37th PARLIAMENT,
2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 090
CONTENTS
Monday, April 28, 2003
|
 |
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
|
|
Social Condition |
|
|
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Pension Act |
|
|
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
|
|
Quebec General Election |
|
|
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.) |
|
|
Parliament of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mental Health Support Network of Canada |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Quebec General Election |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.) |
|
|
Quebec General Election |
|
|
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Armenia |
|
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ) |
|
|
National Day of Mourning |
|
|
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Riding of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle |
|
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.) |
|
|
National Day of Mourning |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
National Day of Mourning |
|
|
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ) |
|
|
Workplace Safety |
|
|
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Cod Fishery |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Taxation |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Health |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Canadian Heritage |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) |
|
|
Correctional Service of Canada |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Contracts |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.) |
|
|
National Defence |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.) |
|
|
Employment Insurance |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Citizenship and Immigration |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) |
|
|
Aboriginal Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
|
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.) |
|
|
Persons with Disabilities |
|
|
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.) |
|
|
Regulatory Reform |
|
|
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Presence in Gallery |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) |
|
|
Points of Order |
|
|
Oral Question Period |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Bill C-20 |
|
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
Grain Handling and Transportation System |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Government Response to Petitions |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
International Transfer of Offenders Act |
|
|
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Committees of the House |
|
|
Industry, Science and Technology |
|
|
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.) |
|
|
Canada Elections Act |
|
|
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
|
|
|
Petitions |
|
|
Bill C-250 |
|
|
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Child Pornography |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Marriage |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Stem Cell Research |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Veterans Affairs |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Bill C-206 |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Westray Mine |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Questions on the Order Paper |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Request for Emergency Debate |
|
|
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Fisheries |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.) |
|
|
Speaker's Ruling |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
|
|
Criminal Code |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Bill Blaikie |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.) |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to.)
|
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair) |
|
|
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
|
|
|
Canada Airports Act |
|
|
Hon. Jane Stewart |
|
|
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
|
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC) |
|
|
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
|
|
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) |
|
|
Hon. Anne McLellan |
|
|
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP) |
|
|
The Speaker |
|
|
Mr. Svend Robinson |
|
|
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) |
|
|
Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.) |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
|
Ms. Paddy Torsney |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
|
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Greg Thompson |
|
|
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bagnell) |
|
|
Hon. Art Eggleton |
|
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
|
The Deputy Speaker |
CANADA
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, April 28, 2003
Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Private Members' Business]
* * *
(1105)
[Translation]
Social Condition
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ) moved:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should add “social condition” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. |
He said: Mr. Speaker, allow me first to thank the House for this opportunity to introduce this motion. I will again be expressing my thanks when it is passed, I promise.
By way of introduction, I would point out that the 1997 Canadian Human Rights Commission report stressed the lack of protection for the poor provided by the federal law. It makes no mention whatsoever of poverty, and social situation is not among the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
A number of bills have been introduced in order to get social situation included in the prohibited grounds for discrimination. On December 10, 1997, Senator Cohen introduced Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order to add “social condition” as a prohibited ground of discrimination. The bill was intended to amend sections 2 and 3(1) of the act, adding “social condition” but not defining the expression.
On April 13, 1999, my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, introduced Bill C-491, the anti-poverty bill, which proposed to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act; to prohibit financial institutions from refusing to provide financial services on the basis of inadequate income; and to ask the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prepare a report annually on poverty in Canada. This bill died on the Order Paper in September 1999.
In March 2001, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was back again with Bill C-326, which was identical to the former C-491. Recently my colleague introduced Bill C-228 on the same subject, the battle against poverty and social exclusion. Not being votable, it did not bet past second reading, which took place on February 4 this year.
My motion, M-392, today is in the same vein. It reads:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should add “social condition” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. |
Canada has always been a world leader in the promotion and protection of human rights. A Canadian was one of the architects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, often called the “Magna Carta of the World”.
This declaration includes the right to social security and to realization of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for an individual's dignity and the free development of the individual's personality.
Also in 1976, Canada ratified the International Covenant on International and Civil Rights, the most comprehensive international document on social and economic rights.
But Canada is not respecting its international obligations and has failed to fully implement its international commitments to promote and protect social and economic rights.
More and more Canadians and Quebeckers live in poverty. The Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits discrimination based on “social condition”. Interestingly enough, Quebec recently passed legislation to fight poverty and social exclusion. In December 2002, the National Assembly passed Bill 112.
Article 2 of Bill 112 defines poverty as follows:
|
—the condition of a human being who is deprived of the resources, means, choices and power necessaryto acquire and maintain economic self-sufficiency or to facilitate integrationand participation in society. |
Women, especially single parents, but also young families, children, seniors living in isolation, visible minorities and first nations are particularly affected by such poverty. There are considerable immediate and long-term costs associated with this poverty for Quebec society as a whole.
On October 17, 2000, during the World March of Women to combat poverty and violence against women, the Quebec Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse noted that, despite difficulties or variations in measuring poverty, it has remained an important phenomenon that affects a large number of individuals and households in Quebec.
(1110)
The National Council of Welfare, in a document published in July 2002, entitled Poverty Profile 1999, indicated that even though Canada's gross domestic product increased by almost 5% in fiscal 1998-99, income disparity between Canadians increased or stayed the same as in the 1990s. Even though poverty rates dipped slightly between 1997 and 1999, they remained higher than rates prior to the 1991 and 1992 recession.
When it comes to families on social assistance, the situation is even worse. In its Welfare Incomes 2002 report, published April 10, 2003, the council noted that there was a considerable gap between the poverty line and welfare income, which remained practically unchanged in 2002.
According to the document, people on social assistance receive as little as one fifth of the amount that is equal to the poverty line. What is worse is that because social assistance income is not indexed to inflation, recipients have become poorer than ever before.
Despite a steady increase in poverty in Canada and Quebec, the courts are hesitant when it comes to recognizing social and economic rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Recognizing social and economic rights would mean that banks could no longer refuse to open a bank account because of a poor credit record, for example.
In 1998, the National Council of Welfare prepared a comprehensive report on banking services and poor people. The report states that Canadian banks and financial institutions do not adequately meet the needs of low income people. The council recommended that one of the first issues that banks and other financial institutions deal with is that of identification required by poor people to open a bank account or cash a cheque.
The fact that many banks today continue to close branch offices for the sake of efficiency, especially in low income communities, is definitive proof that they care little about providing services to the poor. The amazing number of fringe banks popping up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods is more proof. These companies provide a variety of financial services including loans, cheque cashing and money orders, with high fees for low income people or people in precarious situations who do not have access to a bank in their neighbourhood or who have little experience with banks.
In addition, bank service charges may create considerable personal indebtedness and cause social and psychological stress in the lives of the poor. Poor people, it seems, face similar problems in the area of communications.
Before I continue speaking about the banking issues that most of the complaints refer to, I would like to make a small digression and give examples of telecommunications problems.
Some people have had trouble with Bell Canada. For seniors living alone and in poor health, the telephone is their only link to the outside world and, moreover, it is used for emergencies. Just the fear of having their service cut off adds to their stress and health problems. Some have considered suicide. One even had to delay paying the electricity bill to be able to pay Bell.
In order to avoid having the telephone cut off, people will accept heavy repayment schedules over just a few months, to comply with Bell's very strict requirements, but this leads to other problems. For example, they will delay paying their rent or other monthly bills, such as electricity, to try to make ends meet. During this time, their credit rating takes a beating and they never get out of the vicious circle. Today, the telephone is an essential service.
But let us return to banking. For a number of years, the financial institutions have been denounced by consumers associations in Quebec. It seems that the banks and caisses populaires are choosing their clients or members more and more selectively. Even though they have agreed to change some of their practices, it appears that they still refuse access to basic services to a large number of consumers.
(1115)
For more than 10 years, Quebec consumer associations have been speaking out against the financial institutions, which have been trying to get rid of what they consider to be a non-profitable client segment by increasing the obstacles to opening a bank account or cashing a cheque, using as their pretext bad credit, the need of an appointment, which is never immediate, freezing deposits for 10 days and so on.
People without bank accounts cannot cash pay cheques or government cheques, nor make use of direct deposit. They cannot make rent or other payments by cheque or automatic withdrawal, nor can they use a debit card. As a result, these people who have no accounts are condemned by the banks to a still more marginal existence. A bank account is a right.
In September 1998, the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector tabled, in the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Finance, what was to become known as the fabled MacKay report, which addressed in large part the excessive requirement for ID It also addressed the matter of putting holds on government cheques and basic service packages.
At the time, the Standing Committee on Finance agreed with these recommendations and recommended that the government immediately implement the MacKay report, namely recommendations 88 to 92, all of which addressed the difficulty in accessing financial services and aimed to ensure that such services were provided at reasonable rates and under reasonable conditions.
On the strength of the banks' seeming good faith, the committee's preference was for access problems to be resolved by a cooperative effort, with legal recourse a last resort.
Today, it is clear that the obstacles faced by underprivileged individuals and groups have not only not disappeared but are taking new forms. There is now a whole new series of banking practices, which have effectively restricted access to basic services: banks refuse to open accounts; accounts are closed without good reason; new customers have their credit checked, along with their income; there are fewer personalized banking services; access is being reduced or the less profitable branches are being closed. The use of automatic tellers is also encouraged. In short, the most profitable customers are being chosen, meaning those able to consume financial products and make investments, but above all those who can help increase the billions in net profits made by banks and financial institutions.
I even heard that one bank branch in Montreal set up a waiting line with one bank teller for people on social assistance to cash their cheques on the first of the month. There was a separate line for the other clients, with two tellers serving it. With a special line for people on social assistance, not only are these people treated differently and labelled, but they are also discriminated against because of their social status.
A bank account is a necessity. The banks have too much discretionary power and this leaves room for abuse.
This is why the motion I am moving this morning is so important. I am asking all of my colleagues, from all parties, to demonstrate their interest in social justice by voting for this motion, which reads:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should add “social condition” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. |
(1120)
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present the government's position to the House on behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, on the motion.
The motion seeks the opinion of the House on the addition of the phrase “social condition” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The motion poses something of a quandary for me, and, I suspect, for many other members of the House, because the intended purposes and effects of the amendments proposed by the motion are not clear. It is difficult to determine what precisely we are being asked to agree with and therefore it is hard to know whether one should support it.
Is the motion motivated by a desire to protect individuals in Canada from being subjected to discrimination based on the fact that they occupy disadvantaged positions in our society? Assuming that it is, then certainly the government and I would share such a desire.
However, taking the motion at face value, as we must, we have to look at the actual wording of the motion. It is by no means clear that this is in fact the underlying purpose of the amendments it proposes or that the amendments would have this effect in any event.
Before returning to this issue and discussing the motion in more detail, I wish to assure the hon. member for Sherbrooke that the government is fully committed to protecting individuals occupying disadvantaged positions in our society from experiencing discrimination on the basis of their social position or status. Such discrimination can too often compound the difficulties and challenges faced by these vulnerable individuals.
The progress made by the government on these fronts is significant and includes previous initiatives to strengthen the protection provided by the Canadian Human Rights Act. As well, the government has introduced several important new policies that seek to address the root causes of poverty, focusing particularly on the situations of low income children, families and aboriginal communities. I think right away of the national child benefit which is an important program that I have long supported and one that is very important in our country.
While the government is proud of its accomplishments in this area, we realize we must be ever vigilant in ensuring that the human rights of individuals in Canada are protected to the fullest extent possible. There is always work to be done in this area and the government will not shirk from this responsibility.
I am pleased to report to my hon. colleagues that Department of Justice officials have been working on a comprehensive and careful review of the Canadian Human Rights Act with a view to identifying areas where this legislative scheme can be updated and improved. As part of this ongoing work, the Minister of Justice is always interested in hearing suggestions about how human rights legislation in Canada can be improved, such as the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I welcome the opportunity the motion provides to debate the issues involved in such an important matter.
I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to hear that as part of the aforementioned review and consideration of possible Canadian Human Rights Act amendments and reforms, Department of Justice officials are engaged in an indepth analysis of the question of including social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. I should point out that this is just one possible reform among several others also being considered.
At the same time, I must state that the government is not in the business of making rushed, ad hoc or piecemeal changes to any legislation, let alone a statute as important as the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Even where legislative changes are proposed with the best of intentions, inattention to detail or to the specific language used can often lead to unforeseen and unintended legal and social consequences even to the extent of setting back the goal that is aimed for, in this case the very important goal of improved human rights protection.
While I commend my hon. colleague for what I have to assume are good intentions behind the motion, I must point out that the motion does not offer any definition of the term “social condition” nor does it provide any clarification or guidance as to how these words should be interpreted. Those are very important points, and they are important omissions in the motion.
The motion does not explain what is intended to be covered by these words and what is not intended to be covered. The motion also does not explain how the inclusion of these words in the act is intended to affect existing social programs and legislative schemes that benefit low income Canadians.
(1125)
This degree of vagueness in the language used in the motion causes me considerable concern and, unfortunately, makes it difficult for me to support the motion at this time. In fact, due to the lack of detail contained in the motion, I believe it is unclear exactly what the House is being asked to agree with if we were to approve the motion.
Perhaps the hon. member could shed some light on this for us. For instance, I would be interested to know whether the hon. member for Sherbrooke has given thought to the possibility that his proposed amendments to the act might have the effect of allowing those whose social condition is that of being wealthy to challenge government programs and initiatives that treat them differently, for instance, progressive marginal rates of taxation and eligibility requirements for social assistance. In other words, a person who is rich could decide that he is being discriminated against because of his social condition. Surely we would not want that to be the case.
Surely the hon. member intends that the proposed amendments would apply only to lower income individuals. If so, how would the hon. member ensure that the amendment's effect would in fact be limited in this way without saying so?
I would also be interested in any thoughts my hon. colleague has about whether the phrase “social condition” is intended to refer only to one's degree of wealth and level of income, or would the notion also include other factors that might go toward a broader concept of an individual's social status.
How does the hon. member envision how an individual's social status would be determined by those interpreting the Canadian Human Rights Act? Would objective or subjective factors be used to determine social condition or would both kinds of factors be considered? Would only an individual's present circumstances be considered, or would his or her family background and origins be considered as well?
Is it the hon. member's intention that temporary forms of social status, such as being unemployed or being a full time student, also be caught by the phrase “social condition”?
What about prisoners in federal correctional institutions or those suffering from drug or alcohol addiction? Would, in the view of the hon. member, discrimination on the basis of these forms of social condition be prohibited by the proposed amendment?
Has the hon. member considered how his proposed amendment would affect the assessment of credit worthiness or the conducting of security or background checks?
Has my hon. colleague considered how his proposal would affect existing government programs? Would parole and conditional release programs be affected? What about criteria used by Canadian immigration officials?
Does the hon. member foresee how the inclusion of this new ground in the motion would affect the operation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the resources it needs to function as it must and fulfill its mandate?
The answers to these and other important questions will greatly affect the nature and scope of the proposed new prohibited ground of discrimination. I invite my hon. colleague from Sherbrooke, as well as other members of the House, to share their views about the precise intended effect and scope of such a change.
However I must note that the actual motion presently before the House for consideration in no way addresses or clarifies any of these questions. Thus, I am afraid that I cannot support the motion, which is so vague and uncertain in its potential outcome and effect, no matter how much I might agree with the general objective of protecting individuals from being discriminated against because they are perceived to be of lower socio-economic status. That is something I agree with totally. I like the intent of the motion but it has to be better worded. We have to look at these important questions in detail.
Without a clear definition of the meaning of “social condition”, without any measures to limit the possible unintended and undesirable costs and consequences and without any provisions for safeguards to protect our valued social programs, I believe it would be irresponsible to vote in favour of the motion as it stands.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to rise this morning on behalf of the residents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Motion No. 392 being put forward by the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I commend the member for his thoughtfulness on this issue.
The motion reads:
|
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should add “social condition” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. |
This is not the first time that the House has considered the possibility of adding social condition as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In the 36th Parliament, Bill S-11 proposed to do exactly the same thing but after passing the Senate it was defeated here in the Commons.
I suppose the first question to consider is what we mean by social condition. It is tempting to equate social condition with poverty, however, the term social condition conveys much more, including disadvantages that are associated with, though not synonymous with, poverty. This could include occupation, literacy, type of employment or even unemployment. It may also include culture, to the extent that one's social station is conveyed by dress, language or mannerisms.
Quebec's definition of social condition has been evolving and includes one's rank, place or position occupied within society, or the class in which they belong. The Quebec courts and tribunals have found social condition to include temporary conditions, such as pregnancy and unemployment. Further, social condition is considered distinct from social origin.
Quebec is the only province that currently includes social condition as a prohibited ground for discrimination in its human rights legislation. However all the other provinces, with the exception of New Brunswick, include various grounds encompassed by the term social condition. For instance, Nova Scotia, Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island prohibit discrimination on source of income. Similarly, Ontario and Saskatchewan protect receipt of public assistance as an enumerated ground in their codes. Newfoundland prohibits discrimination on the basis of social origin.
