouver, or Winnipeg, Halifax, Toronto
and especially not in Quebec City. Things will be decided here,
from coast to coast, with national standards for health,
education, and social programs as is this could be called.
The government will be the leader. Even when the public is
against it, or when the major stakeholders are against it as is
the case with Bill C-7 on young offenders, it strong-headedly,
arrogantly, heavy-handedly forges ahead with its legislation
instead of been true to its promise. A promise from whom? From
none other than the Prime Minister. He is the one who used the
expression distinct society to deceive Quebecers.
With every week, and every month that goes by we realize that
the Prime Minister's distinct society is but an empty shell. He
was talking through his hat. He was trying to fool people.
Next time when there is a referendum in Quebec, soon we hope,
people can count on us to appeal to Quebecers' wisdom and remind
them they should no longer trust this Prime Minister; they should
not put their trust either in his predecessors such as Pierre
Elliott Trudeau, who was his mentor, or for that matter any other
prime minister in this supposedly great democratic country. They
made promises during the referendum campaign, at a three-day
love-in. They make nice memories.
They made commitments and promised to put their heads on the
chopping block. They made commitments, in Verdun this time, only
to break them and lie to the people of Quebec.
Contempt can only last for a while.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, usually,
it is a pleasure for me to speak in this House, but, today, I am
very sad. With Bill C-7, we will be burying a practice that has
proven its mettle in Quebec, that of democracy.
Before I begin, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, for preventing the government from
burying the Young Offenders Act for years now.
Yesterday, in the Jonquière region, with stakeholders from the
community, I attended a meeting. In attendance were
representatives of the Centres jeunesse du Saguenay, the head of
youth protection, the Syndicat des enseignants de Jonquière, the
Corporation de développement communautaire des Deux-Rives, which
comprises some 50 community organizations and the Aînés de JAK
de Jonquière, senior citizens. They said “No, no, no. We
seniors oppose this bill”.
1615
As well, there was the Association des parents d'ados, an
organization helping young people. This organizations provides
a 24 hour help line.
Also in attendance were the Patro de Jonquière, streetworkers,
Justice alternative jeunesse du Saguenay Inc., the Commission
scolaire des rives du Saguenay, the Commission scolaire de
Jonquière, the Association québécoise de défense des droits des
personnes retraitées et préretraitées, the Centres Jeunesse and
a number of individuals.
They all came to speak to my colleague and to Marc Beaupré, the
person in charge of the non political aspect of the issue in
Quebec. It is far too important an issue to make it political.
Marc Beaupré is doing an excellent job of it.
I also attended a meeting in the riding of Sherbrooke, with my
colleague who represents that riding and about twenty
stakeholders, ordinary people, street workers, community
organizations. They came to tell my colleague and me that they
did not want this bill.
They are the ones who are the first to intervene with young
people. They are the ones who know how effective the Young
Offenders Act is in Quebec. I am not saying that it does not need
any improvement. Nothing is perfect in this world. But these
people work with this act and they are telling us “We have the
right tools; we must just improve them and invest in the front
line, that is, in prevention”.
This is what they came to tell us. I did not ask them to do so.
They are the ones who agreed to meet my colleague and who said
“Congratulations, you are informed. You are defending young
people. You are defending tomorrow's society”.
In the last couple days, I have been witnessing a vaudeville in
the House. We know what a vaudeville is. It is a human comedy.
I think now that enough is enough. What is happening now with
this arrogant government is enough. The Minister of Justice
should go and listen to the Quebec people. Why does she not
travel? I am prepared to invite her to my riding of Jonquière, so
she can meet workers who will tell her about their views on the
Young Offenders Act and Bill C-7. I would like that. I am
inviting her. I am extending my hand to her.
I would even like to invite the Prime Minister and tell him “Come
and listen to ordinary people. You are a lawyer by training. Come
and listen”.
Judges are saying that they will not know how to implement Bill
C-7. Moreover, it will cost between $200 million and $250 million
to do so. That money will not go to young people. It will be lost
in structures such as buildings and facilities, and in training
for judges.
Two hundred and fifty million dollars to implement a bill, when
street workers back home are not even paid minimum wage to
provide frontline to young offenders. They sure could use $250
million. In Quebec, the recidivism rate is nil. It would be
wonderful; things would be even better. We would be able to help
young people who have stumbled.
At age 14, we all make foolish mistakes, including you and I,
Mr. Speaker. Should a 14 year old be branded for the rest of his
life? Today's young people are not allowed to buy alcohol or
cigarettes until they are 18 years of age. The law prohibits them
from doing that. But at age 14, they would be sentenced and
branded for the rest of their life? This is unacceptable.
How can we get this across to the Minister of Justice, all
members from Quebec and all Liberal members from Quebec? They
should tell their minister “Open your eyes. We are successful in
Quebec. Make sure it gets even better. Help us improve things if
necessary, but do not dismiss it out of hand and start all over
again”.
We have been successfully implementing this legislation for
years in Quebec. Why should we pay for the other provinces, which
had the same legislation, but did not implement it?
1620
I am speaking for young people. I have children myself, and I
have grandchildren, as do many of you and many of those watching
us today. Parents came and told us “The young offenders system
is helping us. But with this bill, it will become judicialized”.
This is not what people want. They want assistance, assistance
for the young people, and for their families so that the young
people can learn to take charge and make something out of their
lives. This is possible under the present Young Offenders Act,
but it will not be under Bill C-7. What a shame.
I do not know how I will proceed, but I have a lot of
imagination and I will not allow the minister to come in my
province, where we are successful, and establish a system under
which this success will be ignored, and young people will have
no opportunity to take their destiny into their own hands. This
is unacceptable.
Yesterday, actor Marc Beaupré came to speak with young people.
He asked them what they thought about the bill. They answered
“We cannot support this bill. You must stop them”. But how can
they be stopped? That is the question I ask Quebecers and
Canadians, as well as the Liberals in the House.
I am asking the Liberals “When will you stop criminalizing young
people with such a bill?” I do not think that we should throw
stones at the young person who commits an offence. In life, we
should all have an opportunity to get their lives back together.
In my family there are several lawyers, so I know how the
judicial system works. Instead of helping young people we will
put them through the judicial system. That is enough. We are
dealing with young people less than 18 years old, not with
adults. Oddly enough, adults sentenced to six years of prison,
thanks to a remission of sentence, serve only two years. That is
serious.
Presently, under the Young Offenders Act, young people sentenced
to six years serve six years. They serve their sentence in a
rehabilitation system, in institutions that allow them to know
themselves and progress. This is possible under the Young
Offenders Act.
The minister must be thinking “I made a mistake. We must allowed
Quebec to withdraw from the application of that act”. We must be
allowed to keep on applying proactive measures for our youth. We
are asking her to allow us to do so.
If she wants to maintain her bill as is, she should keep it for
the other provinces and let Quebec withdraw from its
application. That is what I am asking her to do. If she
maintains it as is, I will vote against it.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I pleased to address the House, and I want first to
congratulate my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm on his splendid
job of raising the level of public awareness within Quebec and
probably in the rest of Canada also. He is getting feedback from
Canadians throughout the country about the public awareness
campaign he is waging against this bill.
People do not see this bill for what it really is. It is a far
right bill, a punitive bill. It does not allow young offenders to
get back on the right track, and it does not allow for their
rehabilitation. In Quebec, rehabilitation is working, and it is
working well.
A recent report broadcast on the TV program Le Point showed
two teenagers who had committed roughly the same crimes. The
Quebec method was used with one of these youngsters, and he is
now rehabilitated, he is back in his community, and he is doing
fine. The prevailing punitive method that they want to make even
tougher in the rest of Canada was used with the second one. He
ended up in prison, which is a school for crime. While in prison,
he learned how to become a more dangerous criminal.
1625
This is what we want the minister and the government to
understand. We are telling them “In Quebec, there are people,
and not just anyone, judges, police officers, crown attorneys,
school boards, scholars, academics, social services people,
community groups, youth centres, the youth protection branch,
all those who are providing social services to young people, who
are saying that changing the present system does not make any
sense. Pass your bill if you want, but let Quebec pull out and
keep its rehabilitative approach as opposed to a punitive
approach, such as the one proposed in the bill”.
All those people are asking for this, and I fail to understand
the Liberals' position. If we look at the members across the
way, we see that they are keeping a very low profile. They were
told to shut up, and they chose to serve the Liberal Party
instead of the interests of the people. I am addressing my
remarks to the Liberal members of Quebec in particular.
During the election campaign, you said “We will try to influence
the government from inside and ensure that Quebec will be
respected and that policies are adapted to Quebec's reality”.
However, when they have an opportunity to express themselves on
a bill that is unanimously rejected in Quebec—the opposition
comes not only from the Bloc, but from all the main forces of
Quebec—what do they do? I am looking at them right now, and they
are not saying a thing. They remain silent, and they prefer to
serve the Liberal Party instead of the interests of Quebec.
They prefer to work for financial moguls who contribute to their
campaign funds to the tune of $100,000 at a time, and for
western Canada to try to get some votes there. They have turned
their backs on Quebec.
Each time members from Quebec are elected as government members,
the problem is the same. It is more obvious within the Liberal
Party, because this is the party with two different attitudes:
one during the campaign, when Mr. Chrétien speaks loud and
clear, and a completely different one after the election. Then
the Liberal members from Quebec suddenly become silent and
ignorant. It is incredible.
I see people like the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies,
who was a president of the Quebec teacher's corporation, a man
who had a career, a man from the left who was even friendly with
Khadafy in Libya, a leftist from Quebec who, suddenly, remains
silent, in his seat, and repudiates his commitments, rejecting
everything to serve the Liberal Party and all its underhanded
practices.
I see people like the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, an
academic, who is not saying a thing, when all his peers have
expressed their opposition to this bill. All the academics, all
the university student associations, all the youth centres, all
the legal community and all the police associations have said
they are against this bill. But the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs says nothing and claims he to be
serving Quebec's interests.
Why, then, is he saying nothing? He remains silent, sitting back
in his seat, oblivious of his duties toward Quebec. Is this not
a totally reprehensible attitude? Why is the minister not
fighting for Quebec?
Why does the newly re-elected member for Portneuf remain silent
today, he who spoke against Pierre de Savoye, a great spokesman
for Quebec? Where is the former minister who sharply criticized
Mr. Turp, and won against him, while Mr. Turp rose almost every
day in the House to defend Quebec's interests? In his maiden
speech, he sullied Mr. Turp's reputation and then he claimed to
be fighting for Quebec. Is it time for the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry to stand up. Why do you remain silent? Are
you ashamed of your party? You should at least be ashamed of
this bill, which is totally contrary to Quebec's interests.