Canada has always been a leader on the international stage in terms of the promotion and protection of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, often referred to as the Magna Carta of humankind, was co-written by a Canadian. The declaration includes the right to social security and to the realization of social and economic rights indispensable for a person's dignity and the free development of his or her personality.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was ratified by Canada in 1976. It guarantees the right to social security and social insurance and the right to an adequate standard of living.
Human rights are both entrenched in the Constitution and protected in provincial and territorial human rights acts across the country. However an argument can be made that Canada has fallen short of its international obligations by failing to fully implement its international commitments to promote and protect social and economic rights.
The recent general economic condition in Canada has been one of slowly increasing average real incomes. Yet, this improvement has been taking place simultaneously with signs of increasing disparities. There is a growing underclass of people homeless or with precarious shelter. Also there is a growing contingent of labour force that relies upon non-standard employment: part time, temporary or seasonal employment. This employment tends to provide incomes that will not meet a family's basic needs.
(1130)
According to Statistics Canada, the net worth of the richest 20% of Canadian families increased by 39% between 1984 and 1999, from about $290,000 to about $400,000. In the same time period the net worth of the poorest 20% decreased by $600.
In 1999 the top 50% of families in Canada had 94.4% of the wealth while the other 50% had the remaining 5.6% of the wealth. The gap between the richest 20% of families and the poorest 20% of families is a cool $1 million.
In a 2002 report the National Council of Welfare pointed out that although Canada's gross domestic product had grown considerably inequality among Canadians either widened or stayed steady throughout the 1990s.
Households with young children, especially those headed by a single parent mother, suffered the most chronic poverty between 1980 and 1999. While the gap between the rich and the poor has been growing ever wider, particularly in the past decade, members on the opposite side have done little or nothing.
If the taxation proposals of the Canadian Alliance were listened to and followed by the government many of the poorest families would be much better off. We in the Canadian Alliance believe the threshold for paying taxes should be raised. More money should be put back into the pockets of Canadians so that they can address their real life needs.
The fact is many Canadians have incomes that are inadequate to meet their minimum needs. Poverty restricts the lives of many Canadians. It limits choices in food, clothing and shelter. For children, it denies what other Canadians take for granted, for example, recreation, holidays and school field trips. Poverty also has impacts on health, education and children's subsequent income.
Many disadvantaged Canadians are subject to prejudice, that is, preconceived notions that low income people are lazy or uncaring parents. That is unfortunate. This further restricts the choices available to low income Canadians.
The most recent United Nations human development report contrasts Canada's 3rd place ranking in terms of human development with its 12th place ranking with respect to poverty.
Some questions have been raised about the feasibility of inserting social conditions as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is argued that many of the cases alleging discrimination in this area have involved rental of accommodation, an area that is of minimal relevance to federally controlled issues.
(1135)
However, anti-poverty organizations feel that social condition must be inserted into the federal human rights act in order to address issues of discrimination faced by poor people with regard to federally regulated services like banking and telecommunications.
The Association coopérative d'économie familiale du centre de Montreal prepared a report for Industry Canada in 1996 entitled “The highs and lows of access to banking services in Canada”. The report emphasized that the major barriers in accessing banking services were the large number of identification documents required and the attitudes of bank employees. Besides identification issues for poor people who wish to open an account or cash a cheque, many banks continued to close down branches, in the name of efficiency, mostly in low income communities.
The so-called fringe banks that have moved into low income neighbourhoods provide a variety of financial services, including loans, cheque cashing and money orders, at high costs to low income and financially distressed individuals who either have no access to a bank in their area or lack of experience with the banking system.
A recent study found that while most people being serviced by fringe financial services would rather have a bank account, the costs of transportation to a bank, the lack of proper identification, limited banking hours and previous credit difficulties have pushed them into fringe banks. Yet, the financial costs for services with these banks can lead to a substantial personal debt. They add stress and other psychological components.
One of the most serious practical concerns is the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has limited resources and an existing backlog of cases. Adding social condition to this definition would further drain the resources as well as increase the backlog of the cases it is dealing with. Therefore, I rest my case here.
(1140)
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member of the Bloc from Sherbrooke. As a member of the NDP I too have a motion, almost exactly the same in terms of its wording, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
When I was elected in 1997, it was one of the first motions that I put forward. I would agree with my colleague from the Alliance in recalling that we also had a motion that came to the House from the Senate that was based on the same amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The federal NDP supports the amendment and believes it is an important amendment that should take place.
I listened with interest to the debate today and it has changed a little bit. I recall in earlier days when we debated a similar motion that the government was not willing to consider the idea of amending the act to include social condition. What we heard from the government today is that based on the Canadian Human Rights Commission's review of this question, the government is now holding discussions as to whether or not it may look at including social condition.
I was disappointed to hear the government representative say that it could not be supported because it was too vague. Liberals were concerned that somehow this would be applied to rich people. Every single time this issue has come up, and certainly today it was stated by the member from Sherbrooke, it has been clear that when we are talking about social condition we are talking about poverty and the people who face discrimination because they are poor. The government member is being very flippant with what is a serious question to somehow dismiss this because he cannot understand whether it would apply to people who are wealthy and who are worried about paying their taxes.
I would say to the member who spoke for the government and to the government itself that it is ironic because if the motion had been more specific, I know that the government would have said “we cannot agree with it because it is too specific”. It seems to me that the intent and the principle of the motion is clear in addressing social condition and income inequality in this country. The onus is on the government to show responsibility that it understands that principle and is willing to address it. That is not what we heard from the government today.
I was disappointed to hear the government's response. I would go further than that because the issue of social condition and being a prohibited grounds of discrimination is important as it applies to federally regulated businesses, services and programs. We have heard that many provinces already have some aspect, and certainly Quebec has led the way in including social condition. It is something that has worked so we actually have a precedence. There are some important elements that need to be looked at.
I do want to make the point in this debate that when we look at social condition and at discrimination against poor people, the greatest problem that we see is actually discrimination by government itself. The greatest barrier for poor people, the greatest discrimination, comes from public policy. One only has to look at the latest report of the National Council of Welfare which looked at the statistics across Canada to see what happens to people when they are on income assistance and how they are living so far below the poverty line and to note for example that still today in 2003, that the child tax benefit is not afforded to the poorest of the poor and that is people on welfare. That is discrimination based on social condition.
That is government policy. That has come from our federal government. It has been agreed to by provincial governments except for the provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador which do pass on the child tax benefit.
(1145)
When we are debating this issue, we are not just talking about banks, businesses, and the real discrimination that poor people face, we are talking about public policy and the discrimination that has come about as a result of public policy being developed by the federal government.
One thing that I would like to bring to the attention of members is that we are now on the brink of changing the way we measure poverty. For years we have used the low income cutoff developed by Statistics Canada. It is a measure that allows us to look at the wealth and the poverty in our society based on a relative scale. That is important because we can actually see how people who are at the bottom of the socio-economic scale are doing in relation to average incomes, and so on.
As a result of government announcements, we know that this is now about to be changed and that government is embarking on something it calls the market basket measure, which will by the stroke of a pen probably reduce poverty by one-third. However, it will not have changed the living standard or status of a single child, a single family or a single person who is living in poverty. If that is not discrimination based on public policy, I do not know what it is.
It is scandalous that this major change in public policy is about to take place with virtually no public debate and no assessment of the impact. This particular strategy of the market basket approach to measure poverty has been peddled for years by the Fraser Institute. It has campaigned for years to change the LICOs and the way we measure poverty. It seems that the federal government has capitulated to this, and I say shame on the government.
I feel angry that this change is about to take place and there has been no consultation or debate about it. If we were to move to the market basket approach the government, by redefinition, would be able to stand up and say it has reduced poverty by a third, but it would not have helped anybody who in reality is living in poverty.
It is important that we support this motion. I heard the government member saying that the government cares about the rights of poor people and is committed to dealing with discrimination. If the government were genuine about that principle then why would it not support this motion? Why would it not say that this motion should be approved and it should go to committee for further study so that we can sit down and spell out what we mean in terms of definitions around social condition as it relates to low income and poor people? We could look at the experience in Quebec and other provinces, and advance this debate. We could do something positive and progressive instead of just saying we do not want people discriminated against, but we will shoot down this motion.
There is an opportunity today, as there has been in the past, to support this motion and to support the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its recommendation to ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act includes social conditions. My party fully supports that and we want to get on with this debate. We want to have that discussion to ensure that people, just because they are poor, do not face discrimination by banks, other institutions or the federal government itself.
(1150)
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the member for Sherbrooke for bringing forward this motion, which we solidly support. There cannot be any excuse for discrimination in Canada. All too often those less fortunate or those of a different ethnic origin are left to fend for themselves. We as a people must do all we can to ensure that discrimination is eliminated in Canada.
While the motion is not a comprehensive plan to eliminate discrimination in all its facets, it is an excellent first start, which would have a deep impact upon the federal civil service and organizations that fall under federal legislation.
The Canadian Human Rights Act governs employment and the provision of goods and services by the federal government and federally regulated businesses. These organizations employ about 11% of the workforce. The vast majority of small businesses, schools and religious or cultural organizations fall under provincial or territorial laws which would not be affected by the addition of social condition to the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Section 3(1) of the act lays out the definition of discrimination, which includes discrimination based upon race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. The motion would see social condition added to the definition.
There are a number of important issues to consider when dealing with what would essentially be an amendment to the act, the first of which deals with the definition of social condition.
In 1999, the Minister of Justice established an independent panel to review the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was the first review of the act since its inception in 1977. That is a period of 22 years.
The panel's mandate was to determine if the law had kept pace with the evolution of human rights and equality principles, both at home and abroad. In June, 2000, the panel released its report, “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”, in which it made 165 recommendations. Among those recommendations was the addition of social condition to section 3 of the act. That is why it is so surprising that, having had such a thorough review over such a long period of time to try to bring the act into modern day language, we find government basically saying no, it cannot do it.
Currently the only other Canadian human rights act to include social condition in regard to human rights legislation is in the Province of Quebec. However, several other provincial and territorial governments do include narrower grounds that fall within the area of social condition such as, for example, source of income, receipt of public assistance and social origin. Some attempts have been made provincially to address this extremely serious issue.
During its consultations, the panel heard more about poverty than any other single issue. That brings forth very clearly how important this issue is in the country. It concluded that protecting the most destitute in Canadian society against discrimination was essential. According to the panel, like other grounds for discrimination, poverty is often unavoidable for those affected and is often beyond their control. Moreover, characteristics such as poverty and low level of education have historically been associated with patterns of disadvantage.
In its review, the panel put together areas of federal jurisdiction which discriminate based upon social condition. These areas include the banking industry, the telecommunications industry and housing on Indian reserves. According to the panel, discrimination in these areas could be eliminated if social condition were added to the act.
The Liberal government made child poverty a priority when it took office in the early 1990s. Like so many other Liberal promises, a solution to the problem went unfulfilled. Despite years of economic growth, Canada's child poverty rate is largely unchanged and those who are poor are in fact getting poorer.
(1155)
A study by the Canadian Council on Social Development outlined the increasing gap between Canada's rich and poor. Wealth is defined as a family's assets minus its debts, with assets including such items as houses, cars, stocks and bonds. The wealth of the poorest 20% of couples with children under 18 went down by 51.4% between 1984 and 1999, whereas that of the wealthiest 20% of couples increased by 42.7%. With such a staggering gap between lower and higher income levels it becomes incumbent upon government to recognize the problem in the context of discrimination.
Race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status or social condition should not be the grounds upon which discrimination is based. This is definitely a motion the Progressive Conservative Party can support.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have much time to convey the opinions of the various ACEFs in my riding. An ACEF, or Association coopérative d'économie familiale, defends the rights of consumers, the disadvantaged and the poor. Nevertheless, I want to express, on their behalf and my own, all the dismay I feel with regard to the governing party, which refuses to support this motion that would, essentially, right a wrong.
It is a wrong that poor and disadvantaged people have had to live with for many years, possibly more than 20, but especially since the MacKay report made its recommendations. These recommendations were made in 1998 and accepted by the House Standing Committee on Finance. The committee not only accepted but promoted these recommendations, which were aimed at recognizing that poor people have trouble getting recognition in our society, particularly from banks and telecommunications agencies.
It is appalling that members are playing on the fact that they do not know what the motion means when it refers to “social condition”. Everyone knows what this term means. There is no way to quibble about the specific purpose of this motion, because everyone agrees that poor people do not have access to telecommunications services like everyone else. They are being denied the right to have bank accounts. But we are going to quibble about words. It is shameful.
A bank account is a form of social recognition—a recognition of social condition; it is a right. We must respect people who have problems. Mr. Speaker, if you had a child with impaired mobility, if you were a single mother with a young baby and a sick child, and you had to get to a bank to cash your social assistance cheque, you might find that difficult. If you were alone, disabled, receiving an income supplement from Quebec or a province, and you had to go somewhere to cash your federal government cheque—which should be good—and they ask you for a deposit and freeze a certain amount of money for 10 days in order to guarantee this cheque, would you not find this shameful? That is what people are living through every day.
People simply used the wording of the motion to condemn the federal government's lack of action. Back then, it was the Minister of Finance, who is running for the Liberal leadership, who did not do his job. The Liberal Party has not done its job and has forced people to make a detour and move a motion to recognize social condition as a ground, because the government has not recognized it. The government has failed to recognize that there are poor people who need protection. It is shameful.
On behalf of all of Quebec's ACEFs, the ACEF in East Montreal, the ACEF in North Montreal, the south west ACEF, the ACEF on the south shore, the ACEF on Île-Jésus, the ACEF in the Basses-Laurentides and all of the organizations that these ACEFs represent, I say to the current Liberal federal government that it has demonstrated no concern or compassion for people who live in poverty.
(1200)
Contrary to what my colleague from the Liberal Party said earlier, social condition has been clearly defined by committees of this House, and on numerous occasions. Human rights are entrenched in the Constitution and protected by other legislation at the provincial and territorial level across the country.
We are arguing that even if social and economic rights are not clearly defined, governments must prevent them from being abused, for example, discrimination based on one's social condition. As for those who say they do not know what social condition means, that is simply a way to skirt the issue, and it is shameful.
I would like to thank my colleagues from Vancouver East and St. John's West for their support. This shows that they are close to their constituents. I find it hard to believe that there is even one member of this House who would vote against this motion, who would not accept it. I am sure that every single member has, on at least one occasion, heard from a disadvantaged person, a poor person who has had problems making ends meet and was not able to open a bank account, to make withdrawals or to use an automatic teller.
Do you know what this ends up costing? The fringe banks referred to charge $1.25, if not $1.50, to withdraw money and if anyone wants to cash a cheque the charges amount to usury.
The bank chooses its customers to an increasing extent. As my colleague from Sherbrooke has said, they have to investigate, and the people without a bank account are told, “You are not a profitable proposition for us, do you have $5 to open an account?” Even then, they will get no service. They are told, “Go elsewhere if you want service”. That is awful.
And how much does it cost these people to cash a government cheque? How much does it cost seniors who receive the guaranteed income supplement—if they manage to get it—to cash their cheque if they have no account? How else can they cash it?
I would not wish it on anyone here to get so disabled or sick that they are unable to get to a bank, because they will have problems cashing cheques. How can a person cash a cheque if they have no bank account? At an ATM? Not everyone can use those machines, for instance seniors who do not see well. What about a single mother with four children who goes with them to the bank to try to get her cheque cashed but has no account. How will she manage?
I see that my colleagues over there are nodding their heads. Are they going to be able to support this motion in a while? They are nodding yes. And will they? I hope so.
I just wanted to speak to this issue because I find it shameful to be debating wording without paying any attention to people's social condition.
(1205)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The hour 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.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Pension Act
Hon. Rey Pagtakhan (Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.) moved that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today and commend to the House Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, which was introduced April 10.
I trust all colleagues will agree with me on the importance of this legislation and grant it their speedy and unanimous approval.
Bill C-31 would give members of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP greater assurance when sent to special missions in areas of elevated risk that they and their families will be cared for should harm come their way. It sends the message to them that their government cares and appreciates, that their country is with them and their families in their hour of need.
Members may ask, “Why these proposed amendments now?” Before I go into the detail of this bill, I want to ensure: one, that I bring members of the House up to date on the current status of departmental benefits, specifically to those who deal with Canadian Forces members' accessibility to disability pensions and the related programs my department provides; and two, that I provide colleagues with the proper context regarding the intent behind the proposal.
In making these undertakings I am aware of the expertise of some members of the House on matters related to veterans issues, in particular among those members who serve on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. They are very familiar with veterans issues and concerns. I, like my predecessors in the portfolio, have sought and taken their excellent advice. They know very well the programs of my department. Hence, some of the information that I will provide will be quite familiar to them. I therefore ask them to bear with me when I review the background that has brought us to today's debate.
Members of Canada's military may apply for a disability pension if they become injured or ill in the line of duty. Survivor benefits are available for dependants in the case of death of a member or veteran due to his or her service. These pension disability benefits have been available to eligible members or veterans whether they serve or have served their nation in times of war and times of peace, here at home or abroad.
Disability pension payouts comprise by far the largest expenditure my department disburses, amounting to approximately $1.5 billion a year. Close to 165,000 clients are presently receiving disability pension payments. Of those, more than 5,000, about 3%, are currently serving Canadian Forces personnel. It is to this latter group, currently serving Canadian Forces members, and to the RCMP members as well that Bill C-31 speaks.
The bill would provide them with the most comprehensive disability pension coverage possible, including enhanced health care services needed for the disability incurred from the moment they are deployed and when such deployment exposes them to conditions of elevated risk.
Deployment could be to any part of the world, including here at home, and the scope of deployment could encompass disaster relief, rescue operations, peacekeeping or peacemaking.
Under the existing legislation, if members incur a disability or illness while not serving in a special duty area, they are covered but there is a burden of proof. The burden of proof is intended to satisfy the requirement that the disability be shown to have arisen out of or was directly connected to service.
However by giving the members in a special duty area the 24/7, 24 hours a day, seven days a week coverage, the burden of proof requirement is removed. They will only need to show that such a condition arose during the time of service. Therefore the need for detailed medical and service evidence is simplified. Thus an award of the pension, if required, can be more easily rendered.
(1210)
The amendments proposed in Bill C-31 have two main components. I wish to deal first with the aspect of service in special duty areas or SDAs.
In 1964 Parliament enacted the special duty area legislation. It stipulates that special pension provisions would apply to serving members operating in certain areas outside Canada when those areas have been designated by the governor in council as special duty areas. Technically, SDAs are identified by geographic coordinates and by definition they must be outside Canada.
Since 1949, for more than half a century now, members of the Canadian Forces have served in areas outside Canada in various roles on behalf of the United Nations and in other trucekeeping and peacekeeping operations. It has been recognized that service in these areas has often meant participation in active combat operations and exposure to hazardous conditions not normally associated with peacetime service.
Specifically, the special pension provisions deem a member serving in a special duty area to be on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for pension act purposes. That is from the moment the member arrives in a special duty area up to and including the moment the member departs from that area. This means that any death or any disability other than a disability caused by the improper conduct of the member that occurs while serving in a special duty area is governed by these special pension provisions.
The fact is Canada and its service men and women have been in the forefront of support to peacekeeping missions in special duty areas in countless hot spots around the world. More than 100 individuals to date have paid the price with their lives. Many more have paid the price in the form of accidents and injuries.
I am pleased to tell hon. members that the bill will improve SDA coverage in two important ways.
First, the process of declaring an SDA will be speeded up or streamlined. With the passage of this legislation, under the pension act, the Minister of National Defence, who seconded the bill, or the Solicitor General in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, will be able to declare an SDA and have it apply in a much faster time frame. That means it will be possible for departing members and their families to be assured of their rightful 24 hour, seven days a week coverage and as a result, have greater peace of mind.
Bill C-31 is intended to address more than peace of mind considerations. The bill would increase the length of time covered by an SDA, beginning on the day of actual deployment and covering training for the deployment, travel to and from the SDA, and authorized leave of absence from the SDA.
The second component to this legislation reflects the new times in which we are living. The events of September 11 changed the world. They changed the sense of security we all have felt in our country, and this is true for many other countries as well. They marked the beginning of a new era of violence by extremist organizations that created a need for rapid response by the community of nations. Indeed, we live in a world where new threats can happen at any given moment, anywhere.
It is becoming more difficult to define geographically a theatre of operations. In today's operations of elevated risk, there may be troops on the ground in a specific designated area, yet many others stationed elsewhere working in support of that operation. Although not confined to the same specific area, they are nonetheless also exposed to elevated risk conditions.
The key feature here is exposure to elevated risk, meaning a level of risk higher than that normally associated with peacetime service, regardless of the form it takes, search and rescue, disaster relief, anti-terrorism activities and armed conflict.
(1215)
Thus the bill proposes to add an additional designation called the special duty operation, or SDO. Unlike SDAs, SDOs could exist at home or abroad. For example, domestic SDOs could include search and rescue and disaster relief operations. Overseas SDOs could apply to a naval deployment not confined to a specific geographic area or region, but on a mission where elevated risk is apparent.
Because of the bill, members deployed to SDOs will benefit from the same insurance principle as those deployed to SDAs, with 24 hour, 7 day a week coverage. As will be the case with SDAs, the Minister of National Defence will be able to declare a special duty operation. This new service type and associated coverage will provide Canadians in uniform the added recognition and security they deserve for putting themselves in harm's way.
Increasingly, members of the RCMP are also being asked to take on assignments of elevated risk. The bill proposes to give the Solicitor General similar authorities, under the RCMP Superannuation Act, for equivalent situations. The Solicitor General will be able to designate areas of operations outside Canada as SDAs or SDOs. In addition, the commissioner for the RCMP will be able to deploy RCMP members to such operations as designated by the Minister of National Defence.
The proposed amendments to our disability pension legislation reinforce Canada's long-standing reputation as a leader in providing the men and women who serve our nation with one of the most comprehensive coverage packages of benefits and services in the world.
When it comes to providing the best legislation for our military and the RCMP, we must be able to adapt to the conditions under which we ask them to serve. World conditions have changed drastically over the past few years, as has the type of deployment we ask of our men and women in uniform, our troops and our national police.
While this type of legislation will always be a work in progress, the process we are engaged in today will give them a better product in the form of legislation that provides servicemen and servicewomen and their families with broader and more timely coverage. It will provide more coverage to Canadian Forces and RCMP members placed in harm's way, no matter where in the world or in Canada. It will provide for greater peace of mind, not only for those leaving on deployment but also for family members who are awaiting their safe arrival home.
Let us take this very important piece of legislation into our statue books as a reflection of Canada's gratitude to our military and RCMP, whom we call upon to uphold our values of peace, freedom and justice in dangerous places around the world and at home.
These amendments will establish a more responsive framework in keeping with the changing nature of Canadian Forces and RCMP operations. Thus, I seek the support of all colleagues in the House. Let us respond to the challenge and unanimously adopt Bill C-31 with speed.
(1220)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's comments. It might be said that the bill brings us up to date. It brings us into a new millennium and a new military era. The bill itself is designed to be a millennium bill. Not only is it designed for today, but I believe it is designed for the future. I commend it and I will certainly be supporting this bill.
I might point out in contrast that next week on May 4 we will have the Battle of the Atlantic parade, or we were to have it. In that battle, one-eighth of all those involved gave their lives. Today it would be considered a high designated area. We did not have that then. We were not used to terrorism. We were not dealing with modern techniques. We were not dealing with modern weapons. The weapons at that time were very crude. Therefore, what this bill does is give real meaning to what is here before us today and which I believe will be here for us well into the future.
We have come through a period of debating what constitutes a legal war. This bill will give a wider meaning to what actually constitutes war in designating special areas or special operations, but it is all in defence of our nation and the security of our nation. It takes on a brand new meaning. We cannot help but disagree with those who say that a nation can never be at war unless it is attacked or invaded. If that is what legal war is, I am sorry if any veterans are listening in, because over 100,000 Canadians let their blood flow in some 21 countries around the world. Canada is proud of that fact and we have lived better because of that even though we were not invaded.
In World War II, not too far off the coast of Canada in Canadian waters we lost hundreds of lives. Those people did not wear uniforms and they did not have guns, but they were delivering goods to supply a war in a foreign continent. This idea of what constitutes a legal war is nonsense. A war is constituted when a nation is threatened by any means, be it here on our soil or somewhere else.
After the Twin Towers went down, people began to think differently. They began to think that the new type of warfare that we will face now and into the future will be different. This bill addresses that.
I might point out one other thing. Not too long ago, a young man came to my office who had done some research on what was probably the last major battle of World War I, Cagnicourt. I hope we get something going; I am excited about this and I will tell everyone why. The only sitting member of Parliament ever to win a Victoria Cross was at Cagnicourt. This fall, on September 2 or somewhere around there, Canadians are going to be recognized by having a town square named after one of the VC winners from Calgary, the remnants of what was left two months before the Armistice was signed. It was at Cagnicourt that Kaiser Wilhelm said the war was over.
I want everyone to think about this. I want everyone to think about what special forces can do. The special forces on that day said this. Instead of having the slaughter of a lot of British, Australians and New Zealanders, the Canadians went over and the war came to an end on November 11, 1918, not on March 11 or April 11 of another year. By designating areas, as the minister has announced, and by designating the rapid deployment, by speeding up the process, we are indeed into the new century.
(1225)
Some people ask me, “How come you are critic for veterans affairs? Why would you not be critic in some more important role?” That really bothers me. It really does. What is more important in this country than to take a look at the thousands of people, as the minister has said, who are on benefits and the hundreds of people and their kinfolk, their spouses and so on, who are still being cared for by the government? Can we think of anything more important than that? I cannot. I am very proud to represent my party as critic in this particular area.
The purpose of the bill, as the minister has said, is to be more responsive: bang, bang. Do we remember how long this used to take? It used to take from six months up to a year to designate something. I would have quite a beard by that time. Now it can be done almost immediately. It is in keeping with what is surrounding us today.
Therefore the bill is to be more responsive in providing comprehensive coverage to members of the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who serve in dangerous operations areas and in conditions of elevated risk. These provisions are good provisions. They are good because they meet modern day requirements. They are good because we can declare a designated area within 24 hours. They are good because those people who are being deployed know that they have this coverage. Canadian troops have never known that before, not to this extent.
I just finished a trip visiting long term care for vets and I reminded my colleagues who travelled with me that Newfoundland was a designated area. Do members know why? It was considered overseas in World War II. They still get extra pay for serving overseas. I tip my hat to Newfoundland, because they were a very special people.
Under this pension act, there are two types of coverage, as the minister has announced. It is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is a difference that has to be explained. It is not just if one is on a specific duty. Let us say a person was in Kosovo and was sent out to take a look at a particular function. That would be a police duty. Let us say that something happened after the person came back from that duty and the person was wounded while sleeping. There is still coverage under the bill, which makes it entirely different from any piece of legislation we have had before.
About three years ago at the annual chamber of commerce meeting in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, there was a young RCMP officer who had served in Kosovo. Listening to the graphic details of what a Canadian policeman had to go through while living there made one feel proud that we had people like that in a high risk area. That was only a few years ago. We could not tell them then that they had this extra insurance, but it is there today.
Canadian vets are the pride of the country. I know that a lot of people will say, “Yes, but there are not many left and why do we want to spend a bunch of money?” But these vets and these people serving are the pride of the country because of their acts and sacrifices and their heroism in the defence of their country.
There are so many things we can do. For instance, I got a call the other day about the condition of an 89 year old vet who had fought almost five full years in World War II. He came out of it unscathed, without a scratch. But because of the conditions in which he was living I had to call somebody and get that vet out of there. I finally worked through the Royal Canadian Legion and we are going to get some action. Vets care for vets and the government should care for vets as well.
(1230)
I was thrilled to be with the minister and the committee when we visited Dieppe last summer on the 60th anniversary. There are many Canadians who take the opportunity to dwell always in the negative about the military. Terence Robinson wrote a book called The Shame and The Glory: Dieppe. To go to Dieppe and to Pourville where the South Saskatchewan Regiment was, a regiment which was organized in Weyburn, Saskatchewan and to see the grave of a deceased Canadian soldier from the South Saskatchewan Regiment who did not have a name, it brought me to a standstill.
All of this made me realize what had happened. Perhaps it was ill planned. Nevertheless we will deal with a more prominent issue of the day which is we will be called upon and make no mistake about it.
Bill C-31 will ensure that veterans receive full access to all benefits and allowances due to them.
I was also with the group that spent a day at the Veterans Affairs office in Charlottetown. The office deals with many problems. I am somewhat relieved to see the manner in which the Veterans Affairs office attacks a problem, particularly if a person comes in for benefits and so on. I am satisfied that the bill, along with an increase in attention to veterans affairs will reduce the red tape. It will reduce the time spent on waiting lists. Then veterans can appeal and receive what is due to them immediately.
Bill C-31 provides compensation to Canadian Forces and also to the RCMP who are injured or disabled as a result of their service or while they are in a special duty area or a special duty operation. This is while they are there. It could be while they are eating supper but they are in a dangerous area. This is a big change.
Bill C-31 which has been brought forward by the government is not asking for additional money. I repeat that the bill is not asking for additional funding. It is not the same as another minister who fined 16-year-old hockey players and their teams. Then after they were done raping Saskatchewan they quit the survey. The bill is not asking for additional funds.
The Minister of National Defence or the Solicitor General, with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would be able to declare an SDA just like that, whereas under our old system it would have taken up to a year.
What will Bill C-31 bring to the families, to the mothers and dads at home and to the boyfriends, girlfriends and so on? The bill will bring something which I think will be elevated and that is peace of mind.
The Canadian Alliance is pleased to support Bill C-31. When a member serves on a committee he or she is not always happy with everything. There are others items which I will not mention at this time that need to be supported. I do want to say to the government that this is good legislation. It is meaningful and up to date legislation. As situations develop, hopefully not for the worst, this piece of legislation being there will make it much easier to handle the situation in a better way than we have ever done before.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-31, an act to amend the Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
First, I want to say that the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of Bill C-31. We recognize the commendable work done by our veterans and RCMP officers. Their commitment goes far beyond their job requirements, and we are grateful to them for this.
The purpose of Bill C-31 is to make the necessary amendments to the aforementioned legislation so that members of the armed forces or the RCMP who have taken part in special service operations, particularly ones under the Charter of the United Nations or search and rescue operations would, from this day forward, be entitled to a pension. So, this change recognizes the high risk of such operations.
Both these groups have impressive records. Since the Korean War, the largest deployment of military personnel abroad took place in 1999 with over 4,400 members of the armed forces, mostly on peace support operations.
These interventions are predicated on our legal and constitutional role. Thus, cabinet usually makes special orders allowing troop deployments for UN operations.
Of course, cabinet must inform Parliament of such decisions and it is up to parliamentarians to support or reject these decisions. The nature and scope of these deployments are significant elements in any government decision. We must also point out that in some cases the participation of armed forces or the RCMP in foreign operations moves rapidly beyond the control of the central government, as in the case of a United Nations operation.
In other words, the central government loses its right to act independently and becomes solely a service provider.
The Bloc Quebecois position has always been that such operations should be subject to debate in the House. Thus, on April 19, 1999, a motion by the Bloc Quebecois was debated. That motion concerned the armed conflict in Kosovo and the Balkans. The Bloc's intention was that any deployment of soldiers who may be involved in military or peacekeeping operations should be subject to a debate.
Our position was that the information about this involvement was seriously deficient. The motion was voted down on the pretext that it concerned a purely hypothetical situation. Since then, we have seen over and over that there was nothing hypothetical about it and that the Bloc Quebecois request was clearly justified.
We can regret the fact that, because of the government's refusal, members of our military and RCMP must deal with precarious situations and impossible deadlines, making their activities extremely risky. We must remember that certain missions have been more like military operations than peacekeeping or humanitarian activities, and that is disappointing.
Thus, it is appropriate to meet the needs of those who go on such missions by granting them commensurate pensions.
Canada has taken part in many wars since the Boer War in 1899. In 1918, more than 4,000 men were sent to Siberia during the Russian Civil War. In 1950, during the Korean War, Canada agreed to send troops only if the UN decided it was useful. We should mention that Canada's participation in that conflict was not dependent on a declaration of war.
The same thing happened during the gulf war in 1991. On August 6, 1990, the United Nations adopted resolution 661, which required members to impose sanctions against Iraq. Now, the federal government has invoked the United Nations Act, which states that only after the next session commences shall the orders and regulations made under this act be laid before Parliament. On October 23, 1990, the House of Commons adopted a motion to send troops to the gulf. However, it was not until November 29, 1990, that the United Nations adopted resolution 678 authorizing armed intervention in Iraq.
(1235)
I find it somewhat ironic that, back then, there was no mention of any hypothetical situation.
Although the House of Commons adopted a motion authorizing the sending of troops to the Arabian Peninsula, the government thought it appropriate to hold an emergency debate to confirm this military support. The opposition questioned the need for such an aggressive reaction, because the UN had not taken such action during other similar conflicts. This entire debate ended when the United States began its armed aggression the following day.
On December 3, 1992, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 794 to establish a peace support mission in Somalia. In this resolution, the UN approved the use of force.
At the time, the opposition had asked that a debate be held before the federal government made any decisions. The government responded that it would make its decision first and only then would there be a debate. Furthermore, the government indicated that making such decisions was its responsibility and prerogative. Nevertheless, there was a special debate on the issue.
It was not until 1998 that parliamentarians again raised the need to hold a debate before any decisions were made about Canada's taking part in armed intervention abroad.
On September 30, 1998, a motion was passed in the House of Commons calling upon the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to negotiate a peaceful solution and expressing profound dismay and sorrow concerning the atrocities being suffered by the civilian population in Kosovo. Only a week later did the central government deign to hold a take note debate on this matter, once again relegating parliamentarians to the role of bystanders.