You are here, in Ottawa, supposedly to fight for Quebec. To the
hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, the hon. member for
Portneuf, the hon. member who defeated Ms. Alarie, such a good
advocate for the riding of Louis-Hébert. You have taken her seat
because of the municipal amalgamations. You told her “I will
fight for Quebec”. Please rise, Madam, and speak up.
1630
No member from Quebec wants to talk; no Liberal member from
Quebec wants to talk. And yet, as I said earlier, everybody in
Quebec is saying “no” to this bill, all the law enforcement
community, all the people in the judicial system, all the
academics, all the social services community. They are all
saying that Quebec must have the right to opt out of this bill
to pursue its own line of action, which is far better and,
moreover, a source of envy around the world.
So why so quiet? In the last campaign, you promised to serve
the interests of your constituents, to serve the interests of
Quebec. Why do you say nothing? Why do we hear nothing from
you? Why do you prefer serving the Liberal party to serving the
interests of Quebec? It is unacceptable.
We will spread the word in your ridings. We will shout it from
the rooftops. There is a campaign under way for a visit to all
the regions of Quebec to tell them about the attitude of the
Liberal members from Quebec, who say nothing, who prefer
betraying Quebec to serving it. And that is unacceptable.
Never has such a unanimous outpouring been heard from Quebec
against this bill.
They must take a stand, they must speak up and tell their
minister “Pass your bill, but back off in Quebec”. That is all
we are asking and it would cost nothing
But it is not even that. It is all part of the Liberal party's
centralizing philosophy which says “In the future, there will be
national standards; there will be only one nation. The Quebec
nation will not exist. The French fact will not exist. There
will be one Canadian nation. And you people in Quebec will not
have a voice”.
That is the Liberal party's philosophy, which the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs spouts and which the Liberal members
from Quebec have decided to support, rather than serving their
own constituents and listening to the alarm being raised by all
Quebecers.
On that, I must close, because I have a meeting with some
students from my riding, as it happens.
I want to make them aware of this bill. But I must say one last
time how well this bill shows, once again, that we would be
better served by ourselves. If we were 100% ourselves, we would
be much better off than being 25% of someone else. That is why
this bill once again shows the need for Quebec to be sovereign.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to an amendment to the young offenders bill,
which was brought forward by my colleague, the member for
Berthier—Montcalm.
This amendment strongly suggests that Quebec be excluded from
the application of the new legislation recently introduced by the
Liberal government.
It must be acknowledged that, during the course of this debate
on amendments to the Young Offenders Act, the Minister of Justice
showed good judgement on one particular occasion. Do you know
when it was? It was when she recognized that Quebec was
incredibly successful in the way it enforced the Young Offenders
Act.
In all her documents and even when she appeared before the
Standing Committee on Justice, the minister recognized that
Quebec had done so well with the Young Offenders Act that its
success rate exceeded that of the Canadian provinces as a whole,
with the lowest recidivism rate in North America.
So why change things? Why ignore Quebec's success just because
the YOA was a total failure elsewhere and because the right—that
has become more powerful over the last seven or eight
years—wants children to be treated like adults, wants them to be
thrown in jail just like adults?
Why a blanket policy? Why impose a new Young Offenders Act that
makes no sense, thus ignoring the greatest consensus in recent
years—a consensus supported by all stakeholders, who are against
the fact that the Minister of Justice wants Quebec to be like any
other province despite its successes?
1635
When we talk about a consensus, we are not referring to a small
one. The National Assembly has adopted a unanimous motion to
postpone the review of this new Young Offenders Act, so that
Quebec can keep on enforcing the law as it has always done with
all the success it is known for.
In the last two and a half or three years since the beginning of
the debate on the reform of the Young Offenders Act, we have
heard from people who work with young people on a day to day
basis. These people try to ensure that these young people
benefit from a first or a second chance, that they are given a
chance. This is what young people want. We have demonstrated it
in Quebec.
When we react with an open mind and give them a second chance,
most young offenders do not commit other offences. However, when
we put them in jail with adults, it is well known that prisons
become criminal factories for them. They have an opportunity to
meet hard-core criminals, real criminals, and living with them,
they soon become like them. We deny them the chance to
rehabilitate.
In passing, I would like to congratulate my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm for his excellent work on raising awareness of
the most important issues in this bill. He was telling me that
he had met this afternoon with a University of Ottawa professor
who had worked as a criminal lawyer in Alberta as well as in the
Maritimes. He is well aware of the mess these provinces made in
enforcing the Young offenders Act. He supports us.
A University of Ottawa professor is supporting us in our
opposition to changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Once again, this shows that, in Quebec, when this act was
properly enforced, there were some success stories. We have an
incredible rate of success in the rehabilitation of young
offenders.
In recent years, there have been many testimonies. Among other
things, speaking about a consensus, a coalition was created in
favour of justice for minors. Here is what this coalition said
in September 1999, when we were dealing with the bill that
preceded this one, which contained almost the same provisions,
and which died on the order paper because the election was
called.
The Coalition pour la justice des mineurs said in September 1999:
Before throwing away sixteen years of practices, adjustments and
case law to engage in a program that breaks with traditions
almost a century old, parliamentarians must ask themselves if it
is worth doing.
Will they have the courage to defend an act that is unanimously
agreed on by those who know and use it, or will they give in to
lobbies that are relying on misinformation to promote a program
that is both mean-spirited and simplistic?
This tells a lot about the state of mind of those who oppose
this reform. This reform makes no sense. It throws away all the
efforts of people who work with young offenders to try to give
them a chance.
There have been other testimonies by people known for their
great competence on the issue of rehabilitation of young
offenders.
Here is what André Normandeau, a criminologist from the
University of Montreal, was saying in 1999:
People in western Canada still react as they did 20 years ago,
at a time when the crime rate increased each year. They have
kept more of a punitive approach. Changing the law is the easy
way out, but, more importantly, it does not work. Violent
criminals, who represent 10% of offenders, do not respond to
coercion.
It is an easy way out to resort to the stick, or the whip, as my
father would have said. It is an easy way out to play petty
politics in referring to a supposedly increasing youth crime
rate, which is wrong and refuted by every statistics.
1640
It is an easy way out to engage in petty politics at the expense
of our children's future. It is cheap. There is no other word to
describe what the minister is proposing and to describe also the
support she can get from her Liberal colleagues or from Alliance
members. It is cheap to play politics with that.
It is cheap to use misinformation about an alleged increase in
youth crime rate to show support for a right wing approach, for
beating, or for the death penalty while at it. That is cheap.
First and foremost, we should think of our children. That is
what we are doing in Quebec.
Why not accept to exclude Quebec from the application of the new
legislation? It would be so simple for some people to stop
playing dumb and to open their minds to the fact that Quebec has
made it work.
Why prevent us from continuing just because people from western
Canada want to be tougher and Liberals are willing to go along?
All they do is play petty politics.
Why not think of the children's future first? No wonder young
people are no longer interested in what goes on in parliament.
We are not listening to their concerns. We are ignoring their
concerns. On top of that, we want to throw them in jail instead
of giving them a second chance.
In what kind of country do we live? Sometimes I wonder. The
Minister of Justice is thick as a brick and she is narrow-minded.
I have never met anybody as narrow-minded as she is.
Today again, on another bill, the one aimed at strengthening the
criminal code, we mentioned the fact that the solicitor general
said that the bill would not apply strictly to criminal groups,
that it could go beyond that. The solicitor general could
authorize a police officer to commit crimes to enforce the new
provisions of the criminal code.
That is the only thing wrong with this bill, but the minister
could very well kill any support for her bill. The Bloc
Quebecois has been calling for a strengthening of the criminal
code for years to be able to fight crime more effectively. Why
does the minister not go after real criminals instead of
children? She should stop including in her legislation
provisions that are too broad, thus killing any support we could
have given her. She should open her mind.
I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of the amendment
proposed by the member for Berthier—Montcalm to exclude Quebec
from the application of the new legislation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, Fisheries; the hon. member
for South Shore, Fisheries.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise today on behalf of voters in Quebec who elected us
during the last election on November 27. This was a senseless
election called by the prime minister, but it went ahead anyway.
Quebecers, especially those in Charlevoix, were lucky enough to
be able to make a democratic choice and send to the House of
Communes an MP with the mandate to defend Quebec's interests.
I am very proud to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-7
on behalf of my constituents in Charlevoix, but most of all on
behalf on young people in my riding. Our youth is our future.
They will be penalized by Bill C-7 on young offenders.
The Quebec National Assembly is totally opposed to the federal
bill. Once again we feel that the federal government wants to
centralize through a legislation the former Reform Party had
asked for. The minister, in order to win a few ridings in
Western Canada, has rehashed legislation asked for by the Reform
Party now called the Canadian Alliance, only to win a few votes
in Western Canada. This is been done at the expense of one
province, Quebec, which is managing very well under the Young
Offenders Act.
1645
Statistics show that we have a rehabilitation system in Quebec.
There are institutions for young people, such as drop-in centres,
where they are followed by psychologists and have access to
guidance and training.
The purpose of all this is social reintegration. Sometimes,
because of bad luck, depression or drug or alcohol abuse, a 16-
year old girl or boy commits an unfortunate act. Right after
committing that act, that young person deserves some form of
reintegration, of rehabilitation.
According to Bill C-7, youngsters 14, 15 or 16 years old would
be put in jail for an undetermined period of time. Putting a
youngster away for ten years in a maximum security jail with
adults, criminals, is like sending him to the university of
crime.
It would be totally illogical to send a teenager who has
committed an offence—oftentimes by order of an organized crime
group—to “the pen” while organized crime members are free to
come and go.
The young offender obeyed orders, either to make money or to act
out violently or because he was acting under remote-control. He
would be sent to penitentiaries, those crime universities, for an
indeterminate period of time that, as I said, could be from eight
to ten years. The minister agrees to all of this, she is fully
aware of this.
She will know that in Quebec, the justice system, the police,
the CLSCs, in other words all those involved are unanimously
rejecting this bill and saying that the minister is mistaken. It
is totally illogical to send teenagers to prison while criminals,
who are clearly identified with their crest on their backs, go
about freely.
Because she made a mistake we are asking the minister to
introduce a bill to fight organized crime. We are also telling
her that Bill C-7 is targeting the wrong people, young offenders.