Finally, the war in Iraq has allowed us an opportunity to stress the essential role parliamentarians must play in making decisions that in any way involve participation by Canada in armed interventions.
Once again, the decision-making role of parliamentarians has been shunted aside and the central government has decided to just do as it pleases, which we find regrettable. Our involvement as parliamentarians must be active rather than passive when it comes to making decisions with such impact on the public. I wish to make it clear that the participation by the people of Quebec has been exemplary. Our demonstration in support of peace most certainly played its part.
In addition to combat interventions, we must also think of our involvement in peacekeeping operations. These have become riskier and more complex than before, if not downright dangerous.
Once again, the scope and nature of the situation are significant, but we must add the human side. The duration only complicates matters.
Since 1945 Canada has taken part in more than 40 peace operations or related missions. While the UN charter does not oblige Canada to participate, we have nonetheless established a custom of peacekeeping we want to maintain that dates back to 1954, after the Korean war, when Canada took part in three surveillance missions.
Toward the end of 1954, Canada took part in the Suez Canal peacekeeping mission, and it was only four days after the government made its decision that a special sitting was held.
In February 1964 Canada made a commitment to take part in the peacekeeping mission in Cyprus when Parliament was not sitting. However, the motion authorizing the deployment of troops was not passed until March 13, 1964.
Canada then agreed to act as an observer in Vietnam, reserving the right to send troops before any vote in the House, however. Canadian military personnel were deployed on January 27, 1973 despite the fact that the matter was not debated in the House until February 1, 1973.
(1240)
The following year, Canada deployed forces to the Golan Heights as part of a United Nations operation. As mentioned before, Canada took part in the gulf war of 1991, but it had also participated in the implementation of the embargo prior to that. There was only one vote to support the UN resolution and no vote on the matter of sending Canadian troops.
In 1992, Canada sent 1,300 troops to Somalia under UNITAF and 750 solders under UNOSOM. There was only a partial debate in the House.
Since 1993, more than 2,000 peacekeeping soldiers have been deployed in the former Yugoslavia under the UN or NATO. These missions have been debated in the House of Commons. There was also the matter of Canada's participation in operations in Haiti and Rwanda.
The result of these debates was that Canada must be more careful in evaluating its participation, because of the costs and resources involved.
On February 9, 1998, there was a debate in the House on the issue of military action in light of Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspections by the UN. The Prime Minister gave the assurance at that time that Canada would not make a decision without a public debate. However, the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, announced Canada's participation in this operation the day before that debate was to be held.
In conclusion, it is easy to understand that these kinds of interventions in foreign countries are complex and delicate issues, but the fact remains that Canadian troops and RCMP members who take part in these operations should not have to suffer the consequences unjustifiably.
Our peacekeeping missions are commendable, despite the risks involved. However, we must show our gratitude and our appreciation to members of the armed forces and of the RCMP.
Throughout my speech, I mentioned the flagrant lack of debate concerning our participation in military operations or peacekeeping missions. It is clear that parliamentarians and, as a result, those who elected them, are excluded from the process. This is inconceivable. Our role must not be limited to approving executive decisions. We are the voice of our constituents.
We need to debate any issue that affects Quebeckers and Canadians. We are elected representatives and we take our role very seriously. The deployment of troops is a serious issue. We must change our bad habits and be accountable to our constituents.
In closing, I will say that members of the armed forces and of the RCMP who fulfill their mission deserve our appreciation, and so do our constituents. Obviously, we support the principle of this bill.
(1245)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I would like to indicate our support for the bill at second reading. We support much of what we see in the bill. The extension of benefits to the RCMP and the Canadian armed forces personnel operating in special duty areas or specially designated areas of operation is a good idea and long overdue. It is something that recognizes emerging realities. We commend the government for bringing the legislation forward.
I listened with care to the Alliance Veterans Affairs critic and I share with him the view that being the Veterans Affairs critic is not a minor role in the caucus of any particular party in the House. I am very proud, as well as being the parliamentary leader of the NDP, to also be the Veterans Affairs critic, which I am now and have been on occasion in previous parliaments. I say that as someone who is the grandson of a veteran. My grandfather, Robert Blaikie, was a founding member of the Great War Veterans Association in 1926, I believe, coming out of the first world war. My father, Robert Blaikie Jr., is a veteran on the basis of his service in the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war. I myself have been a full member of the Royal Canadian Legion for over 30 years as a result of my own service in the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders in Winnipeg.
I mention that because, again referring to the speech by the Canadian Alliance Veterans Affairs critic, he spoke of being at Dieppe and, in particular, of being at the beach at Pourville in Dieppe. He mentioned that it was the beach on which the South Saskatchewan Regiment landed. However I would hasten to add that it was also the beach on which the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Winnipeg landed. Both groups had the distinction of advancing farther than anyone else that day. However many of them were taken prisoner.
I knew some of the people who were taken prisoner that day at Pourville. One of them was Pipe Major Alec Graham, one of the people who taught me how to play the bagpipes. He was actually one of the pipers who stood and played his pipes on the bow of one of the barges that landed on the beaches of Dieppe. There were other pipers. I think there were four from the Camerons that day. I know only three out of four of them because the fourth, Charlie Gunn, who was an uncle of a friend of mine, was killed on that day. I had occasion to visit his grave at the Dieppe cemetery and play the lament on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Dieppe in 1992.
The Canadian Alliance Veterans Affairs critic also talked about extending benefits to people in areas of elevated risk. This is progress if we consider, as the Canadian Alliance member referred to, the fact that for decades we fought to have benefits extended to members of the merchant marine who were clearly a special duty operation or in a special area of elevated risk, and in fact were at great risk. It took decades for various governments and various parliaments to finally recognize the danger they were in, the risks they took, the many lives that were lost and the benefits that should have been extended to them a long time ago and were finally extended to them.
I am very proud of the fact that I personally was involved in that struggle for justice for the merchant marine, as was the NDP caucus with many other members of Parliament.
(1250)
Let us call it progress that today we recognize that RCMP officers and others who may be in areas of elevated risk should have benefits extended to them regardless of their particular status. I hope we would never again be in a situation where we have to fight for long periods of time for benefits that obviously should be extended to people who are in theatres of elevated risk.
I listened with care to the member from the Bloc Quebecois who spoke to this. He gave us a rather lengthy history of the role that Parliament has or has not played in various decisions to deploy Canadian troops. I agree with him. The role of Parliament has not been what it should be when it comes to the deploying of Canadian troops. The history record is mixed but certainly there is a great gap between the behaviour of this Liberal government, elected in 1993, and the behaviour of the government prior to that, the Conservative government, when it came to the deploying of troops. There is a big difference between what was done during the first gulf war and what it appeared the Liberals were willing to do in the second gulf war, if in fact Canada had decided to participate. The government decided not to participate, but we could not get a commitment out of the government that we would actually have a full debate in the House and a vote on it. Eventually we had that but we had it as a result of other political manoeuvrings which resulted in the government feeling the need to put down a motion and have it debated. However that was long after the fact and it did not happen in the way that it should have. In fact, if Parliament had conducted itself properly and if the government had permitted Parliament to conduct itself properly, the government itself, and I think the whole country, might have benefited from a timely debate and a timely vote here in the House of Commons. Different positions could have been put, various parties could have expressed themselves on the matter, Parliament could have expressed itself on the matter and it would have all been done in a much more dignified way than what rolled out as a result of the refusal of the Liberal government to allow Parliament to play its proper role.
Therefore I want to agree with my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois. That is a potential flaw in the bill. I do not think it is something that should stand in the way of it being passed here today and going to committee and eventually being passed, but there was an opportunity here to do something that the government has not done and that is to insert a role for Parliament in the designating of these areas.
I am not surprised that the Liberal government did not do that. In fact what it has done is make the designating of these areas even easier. There might be some merit in that, taking it away from the cabinet and giving it to various ministers, either to the Solicitor General or to the Minister of National Defence. That might be quicker and more efficient. If we are not going to involve Parliament, we might as well have it efficient. However the underlying debate is whether there should be some role for Parliament in this. Perhaps this is something that can be explored a bit in committee.
Having said that, I certainly want to indicate our support for the bill at second reading. We look forward to having the bill in committee and considering it further at that time.
(1255)
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-31, the RCMP and military pensions act, special duty operations.
The member from the NDP who just spoke did so quite well. I agree with him and the Minister of Veterans Affairs should remember the length of time that it took to recognize the merchant navy personnel in this country, the fact that it was only in recent years that it came to the House and we actually recognized the merchant navy.
I can remember as a kid the discussion years ago in my own household. My father, who was a veteran of World War II, just absolutely, totally turned away from the government, and from the legion at the time because they would not allow merchant navy veterans to be members. As someone who had served a lot of time in the coastal communities in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland where they actually picked up survivors and the bodies from the U-boat attacks, my father could never understand the fact that the Canadian government never recognized merchant marines as veterans of World War II. It was absolutely incredible.
Before I begin my full comments on Bill C-31, I would also remind the minister that it seems to be a continuing theme within the government ranks. The minister himself has refused, at least up to this point, to support the veterans of the Korean war who are asking for the privilege and the right to wear the Republic of Korea service medal which was given to them in 1951. The Canadian government has never recognized that medal. It had issued its own. Other governments have recognized it, including most of the Commonwealth countries and the United States, yet the minister, through his office, refuses to recognize it and refuses to give his support to the Governor General's Chancellery of Honours, to support our veterans in wearing the Republic of Korea service medal.
Certainly it is time that we have an in-depth examination of many of the wrongs that were created in the past, and it is a proper time now to correct them. We have corrected the merchant navy. I am certain it is time to allow our veterans of the Korean war who were issued the Republic of Korea service medal the right to wear that medal with honour, as they should.
The purpose of Bill C-31 is to extend more comprehensive and timely coverage to members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police serving in areas and operations where the risk to their safety and security is elevated. Now they are at least going to have some peace of mind that there is some coverage there, not only for themselves but for their beneficiaries.
Under the current Pension Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are entitled to financial compensation in the event of disability or death in the performance of their duties. The coverage is provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and includes insurance against all perils for those serving in what are known as special duty areas. Special duty areas are defined as areas that are geographically outside of Canada.
The substance of Bill C-31 would provide more complete coverage to eligible members serving in designated operations both inside and outside of Canada. Surely since September 11 we all realize the importance of extending this coverage. It was important before but it is even more important today that we extend this coverage inside of Canada. That coverage is for exposure to conditions of elevated risk up to and including armed conflict.
(1300)
In addition to special duty areas, Bill C-31 would create a new service type called special duty operations. Serving in these areas or operations is special duty service which is defined in Bill C-31 as meaning service by either Canadian Forces or RCMP members in an area or operation designated for Canadian Forces members by the Minister of National Defence in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs as a special duty area or operation. For Royal Canadian Mounted Police members the designation falls to the Solicitor General in consultation with the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
A special duty area or operation in Canada, or abroad, will be so designated if it is determined that it involves exposure of Canadian Forces or RCMP members to elevated risk. Examples of elevated risk include: search and rescue missions, UN operations, armed conflict or counter-terrorism. They include any area or operation of elevated risk dating back to September 11, 2001. This coverage includes: training for the operation, deployment to and from the area, and authorized leaves of absence.
It is my understanding that the bill is long overdue. For a government that has been in power since 1993, there have been a number of issues that have sat on the back burner. This is one of them. It took a major attack inside the confines of North America to even have the government interested in bringing this type of legislation forth and certainly it is timely and long overdue.
In closing, it has been said that a nation reveals itself not only by the men and women it produces, but also by the men and women it honours, and the men and women it remembers. In this spirit, it is an honour to support Bill C-31, a bill that seeks to improve the conditions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces and their families.
(1305)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, Bill C-31 stands referred to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
Criminal Code
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.
[English]
I am pleased to begin second reading debate on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts.
Bill C-32 contains key proposals to ensure that sufficient protection is in place to address new and emerging forms of threat. The bill proposes a small number of clarification amendments to ensure an efficient and proper application of our criminal law.
The first proposal would establish a more serious offence, with significant penalities, to address the use of deadly traps in places used by criminals to protect their illegal activities, such as drug production operations.
The second set of key amendments are needed to ensure that the public and private sectors can use reasonable measures to protect their computer systems, and the valuable information they contain, from hackers and malicious electronic communications that may contain viruses.
The bill also contains a small number of proposals to address some pressing matters that the government feels should be dealt with at this time. Although the majority of the proposals consist of clarification amendments they are important to ensure our criminal laws apply effectively.
[Translation]
First, I would like to describe the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code offence of placing traps that are likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person.
The placing of traps is already considered an offence under the Criminal Code. However, the current maximum sentence is five years. The government considers this sentence too lenient, considering the seriousness of the danger posed by the traps, particularly when they are placed in areas where criminals want to protect their illegal activities, such as drug production operations.
Lately, enforcement agencies and other organizations, such as fire fighters associations, have raised concerns about the presence of deadly traps that are often hidden in residences. Police, firefighters and other front line workers are indeed reporting a significant increase in the use of traps by criminals in order to protect their drug production activities whether against their rivals or against law enforcement officers.
We have heard of boards being cut near doors and windows, of weapons such as crossbows or shotguns being triggered by the opening of a door, and of incendiary devices designed to destroy the evidence of a drug production operation.
Since such activities are often hidden in residences, front line workers are particularly at risk when responding to emergency calls. These traps are an unacceptable additional risk for front line workers.
The placing of traps has become a serious problem associated with criminal activities, particularly those of organized crime, and we must create a specific offence for this type of criminal activity and impose a commensurate sentence in order to adequately punish those who use these lethal traps to protect their criminal activities.
Thus, we propose to reformulate in several respects the provision on traps. First, we propose to create an offence with a stiffer sentence, of up to 10 years of imprisonment, for a person placing a trap in an area that is used for the purpose of committing a criminal act. If the placing of a trap causes bodily harm to a person, the maximum term of imprisonment will be 10 years, but when a trap is placed in an area that is used for criminal activities, the maximum possible term will be 14 years of imprisonment. In cases where a trap causes someone's death, the maximum term will be imprisonment for life.
In other cases, the term of imprisonment for anyone who places traps will remain five years.
The purpose of these Criminal Code amendments is to ensure that those who place traps, who kill or who cause injuries, will face stiff sentences reflecting the seriousness of the offence.
Emergency services workers, such as police officers and firefighters, who must go to places that are apparently safe will benefit from protection that is commensurate with the danger created by the placing of traps.
(1310)
[English]
The second set of key amendments in Bill C-32 seek to answer the protection of computer networks from cyber attacks. On a personal level most of us have been victims of some form of cyber attack. A virus, a worm attack, could wipe out important data and cripple vital networks while intrusion by a hacker could result in the theft of private or classified information.
The bill proposes amendments to both the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act to permit the use of systems capable of detecting intrusions that could harm computers or the valuable and often sensitive data they contain.
Intrusion detection is an essential part of information technology management intended to protect computers, networks and data. These defensive monitoring activities are necessary to safeguard the integrity of systems operations and ensure continuity of service.
The proposed amendments are needed to bring legal clarity to the use of intrusion detection so that persons who employ intrusion detection measures for the purpose of protecting or managing a computer system are not wilfully intercepting private communications.
These amendments are particularly important for the government because they would ensure that the government would be able to protect its property and more important, safeguard the information it is entrusted with as this information impacts upon the privacy of all Canadians.
Bill C-32 therefore proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to create an exception to the offence of intercepting a private communication similar to exceptions that already exist to ensure quality control in the communication industry. The exception will only be applicable to persons using protective technologies for the purpose of managing computer systems for quality of service or for protecting the computer system against computer related offences.
An amendment is also proposed to the Financial Administration Act to ensure that federal departments and agencies may take reasonable measures to manage and protect their computer systems which may include the interception of private communications.
The Treasury Board Secretariat will, through the promulgation of standards, ensure consistent application of intrusion detection technology across the Government of Canada in compliance with the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To protect the privacy of Canadians, limits will also be imposed on the use and retention of private communications obtained for the use of information technology management practices.
(1315)
[Translation]
I would like to emphasize that this bill also includes clarification amendments to the Criminal Code and related legislation. An example of such an amendment clarifying our criminal law is the amendment permitting the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary onboard an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that wouldbe likely to cause injury to the aircraft or toany person in the aircraft.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks led to a review of our legislation. We realized that we had to clarify the grounds for the use of force aboard a Canadian aircraft outside Canadian airspace. The amendment will include in the Criminal Code the Tokyo convention principles, which permit the use of reasonable force to prevent certain offences.
The rules on the use of force will not be changed by the proposed amendment, because the use of force to prevent the commission of an offence is not a new concept in Canadian law. The proposed provision builds on existing legal principles. The main goal of this new provision is to allow the use of the existing grounds in the case of offences committed outside Canadian airspace.
This is also a ground of defence. In civil or criminal proceedings, the accused could use this ground of defence, but he or she would still have to prove that the use of force was reasonable and proportionate. The same test applies to other grounds for the use of force in Canadian law.
[English]
Another clarification amendment included in the bill is needed to ensure that the one provision in the Criminal Code to search for and seize weapons, ammunition and explosives explicitly sets out the appropriate constitutional requirements. The courts should not have to read in the grounds for obtaining such a warrant. The government is proposing an amendment to provide in the legislation that information given by the police has to be made under oath. The bill improves and clarifies the criminal law.
[Translation]
Other changes to clarify the bill seek to eliminate ambiguity or language discrepancies in our criminal law. The government proposes such changes on a regular basis to maintain the quality and clarity of the legislation for which it is responsible and to ensure the effectiveness and the proper functioning of our criminal law system.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the residents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts.
I listened to the minister's speech very carefully. Some of the things the minister has proposed have been long overdue.
The bill would amend the Criminal Code to establish more serious offences for placing a trap that could harm someone; emphasize that the use of reasonable force on board an airplane to prevent the commission of an offence is permitted; comply with a court decision regarding weapons searches; and create an exception to the offence of intercepting private communications to protect computer systems. These are the various elements of the bill.
I am particularly pleased to see that the bill would create a Criminal Code offence of setting a deadly trap in a place used for a criminal purpose. This would protect first responders, like firefighters, police officers or other law enforcement officials, who respond to an incident by going there first and then falling into that trap.
The lives of these firefighters and police officers could be endangered by entering such a place in the performance of their duties. Therefore it is our responsibility to protect them.
The maximum sentence for this offence depends on the outcome of the situation. It is generally 10 years. If injury occurs, the maximum sentence is 14 years. If death occurs, the maximum sentence is life imprisonment.
Currently section 247 of the Criminal Code provides for the offence of setting a trap with a maximum sentence of just five years imprisonment.
The House will recall that in 2001 I introduced Motion No. 376 which called upon the government to amend the Criminal Code to expand the definition of first degree murder to include the death of a firefighter acting in the line of duty and to add language that addressed the death or injury of a firefighter engaged in combating a fire or an explosion that was deliberately set. We debated the motion in March of last year. I am very happy to see that the government is finally addressing this important issue through Bill C-32.
Everyone recognizes that firefighters play an important role in our Canadian society, protecting persons and property as they rescue their fellow citizens and extinguish fires. We acknowledge that firefighting is a hazardous occupation with the inherent risk of injury or death. Firefighting is four times as hazardous as any other occupation but commands the highest public trust and respect; more than any other profession.
The number of deaths and injuries sustained by firefighters continue to rise in Canada. When such casualties are the result of either deliberate action or carelessness on the part of members of the public, then a true tragedy occurs. It is saddening to know there were 13,724 arson fires in Canada last year. I was alarmed that over 30%, or one-third, of fires in my home community of Surrey were as a result of arson.
(1320)
A high percentage of them contain booby traps. There have been arson fires in schools. There have been arson related fiery explosions in residential neighbourhoods. These fires are disturbing. Some are caused purely by mischief, but many more have been set with more sinister intentions of covering up illegal activities like marijuana grow ops, methamphetamine labs or other drugs or illegal trade organized crime related activities.
At other times firefighters respond to calls only to find the premises booby trapped with crossbows, propane canisters ready to explode, cutaway floorboards or other serious but intentional hazards. It has also been reported that the criminals, those monsters, will tie wires to the doors and when the doors are opened to the premises weapons will fire at the individual or some sort of explosion will take place. Even the electric power switches have been connected to such disastrous tools. These malicious devices are intended to kill or injure anyone who interferes with a drug operation, including firefighters, police officers and other law enforcement officers.
Firefighters in Surrey are especially at risk considering the growing number of marijuana growing operations that plague the city. The RCMP recently announced that there are 4,500 marijuana grow ops in the city of Surrey. That represents about 6% of the city's households. It is said that there is not one block in Surrey where one cannot find a marijuana grow op. Marijuana grow ops are probably a $6 billion industry in British Columbia.
In one neighbourhood there is a street with 12 houses, nine of them built in the last year and a half. Six of the 12 houses have been linked to illegal marijuana grow ops. These are not mom and pop operations. They are controlled by organized crime, often by gangs who are increasingly buying new homes to conceal their illicit crops.
B.C. Solicitor General Rich Coleman believes the problem stems from the way in which the Canadian judicial system treats marijuana cultivation and trafficking. While in neighbouring Washington State a first offence carries a minimum three month jail sentence, in British Columbia a person can be charged seven times and never see the inside of a jail cell. According to Mr. Coleman, in British Columbia 82% of people charged do not go to jail or even receive a serious fine. They receive a slap on the wrist and off they go. Sometimes the fines are so low and the value of the crop is so high, even from one plant sale, that they can pay the fine and the rest is profit. It is shameful.
In the 2001 B.C. yellow pages there are 508 advertisements for hydroponics equipment. For obvious reasons, I do not think it is because everyone is growing hydroponic orchids. There have even been TV ads selling hydroponic equipment. For what? Just for marijuana grow ops.
The glaring deficiencies within the Criminal Code of Canada fail to allow on duty firefighters the same provisions as on duty police officers, which places their lives at greater risk. Instances are becoming more prevalent where firefighters working in cooperation with law enforcement officers are used on the front lines to break down doors or other barriers to drug related operations and labs. In these cases the armed police officers are standing behind the firefighters who are the unarmed first line of defence out there on the front lines.
(1325)
The situation is getting worse. These drug related incidents are regrettably on the rise. Realistically, the work environment of firefighters has been dramatically altered.
It is time that our law afforded protection under the Criminal Code for our firefighters who serve and protect communities in the line of duty. At least there should be some deterrent in place, not a motivation to commit a crime or such serious criminal activities. A deterrent is needed.
The Criminal Code needs to be strengthened by including criminal infractions, such as deliberately setting fires or causing some other kind of explosion or hazard that needlessly places the lives of firefighters at risk. It is imperative that legislative amendments be made as promptly as possible to afford protection to the men and women who place their lives at risk in the service of our communities.
My motion called on the government to amend subsection 231(4) of the Criminal Code dealing with first degree murder and section 433 dealing with the offence of arson to specify that a person is liable to a minimum of life imprisonment. I received many letters of support for my motion from firefighter groups both locally and nationally.
On behalf of its 17,000 Canadian members, the International Association of Fire Fighters repeatedly expressed its support for my motion and in fact, appreciation for my efforts on behalf of its members.
The Surrey Firefighters Association, on behalf of its 350 members in my riding, the professional firefighters of the city of Surrey, expressed its appreciation and support for the motion which was debated in the House. However, the Liberal members did not support it and of course it was not votable. I was not lucky to win a draw to make it votable.
The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs has 1,000 members. Its executive committee unanimously supported that motion and applauded me for my efforts.
It is time our nation protected the protectors. I am pleased that the government is finally listening today.
Let me move on to consider some of the other amendments proposed in Bill C-32.
Bill C-32 proposes to amend the firearms search and seizure warrant provisions of the Criminal Code to bring the law into line with the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Hurrell.
Section 117.04 of the Criminal Code sets out the procedure for a peace officer to apply for a warrant to search for and seize weapons, prohibited devices, ammunition, explosives or any licence, authorization or registration certificate for such items based on public safety concerns.
To obtain such a warrant the peace officer must satisfy a justice that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person possesses these things and that it would not be desirable, in the interest of safety of course, to let the person continue to possess them.
In R. v. Hurrell, weapons searches under section 117.04(1) of the Criminal Code were ruled unconstitutional. The court found that the warrant application section did not include enough protection of individual rights since it was not clear that a peace officer had to have reasonable grounds to make an application for the warrant.
The court gave Parliament time to react to the decision. This amendment is the result of the time given to Parliament to deal with this issue.
(1330)
The bill amends the Criminal Code to require that an officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in possession of a weapon and that it is not in the interest of the person to possess the weapon before a warrant may be issued.
The bill also provides for the civil enforcement of restitution orders. That is the third element of the bill. On occasion, offenders convicted of a crime are ordered to make restitution to their victims. Often this involves an order to pay a certain amount of money as compensation for the wrong committed or the injury suffered.
Currently, criminal restitution orders are only enforceable by a civil court action if the order is separate from the sentencing order. The amendment will allow civil enforcement of all restitution orders. It will thus make it easier to collect money owing under an order.
Bill C-32 also amends the Criminal Code to explicitly recognize that everyone on board any aircraft in Canadian airspace is justified in using reasonable force when he or she believes it is necessary to use force to prevent the commission of a criminal act that could endanger the safety of the aircraft or its passengers. We know that security issues are important.
Currently Canadian law recognizes this right, but it is not explicitly stated. The bill also clarifies that this justification also applies on board Canadian registered aircraft in flights outside Canadian airspace. The amendment will ensure the full effect of the Tokyo Convention On Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft.
Finally, Bill C-32 also contains amendments that may prove to be somewhat controversial due to perceived infringements on an individual's privacy.
Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act would allow information technology managers in both government and the private sector to disclose the contents of private communications intercepted by intrusion detection systems, also called IDS, in certain circumstances.
The Criminal Code amendments allow for disclosure of intercepted private communications if the disclosure is necessary for the protection of a computer system and if the disclosure is made appropriately.
Intrusion detection is an essential part of information technology management intended to protect computers, networks and data and to ensure quality of service.
A number of systems or products exist to detect attacks on computer systems by hackers, viruses, worms, et cetera, and to alert human operators. We have all experienced that. Even in the House of Commons we have experienced that.
Some systems protect networks by identifying and intercepting suspicious electronic communications, including some that may be private communications. Those messages can be analyzed to determine if they contain a malicious program code, such as a computer virus that could attack a computer system and the data it contains.
Statistics confirm that cyber crime is growing and has a global reach that affects large corporate giants, government agencies, small companies and individuals at home. The amendments to the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act would allow information technology managers to protect their computer systems from electronic communications, such as these viruses that could harm them.
The Criminal Code amendment would create exceptions to the offences of intercepting a private communication and of disclosing its contents to ensure quality control in the communications industry.
The provisions of the bill relating to setting traps, use of force on an airplane and civil enforcement of restitution orders are all causes worthy of support.
(1335)
The amendment regarding warrants for firearms searches is really nothing more than a response to the court decision. As a consequence, firearms owners should be more protected from an unreasonable search under this section.
The provisions regarding disclosure of private communications may prove to be controversial but the Criminal Code already provides for several exceptions where private communication can be intercepted and disclosed. The protection of computer systems is an important objective for government and businesses. Therefore incidental disclosure of private communications for this purpose may be tolerable.
If some of these measures had been taken a long time ago, particularly when I had my motion in the House which was debated last year, I believe some of these elements would have already been enshrined into law and many more firefighters and police officers would have been protected by now. However the government has taken too long to listen to Canadians and to incorporate these aspects into the law.
The safety and security of Canadians and their property is the stated objective of the Canadian Alliance policy. We recognize the rights of victims of crime and will introduce programs of financial restitution from the offender to the victim as a component of sentencing and parole. I believe some of the objectives of the elements of the bill I mentioned are consistent with what our policies have long called for. I wish the government had introduced these elements into law a long time ago.
I will support some of the components of the bill. I am sure the government will review some of the other elements, such as privacy, the inspection of firearms and other elements of the bill.
(1340)
[Translation]
Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts. For the benefit of those Quebeckers and Canadians listening, I will summarize the four important points that have convinced the Bloc Quebecois to support this bill.
The first establishes more serious offences for placing, or knowinglypermitting to remain in a place, a trap, device or other thing that islikely to cause death or bodily harm to a person. The second permits the use of as much force as is reasonably necessary onboard an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that wouldbe likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the aircraft or toany person or property in the aircraft. The third modifies the provision dealing with the provision of informationon oath in relation to weapons. Finally, the fourth creates an exemption to the offence of intercepting privatecommunications in order to protect computer networks.
Clearly, for the most part, the Bloc Quebecois will support the government on this bill, including the new offence about placing traps, for some obviously fundamental reasons.
This is now a scourge. The presence of organized crime in growing marijuana, sold in large quantities on the black market, has led to serious offences. To protect crops in homes or fields, criminals have invented all kinds of systems.
Obviously, the purpose of amending section 247 of the Criminal Code is to create harsher sentences for individuals committing criminal acts and who, by placing traps, cause serious harm to individuals. The Bloc Quebecois can only support the harsher sentencing proposed under section 247 of the Criminal Code.
Currently, this section establishes a maximum five-year term of imprisonment for every one who, with intent to cause death or bodily harm to persons, sets a trap that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to persons, no matter where it might be. Obviously, right now, it is only a five-year term for individuals setting traps and causing death or bodily harm.
The bill before us proposes stiffer penalties. If a trap actually causes harm, there would be a 10-year sentence. If a person sets a trap in a place used for a criminal purpose, the maximum sentence would be 10 years. If a trap set in a place used for a criminal purpose actually causes harm, the maximum sentence would then be 15 years. Finally, if the trap causes death, the maximum sentence would be life imprisonment.
Of course, you will have realized that this bill is based on a request by the International Association of Fire Fighters and other intervenors who have suffered injuries when responding to fires. We are seeing this often in everyday life: many fires are caused by people who grow marijuana for criminal purposes. They do it because it is profitable, of course, but such operations require very substantial electrical systems. Firefighters are responding to more and more fires in these situations. The law must be adjusted to fit the reality, since such operations are being discovered week after week.
The riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is obviously a beautiful area with woods, forests, lakes and rivers. At first, marijuana was only cultivated in corn fields. Now it is grown in the forests, often in privately-owned forests.
Marijuana growers often buy the land, or lease land from dealers who have purchased it. They put up lots of signs saying “Private property—Keep out”. Often, there will be a triggering system that—when someone enters the land—sets off a firearm or another device that could cause bodily harm.
In any event, all this is done by criminals to keep people away, sometimes men and women who simply want to take a walk in the forest.
(1345)
Obviously, these systems have been refined. Marijuana is now longer only cultivated in corn fields or forests, but more and more in urban areas, inside houses.
So, in order to protect the crops, all kinds of more or less sophisticated equipment is installed to try to discourage visitors and keep away unwanted people. These are often honest citizens who want to visit properties, who knock on doors for whatever reason. That is when they find out who they are dealing with.
Fire fighters and police officers and others who arrive on the scene are confronted with threats to their safety or are injured by traps and other devices designed to keep people out.
It is important to understand this, to strengthen this bill and set appropriate sentences for all of these criminal acts. It is unthinkable that in our society right now there are criminal groups that use devices that harm others in an attempt to protect their criminal investments.
Again, the Bloc Quebecois supports these amendments to section 247 of the Criminal Code to strengthen measures and to apply the maximum sentence, imprisonment for life for any person who causes death by setting a trap or device to discourage visitors.
Obviously, the whole issue of marijuana is complex for people who are following this debate. The cultivation of marijuana is completely illegal. Cultivation is not allowed; however, people do have questions because of legislation passed by Parliament.
People need to understand that there is a certain type of use of marijuana that is permitted. This is the use of marijuana for therapeutic purposes. This use was recognized right here in the House. Legislation was passed to allow individuals who need it to obtain permission to use marijuana for therapeutic purposes.
Obviously there has been so much controversy that, as we speak, even those who have authorization have had it withdrawn. In the next few weeks I shall have an opportunity to bring to the House a petition specifically intended to support those who need marijuana for therapeutic purposes for an illness. We are not talking about just any ordinary sickness, but of serious and fatal diseases. Often these people find comfort in the therapeutic use of marijuana. It is as simple as that, and it is legal.
This is hard for our audience to understand. Marijuana is illegal, growing it is illegal, but there are patients who need it who can obtain permission for its therapeutic use, on a doctor's recommendation.
This has, however, become so complicated that even doctors no longer dare make recommendations. Yet this use is permitted by law for therapeutic purposes, by prescription of course. That is why the Government of Canada has even authorized the government-monitored growing of marijuana to provide a supply on the legal market for patients needing it for therapeutic purposes.
It must be kept in mind, however, that there is currently a whole debate going on at the Department of Justice as well as within the opposition parties on the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is still illegal. If someone is picked up by the police on simple possession, he or she will end up with a criminal record and all the problems that go with it. Parliament is looking at how marijuana can be made legal. If someone has in his possession an amount of marijuana that is under a certain amount—what is termed simple possession—only for personal use, this would no longer result in a criminal record. It would be decriminalized. This position, which is being discussed in Parliament, will come to pass very soon, or so we hope.
Marijuana is still illegal, however, as is its cultivation. This is particularly the case when it is passed around by people in a group or when criminal organizations are involved.
(1350)
In that context, I will remind members of the position of the Bloc Quebecois and the very important motions that it proposed when Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, was before the House. These motions dealt with those people who grow marijuana and become criminals.
Those who are watching us today must understand. People often think that there is nothing wrong in growing marijuana to earn a little extra cash to make ends meet. However, it is still a criminal activity. When Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, was passed, the Bloc Quebecois was calling for much stricter measures for gang members.