Since it has not yet achieved sovereignty, Quebec is still
subject to federal legislation. The federal government is about
to pass a bill that would be bad for Quebecers, who are
unanimously denouncing it. The courts, educational institutions,
penitentiaries, the police, lawyers, judges, everyone is against
it.
Because we have not yet obtained sovereignty, because we are
still dependent on the federal government, we must give in. The
Liberal government in power is about to muzzle us by saying: “We
will end the debate at such time, on such day and proceed to the
vote”. With its majority in the House the Liberal government will
once again pass a bill that will affect our constituents,
particularly young Quebecers.
During the 1995 referendum campaign, many Canadians came to
Montreal to tell us how much they loved us, how much they
appreciated us and wanted to keep us in Canada. They wanted our
young people to vote no. The difference between the yes and the
no sides was about 50,000 votes. More than 48% voted yes, and the
federal government won by a slim majority.
Liberal ministers from Quebec and even the Prime Minister
travelled extensively throughout Quebec and its regions, and they
made all sorts of promises. But the Liberal government's promises
do not wash anymore, or they will not, because Quebec's motto is
I remember.
1650
I hope those who voted no in the referendums will remember that,
once again, the Prime Minister of Canada has lied to and misled
the population. Today, the minister is trying to have a bill
passed that will be detrimental to Quebecers and young offenders
in Quebec.
It is unfortunate, but, in the circumstances, Bloc Quebecois
members who are here to represent the young and Quebecers in
general have to condemn this situation.
I also find unfortunate the fact that the Quebec members in the
government, the Prime Minister, who comes from Quebec, the
Minister of National Revenue, who hails from Charlevoix, the
Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for Amateur
Sport, who is also from Quebec, said during the election
campaign “Vote for us. We are in power. We listen carefully. We
can speak in Cabinet”.
Why are they not telling the Minister of Justice, who does not
live in Quebec, who does not know or understand it, that
everyone opposes this bill, which is skewing the whole legal
system for young offenders in Quebec? Why are they not taking
the minister to task? It means nothing to be in office today.
What counts is the party line.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister for
International Trade come from Quebec as well. There is a fairly
sizeable group from Quebec, who should have some influence on
the minister.
Here again, the focus of the minister is to meet the demands
made at the time by the Canadian Alliance and say “We are
looking after that, we in the Liberal Party. We are getting
organized”. Unfortunately, the Liberal members from Quebec are
totally out of this debate. None of them is rising. They smile
at us, almost arrogantly. What is the member for Québec East
waiting for?
I think I see Jean-Paul Marchand rising here today and
criticizing the situation. I see Hélène Alarie, the member for
Louis-Hébert at the time, rising and doing the same thing.
I can also see the former member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Jean-Guy
Chrétien. He would have torn his hair out here in the House in
his unbridled criticism of the situation and in his whole-hearted
defence of the interests of the young people in his riding. I
think I can see the former member of Frontenac—Mégantic
expressing his disagreement to the minister.
On the Liberal side, however, a number of members have probably
left for supper, and the others still here are totally out of
this debate. And yet, they were elected.
I close in the hope, once again, that the minister will accept
the amendments to Bill C-7 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. I
would like to congratulate the member for Berthier—Montcalm for
his excellent work in this.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my voice is
not in the best of shape for me to speak today, but I really
wanted to make a speech on the young offenders legislation. This
is a very important piece of legislation for Quebec.
I find unfortunate the position of the government where it
refuses to recognize the realities of Quebec. With this bill, we
are seeing the same lack of flexibility of federalism when it
comes to recognizing Quebec's realities and approaches.
It is insult that is made today to Quebec's National Assembly,
which voted unanimously against this bill that make the Young
Offenders Act tougher. We know that for our young offenders who
have committed a severe crime, a crime that is unacceptable in
our society, but who need a particular approach or reinforcement,
the bill will run counter to everything that was put in place in
Quebec to help them.
We are not alone in this fight. In Quebec, many stakeholders
have in fact supported our colleague, the Member for
Berthier—Montcalm, in the battle that he has been waging for
many years against the justice minister's bill.
1655
The minister insists on enforcing an act that goes against what
is being done in Quebec. Each problem is different, and this is
exactly the approach taken by Quebec. Each problem is different,
and each one has a different solution.
The new act that the minister wants to adopt, which is focusing
mainly on the seriousness of the offence, underestimates the
needs of young people. It does not deal with the young person,
with the one who needs a special approach or individualized
treatment.
The Quebec approach is successful and it has been said that, at
23%, the Quebec criminality rate it is the lowest in Canada. What
Bill C-7 will do is to change the face of juvenile justice. It
will change gradually. We all know that the attorney will be the
one who will do justice. Whether he will enforce the minister's
bill or adopt Quebec's approach remains to be seen however.
We can only be against this bill. The government claims that
there will be flexibility and that the provinces will have some.
But this is nothing else than smoke and mirrors. It will be up to
the attorney. There is nothing in the bill confirming that Quebec
may carry on as it would like to.
We thought that the amendments put forward by my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm would persuade the Minister of Justice. But
no, quite the contrary. I do not think she will be persuaded. She
is digging her heels. From her answers, it is obvious that she is
stubbornly refusing to understand what is being done in Quebec.
But we will not give up.
As we know, there is a tour of Quebec going on at present.
Through it, Quebec public opinion will be heard louder and
louder. The public is becoming more and more aware of what is
going on here in the federal parliament.
I would like to make particular mention of the generous
contribution of Marc Beaupré, a young actor who wanted to add his
voice to the campaign. He plays a troubled youth, Kevin, in the
televised serial Les deux frères. In order to see what it was
like for a youth in jail, he spent time there himself. He was
able to see for himself how much it was a school for crime. In
just a few days, he was able to learn some of the tactics taught
in the schools for crime that are our prisons.
We must not bury our heads in the sand on this. We know very
well that, when a person is treated like a criminal,
rehabilitation becomes harder. We know very well that there are
no more true life sentences, that the person will be coming back
out into society. We must do everything possible to reclaim our
youth, to give them every possible encouragement, while at the
same time making them accept the seriousness of what they have
done.
This is the approach used in Quebec at the present time. The
young offender is made aware, made to understand right from the
start the serious nature of what he or she has done, and
immediate assistance must be provided as well.
With the minister's law in place, we will no longer be able to
take that approach, to intervene as appropriately, as promptly,
as necessarily as is often required, with the young person who
has committed an offence.
We are very disappointed, because we have the support of many
people. I can tell the House that the list of those who support
us is impressive. André Normandeau, a criminologist from the
University of Montreal, supports the Bloc Quebecois' approach, as
does Cécile Toutant, a criminologist and a member of the Quebec
Bar Association's subcommittee on young offenders, Jean
Trépanier, a criminologist, and André Payette, a spokesperson for
the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec.
I could read out pages and pages of names of people who support
us, but I will stop here, because it is truly discouraging to see
how stubbornly the government is pushing this bill through.
We hope that our offensive today will show that we are not going
to give up and that we will keep on hoping right up until the
last minute that the minister will finally recognize what is
being done in Quebec.
1700
I would like to read an excerpt from the Jasmin report, which
goes as follows:
It is often easier to amend legislation than to change our
approach to a problem. It may be tempting to think that tougher
legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency.
Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex
problems and create the false impression that we are doing what
is necessary to resolve them.
One such simplistic response is
substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches. Doing
so, however, loses sight of the fact that adolescents are still
developing, and lays all of the blame for their delinquency on
them, as if society and the environment they live in had nothing
to do with it.
I think that we all feel concerned. When a young person commits
such a serious offence, I think that all of society should feel
responsible. Our legislation and approaches must be realistic.
They must be rooted in reality.
I am going to support the initiative of the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm. I find it sad that members of this
parliament are not rising to speak today. Where are the Liberal
members from Quebec? The Liberals from Quebec said they were
going to have one voice in parliament. When they were
campaigning, they were very interested in mergers.
We are not dealing with mergers here; we are dealing with the new
Young Offenders Act, which is going against the Quebec approach.
Like my colleague for Charlevoix was saying, where are the
Liberal members from Quebec? Where is the member for
Louis-Hébert? Where is the member for Québec East? Where is the
member for Portneuf? All of them are members of the Liberal Party
that got elected in the last elections.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are here to speak for the interests
of Quebec. We will never let go because we are not afraid to talk
loud and clear about the consensus existing in Quebec. This bill
will be one more example of the federal government's
inflexibility concerning Quebec.
All the youth centre support the legislation already in place in
Quebec; they are against the minister's bill because its approach
is not good for young offenders and their rehabilitation. We will
never say it enough.
Today, I might not have had the voice to make a speech, but I
was trying to express my concern over what is proposed in this
bill.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to follow up
on my colleague from Quebec, despite her voice that gave her some
difficulty, are we to assume that all Liberal members from Quebec
also have a sore throat? She has the courage to speak out on
behalf of all Quebecers.
It is with great interest that I speak to this bill. In
September 1998, when I was elected as the member for Sherbrooke,
I proudly committed to representing the interests of residents of
my riding, my region and Quebec.
I have been constantly in contact with youth centres, with the
Coalition des travailleurs de rues, with different youth workers.
I know quite well several people who work with young people in my
region.
When I look at young people, I remember that, one day, there was
born a child, an exceptional child, a sovereign being to whom
people wished only good things, the best things in the world,
both for the mind and the body, and also intelligence.
1705
However, even when an exceptional and sovereign child is born,
it is not certain that child will be able to live comfortably in
society. Numerous actions and contacts throughout his childhood
and his adolescence will mould him, develop him and shape his
behaviour. Likewise if, unfortunately, this young person ever
commits some wrongdoing, it is difficult for us to determine why
it happened.
We know that each person is different, and can commit certain
offences, but the first thing that we must do is to help that
person because, as I said earlier, this individual is not allowed
to function like this in a society that has laws, regulations and
even biases. We must of course identify the causes of that
person's reprehensible behaviour and deal with them.
When we look at the bill, at how it is drafted and at what it
proposes, we realize that the government's priority is to
establish a list, label crimes and define the price to pay by the
young offender, instead of developing a set of personalized
measures for each young person who commits an offence. We know
that it is possible to take action at that level, so that these
young people will later be able to contribute in a very positive
way in society.
Instead of using a personalized set of measures for young
people, the bill tries to define the seriousness of the offences
and, for all intents and purposes, make the individual pay on
that basis. Let me go back to young people's power to make
decisions. Through its acts, the government is telling us that a
person under 18 years of age is not allowed to vote or to decide
for himself if he can smoke. That young person does not have that
power. A young person under 18 is not allowed to drink beer
moderately. He is not allowed to make such a decision.