We proposed two measures. The first was to criminalize passive membership in a gang. This did not necessarily mean wearing the colours of biker or other gangs, but it applied to those who grow marijuana knowing that it is bought by criminal organizations and sold on the black market through a network and so on.
We wanted Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, to criminalize passive membership in a gang, but the Liberal government rejected the idea. Again, this would have sent a clear message to those men and women who may decide to grow marijuana just for fun, to make a little extra cash. Then they expand their operation. They do that in their own home and find it quite amusing. They sell their crop and make some money. Doing that is just like being a member of a criminal organization. Obviously, should the opportunity arise, the Bloc Quebecois would recommend once again that the anti-gang legislation be amended to criminalize passive membership in a gang.
Second, what we wanted, when the anti-gang legislation, Bill C-24, was adopted, was to reverse the burden of proof. Currently, the burden of proof rests on the State or the Crown. People are innocent until proven guilty. What we wanted, once it had been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that an accused belonged to a criminal organization, was for the Crown not to have to prove that the former's assets were the proceeds of criminal activities. We wanted, once it was proven that a criminal was part of a crime gang—so he was automatically considered a member of the gang and as having committed criminal acts—then, for that individual to prove how he had acquired his assets.
Once again, it is too easy for some criminals to get off. It is all too easy for criminals to get off, but they keep their assets because the Crown has not managed to prove that these are the proceeds of a crime.
The solution was simply to reverse the burden of proof. In this respect, the Bloc Quebecois was not alone in making this proposal. This proposal has been adopted by other countries. I will name the other countries that enacted legislation in which the burden of proof with regard to the proceeds of crime has been reversed. They are Australia, Austria, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Great Britain. Each of these countries has reversed the burden of proof. More may do so too.
Again, this would be a wake up call for the men and women who, too often, do this for fun. They do not think it is very dangerous to grow marijuana on private land or property belonging to other people, or at home. They make a bit of cash. All this to say that these people are clearly members of criminal organizations. They are criminals.
If Bill C-24, the anti-gang legislation, had been amended the way the Bloc Quebecois wished, these people would have been considered passive criminals. Then, if the burden of proof had been reversed, we would have even been able to get at their assets and say, “You are going to have to prove to us that you acquired all the assets you now possess in some way other than through crime and, if you cannot, we will seize them all: your car, boat, motorcycle and ATV”. Of course, that would cover all the assets these persons might own which they could not prove they had acquired by honest means.
(1355)
That is the position the Bloc Quebecois is defending and will always defend, with respect to the proceeds of crime.
Once again, with regard to the bill before us this morning, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendment to section 247 of the Criminal Code whose purpose is to increase the penalties for those who set traps to defend places used for criminal purposes, such as growing marijuana.
This bill also makes it possible to use force on board an aircraft. At present, the Criminal Code of Canada gives any citizen the right to use necessary force to prevent commission of a criminal act. Obviously, what this bill adds is clarification. If you find yourself on board an aircraft registered in Canada, flying outside Canadian airspace, you are permitted to use the necessary force to prevent commission of a criminal act.
Obviously, this is in response to the events of September 11, 2001, and to the Tokyo convention. This authorizes, among other things, the use of necessary force to prevent the commission of a criminal act on board an aircraft.
I will conclude with a comment on intrusion detection systems. In its explanations, the department asks for the power to authorize the use of intrusion detection systems. That could be in conflict with the respect for privacy. The Bloc Quebecois has serious concerns regarding the protection of privacy. We do not want personal information to become the property of the state in such cases.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[S. O. 31]
* * *
[Translation]
Quebec General Election
Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will be pleased to join me in congratulating the new Liberal MNAs elected in the provincial election held in Quebec two weeks ago.
Now there will be a changing of the guard, a new start toward actions that will prove that the Liberal Party is the party of all Quebeckers, that it is solidly rooted and that its characteristic values of freedom, justice and openness to a wider world will help to bring about the peace of mind that has been sought for so long.
The ambiguity is over. The recent majority win by the Quebec Liberal Party will at last make it possible for us to work in a spirit of collaboration and synergy for the greater good of all those who so proudly compose the population of that province.
I know my colleagues on this side of the floor are anxious to start working with the new premier and his team in achieving some realistic goals. My congratulations as well to the three Liberals who were elected in my riding.
* * *
[English]
Parliament of Canada
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, western Canadians have a sense of place in Confederation they do not see reflected in Parliament. Despite quality representation, we have insufficient influence.
Add substantial policy differences over decades, together with Ottawa's flirting with anti-Americanism, its starvation of the Canadian Forces, and its phony “neutralist” foreign policy: these are not reflective of western values of courageous compassion.
Ramming Kyoto through Parliament then giving massive emission exemptions to Ontario's auto industry is typical of alienating behaviour.
The standard answer is to extort more out of Confederation by voting Liberal. However our vote is the sacred trust, purchased at our great cost, for without having had our soldiers there would now be no politicians. We have long ties to the military, such as The Royal Westminster Regiment, whose origins predate joining Confederation.
We also will not be bribed with our own money. Alienation comes from the Liberal ideological failure to be fully democratic.
The west matters, especially our value for participatory democracy which would be good both for Canada and for the trends of governance around the world.
* * *
(1400)
Mental Health Support Network of Canada
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House and all Canadians the excellent initiative of the Mental Health Support Network of Canada. This group of 12 organizations, including the Canadian Red Cross, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Medical Association, have developed information sheets for both the public and health care providers to help us all with the stress and anxiety associated with the recent SARS outbreak. These fact sheets provide simple advice on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of SARS. They provide tips for coping strategies to help manage the associated stress and provide advice on how to talk to children about SARS.
The Mental Health Support Network of Canada advises Canadians that, while SARS is of great concern, the vast majority of us are not in danger. Based on what we know at this time, the best thing all of us can do for ourselves and our families is to carry on with our normal daily routine.
The member organizations are working hard to provide clear information tools to help Canadians cope with the concerns they may have regarding SARS. These information sheets are available through the Internet at www.cma.ca.
* * *
[Translation]
Quebec General Election
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, voters in the Outaouais region gave a majority to the Quebec Liberal Party candidates in the provincial election held this past April 14.
I would like to extend my congratulations to the Liberal candidates in the Outaouais region, all of whom recorded impressive wins: the MNA for Chapleau, Benoît Pelletier; the MNA for Gatineau, Réjean Lafrenière; the MNA for Hull, Roch Cholette; the MNA for Papineau, Norman MacMillan and the MNA for Pontiac, Charlotte L'Écuyer
All of them have what it takes in the way of talent and knowledge to ably represent the interests of their constituents and their region in the National Assembly. They understand the problems and are prepared to work to resolve them.
The voters of the Outaouais region have given these five a clear mandate and I am certain that they are equal to the task.
My heartiest congratulations to them all.
* * *
Quebec General Election
Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on April 14, voters in many Quebec City ridings, like Charlesbourg, Chauveau, La Peltrie, Louis-Hébert, which was in fact the riding of former minister Bégin, Montmorency, Portneuf, Vanier and Lévis, sent a clear message for change to the Government of Quebec.
These ridings, which were represented for years by members of the ruling Parti Quebecois, elected candidates from the Liberal Party of Quebec to join forces with their colleagues from Jean-Talon and Jean-Lesage who were re-elected to the National Assembly, Margaret Delisle and Michel Després.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Éric Mercier, Sarah Perreault, France Hamel, Sam Hamad, Raymond Bernier, Jean-Pierre Soucy, Marc Bellemare and Carole Théberge for their impressive victories.
Bravo.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today is the fifth anniversary of the day the Liberal Party of Canada said no to all victims of tainted blood by hepatitis C.
On April 28, 1998, we put a motion before Parliament that all victims of tainted blood receive help. Only Liberals voted this down.
The former health minister said that there were 22,000 victims between 1986 and 1990, and 40,000 outside this narrow legal window. The truth is that there were just over 4,000 between 1986 and 1990 and less than 5,000 outside. We were also told that no test was available prior to 1986 to detect hepatitis C. That was wrong.
Joey Haché said, “There is no difference between someone infected December 31, 1985 and January 1, 1986. People were infected the same and should be treated the same”. He is right.
* * *
Armenia
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 88th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
The past year has seen important developments in efforts to have official recognition of the Armenian genocide. On June 13, Senator Shirley Maheu successfully moved a motion in the Senate of Canada, seconded by Senator Setlakwe, calling on the Government of Canada to recognize and commemorate the Armenian genocide.
On October 29, 2002, the National Gallery was the site of the Ottawa premiere of world renowned Canadian film director Atom Egoyan's film Ararat. The Minister of Canadian Heritage joined with Telefilm Canada in welcoming the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, members of Parliament and the diplomatic corps to a special screening of the film dealing with the Armenian genocide.
On November 27, 2002, I successfully introduced a motion in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade calling on the House of Commons to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Each year as we commemorate this sad anniversary, I am hopeful that the lessons of the past will be recognized and serve to help us avoid making these mistakes in the future.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Health
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the SARS epidemic continues to be a very serious situation that requires a great deal of our attention. While prudence is called for, we must not give in to panic, but concentrate instead on appropriate measures to ensure and safeguard public health.
This tragedy that has already claimed many victims around the world must be controlled as soon as possible in order to contain the risk of SARS spreading.
The Toronto area has unfortunately been hit very hard by this epidemic. The Bloc Quebecois sympathizes with all those who have been affected, directly or indirectly, by SARS.
We are convinced that it remains imperative to take all necessary action, and the government can count on our full cooperation to that end.
* * *
[English]
National Day of Mourning
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today is the National Day of Mourning to remember those individuals who die in workplace accidents.
Almost 800 employees have died from accidents at work since last year's day of mourning, but this is just part of the story of workplace safety, as another 800,000 Canadians were injured at their place of employment. It is calculated that 16 million days of work are lost each year to workplace accidents, which costs the Canadian economy more than $9 billion.
Those are the statistics, but they tell only part of the story. Statistics cannot tell of the loving spouse who has lost his or her partner, or grieving parents who will never see their child again, or young children who have to be told that mommy or daddy will not be coming home again.
It is these personal tragedies that are the real legacy of occupational deaths. It is why today is the National Day of Mourning and why business, labour, government and individual workers must do everything possible to make the workplace a safer place.
* * *
[Translation]
Riding of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking here today, after being absent for several weeks because of health problems.
First, I would like to thank everyone who was cheering for me during my convalescence. Their good wishes and their words of encouragement were of considerable support to me and contributed enormously to my return to health.
I can assure them that I am in good health and ready to shoulder my responsibilities as a member of Parliament, and in particular, ready to represent and serve the people of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle for several more terms.
[English]
I want to assure my constituents of Pontiac--Gatineau--Labelle that their MP is back on the job, leaner and meaner, and that he is in it for the long run. It is with great pride that I will continue to represent and serve the people of my riding for many more elections.
* * *
National Day of Mourning
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): The National Day of Mourning for workers killed or injured on the job, which has its origins in a private member's bill of the former NDP MP for Churchill, Rod Murphy, is an occasion for all Canadians to mourn the tragic deaths and injuries that result from occupational accidents and work related illnesses.
At this time we especially remember health care workers who have lost their lives or have been put at risk during the SARS outbreak, and emergency workers like the firefighters, who are in Ottawa this week, who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.
Many occupational deaths and injuries would be prevented if we had proper workplace safety standards in place and the will to enforce such standards. We are still waiting, more than a decade after the Westray mine disaster, for legislation to hold corporations criminally accountable for behaviour that leads to the death of their employees. The time is long overdue to honour the memory of the 26 miners with legislative action.
The NDP calls on the government to act soon so that by April 28, 2004, we will no longer have to lament the absence of such legislation and will be in a position to claim that we have done our parliamentary duty to both the dead and the living.
* * *
[Translation]
National Day of Mourning
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, April 28 is the day we honour workers who have been injured or disabled as a result of a workplace accident, those with a work-related illness, and the memory of those who have died on the job.
Let us take a few moments to say to all these people and their families just how much we sympathize with their suffering and let them know that we stand with them in their pain and in the midst of the problems resulting from their work-related accident or illness.
The Bloc Quebecois reminds the federal government of the importance of improving preventive measures in order to adequately protect workplace health and safety. Workers can rely on the Bloc Quebecois to make their voices heard.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Workplace Safety
Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday marks the beginning of the work week for many Canadians. However, today is unique because it marks the 12th annual National Day of Mourning.
I rise today, as do others, to highlight this distinctive occasion to commemorate those who have been killed or injured in the workplace. Every working day in Canada, at least four people die from work related accidents or illnesses. Close to 375,000 people were injured seriously enough to prevent them from reporting to work. It is estimated that the total number of work related injuries and illnesses occurring each year in Canada is close to 900,000.
Workplace deaths are increasing and this day serves as an important reminder of the work that remains to be done: We must prevent these accidents from happening and we must strive to prevent injuries.
I ask all hon. members to take the time to remember the workers who have lost their lives or who have been injured on the job. We honour them by putting forth our best efforts to foster safer and healthier workplaces through continued education, awareness and co-operation. Let us prevent these needless tragedies.
* * *
Cod Fishery
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Newfoundland's minister for ACOA have announced the closure of the cod fishery on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that closure will affect 700 plant workers and 2,000 fishermen.
Knowing full well the impact that this announcement would have on these fishermen and their families, the ministers went before the microphones with no long term plan for the future employment of these people or the survival of their communities. Newfoundland's minister announced a measly $23 million to be used, in the minister's words, for make work projects.
I want to tell the minister for Newfoundland that these people do not want make work projects. They want an economic development plan geared to providing a future for themselves and their families. Newfoundland and Labrador has lost 70,000 people since the last moratorium. Let me ask the minister: Where is the plan to stop this out-migration from happening again?
Or does the minister care?
[Translation]
The Speaker: Order, please. I invite members to rise and observe one minute of silence to mark the National Day of Mourning and honour the memory of workers killed or injured on the job.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence]
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[Oral Questions]
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we all know that the WHO has placed Toronto under a global travel advisory to prevent the spread of SARS. The health minister claims that this advisory is not warranted, that it is based on inaccurate and outdated information.
Could the health minister explain how it can be based on inaccurate and outdated information and how she did not know about the advisory when she claims to be in contact with WHO officials each day?
(1415)
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): In fact, Mr. Speaker, my officials are in contact with the WHO on a regular basis and at no time did WHO officials give notification to my public health officials, my office or the deputy's office that they were contemplating a travel advisory in relation to the city of Toronto.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that does not quite ring true, but I would remind the government that it was over a month ago that the World Health Organization called for exit screening at Canadian airports. Our party has been calling for that for over a month. It was not done. SARS was exported from Canada. We got the global travel ban on Toronto and costs now that are going to run into the billions of dollars for the Toronto and Canadian economies. Does the minister now justify her decision not to implement this screening?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do in fact have screening measures for both outbound and inbound passengers at Pearson and Vancouver airports.
Let me in fact read that which Dr. David Heymann said in relation to what we were doing:
|
Canada is doing an exemplary activity and much of what has been going on in Canada, including the system of notifying airline passengers and of screening airline passengers, has been shared with other countries as an example of best practices. |
Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, only with this government could we have this black mark on Toronto that is going to cost us billions, and it claims everything is just great, only with this government. What a lack of leadership. We have the Prime Minister on holiday, we have the former finance minister in his perpetual bubble, and we have the health minister hiding from reporters in Calgary and ignoring the recommendations on airport screening.
To help assure Canadians that the government has learned something, will the government at least admit some responsibility for fumbling the SARS football?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): In fact, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say is that unlike the opposition, my department, this government, and my officials have been working with the Government of Ontario and public health officials on the front lines in Ontario. That is why in fact today we can proudly say that this outbreak is controlled and contained and that is why Toronto is an example to the rest of the world.
* * *
Iraq
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, before Parliament recessed, we asked the government what it had planned as a comprehensive package for the rebuilding effort in Iraq. The Prime Minister told us then that he had not received a call for help. Now that the allies have called, it appears the Liberals have put them on hold.
When it comes to Iraq, why is the government so reluctant to stand with our allies in any meaningful way?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we received some communications from the American administration about a week ago on that. We are looking at the possibility of helping in the reconstruction of Iraq and using the people and equipment that could be useful. When the cabinet has decided on that, we will make a report to the Canadian public.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): As I said, they have been put on hold, Mr. Speaker.
This weekend the Toronto Star seemed to confirm what many have believed all along: that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in fact partners in crime. Imagine the horror that these two thugs could have wrought had Saddam not been stopped. Saddam had the weapons and bin Laden had the terrorists to deliver them.
In light of this evidence, does the government now regret its decision not to join our allies in the liberation of Iraq? And why will it not redouble its efforts aggressively and openly now in the rebuilding of Iraq with our allies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we made a decision, based on a long-standing policy of all Canadian governments over a long period of time, that these activities should be done under the authority of the United Nations and the Security Council.
In terms of fighting terrorism, we have 1,700 people in the gulf, and ships and planes at this time, and we are preparing to send a lot of Canadian soldiers to Afghanistan.
As I said a few minutes ago in reply to the first question of the hon. member, we are about to do something to help the reconstruction of Iraq.
* * *
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the new Premier of Quebec reaffirmed the consensus of the National Assembly and declared that his government would make fiscal imbalance a priority.
Since Jean Charest has promised to attack fiscal imbalance in the weeks following his election, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the federal government, which denies the problem even exists, is prepared to cooperate with the Government of Quebec in settling all of the issues surrounding fiscal imbalance for once and for all?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, I would like to extend my most sincere congratulations to the new Premier of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I am sure we shall be able to have a constructive dialogue with him. We will not always agree, but he will never use separation as a threat.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Séguin report describes fiscal imbalance as evidence of the dysfunction of Canadian federation: the money is in Ottawa but the need is in Quebec and the provinces. Jean Charest said the following during his campaign, “Solving the fiscal imbalance will mean ensuring the long term funding of health and education”.
Instead of denying the existence of the fiscal imbalance, can the federal government at least commit to sitting down with Quebec and the provinces to address the matter in the very near future, and to meeting with Premier Charest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we met with provincial representatives only a few weeks ago, at which time we reached a very significant agreement on health, and we have transferred, starting this year, over $5 billion to the provinces to help with their health care system.
As for the fiscal imbalance, it is true that we have a surplus. In 1995, when Quebec wanted to separate from Canada, it said it had to because Canada was bankrupt. Now we are proving that a good administration can make a federation work, and work well, reduce taxes and pay down part of the debt.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is quite convenient for the federal government to deny the fiscal imbalance. But, in truth, its existence is acknowledged not only by Quebec but by all the provinces.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by denying the fiscal imbalance, the federal government can have it both ways? On one hand, it is cutting off the provinces, and on the other, it is using its surplus to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know of many programs introduced over the past few years to help the disadvantaged in Canada and in all the provinces that were met with strong public disapproval. People want the federal government, like the provincial governments, to very actively address the social problems facing our society.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the effects of the fiscal imbalance can be seen in the budget with its huge surplus, and the throne speech which announced a series of measures in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as education, where the three leadership candidates called for a greater role for the federal government, even for the creation of a federal department of education.
Will the Prime Minister recognize that denying the fiscal imbalance is a pretext for refusing to agree with the provinces, duplicating structures and justifying infringement in Quebec's jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just paid me a very surprising compliment. He said that the candidates vying for my position have more centralizing tendencies than I do. I accept his compliment.
* * *
[English]
Health
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
When natural disasters hit--and I am not talking about the political disaster for the Bloc in Quebec--like the Saguenay, Manitoba and the ice storm, governments respond.
The average response time in those cases was eight days. We are 40 days and 40 nights into the SARS crisis and not one red cent of government money has gone to help workers, families and businesses in Toronto.
How can the Prime Minister sit on a $14.8 billion surplus--
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all government programs are involved in this crisis. All our front line people in the provinces and federal government are working very well to contain the crisis. They are managing to do a fantastic job according to international institutions.
The system is working quite well. On the question of specific disasters, there is a law where funds can be applied for. However that kind of disaster is apparently not covered by this law.
This morning I met with the Premier of Ontario and I looked at what we could do to help.
(1425)
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the system is not working as well as the Prime Minister would like us to believe. In fact, with respect to the need for a national public health strategy, we have scientists at Winnipeg's virology lab saying that no industrialized country is as bereft of a national public health strategy as Canada.
The fact is that we were not ready for this. We have had 22 new infectious diseases over the last decade and we do not have a national public health strategy. Perhaps the Prime Minister can tell us when we will have one.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met with many officials last Friday in Ottawa. There were scientific representatives from Genome Canada and the Health Council of Canada who praised the government for what it has done for medical research and all of the government activities over the last few years. The hon. member should have been there. He would have been very impressed.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, on April 1 the Minister of Health told the House that the government had “been in constant contact with the WHO” regarding SARS. The minister knew that the World Health Organization believed her department's screening requirements for air passengers were inadequate. She knew that disagreement could cause a travel advisory against Toronto. She knew that only a direct intervention by the Prime Minister could have stopped the travel advisory before it was issued.
Since the government knew all of that, why did the Prime Minister do nothing until it was too late?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify and make absolutely clear for the record that what the right hon. member just outlined is a fabrication. It is a web of half truths and misrepresentation.
In fact, it is that kind of thing that does not help all of us who have been working in our seventh week to control and contain SARS on the ground in Toronto and in Vancouver.
It is that kind of thing that most of us, and particularly front line workers, find demoralizing in relation to their heroic efforts.
* * *
National Defence
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, that might sell in the Dominican Republic, but it does not sell here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Canada has pledged to take command of the defence forces in Kabul--
The Speaker: Order, please. It is impossible to hear the right. hon. member, who is putting a question at the moment. Perhaps we could get back to the question and ignore the other comments.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, Canada has pledged to take command of the defence forces in Kabul this summer. When that promise was made, the senior officer responsible for military planning resigned.
Our Hercules are grounded. How does the minister plan to get our troops and supplies to Afghanistan? Can the minister tell the House whether Canada is able to fulfill its commitment without asking NATO to do the heavy lifting?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, NATO is not going to do any heavy lifting. The fact of the matter is the government is proud of the fact that we are making a very major commitment to Afghanistan which includes 1,500 to 2,000 troops over a six month period starting in August and the same number again for the following six months.
We are working closely with our German allies and others. We are going to have a major impact, including $250 million in aid plus diplomatic efforts by my colleague in foreign affairs, to have a significant mass in Afghanistan and make a major contribution to that beleaguered nation.
* * *
Health
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, back on March 27 the WHO recommended interviewing outgoing passengers, but the minister refused. We agreed with it at that time. The human and economic fallout of that decision is with us today. What a mistake it was for the government not to require interviews at that time.
Will the government now admit that the previous measures were inadequate and fix them?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I come back to the fact that Canada was one of the first countries, probably one of two, to respond to the WHO recommendations regarding screening. I guess I can do nothing better than quote Dr. David Heymann, who is the key person on this file at the WHO. He is the executive director of WHO's communicable diseases unit. He said:
|
Canada is doing an exemplary activity, including the system of notifying airline passengers and of screening airline passengers. |
(1430)
Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the original recommendation, and she knows it, was to interview outgoing passengers.
The Ontario health minister will be travelling to Geneva to meet with the WHO. That is the good news. But where is the federal health minister? The WHO is an international organization. What will it take to engage the government and who is speaking for Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear who is speaking for Canada. In fact, let me remind the hon. member that what we have here, and it is something the opposition cannot understand, is a truly collaborative effort between us and the province of Ontario.
Let me remind the hon. member, when the travel advisory was issued last week, the Prime Minister and I immediately spoke to Dr. Brundtland.
Today, I am pleased to indicate that the WHO and Dr. Brundtland have apparently conceded that they need new and better procedures by which to notify countries in relation to travel advisories.
* * *
[Translation]
Canadian Heritage
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in response to my question about the $25 million funding cut to the Canadian Television fund, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that “this year, we will have over $200 million because the private sector has increased its contribution”. However, outside of the House, the candidate for the Liberal leadership has said that she is aware that the $25 million cut is being felt.
We would like the Prime Minister to tell us one thing. Is the government's position the same as the minister's when she is in the House, or is it the same as that of the candidate on the campaign trail?
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the numbers are there. The Canadian television fund will have $230 million this year to meet the needs of the industry for television production.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, who are we supposed to believe? The Minister of Finance who says that $75 million is better than nothing, or the minister when she says she will fight to defend the Canadian television fund? Who is right? Is it the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Finance?
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my colleague gets her figures from. The Government of Canada will provide $75 million this year to the fund, Telefilm will provide $45 million and $110 million will come from the cable and satellite television industry.
* * *
[English]
Correctional Service of Canada
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a review of the flight logs for the year 2000 of Corrections Canada's Pilatus plane indicate that it was used to transport the Governor General's luggage and on another occasion the Prime Minister's bodyguards to a Florida golf destination.
My question is for the Solicitor General. How exactly does this fall within the guidelines set for the use of this $4.8 million aircraft?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, the aircraft that the member is talking about is an aircraft that is now shared jointly between the RCMP and Correctional Service of Canada.
As the member knows, there are defined rules respecting passengers authorized to use police transfer aircraft. I have been assured by the RCMP that the RCMP policy is strictly followed and has been followed in this case.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we understand which operations and departments are supposed to be using the aircraft, but the problem here is that it is being overextended to other personal uses.
Clearly, the use of this extremely expensive aircraft for such frivolous excursions is a disgustingly blatant misuse of taxpayers' money. What is more disgusting is the Solicitor General's flippant response and defence of such extravagance.
Again to the Solicitor General, exactly how much did these little excursions cost the Canadian taxpayer?
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the member's allegations. There has been no misuse of taxpayers' money in this instance. This aircraft is used for the purposes that it was designed for and only for that.
* * *
(1435)
[Translation]
Fisheries
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the real reason for the slump being felt by Gaspé fishers is the federal government's mismanagement of the fisheries. Today, with the stocks gone and a moratorium declared, boat owners have enormous problems, and the workers are unemployed.
Will the government admit that the eastern fishery is in need of a comprehensive plan which would include buying back licences in order to help the boat owners and more specific measures relating to employment insurance for these workers, who have been left high and dry?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think he knows that we are doing a complete review of the Atlantic fisheries policy. The provincial governments, industry and members of Parliament are participating.
We want to have a sustainable policy and a fishery with long-term economic viability.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through negligence and poor decisions, is directly responsible for the serious problems now affecting the eastern fishery.
Since the resumption of activity in the fisheries may be a long time coming, does the federal government not realize that it has a duty and responsibility to set up measures directly adapted to fishers, fish plant workers and boat owners?
It was the government that created the problem; now it has to solve it.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will admit that, over the years since 1992, we have invested a great deal of money in order to help communities get back on their feet and to provide assistance to fishers.
We had a limited fishery. Unfortunately, this fishery could not be maintained. We are providing funding to help the affected communities in the short term. There will be discussions involving the Economic Development Agency of Canada, ACOA and the affected provinces concerning long-term economic development goals.
* * *
[English]
Government Contracts
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the ambassador to France, Raymond Chrétien, sent a tear-stained letter to his uncle, the Prime Minister. Apparently the French found the requirements for the 40 year old Sea King replacements had sidelined their politically picked replacement. The performance requirements for the helicopters were promptly lowered to keep Eurocopter in the bidding.
Could the minister explain how we will get the best value maritime helicopters when bidders like this are able to pull the strings in the Prime Minister's office?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there was a statement of requirements published with respect to military aircraft in the late 1990s.
The procedure being followed by the Government of Canada is designed to ensure that statement of requirement is in fact fulfilled by the equipment that is ultimately purchased.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, with their procurement policy we have lost 10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars have been squandered. According to the new requirements released on Friday, bidders can start deliveries in 2008 or 2009. That does not fit with the 2005 date the Liberals bragged about a week or so ago.
Of the 3,200 requirements that the minister discussed, 85% do not need any proof of compliance. That means they do not have to work. Taxpayers will get that hit years down the road.
Could the Minister of Public Works explain how these watered down and imaginary compliance requirements will lead to best value replacements?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process here is designed to make the requirements of the military very clear, so that all the bidders know exactly what they are bidding on and at the end of the day we get the aircraft that does the job to the military's satisfaction and we do so at the best possible price for the Canadian taxpayer.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans delivered more bad news to Newfoundland and Labrador.
Given the fact that his scientists over the last number of years have confirmed the impact seals have on fish, in fact last year they confirmed that they ate 47,000 metric tonnes of cod and 940,000 metric tonnes of caplin, why then would the minister put another $6 million into research to see if seals eat fish?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will undoubtedly know that the government has taken action.
Last year, for the second year in 25, we reached the allocation on seals. We let it surpass by over 30,000. I announced a three year harvest plan that would greatly increase the harvest of harp seals.
We are also looking, with the $6 million, at the recommendation of gentlemen, such as the member for seal exclusion zones. We will then see what is the ecological effect of seals and other species on the ecosystem.
We are also working with provincial governments such as Nova Scotia,'s which is looking at marketing other species of seals.
(1440)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans continued what all his predecessors did and that was to destroy the hopes and aspirations of the good people in Newfoundland and Labrador who make a living from the sea.
Why did the minister ignore the Newfoundland and Labrador all party committee, the FRCC, the FFAW union, as well as people in the scientific community who said that we did not have the scientific evidence yet to make any conclusion about the fishery because we did not have the resources and we did not use the independent fishermen's catch data in this final analysis? Why did the minister cut from the fishermen their hopes--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made a very difficult decision last week to give long term hope to fishermen and their communities by saving and rebuilding those stocks.
I did take the advice of committees and organizations that the member mentioned. That is why, at their advice, not only did we remove the fishermen from the equation, but we also took definitive action on seals, on exclusion zones, northern dragging areas and measures on caplin to give the stocks the best possible opportunity to rebuild.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, aboriginal people from coast to coast have made it perfectly clear that they do not accept the first nations governance act and yet the minister continues to plough ahead ignoring their concerns, and it is not just first nations who oppose it. All the mainstream churches, constitutional experts, the Canadian Bar Association and other representatives of civil society all agree that Bill C-7 infringes upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights.
Would the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development listen to first nations, withdraw Bill C-7, send it back to the drawing board and come back with a piece of legislation that first nations and parliamentarians can support?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is such an important matter that I think everyone in the House would agree that the status quo first nations people find themselves in today is totally unacceptable.
The objective of the consultation and work of the government, and all parliamentarians, is to improve the quality of life of aboriginal people. We cannot do that by backing off every time someone disagrees. We have to come to the table, work with each other to come up with better improvement and better laws, and the way to move ahead is with Bill C-7.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans closed the cod fishery to fishermen in parts of Atlantic Canada while refusing to deal substantively with other mitigating factors, such as foreign overfishing which he did not even mention, the rapidly growing seal herds, bycatch and gear types.
Why do Canadian fishermen and plant workers have to be the only ones to pay for government incompetence and will the minister tell us how he proposes to set up seal exclusion zones?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as for the seal exclusion zones, first of course we will ask them to leave. As for foreign overfishing, it has always been the mantra of the member to blame everything on the foreigners.
The fixed gear blame the mobile gear. They both get together with the member to blame foreigners. How can the member tell me that foreign fishing could have an effect in the gulf? How could it have an effect in the areas near Newfoundland?
However, I do take the question of overfishing, domestically and internationally, very seriously and I will continue my work with my counterparts in Europe as early as next May to encourage them to work progressively at the next meetings of NAFO.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the sorrowful thing is that the minister probably believes what he said. The minister and his cohorts responsible for ACOA took away the livelihoods from Atlantic Canadians and Quebeckers and substituted it with a fistful of dollars, actually one-tenth of one per cent of the EI surplus fund.
Will the minister get away from this handout mentality and give these people a hand up by involving them directly and actively in rebuilding the resource?
Hon. Gerry Byrne (Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We are working with communities to ensure that they have the tools and the resources to build their futures because this is a go forward plan.
We are providing income support in the immediate term because there are fishermen and plant workers who are affected in various ways. There is still a very vibrant fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have to reflect on that and build it into our strategy but we also know there is a very healthy future for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we are committed to building on that future with additional funds.
* * *
(1445)
National Defence
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, our troops have been making do with antique equipment for many years: Sea Kings over 30 years old, naval vessels over 35 years old and Hercules aircraft approaching 40 years.
The price of not replacing the equipment continues to grow. Nine out of our thirty two Hercules are now grounded. With so few serviceable aircraft, will our troops have to hitchhike to Afghanistan?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the right hon. gentleman, we are very proud that we will be sending 1,500 to 2,000 troops to Afghanistan for six months and another 1,500 to 2,000 for the following six months.
Yes, some Hercules were grounded. Five, not nine, are undergoing inspection. This is the same that has happened to the same aircraft in the British navy and the U.S. air force. This is under control, and of the few that are grounded work is being done and they will soon be airworthy once again.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government has failed our troops. Our soldiers will be forced to fly these planes well into their fifties. Pretty soon these planes will be able to collect old age pensions, just like the former finance minister. There is no coherent plan for replacing the Hercules planes, just as there is no coherent plan for getting the forces the money it needs to do the job.
When will the government replace our Hercules aircraft?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government, unlike the opposition, has been supporting our troops at every moment. We have not supported them only when it was politically expedient for us to do so, as was the case for the Leader of the Opposition, we have supported them at every moment. We continue to support them and we will support them at every turn in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
Employment Insurance
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the courts are getting ready to hear a class action suit filed by the FTQ and the CSN to recover the money taken from the employment insurance fund by the federal government.
Will the government admit that this confirms what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying about the government stealing from the EI fund and using money that does not belong to it?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the hon. member and for the House that the employment insurance system is there and is working well for all Canadian employees. The system, as it is designed, covers fully 88% of Canadians who may be in need of it.
I would remind the hon. member that every year $2 billion is conveyed to provinces and territories for active measures, through EI part II, and another $9 million, through EI part I, in direct benefits.