On the other hand, the government wants to make that same person
responsible for actions which, as I said earlier, may be due to
any number of circumstances in which a young person lives in our
society. It is difficult to identify the real problem, but we
must take every measure possible to make that young person able
to function. If he has made a mistake or done something
deplorable, we must help him.
The first principle is early intervention.
In Quebec, there are many stakeholders today who gained a solid
experience in intervention and supervision, helping young persons
learn how to function in our society. Should we always proceed
punitively? I am very sceptical about that. Why did we say that,
on the one hand, the bill against organized crime does not go far
enough while, on the other hand, the bill respecting young
persons goes a little too far? Are we to understand that the
government maintains automatically, as the saying goes “He who
steals a penny will steal a pound”? I do not agree, but this is
what the government says automatically.
1710
Since September 14, 1998, I have direct contact with people
involved in criminal justice in my riding. Only yesterday, as
part of the tour being carried out by my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm, we met with quite a large group of
stakeholders.
This group included many young persons who are familiar with
this situation, young persons who saw some of their friends faced
with situations that were sometimes painful, to say the least.
These people witnessed how Quebec stakeholders rehabilitated some
young persons who, if Bill C-7 had been in effect at the time,
would have been lost. One day, these young persons would have
ended up being dealt with under the organized crime legislation.
It is obvious that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are acting
in good faith, are being caring and are acting out of love for
the young people. We ask the Quebec members of the Liberal party
to also act in good faith and to honestly say that, in Quebec at
this time, the Young Offenders Act adequately meets the needs of
the young people. Thanks to this legislation, they can have
access to workers who give them guidance. However, such an
approach is expensive.
Instead of investing $200 million or $250 million for the
enforcement of this legislation, the federal government, which
often speaks about its great generosity, should transfer a pro
rata share of this money to Quebec, so that we can continue to
enforce the legislation we now have in Quebec, where it is
undeniably yielding good results.
If all Quebec members honestly and sincerely declare that they
want to protect the young people of Quebec, I think that all the
Liberal members will vote against this bill, alongside Bloc
Quebecois members, to make sure that our youth can has a chance
at happiness.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, like the member for Quebec, I believe it is my duty to
rise today to speak against the bill. It will be extremely
detrimental. It will fly in the face of the approach developed by
hundreds if not thousands of people who have been working for
years with Quebec youth; this approach has a proven track record.
It is based on rehabilitation and the needs of young people. It
is individualized and specific. It does not include automatic
haphazard punitive measures without any regard for the context
and the situation of the young offender.
Before daring to hand out harsher sentences, and considering
sentencing young people at an ever younger age to adult
sentences, the government should first prove to us that the
approach put forward by Quebec is no good. It is in fact quite
the contrary; it has yielded very good results, as a matter of
fact the best in Canada, as mentioned on many occasions by the
member for Berthier—Montcalm. He has done an outstanding job of
reaching people working in the field in Quebec and consulting
them. Of course he first studied the act very carefully. And then
he consulted workers in the field, which he has been doing for a
long time.
1715
The government is seeking to respond to a need or request voiced
in one area of our country, more specifically western Canada—where
there is a right wing movement, we must say—and try to
apply this approach coast to coast, including in Quebec, when we
have the lowest youth crime rate. As a matter of fact, statistics
show that youth crime rates have been dropping throughout Canada.
It is quite incredible to see that, when the situation is
improving and not deteriorating, the government has decided to
pass a bill that is even harsher and that holds our young
offenders responsible for their acts by punishing them. This is
quite inconceivable.
Since 1993, with other members of the Bloc, we sometimes visit
various provinces in Canada. I will always remember that, in the
fall of 1994, with my colleagues from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques and
Mercier, I was part of a tour that dealt with social programs,
and we found out that, depending on the province, there was a
different culture and a different mentality, but also different
social problems, different ways of treating problems. The rest of
Canada tends to depend more on the central government than
Quebecers.
Quebecers, however, federalists as well as sovereigntists, have
always had more confidence in their own government, in the
government that is the closest to their problems, especially
social problems, such as those we are talking about today.
To talk about young offenders is to talk about teenagers. To
talk about teenagers is to talk about the future. When we send
these teenagers to prison, thinking that we will rehabilitate
them by doing so, we are in fact putting them in a school for
crime.
Recently, I heard a speech by Marc Beaupré, who went on a
consultation and awareness raising tour with the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm. He told us that he himself stayed two days in
prison—not to serve a sentence of course—but as a learning
experience. In those two days, he was taught many things. We can
only imagine what he would have learned had he stayed longer.
He gave that as an example. He learned a few of the tricks taught
in the school for crime.
In a few minutes, I will name the members of the Coalition pour
la justice des mineurs, just to show how strong the Quebec
consensus is.
However, I would first like to point out that, as second reading
of the bill, I have made a speech, as had certain members from
Quebec, including the member for Beauce, who had said that they
had consulted youth organizations and that what they heard was
different from what the member for Berthier—Montcalm was saying.
I wanted to check because he and I live in the same region. I
called those who had attended the meeting to know their opinions.
They all told me that their opinions had not changed. They said
that, on the contrary, they told the member in question that he
was mistaken, that he was headed in the wrong direction, but he
kept saying that the government had consulted.
Maybe they did not give him a hard time, because people who work
with teenagers do not usually favour the aggressive approach for
obvious reasons, but they did make him understand that he was
headed in the wrong direction.
Despite that, members from Quebec do not talk much in the House,
and when they do, it is to say that it is not that serious.
1720
I will now give a list of members of the Coalition pour la
justice des mineurs because it is worth mentioning. They are:
Commission des services juridiques, Conseil permanent de la
jeunesse, Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec, Jean Trépanier of
the University of Montreal School of Criminology, Fondation
québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, Institut Philippe
Pinel, Association des directeurs de police et pompiers du
Québec, Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des
services sociaux, Association des centres jeunesse du Québec,
Crown Prosecutors' Office, which comes under the Quebec Minister
of Justice, Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, Marc
Leblanc of the University of Montreal School of Psyco-Education,
Regroupement de justice alternative du Québec, Child Welfare
League of Canada, Canadian Criminal Justice Association,
Association des avocats de la défense du Québec, Société
criminologie du Québec. And there are a few more.
That is a lot of people. I am not sure how many, but these
groups must represent hundreds and thousands of people who work
with young people daily. They are part of a coalition that came
here to condemn this bill, but the government is still turning a
deaf ear.
I agree with those who suggest that, if the rest of Canada—and
by that I mean all the provinces except Quebec, because we are
still part of the Canadian federal system—wants this bill, let
the government add a clause granting Quebec the right to opt out,
if we have a flexible federal system, with the support of a
consensus in Quebec that includes members of the National
Assembly, all Quebecers, all the stakeholders I just enumerated,
the young people and their parents.
This would make a lot of sense. There are precedents for this in
many areas, like the civil code, on questions that are under
Quebec's jurisdiction, contrary to what exists in other
provinces. Education is a provincial jurisdiction. Why stubbornly
try to have a uniform Canada, and why treat everybody the same
way when it is obvious for everybody that there are differences
out there, that there are two nations in this country? Let us
show some respect for the Quebec people by letting them determine
how they are going to educate their children.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill in
respect of criminal justice for young persons, at report stage.
As a matter of fact, this legislation is better known as the
Young Offenders Act.
That legislation has caused much ink to flow over the last
several years. It carried various numbers and each time the
federal government came up against a solid and strong consensus
by Quebec stakeholders. Those stakeholders say that this punitive
approach which tends to be very severe toward young people and to
punish them by sending them to jail instead of keeping and
developing an approach of co-operation and rehabilitation, is
unacceptable.
The government says it has to change the model. Yet statistics
show that the existing model is working well, that the youth
crime rate in Quebec is lower, that rehabilitation is having good
results and that recidivism is very low. However, over the last
few years, because of the rightist wind blowing from the west and
carrying the justice minister who comes from that part of the
country and represents a western riding, the federal government
steamroller has been obstinately persisting on imposing this
model. That is very sad.
After all, the major strength that helped the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm in carrying the issue so efficiently is that
there is nothing better in democracy than knowing that one's
cause is directly connected to what people wish and want.
1725
As we have seen in the past and are seeing now, it is not a
political party that is opposed to this bill, it is a society.
There is in Quebec a society that has developed a model and that
wishes to maintain this model. Indeed, we have something that is
successful and that is working better than elsewhere.
Societies must be open to other environments. When a good idea
is being developed in the rest of Canada, in the United States or
in Europe, we can take it and use it in our models. But when we
have something that is working very well in Quebec, we would like
to use it. We do not want the federal government to barge in
order to change the situation and bring us back to a situation
that Quebecers do not want. We are seeing this today, we have
seen this with the list of people who have supported the
legislation and the organizations as well as individuals that are
supporting it.
The testimonies we are receiving are from young people who have
been through the system. Instead to going to jail, they had the
chance of going in close treatment, in environments where they
are forced to reflect on their situation. We force them to ask
themselves what led to such behaviour. We help them with
psychologists, with social workers.
This is not necessarily easier. I think this is the tough
solution, the hard road to go, but this is giving them a chance
to turn their act around.
The other way is easier. In jail, they learn all kinds of
things, things they do not need to know for the rest of their
lives and things that lead to unacceptable behaviour.
The human aspect is the most important. I have three children;
one 17 year old, another 15 year old and a 10 year old who will
soon be 11. I would not like to see my children find themselves
stuck in the criminal system for the rest of their life because
they had made a mistake. If a young person makes a mistake, I
hope he gets an opportunity to correct his behaviour, understand
his mistake and what it entails. There is an important
educational aspect to the issue. It is refreshing to see that
people have understood that.
We often read in the newspapers about the plight of some people.
A crime is committed by a teenager and for five days, the media
repeat that he has been identified, arrested and then he is
brought to trial and goes through all the subsequent stages.
People have understood that these are the exception, not the
rule.
The rule is that we succeed in rehabilitating our young
offenders and making them responsible citizens, people who, in
the end, have learned to behave.
The attitude of the federal government should have been more
focused on investing money in the system and make a maximum
effort. The rest of Canada does not want that system so let us
try to find a way to answer their needs. If we want Quebec's
system to continue to operate and show good results, we have to
invest money in the system and allow Quebec to make the best
possible use of available resources for the benefit of teenagers,
in order to continue to reduce the crime rate and to get the best
possible rehabilitation.
The federal government does not have this attitude, which is
surprising.
I will mention a few members, such as the members from Québec
East, Portneuf, Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, and
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok; the last two
members represent ridings next to mine. What message did these
members receive from their constituents for them to say so
little?
When it is time to vote, I wonder if they will have the courage
to say “Our system in Quebec works well. We will never accept
this Canadian model, which does not suit us, which will thwart
the efforts that have been made for several years”.
In legislation, principles come into play, but ultimately some
resources are also involved.
We will end up in a situation where more and more money will be
needed for penitentiaries, to deal with the repressive aspect of
this legislation, while all that money would have been needed for
prevention. There is not a word about that in the bill.
Where are Quebec's federal Liberals in this debate? Why are they
keeping so quiet? Is this not an issue on which they will have to
vote?
I know I will have a few minutes left that I will be able to use
when we resume debate on this bill, but I urge all members in the
House to listen carefully to the message that all Quebecers are
sending them.
1730
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. He will have three minutes left to finish his speech
when we resume debate on this bill.
* * *
[English]
CANADA NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREAS ACT
The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation
areas of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): It being 5.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-10.
Call in the members.
1755
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Allard
| Assad
|
Bagnell
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Binet
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carignan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Castonguay
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chrétien
| Coderre
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Cuzner
|
Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duplain
| Easter
| Eyking
| Farrah
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Hearn
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| LeBlanc
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Macklin
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCallum
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McLellan
| McTeague
|
Mitchell
| Myers
| Nault
| Neville
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Owen
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proulx
| Redman
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
| Savoy
|
Scherrer
| Scott
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Jacques
| Steckle
| Stewart
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
(Saint - Lambert)
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Tirabassi
| Tonks
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 153
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Anderson
(Cypress Hills – Grasslands)
| Asselin
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Breitkreuz
| Burton
| Cadman
| Cardin
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Day
| Dubé
| Duceppe
| Elley
|
Epp
| Fitzpatrick
| Gagnon
(Québec)
| Gallant
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harris
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hinton
|
Jaffer
| Lanctôt
| Loubier
| Lunn
(Saanich – Gulf Islands)
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Pallister
| Pankiw
| Perron
|
Peschisolido
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rajotte
|
Reid
(Lanark – Carleton)
| Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
|
Roy
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Skelton
|
Solberg
| Spencer
| St - Hilaire
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Toews
| Tremblay
(Rimouski - Neigette - et - la Mitis)
| Venne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
| Yelich
– 67
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
(Victoria)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bigras
| Bourgeois
|
Brown
| Comuzzi
| Desrochers
| Eggleton
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
(Champlain)
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Knutson
|
Laframboise
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Marceau
|
Marcil
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Minna
| Paquette
|
Pettigrew
| Sgro
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean – Saguenay)
| Vanclief
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the
bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[English]
The Speaker: It being 5.58 p.m. the House will now
proceed to the consideration of private members' business as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1800
[Translation]
BLOOD SAMPLES ACT
The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-217, an act to provide for the taking of samples of blood
for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law
and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code, be read the
third time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-217, under Private Members' Business.
If I am not mistaken, this bill, the blood samples act, was
introduced in the House by a Canadian Alliance member on February
5, 2001.
It arises out of an event that occurred in October 1997, when a
police officer, Isobel Anderson, arrested a man for armed
robbery. It is useful to explain why the Canadian Alliance member
introduced this bill.
While searching for weapons, she reached into his pocket and
felt a sharp pain. She pulled her hand out to find a bloody
needle stuck in her palm. As she feared, doctors told her that
the needle may have infected her with HIV, which leads to AIDS.
Then she learned that the robbery suspect had refused to take the
HIV test and could not be compelled by law to give a blood
sample.
After some negotiations, the suspect agreed to a blood test, and
the results came back negative for HIV but positive for hepatitis
C.
As a precautionary measure, Ms. Anderson agreed to AZT
treatment, which understandably changed her life for several
months. Six months later it was confirmed that she had contracted
neither HIV nor hepatitis C. Today this policewoman is in good
health.
Since the creation of the Reform Party, a group called Front
Line and Good Samaritans Rights to Know has been encouraging
police officers and other emergency workers to make their voices
heard and support the efforts of the party, now the Canadian
Alliance, in favour of a bill to protect the interests of people
working for others in a service capacity.
Our position on this bill is the following: the bill is
essentially aimed at forcing people suspected of being HIV or
hepatitis B or C positive, and who could have infected a peace
officer, a security guard or a person acting under section 494 of
the criminal code, to give a blood sample.
The bill is pitting one fundamental right against another,
namely the right to health and safety and the right to privacy
and the sanctity of the human body.
We believe that in its present form, the bill might infringe
upon the rights of people with HIV or hepatitis B or C by
ostracizing them. Moreover, such a bill might lead to abuses
against those suspected of carrying one of those diseases. Far
from reflecting the values dear to Quebecers, this bill would
contravene the fundamental human rights legislation passed by the
Quebec government.
Finally, it seems obvious to us that this bill would go against
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and change the
Criminal Code in a worrisome way. It would allow for the taking
of blood samples even when no misdemeanour or offence of any kind
has been committed.
The bill does not respect the fundamental values of Quebecers,
and the government has passed several laws to entrench human
rights and freedoms.
1805
It might bear repeating that these values are entrenched in the
Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, at articles 1—dealing
with right to life, freedom, security and integrity of
person—to 5, which deals with the right to privacy protection.
In the Civil Code of Quebec, article 10 states that “Every person
is inviolable and is entitled to the integrity of his person”.
If this bill were to be passed, several Quebec acts and codes
would be affected by Bill C-217 and would require consequential
amendments. That would be the case, for example, for the
Professional Code and the Act respecting health services and
social services.
When creating the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms in
1974—under the Quebec Liberal Party at the time—the legislator
established as a fundamental right that “Every person has a right
to respect for his privacy”.
There is in the Civil Code of Quebec, in force since January 1,
1994, a whole chapter on the issue of respect for one's
reputation and one's privacy. The new code, after recalling the
principle stated in the Charter, provides that only the law or
the consent of a person or of his heirs can justify an intrusion
in his or her private life.
Moreover, Bill C-217 does not respect the concept of the human
body's inviolability provided for in section 10 of Quebec's Civil
Code, that says that, except for certain exceptional situations,
no one is to be subjected to medical treatment without his or her
well-informed and freely given consent.
According to some experts, the definition of medical care is
broad enough to include the taking of samples, tests and even DNA
analysis. A practice that affects someone's integrity violates
all the more his right to privacy. And respect for one's privacy
implies that every person can exercise control over personal
information concerning him and decide whether to make them public
or not.
It is interesting finally to note that the doctors' code of
ethics includes under the principle of the confidentiality of
medical information two exceptions that would apply to genetic
information.
The first exception provides that the doctor can divulge facts
that he was personally made aware of when a patient or the law
authorizes him to do so, when there is a pressing and justified
reason to do so for the patient's health or that of the people
around him.
The second exception provides that, unless there is just cause,
the physician may not reveal to people who are close to the
patient a serious or fatal prognosis if the patient forbids it.
However, in this last instance, experts say that nothing
indicates what would constitute just cause to justify such
violation.
Therefore, these exceptions could not apply to the subject
matter of Bill C-217. The bill could be viewed as going against
sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada. In R. v
Dyment, Justice La Forest noted that “the use of a person's body
without his consent to obtain information about him invades an
area of privacy essential to the maintenance of his human
dignity”.
Finally, we are not convinced that taking a blood sample from
the person suspected of having transmitted bodily fluid to
another person will enable to determine in every case whether
the person carries the HIV virus or the hepatitis B or C virus.
Indeed, because of the incubation period, it is very difficult
to determine with certainty whether an individual is a carrier
of these diseases. Had the tests done on the suspect apprehended
by Ms. Anderson been negative, nothing could have indicated that
the individual himself was not in the incubation period.
For all these reasons, we must oppose Bill C-217, which, in
essence, is an interesting bill.
When a peace officer, firefighter, or any other person needs to
interact with another in the performance of his or her duties
and is left with doubts as to whether he or she may have been
infected with HIV or hepatitis, this is unbearable, everyone
will agree.
However, when a situation needs to be corrected, the way to do
it is not with an incomplete, unconstitutional bill, because the
very first inmate required to be tested would take it to the
Supreme Court of Canada and would—as I have attempted to prove—win
his case.
So we need to find a way to provide these personnel with some
peace of mind. We in the Bloc Quebecois do not believe that
Bill C-217 is the way to go. We do not feel it is going to
provide any piece of mind to those working with the public, who
are unfortunately infected by misadventure, by accident, or
deliberately by inmates in detention.
1810
We often hear stories of prison guards being bitten by inmates.
They are then subjected to a truly unbearable sense of
insecurity.
This bill, which is intended to remedy this untenable situation,
would not do so.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we have here one of those common sense type bills. It
is one of those bills that looks into what is good in society and
what would protect the health and the good nature of people. The
bill would address good Samaritan activities. It would address
the protection of good Samaritans, health workers and emergency
workers.
I think all members of the House have at one time or another
been in contact with an emergency worker. We have extended a
helping hand to someone in an accident, whether on the highway or
somewhere else, or have wanted to extend a helping hand but were
not sure of the conditions of the situation. Emergency workers
such as firefighters, police officers and security personnel are
often subjected to cases where they do not know all the risks.
The hon. member brought forward the bill with the noblest of
intentions. His intentions are not only noble but practical. The
member wants to give as much protection as possible to people who
are subjected to risks of which they are perhaps unaware. However
there seems to be a feeling that any individual who suspects
something can demand a blood test.
There is a safeguard in the bill. The safeguard is a judge.
Judges are people who have demonstrated and exercised good
judgment in the past. That is why they are judges. They help us
interpret the law. They make sure the law is applied, as far as
humanly possible, in a fair and equitable way. That is what we
are after.
When individuals are put into questionable situations they may
be subject to risk. The bill looks at three kinds of risks:
hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV. The bill focuses on these
three risks and no others. The presence of these diseases can be
detected by a blood test. Is the test foolproof? Of course it
is not. No test in the world is absolutely foolproof. However
it is good enough to ask a judge that it be administered.
Why do people suggest it would be an intrusion into privacy?
The greatest intrusion into people's privacy is to shorten their
lives by infecting them with a disease. Drawing a couple of
drops of blood and subjecting someone to a test is no great
infringement on anything. It would be done through the auspices
of a judge and through careful analysis of the situation. I do
not know of anything more common sense and humane than that. We
should all be supporting the bill with everything we have.
How can we not support the bill? We need only look at the
absolute volume of organizations that support it. All kinds of
organizations support the bill. I am talking about police
departments and associations, and 18 such organizations support
the bill.
1815
This is not one group of policemen in some city somewhere. These
are national and provincial police associations.
Let us go another step. We have security guard unions and
associations. I have eight groups here. Who are some of these
groups? The Union of Solicitor General Employees is a pretty
sophisticated group. We have the Correctional Officers'
Association of Ontario. We have the National Office of the
Commissionaires and the North Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Northwestern Ontario and Nova Scotia divisions of the
Commissionaires. Not only do we have groups on a national level,
we have them on the provincial level. People in these groups are
all emergency workers.
We go beyond those groups to include hospitals, health boards
and nursing associations. Some 26 different groups support the
bill.
We should pay special attention to health workers. Can anyone
imagine a situation that is more significant to the welfare of
our society than to have a sound and healthy group of health
practitioners? Do we want to subject them to unusual and
unnecessary risk? We should do everything we possibly can to
protect their safety and to assure them that everything is being
done to ensure they are not infected due to the risks that are
inherent in the profession they are pursuing.
It is not only health workers. I have two other groups here,
the paramedic associations and the ambulance services. My heart
goes out to these people in a very particular way. They are the
frontline people when an accident happens and no one knows for
sure what will happen in a situation like that. These are very
experienced people who can usually recognize when there may be an
unusual risk of exposure in a particular accident or in a
particular development. They often know when they have been
pricked by a needle, cut by a knife, or have cut themselves on a
zipper or on a piece of metal from a vehicle. If they see blood
on their hands they do not know if they have been exposed to an
infectious disease. Should we not give them every opportunity to
have as much protection as possible? Surely that is not
unreasonable.
I cannot for a minute believe that anybody would oppose the
bill.
I have just talked about the paramedic associations and
ambulance services, but we are still not finished. We also have
the fire departments. The same set of arguments can be used here
when people are going into a building that is on fire. These
firemen, who enter buildings filled with fire, smoke and heat,
could also suffer a cut to their face or hands no matter how much
protective clothing they wear. It will happen. Should these
people not have maximum protection? I believe they should. I
believe judges are very sympathetic to that.
Someone mentioned to me that there may be abuses with a test
like this. What kind of an abuse could there be if members have
to appeal to the highest law enforcement office in the land for
an interpretation? Are we really suggesting that judges would
abuse this kind of a provision to hurt someone else? Would they
really to do something like that? I cannot for a second believe
that this would be a legitimate concern. I cannot imagine what
kind of a reason that might be, but it would have to be an excuse
that is manufactured, not one that is resting on common sense or
past experience.
I am not finished. I have many other groups, such as the
Victims Resource Centre in the city of Nicolet, Quebec, the
Retail Loss Prevention Association of British Columbia, and
another group from Quebec.
The hon. member from the Bloc mentioned some instances where
this might be an intrusion into somebody's privacy. We have
dealt with that to at least a small degree. I think even that
member, when he thinks through what he said, did not actually
mean everything he said. I think what he really wanted to say is
that we should maintain the privacy of individuals, but we also
wanted to protect their safety and ensure that is the case.
1820
I am sure after analyzing carefully what he said the hon. member
would say that he could trust judges, even those judges in Quebec
where he suggested there might be intrusion. I believe the
judges in Quebec are just as capable of doing this as properly as
anyone else. I hope we can encourage everyone to vote in favour
of the bill.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure and an honour for me to rise in support of Bill C-217. I
take this opportunity to praise the hon. member for Fraser Valley
for his tireless work on this file and, more important, for
bringing forward a matter of great concern to true Canadian
heroes. If the hon. member for Fraser Valley would like to come
over here and sit beside me, I would not have a problem with that
at all. He has done a wonderful job.
Bill C-217 respecting the blood samples act offers a measure of
protection, security and peace of mind to those brave Canadians
from every part of the country who put their lives in harm's way
to defend and assist those in need. There can be no more noble
legislation than that which protects those who protect us. There
is a policeman in the gallery tonight who works in the community
to protect us.
It has been said that Bill C-217 would benefit Samaritans. I am
reminded of the parable of the good Samaritan as recounted to us
in the readings of Luke 10:30-37. It is a story of a traveller
who was beaten and robbed by a pack of thieves. Left by the side
of the street, hurt and bloodied, this innocent victim was in
dire need of help. Others came down that same road but passed
the traveller and would not reach out a helping hand.
Then came a Samaritan who was himself on a journey and who bore
witness to this victim of crime in desperate need of help. The
Samaritan did not know the traveller and did not know what had
happened. The Samaritan did know, however, that he should treat
his neighbours as he would want to be treated himself. The
Samaritan stopped and helped the severely beaten traveller, not
knowing even so much as his name.
We are fortunate that many brave Canadians have taken this
parable to heart. I cannot imagine our not taking the steps in
this place, no matter how great or small, to ensure that those
who selflessly put themselves in the path of danger are afforded
some measure of protection. Whether our modern day Samaritans
are heroes by virtue of career or circumstance, they must always
be mindful of the fact that helping others must often involve
taking risks. The very challenges they overcome to help those in
need often make their acts much more heroic.
We know all too well that the modern world has its share of
danger. It is hidden from the naked eye but can strike us down
as painfully and as deliberately as any danger that is plainly
visible.
It is not difficult to imagine that a policeman, a firefighter,
a nurse or an ambulance attendant could come into contact with
the bodily fluids of someone who has been injured. We could even
go as far as to suggest it is expected that they would.
I know that because my mother and father, on their 50th wedding
anniversary, were in a car accident caused by two young people
who were drinking. Their car rolled over and my mother was
pinned. Firefighters and policemen had to cut her loose to get
her out of the car. She never walked again. Those who looked
after my mother and father did have my parent's blood on their
hands. They saved their lives that night and I thank them from
the bottom of my heart.
There are many people in the constituency of Saint John, New
Brunswick, which I represent, who put their lives in harm's way.
I thank them also from the bottom of my heart tonight. In
today's society, when policemen are called out and have to go
into a home, they put their lives on the line as they never know
whether the person in there will attack them with a gun or a
knife.
1825
These bodily fluids can cause the spread of infectious diseases
that would in some cases be life threatening. For heroes who
might well have come in contact with infected bodily fluids, the
possibility exists that they might well live out their days under
the looming spectre of a debilitating disease.
When we consider the potential consequences of these selfless
acts and the risk to those who undertake them without hesitation,
we would agree that the onus falls clearly on us in the House to
ensure that every possible preventative measure is in place.
The House is well aware that I am neither a lawyer nor a
physician. I am just an honorary doctor. However it seems to be
a matter of pure common sense that we would seek to take a blood
sample for the single purpose of protecting the lives of those
who protect us. We all know that by taking a blood sample
medical professionals can conclude whether there is a risk of
contamination and can decide whether or not to give the powerful
drugs available to them that might well fend off an infection.
When my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough spoke to
this legislation he cited an example of a Calgary police officer
who was bitten by an AIDS infected suspect in the course of his
daily work. The officer, a loving husband, had to endure a
barrage of tests and trials to guarantee that he was not infected
with AIDS that day.
Clearly there are questions here that go to the heart of
individual rights. If it were my cousin, Gordon Fairweather,
standing here instead of myself, I am sure he would speak to
those issues and those concerns more eloquently than I. Suffice
to say, however, that our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
clearly protects each individual Canadian and I see no corruption
of those rights by voting in favour of Bill C-217.
I cannot imagine a world where a police officer, a fireman,
ambulance drivers or the people in the ambulance must face the
daily possibilities of being infected with AIDS. I cannot imagine
a world where an ambulance attendant would have to hesitate
before giving medical attention to a victim for fear that he or
she might contract a disease. The rights of the person who has
blood taken are already protected to a large extent. Police
officers must obtain warrants and go before a justice before a
blood sample can be taken. In most instances there are
exceptions.
Bill C-217 has been carefully drafted so as not to go too far
afield in breaching a persons human rights. Current sections of
the criminal code would also apply to compel those who would use
the particular section not to go outside a person's human rights.
There are current sections that apply to impaired driving,
sexual assault and the new DNA databank that would come under
similar scrutiny in the judicial chambers. It is an important
step toward protection and enhancement of safety for everyone.
I again commend the hon. member for Fraser Valley for this
initiative. It is a tremendous common sense initiative and one
that my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada,
wholeheartedly endorses. I encourage all members to do likewise.
I cannot imagine a world where our police officers, our
firefighters and our ambulance attendants would have to hesitate
before giving medical attention to a victim for fear that they
might contract a disease. They never hesitate. They do their
job immediately. We owe them a lot. Bill C-217 is one thing
that we do owe to them.
I believe that we must take this step. This is the responsible
thing to do. It is the right thing to do. Each and every one in
the PC Party is in favour of the bill.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say first that my
brother-in-law is a firefighter at the Vancouver airport and he
welcomes the type of initiative by my colleague from Fraser
Valley.
As we are talking about blood sampling, the other day I had the
privilege and honour of donating my 100th donation to the
Canadian Blood Services. I encourage all members of parliament
and their families, those who are healthy and those who can, to
donate blood on a regular basis to help those less fortunate in
our society.
1830
Instead of coming up with one of my eloquent speeches, I thought
I would just repeat a speech from my former colleague, Mr. Peter
Mancini from Cape Breton, who spoke on the bill so eloquently. I
thought it would be proper just to repeat what he said.
First, we welcome the member for Fraser Valley for bringing
forward this piece of legislation, Bill C-217, which is well
intentioned. We commend him for it. It raises some important
questions about people who partake in the kind of activity
envisioned.
When listening to his remarks we became a little concerned, and
the government member raised some of those concerns as well.
There is a difference between people who engage in criminal
activity and people who in the execution of their professional
duties, such as firefighters or peacekeepers, have suffered or
have cause to be concerned about whether they have been infected
with various forms of hepatitis or HIV.
A great deal of his time was spent referring to the perpetrators
of the crime. He was right. When someone has committed an
offence, should our police forces or security guards not have a
right to find out if they have been infected with some kind of
disease when in the execution of their duty, which is the
protection of our society, they encounter some activity that has
caused them some concern?
The bill is wider and goes further than that. It does not
narrow those affected to those involved in fighting crime and to
the perpetrators of crime. The legislation says that a person,
not a crime fighter or a police officer, may apply to a justice
for a warrant authorizing the taking of a sample of blood from
another person who is not necessarily the perpetrator of a crime.
There are numerous examples. We can envisage how wide ranging
the legislation would be. For example, it would apply to
firefighters who in the execution of their duties such as saving
an individual from a burning building, came into contact with
bodily fluid blood or whatever and may have cause to wonder if
they have been infected in the line of their duty with some
disease.
The same would apply to health care workers and paramedics. The
bill is quite broad. It applies to persons who in their
professional capacity may find themselves in that situation.
Like the government member, I wonder if the criminal code is the
best way to meet the need which is obviously a real concern for
the member and the people engaged in those activities.
We in the New Democratic Party intend to support the legislation
to at least get it to committee where it can be examined.
However we wonder if we might better to look at labour
legislation, because we are talking about the health and safety
of individuals engaged in the performance of their professional
duties, be they nurses, firefighters, policemen, security guards,
prison guards, teachers, people in day care centres, et cetera.
We are talking about a wide range of professionals and working
people who are faced in 2001 with health and safety concerns that
we could not possibly have imagined 25 years ago.
We applaud the intent of the legislation. The purpose of the
legislation is good. However we wonder if by working
collectively through the committee members of the Conservative
Party, the Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, we might
find a better way to ensure that this legislation does what the
member wants it to do without running into all kinds of hurdles.
Working collectively we may all be able to achieve just that.
In addition to wondering whether the criminal code is the
appropriate piece of legislation, there are certain civil
liberties that have been raised by the government speaker as
well.
We may be able to find a way to take the thrust of the
legislation out of the criminal code and place it in labour
legislation. The government talks about working in tandem with
health. We lean toward labour legislation. If we find a way to
do that then we may avoid some of the constitutional challenges
that could follow as a result of criminal code legislation.
The hon. member in speaking to his bill referred to the
perpetrators of crime. However we remind him, and he obviously
knows, that this legislation is very wide ranging.
My colleague is a lawyer and a bit of a wordsmith from Nova
Scotia, and we deal with words all the time. Subclause 3(b)
states that a judge can issue a warrant and it outlines the
considerations. Subclause 3(b) goes on to state “by reason of
the circumstances by which the applicant came into contact with
the bodily substance”. We need to explore that to see exactly
what it means. If it is a matter of a criminal code offence,
then we know that if in the execution of his or her duties, and
the examples were given by the mover of the legislation, a police
officer gets stabbed by a needle or gets bitten, these are
compelling circumstances.
However for a nurse who works in a hospital in a unit where a
number of people suffer from HIV or hepatitis B are those
circumstances sufficiently compelling?
No one says, as in some of the criminal cases cited by the
member, “I bit you. Now you have HIV” or “I have a score to
settle with you and I am going to pierce you with a needle”.
1835
How compelling should the circumstances be for the invasion of
someone's civil liberties to take a blood sample? We need some
clarification on that. By sending the bill to committee, we
might very well get the clarification that is required.
In summary there is a serious point raised by the government and
the opposition members, and that is the arresting of someone who
has not committed a criminal offence. That is a serious matter
for all of us to consider, especially in the constitutional
challenges.
In Canada one of the things we pride is our freedom: freedom
from arbitrary arrest, freedom from arrest without the reading of
rights and without knowing what we have done wrong. This is
where the criminal aspect of this is different than applying it
to the civil aspect, to those engaged in health and safety
occupations where no crime has been committed.
We have fought the intent of the legislation. We would like to
bring it forward to the committee for further examination. There
are some real concerns that we see with it, but we think by
working together we will be able to iron them out.
This was originally said in 1999 by our great colleague, Mr.
Peter Mancini from Nova Scotia.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill proposed by the member for Fraser Valley raises a number
of important issues that must be thoroughly examined.
Bill C-217 provides that a justice may issue a warrant
authorizing a peace officer to require a qualified medical
practitioner to take or cause to be taken by a qualified
technician, samples of blood from a person in order to determine
whether the person carries the hepatitis B virus, or the
hepatitis C virus or human autoimmune deficiency virus if the
justice is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to do so.
These reasonable grounds are subsequently enumerated.
At first blush the bill appeals to our desire to help those on
the front lines, those individuals who in their daily work
confront the possibility of putting their health at risk. We are
speaking medical practitioners, firefighters and police officers
to name a few.
The Minister of Health, as we all do, appreciates the work that
has been done by the emergency responders in Canada. They are an
essential component of the Canadian health care system. Health
Canada has collaborated with the emergency responders on many
occasions leading to the development of a national consensus on
guidelines for the establishment of a post exposure notification
protocol for emergency responders.
Those who work on the front lines as emergency responders can be
exposed to blood and other body fluids in the course of their
work. Of concern in this proposed piece of legislation are those
injuries that could result in an exposure of blood borne
pathogens, namely HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. It must be
pointed out that exposure to the blood or blood fluids of an HIV,
HBV or HCV infected person does not necessarily result in a
transmission of the virus.
In order to properly prevent these exposures and to respond
appropriately when an exposure occurs, emergency response
organizations need an overall occupational health protocol. That
includes immunization against hepatitis B and personal protective
equipment such as gloves and safe work practices. If a possible
exposure does occur, emergency responders need to be educated on
the protocols of how to obtain immediate assessment and follow
up.
Bill C-217, a blood samples act, would authorize the drawing of
blood samples from individuals who may have accidentally or
intentionally exposed frontline emergency providers or a good
Samaritan to hepatitis B, hepatitis C or human immunodeficiency
virus HIV. After a suspected exposure, an emergency service
provider would be permitted to apply to a justice for a warrant.
This warrant would authorize a medical practitioner or technician
to take a blood sample from the patient in question, tests for
the aforementioned diseases and provide test results to the
patients and to the emergency service provider. Refusal to
submit a blood test could result in a prison term of up to six
months.
While we recognize that emergency service providers must act
promptly to counteract the negative effects of exposure to
serious diseases, it is important to note that previous requests
for such testing have been rejected by the courts.
1840
Preventive measures should be taken within hours of exposure.
According to Health Canada guidelines published in the Canada
communicable disease report, the option to administer post
exposure prophylaxis should be established within a few hours. It
is unlikely that the legal and medical procedures necessary to
draw an authorized blood sample, to test it and to distribute its
results could be accomplished within this brief timeframe.
While mandatory blood testing of sources in cases of genuine
exposure might assist in making more informed decisions regarding
the use of post exposure medications, there would also be the
potential for endangering the health of the victim, especially
his or her mental health, by breaking the rules on patient
confidentiality.
The guidelines referred to previously and established by Health
Canada in 1995, in conjunction with firefighters, police and
ambulance workers, demonstrate concrete actions taken to address
the risks and consequently have already anticipated the
objectives of the bill.
Guidelines that ensure emergency responders will be notified
quickly regarding exposures obtained in their line of work have
been implemented by the provinces of Alberta, Ontario, British
Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories and by other
regions and hospitals in other jurisdictions.
In 1997 a second protocol outlining assessment, testing and
treatment procedures to be used to promote the well-being of
health care workers, including firefighters, police and ambulance
workers, was released by Health Canada. By following the second
protocol, emergency responders will receive up to date care
directed toward reducing the effects of an exposure.
The guidelines recommended by Health Canada for emergency
responders reflect the same standard of care given to all other
health care workers including nurses and physicians. The
guidelines recommend testing the source in such cases but always
with consent.
By following Health Canada's notification protocols emergency
responders can be assured of timely, rational and effective
assessment and treatment.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate. I commend
my colleague from Fraser Valley for bringing forward this
initiative. I thank those who have worked so hard for so long
behind the scenes to bring this idea to the floor of the House of
Commons.
There seems to be one underlying issue for those who have any
hesitation in supporting the bill, that of two conflicting
principles: the principle of individual personal autonomy versus
personal responsibility.
In objections raised by a few of my colleagues, that is the nub
of their argument. They say or have said that we need to be
careful of an individual's right and in taking a blood sample we
might be impinging on a person's right. The flip side of that
argument is that individuals in society need to be responsible
for their own actions.
When there is a conflict in this area, which do we choose as
legislators? We have the opportunity with Bill C-217 to make a
positive change to help those who help others. We have the
opportunity to make a change for health care workers, police
officers, people in emergency services or those who do something
out of the goodness of their hearts. We can do that with the
bill. Let us not focus on the aspects that might stop us from
moving ahead because there is a greater good in passing the bill.
1845
We are always faced with choices in our lives. As legislators
we are faced with the choice of moving ahead with the bill or
saying yes, it is a good idea, but let us not do it. I say let
us do it. I encourage my colleagues from all parties to move
ahead and say yes to Bill C-217.
It needs to be done. The reason it needs to be done is that
there are many people in our society who do things out of the
goodness of their hearts. When doing so they rarely stop to
think about the implications of their good deeds. Those who work
in the health services area or are police officers or emergency
service workers obviously do think about it. They are trained.
They do have protocols.
My colleague from St. Catharines seems to be saying, and I hope
I mistook him in some way, that these protocols would provide an
extra level of protection. In one way they do, but at the end of
the day what needs more protection and was not mentioned by my
colleague is the uncertainty that has to be lived with by an
individual who has done a good deed and may have accidentally
been exposed to hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HIV. That individual
has to live with the mental anguish of not knowing. I cannot
fully imagine how terrible that is for those who have had to walk
that road, thinking about their own families, their children,
their lives and their livelihoods and how that one act of
goodness done to help another might be the cause of their own
demise. That is a terrible thought and that is a terrible place
to be in. We can do something about it.
Change happens when individuals seek out change, take a stand
and move forward with a vision and with hope on something that is
very important to them. Constable Anderson has been very
instrumental in behind the scenes work with the bill in terms of
developing an organization called FLAG, Front Line and Good
Samaritan's Right to Know. I commend her for her good work.
Oftentimes it must be frustrating to hear the different debates
we have about this conflict of individual rights versus personal
responsibility.
At the end of this debate what we need to hold in the forefront
of this discussion as legislators is that we want to discourage
negative behaviour and encourage positive behaviour in our
society for the good of our country, for the good of our citizens
and for the well-being of all.
Should we then place the emphasis on those who might commit an
act that could endanger the life of another citizen? Should we
put that principle above the principle of personal
responsibility? I do not think we should in this case, and I
think the bill addresses very well that specific concern
mentioned by my colleague from the Liberal Party and by other
colleagues as well. There would have to be a warrant issued by a
judge for the taking of a blood sample in this situation. There
is protection built into the legal system so that this would not
be abused. There would have to be a good reason for a warrant.
Also for those who have concerns, the warrant can be used just
for that specific purpose. Clause 14 of the bill says that:
A sample of blood taken from a person pursuant to a warrant
issued under section 5 shall not be analysed for any purpose
other than the purpose specified in the warrant.
1850
That is very specific.
This is a well crafted bill that addresses a need and a concern
and it should be passed. So many times in this place we hear
good ideas, for good causes. We debate both sides and make a
decision. In this case I believe we must be compelled to focus
on the greater good of those who give of themselves in the line
of service. We must focus on that because it is a positive thing
to do and it will provide a benefit to our society, to our health
care workers and to people who put their lives on the line every
single day in every single way that they can. That so often goes
unnoticed and unthanked.
It is that selfless giving of individuals day after day in their
lines of work that contributes to society and makes it a better
place to be. We should not neglect that and pass up the
opportunity now. If we let the bill slip away, we will lose an
opportunity to do something good that would benefit our country,
our people and future generations. For that reason, I ask my
colleagues, when considering why they should or should not
support the bill, to consider the argument that it is a better
thing to focus on personal responsibility and the greater good of
our society in passing the bill. While taking into consideration
individual personal responsibility, the greater good must be
done.
Let us do it. Let us work together and make this happen. We
have an opportunity to make a difference and that does not happen
too often in this place. We can do it today. Let us move
forward and support Bill C-217.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I will begin by commending my colleague for introducing this
bill. It is a very good bill. One of the things that has really
impressed me in my years as a member of parliament is that many
of the good ideas that come into the Chamber are brought in by
private members. These are the people, all of us, who on the
weekends and in the weeks out of the House rub shoulders with our
constituents. We find out from them what is really important to
them. To me that is the essence of representative democracy: to
bring to the Chamber the ideas that our electors back home
implore us to deal with.
I am very pleased that my colleague has introduced the bill. I
am also exceptionally pleased that in our grand lottery scheme he
actually had his bill drawn and was then able to somehow persuade
that so-called independent committee that it was actually worthy
of a debate longer than one hour and worthy of a vote. We will
actually be voting on this.
That is truly remarkable and it should not be. If I digress for
just a few seconds, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not mind.
There should not be occasions when members bring forward ideas
that they consider important enough to occupy the House's time
which are then automatically discarded without resulting in a
decision, by vote, of the members here.
1855
Quite a bit has already been said about this bill and why people
should support it. If I may, I would like to add my ideas and my
argument in favour of supporting the bill.
There are a number of important issues. The one I would
underline is the conflict that appears when we have presumed
conflicting rights. We have these all the time, no matter how
large the society.
Our children are all grown up and have left home, so our little
society in our house consists of my wife and myself. Every once
in a while we have little conflicts on whether she should get her
way or I should get mine if we disagree on something. I have
learned over the years to simply compromise and do what she
wants, not always but most of the time. It keeps peace in the
house. I know if she gets word of what I have said here, I will
be in trouble when I get home, but we will debate that further at
that stage.
This situation arises in a democracy, in a society, regardless
of whether there are two people or 30 million. There will be
times when the rights of people collide. How do we evaluate
which right takes precedence over the other?
The issue before us today is one of those cases where one does
not have to be a very deep-thinking person to realize that it is
almost an open and shut case. I know that we want to defend the
right of privacy in the country, and justifiably so. We do not
want a society where people are looking over our shoulders and
watching everything we say, do and think.
Notwithstanding that, we seem to have that situation in the
country. We have agencies of the government like the CRTC, for
example, which is very involved in determining even which radio
stations can exist, what their formats will be and what they can
broadcast. That to me is an intrusion on a personal freedom. If
people have financial backing and want to have a radio station on
a certain theme, they should have the right to proceed. It
should not be up to a government bureaucracy to decide that they
cannot.
However we have situations like the one before us today where
one person, having done the right things, is potentially at risk
of contracting a life threatening disease, whereas the other
person has the risk of giving a sample of blood or other body
tissue that he or she does not want to give so that an evaluation
can be made as to whether or not the person who is the victim has
been infected.
It seems to me that this is not an issue we have to think very
hard about. The rights being protected are worlds apart in
magnitude. One is very important and the other one, the
necessity of giving a sample of blood or whatever, is a very
small loss.
When I was younger I used to donate blood at the Red Cross
clinics. It was not very painful to give. In those days we
measured things in quarts and gallons. I would go quite
regularly and give a quart of blood with no problem.
How can a person say that my rights are being violated if I am
asked to give a little vial of blood so that another person can
find out whether or not he or she has been infected? To me it is
totally clear.
I am going to run out of time very shortly, but I would like to
appeal to all members of the House to simply use their
intelligence, analytic abilities and independence to vote in
favour of this very good bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): 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.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1900
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise and follow up on my question of February 23
about the Cobequid fish hatchery which served northern Nova
Scotia for 60 years and was very much a part of the community.
Then along came a new policy by the federal government to divest
the fish hatcheries in Nova Scotia, a great new enlightened
policy that would result in an expanded fish hatchery through
private sector investment. The only problem was the fish
hatchery did not survive that private sector divestiture. The
company failed and the fish hatchery was wound down to virtually
nothing.
It was amazing that when we had such a serious situation with
our fisheries and so many different threats to the fisheries the
government responded by selling off the fish hatcheries to
companies that could not raise the revenue to make them viable.
Even right from the very beginning, anybody who looked at the
proposals on the divested fish hatcheries knew they would not
work. Three hatcheries in Nova Scotia failed and ended up
reverting back to the government.
The government wound down the Cobequid fish hatchery at a time
when we needed it very badly. Everyone knew the fisheries were
at risk. Again, the response was to close the fish hatcheries or
sell them off to companies that could not make them survive. The
fish hatchery near Oxford, Nova Scotia, served the environment.
The fishery provided jobs and was very much a part of the
community for decades and decades. Again, it failed and reverted
back to the government.
This is a really opportune time for the government to grab the
agenda and do something really appropriate.
The inner Bay of Fundy salmon has been designated as a very
distinct species of fish which only stays in the Bay of Fundy.
Most salmon go to Greenland in the winter and spend time there.
However this unique species of fish stays in the inner bay.
Therefore, I would like the minister to consider and even accept
the proposal that the Cobequid fish hatchery be dedicated to this
endangered species. The government has a responsibility for
endangered species. Here is a perfect opportunity to deal with
it. We have a fish hatchery that needs to be upgraded and
enhanced and we have a need for the fish. It is a perfect
opportunity.
I hope the government will respond to this repeated request to
upgrade the Cobequid fish hatchery with a very positive answer.
It is an opportunity to solve two problems, one of an endangered
species and one to deal with the Cobequid fish hatchery, which
served our community for so long.
Once again I ask the minister to enhance the Cobequid fish
hatchery, reinstate it, bring it back to where it was and help it
serve the community like it did for so long?
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
talk today on behalf of the Department and Fisheries and Oceans'
plan for continuing support of Atlantic salmon conservation.
At one time Fisheries and Oceans Canada operated three mainland
Nova Scotia hatcheries principally to enhance Atlantic salmon
stocks for aboriginal and recreational fisheries. In October
1997 DFO negotiated an operational agreement and divested these
hatcheries to Salmon Care, a not for profit group dedicated to
the conservation and sustainable use of Atlantic salmon.
DFO has now consolidated the following programs: the Atlantic
Salmon live gene bank, which is a program to maintain inner Bay
of Fundy Atlantic salmon and potentially acid rain impacted
Atlantic salmon stocks; the rearing of salmon to stock acid
impacted rivers; the rearing of the endangered Atlantic
whitefish; and support for the integrated Atlantic salmon
fisheries management plan.
DFO is currently looking for resources to maintain the
facilities at Mersey and Coldbrook for their use for Atlantic
salmon and Atlantic whitefish conservation.
1905
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
issue of fish hatcheries is not dissimilar to the issue I am
raising this evening. My question is for the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The government has shown the same lack of vision, direction and
responsibility toward the issue of salmon and the three Nova
Scotia fish hatcheries as it has toward other aspects of the
fishery in Atlantic Canada.
I pointed out to the minister on March 2 that Chief Lawrence
Paul and others in Nova Scotia have stated that federal
negotiators are considering dividing bays in Atlantic Canada
between aboriginal and non-aboriginal fishermen. That would be a
clearly wrongheaded policy. It would go against the spirit of
sharing the fishery, under one set of rules, between aboriginal
and non-aboriginal fishermen.
The answer I got from the parliamentary secretary was not
satisfactory. It did not speak to my question. I asked it in
March and a couple of agreements have been signed since then.
Agreements were signed with two Nova Scotia bands just a short
time ago, one with the Glooscap band and one with the Pictou
Landing band. I commend the government for being able to do
that. Those agreements should not be ignored.
However that begs the question: where is the long term policy?
What are we doing to prevent another outbreak in a very short
period of time, by June 1? What are we doing to prevent another
Burnt Church or another problem with the Shubenacadie band? What
are we doing to protect the livelihoods of non-native fishermen
who have seen licensing fees increase from $70,000 to $125,000?
One could typically have bought a licence in LFA 33 for $70,000.
For $150,000 to $175,000, one could have bought a licence in LFA
34. The licence that sold for $150,000 before the government
started its wrongheaded policy is today selling for $700,000. How
can a young man or woman even begin to imagine buying their
father's fishing licence and entering the fishery today? It is
impossible.
We have spent $180 million on efforts with first nations issues.
My party and I are fully in favour of settling issues with first
nations, signing modern day treaties, reconciling the situation
and moving forward together in a new society. This type of
legislation from the government does not achieve that. This type
of short term policy and this type of decision making do not
achieve that. It is time we addressed this. We must have one
fishery, one set of rules and one opening date for all commercial
fishermen. Nothing else is acceptable.
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to address the issue of whether fishing areas should
be split into native and non-native areas.
We must all keep in mind that aboriginal groups and the
commercial sector want the same things. They want a sustainable
fishery, prosperity, and safe and vibrant communities. That is
what the federal fisheries team is working toward. The
government is working toward providing first nations with access
through the issuance of commercial licences. These licences are
subject to the same rules as all other commercial licences. There
is no differentiation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal
fishers.
We are not establishing separate fishing zones or different
rules for different groups and will not do so unless all parties
agree. Such a proposition is not the way to foster co-operation
and coexistence. Creating two classes of fishers does not serve
the purpose of managing fisheries resources.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.10 p.m.)