[Translation]
Mr. Sébastien Gagnon (Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in reality, the federal government took $44 billion from the EI fund; this money belongs to businesses, workers and the unemployed.
Why is the federal government refusing to use some of the funds it stole from the EI fund to help victims of the softwood lumber crisis or the fisheries crisis? After all, it is their money.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The government has ensured that the employment insurance system is there and has responded to the needs of Canadian workers. That is why we review the program every year and make changes to it where changes are warranted.
I would ask the hon. member to pay attention to the program in its entirety, to look at all the details in the separate different programs that are there to support Canadian youth, older workers and others, because we understand full well when an individual Canadian finds himself or herself between jobs, the employment insurance system must be there to assist him or her.
* * *
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the problem with the government's first nations governance act is that it fails to demonstrate any understanding that it has learned from the failures of the past.
The thin-skinned Indian affairs minister wants us to go back to the future to an approach that is both dictatorial and top down. That is exactly the approach the governments of the past took; a father knows best approach, which is unilateral. Governments of the past did not listen and this government is not listening now.
The first nations governance act, like the Indian Act, is well intentioned but it is clumsy, unilateral and imposed.
One stains our past. When will the minister realize that the other threatens to endanger and stain our future as well?
(1450)
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how a member can be a critic and never read a piece of legislation himself.
First, the Indian Act is very much a paternalistic, prescriptive piece of legislation.
Bill C-7 is an enabling piece of legislation that would do three things. It would allow a code for electoral purposes. It would allow the Financial Administration Act. It would allow for administration as a code to allow first nations to improve their fundamentals of governance with the idea of allowing first nations to develop that on their own, using their traditions and their cultures. That is very different from what has been described by the member.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister is somewhat hilarious but not hilarious to those who oppose the legislation, and that is virtually every Canadian who has read it. Like a stubborn little boy, he covers his ears, stomps his feet, jumps up and down and says, “I can't hear you. I can't hear you.” It is time for him to start listening.
The Canadian Alliance wants to see the minister and the government address serious problems. The Canadian aboriginal population wants the same.
What about home ownership? What about property rights? What about women's rights? What about human rights? What about the equality for aboriginal Canadians to be treated as Canadians?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there you have it. What the member is basically articulating is the fact that they want assimilation. They do not believe in the unique rights of aboriginal people. They do not believe in the treaty rights or aboriginal rights of first nations people. That is not the policy of the government. It is not the policy of our Canadian citizenry.
Quite frankly, the enabling legislation of Bill C-7 is an interim step toward the inherent right of self-government, which is what this government believes in.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday's announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was devastating for fishermen, fish plant workers and communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. In past fishery closure announcements there were always provisions for an early retirement program and a licence buyout program.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans considering an early retirement program, a licence buyout program and an extension of EI benefits for those immediately affected by this closure?
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that during the 1990s and until 1998 a series of measures were taken by this government to assist fishermen in their communities to exit the industry with packages. This was a very limited fishery that unfortunately we had to close. We have announced some measures to assist and maintain communities rather than individuals, but assisting individuals through their communities. ACOA will be consulting with the communities and the provinces on long term economic development objectives.
* * *
Citizenship and Immigration
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it has been 68 days since Ernst Zundel was allowed to enter Canada and make a refugee claim. The minister pledged he would protect our system from abuse by Zundel. He boasted “Just watch me”.
We watched Zundel being housed and fed at public expense. We watched hearing after hearing. We watched the minister allow Zundel's unfounded claim. We watched Zundel remain in Canada. Why did the minister break his word?
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I want to welcome the immigration critic; it is always a pleasure to talk to her in the House.
I would tell her that not only are we respecting the rule of law, but this individual has been detained. Not only are we ensuring the safety of Canadians—this person is now in detention—but we will take the appropriate action when the time is right.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, what time is the minister waiting for? He is part of the process. It is his lawful duty to protect the process.
Zundel is a known security risk. That is why he is in detention. Zundel's claim is an abuse of Canada's refugee system.
The minister acted within hours to save himself from embarrassment in the case of Helen Ann Dougherty but he has had weeks to put a stop to Zundel's abuse of our refugee process.
Why has the minister not removed Zundel from Canada?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can give her some more subjects to talk about. We keep repeating ourselves.
I can say one thing. He is being detained because he is a risk. He has been there for several detention reviews. We believe in the process and we are doing what it takes. It takes time to build a case. We will not let anybody make a mockery of our refugee system. That is the reason we went through cabinet and we are discussing the issue.
The most important thing is that we have a balanced approach with security and at the same time we have to build a case. When we are ready, just watch us.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Aboriginal Affairs
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs has said that he was not afraid of protesters, that he was immune to them. He encouraged them to go back home because he will impose Bill C-7 on them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Today, there is—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is holding up something that is really not appropriate in the House. Yes, I saw it, and I have already spoken to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. It is inappropriate and I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw it and continue with his question.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, today there is a demonstration on Parliament Hill to make the government aware of the aboriginal people's indignation and opposition to Bill C-7 on governance.
Does the minister intend to repeat his cynical and arrogant words or will he instead take advantage of this opportunity to put aside for once and for all Bill C-7, which no one wants, and instead lay the foundation for a true nation-to-nation partnership with the aboriginal people?
[English]
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is a standing offer for all aboriginal leaders and communities to participate in consultations with the Government of Canada. My point is very clear. The option to protest is to consult and be involved in the process with the Government of Canada.
Let me read what has occurred so far under phase one: 135 information sessions have been conducted across nine regions; 335 consultation meetings have been held both on reserve and off reserve; and 8,465 first nations citizens have participated in consultation meetings. That is just the beginning of the first phase.
The second phase, which is going on now, I will read a little later into the record.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we sit here today, DFO offices in Newfoundland and Labrador are being occupied by frustrated people, frustrated fishermen in the province. I am not so sure the government today understands how serious this is and the impact it has on people's lives.
To say that we are going to ask seals to leave exclusion zones is making a joke and making fun of the people. It is not right to do that.
Let me ask the minister a serious question. Will he reconsider his decision--
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. Robert Thibault (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member did not get a chance to pose his question. However I would like to assure him that I fully understand the gravity of the situation.
It is not likely that we would make a decision to close a fishery so important to so many communities, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. That is why we took the additional measures, as mentioned by the all party committee, by the eminent panel on seals and by the FRCC, to reduce predation, to increase the feedstock, to remove dragging from critical areas, to continue the index fishery and do basic research.
* * *
Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday on Cross Country Checkup the former minister of finance told all Canadians that the government policies dealing with people with disabilities were incoherent, inconsistent and confusing. He said that when he is the prime minister he will fix it but that it should be fixed now.
Will the government take the advice of the former minister of finance and fix those programs now, and make them consistent among HRDC, Revenue Canada, Veterans Affairs and Health Canada, instead of the hodgepodge we have now?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government remains committed to working with Canadians with disabilities to ensure that they have full access to the programs of this country as citizens.
I want to applaud the government, in its most recent budget, for making significant changes that recognize, for example, that it is more expensive for parents to raise children with disabilities and providing additional support to them through specific supplements to the national child benefit.
The hon. member can rest assured that the government is working across departments in support of Canadians with disabilities and will continue to do that.
* * *
Regulatory Reform
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the last quarter century Canadians have witnessed an unprecedented growth in red tape, with 100,000 new regulations. That is an average of 16 a day. It is estimated to cost businesses $103 billion, which they then pass on to consumers.
The government is paying lip service to regulatory reform with the external advisory committee on smart regulations but there is scant promise of a serious review of the many thousands of existing out-dated, ill-considered, overlapping regulations.
When will the government start cutting the red tape and allow businesses the freedom to prosper?
(1500)
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the hon. member is not aware of this but the government announced, through its excellent throne speech some months ago, that there would be regulatory reform: the smart regulation initiative. I answered a question on the floor of the House only a few weeks back announcing the chairmanship of that initiative. The other members will be announced very shortly.
The process has already started and of course it is going to work just fine, as it does when the government does all the things that it does so well.
* * *
Presence in Gallery
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Jack David, U.S. co-chair of the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, an organization whose Canadian co-chair is the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I would like to point out the presence in the gallery of a member of the National Assembly of France, Mr. Lenoir, who is on an official visit to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[English]
Points of Order
Oral Question Period
[Points of Order]
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention the word used today by the Minister of Health in response to a question asked by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre.
The minister used the word “fabrication”. In fact she said that what the member said was a fabrication. I would refer you to Beauchesne's at page 149, Citation No. 492 which states:
| The following expressions are a partial listing of expressions which have caused intervention on the part of the Chair, as listed in the Index.... |
One of the words listed, Mr. Speaker, is the word “fabrication”, and I await your direction.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that in Beauchesne's list there are a number of expressions that have been consistently ruled unparliamentary and we know what those are. A number of others have been consistently ruled as being parliamentary. Others have been the subject of the Speaker's interpretation depending on the tone, the way in which they were raised and whether they caused disorder in the House.
That has been consistently the way Mr. Speaker has interpreted these things in the past. I support the way in which Mr. Speaker has interpreted the matter today.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. House leader has made my point. It was the way it was used that should be considered by you. Seeing as it is a word that is in Beauchesne's list, I would ask the hon. minister to do the right and proper thing, and stand and withdraw the word that she used.
The Speaker: The Chair heard the question raised by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the long number of adjectives used by the hon. Minister of Health in detailing her view of the question.
I did not think anything she said transgressed the rule but since the hon. member for St. John's West has drawn the Chair's attention to the citation referred to in Beauchesne's, with which the Chair is quite familiar, and I noted, as the government House leader noted, it was from the section which caused intervention from the Chair, so it is some sort of a word that can swing both ways, if the hon. member knows what I mean.
I will examine the matter very carefully and get back to the House if necessary to deal with the matter further. However it did not strike me at the time that there had been a breach of the Standing Orders. I take things at first impression and away we go, but I will look at it again. I assure the hon. member that I will review the matter.
* * *
(1505)
Bill C-20
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is the second point of order in recent weeks regarding the inaccuracy of Hansard, and once again it concerns the Hansard of April 1.
There is a discrepancy in the recorded Hansard regarding the vote on Bill C-20, an act to amend the Criminal Code. The vote was conducted using the application method of voting. The whip of the Progressive Conservative Party indicated that his party would be voting against the bill. However the Progressive Conservative caucus was recorded as voting for the bill in the actual recorded division that followed.
It is not clear how the Conservatives voted but I would think that this error taints the accuracy of the position of all parties in the House. The accuracy of our records is very important. The public needs to know why and how members voted.
I would ask the Speaker to check into this and make sure that we get accuracy so that people will know how we all voted on this very important issue in the House of Commons.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for his assistance in this matter. As he knows, when votes are applied, particularly on evenings when we have a large number of votes, sometimes things can get confused.
He may have uncovered a confusion here that arose and an error that was made and, if so, the Chair will be diligent in ensuring the matter is corrected because I agree with him completely. We do want our records to be completely accurate in the House. I am glad that the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast shares the Chair's enthusiasm in that regard.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
* * *
[English]
Grain Handling and Transportation System
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report entitled “Monitoring the Canadian Grain Handling and Transportation System Annual Report 2001-02 Crop Year”.
* * *
Government Response to Petitions
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the 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 17 petitions.
* * *
International Transfer of Offenders Act
Hon. Wayne Easter (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
Committees of the House
Industry, Science and Technology
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “Opening Canadian Communications to the World”.
A modern telecommunications infrastructure and a robust telecommunications sector are essential to Canada's economic success in the global networking economy. The committee believes that implementing the four recommendations contained in this report will help to improve investment and innovation in the Canadian telecommunications sector, provide better services to consumers and ensure that the government's telecommunications policy goals are achieved.
I wish to thank the individuals and organizations who took part in our hearings, the research staff of the Library of Parliament, particularly Dr. Lalita Acharya, Geoffrey Kieley and Dan Shaw, and the members for their invaluable contribution during the discussions.
* * *
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)moved: moved for leave to introduce Bill C-433, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (appointment of election officers).
He said: Mr. Speaker, they say that if at first you do not succeed, try, try, try again, so I am trying again with a bill which is supported by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. It would amend the Canada Elections Act to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to appoint returning officers across Canada.
Returning officers at present are appointed by the Prime Minister. At a recent committee hearing the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that about 11 of those are non-performers which he cannot do anything about. He cannot fire them. He cannot get rid of them. We are fed up with a situation like that. By giving the Chief Electoral Officer the power to appoint people to the position of returning officer, we would overcome that terrible patronage association with the Prime Minister.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
(1510)
Petitions
Bill C-250
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a large petition from Saskatchewan. Once again people are asking that the government look at the petition. They are asking Parliament not to pass Bill C-250 and make it law in Canada.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the petitioners on whose behalf I present this petition suggest that non-embryonic stem cells which are also known as adult stem cells have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat illness and disease of suffering Canadians.
* * *
Child Pornography
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today. The first is on the issue of child pornography. The petitioners from my riding of Mississauga South draw to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way that makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
* * *
Marriage
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again from my riding of Mississauga South, is on the subject matter of the definition of marriage.
The petitioners point out that the majority of Canadians believe that the fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by an unelected judiciary. They therefore call upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative means, including invoking section 33 of the charter, being the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
* * *
Stem Cell Research
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the final petition is on the issue of stem cells.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that Canadians support ethical stem cell research which has already shown encouraging potential to provide cures and therapies for the illnesses and diseases of Canadians. Their concern is where the stem cells come from. They note that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to pursue legislative support for adult stem cell research to find those cures and therapies necessary for the illnesses and diseases of Canadians.
* * *
Fisheries
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have four separate petitions. The first one is from the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They call upon Parliament to extend and accept the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' recommendations to take over custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.
* * *
(1515)
Veterans Affairs
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the members of the Four Harbours Legion in my riding point out to the government that they would like the same standard of long term care in provincial hospitals for veterans as the standard of care that is provided in Sainte-Anne's, Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I could not support something like that more than I do now.
* * *
Bill C-206
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the next petition is on behalf of thousands of Canadians across the country who have written in in support of my Bill C-206. They are asking Parliament to support and enact the legislation to allow caregivers an opportunity to leave their place of employment for up to a year to care for someone under a palliative care situation.
* * *
Westray Mine
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in this petition, the people of Halifax and Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia call upon Parliament to enact legislation to ensure that incidents like Westray do not happen again. That is where the mine managers and mine owners got away with what they consider a despicable act as no charges or fines were laid against them with regard to the deaths of 26 miners. The petitioners want to ensure that never happens again and never goes unpunished again.
* * *
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 158, 175, 189 and 210.
[Text]
Question No. 158--Mr. Scott Reid:
With regard to the web application AROSuite,
designed by and for aboriginal groups under the aboriginal human resource
development agreement to manage grants and contributions relating to training
contracts: (a) when will AROSuite be deployed to aboriginal
organizations; and (b) does it have the functional capability to be used
to manage grants and contributions being delivered on behalf of Human Resources
Development Canada by third party partners such as youth and homelessness
agencies?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.):
Under the capacity building component of the aboriginal human resources development strategy and under the information exchange section of the aboriginal human resources development agreements, AHRDAs, Human Resources Development Canada worked with AHRDA holders to develop web-based tools to improve accountability and results reporting of AHRDA holders. The ARO Suite is a package of web-based tools for AHRDA holders to seamlessly perform the following functions: screen clients to determine EI funding eligibility; case manage client files; manage the financial aspects of training and other service contracts; report results to HRDC through the data gateway, complies with Gs and Cs audit requirements.
Presently, the ARO Suite of web applications is being successfully piloted with two AHRDAs: the North Vancouver Island Aboriginal Training Society, remote location, and the Vancouver Friendship Centre, urban location. No decision has yet been made on the deployment to other organizations. Dependent on the results of the pilots, HRDC will then review the feasibility for use by other parties.
Question No. 175--Mr. James Moore:
For the past five years: (a) what is the total
amount of advertising spent by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation CDIC
on an annual basis; (b) what contracts were entered into with
advertisers; (c) what minister is responsible for the CDIC and was there
any correspondence between the minister's office and the CDIC pertaining to the
advertising; and (d) was Communication Canada involved in the decision
to advertise CDIC services, please provide relevant information?
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
I am informed as follows:
For the past five years:
a) The Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has spent the following amounts on advertising by fiscal year:
1998-99 $1.3 million
1999-2000 Nil
2000-01 $2.15 million
2001-02 $2.12 million
2002-03 $2.3 million
b) Contracts were signed with the following advertising agencies: Goodgoll Curtis Inc. and Focus Strategies and Communications Inc.
c) The Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions) is responsible for CDIC. The Minister of Finance has delegated all his powers, duties and functions regarding CDIC to the Secretary of State. Over the last five years, CDIC and the Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions) corresponded with one another on several occasions with respect to CDIC’s public awareness campaign.
d) Although Communication Canada is responsible for coordinating advertising for the Government of Canada, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC is an entity listed on schedule III of the Financial Administration Act. As such, the CDIC does not have any obligation to report its advertising activities to Communication Canada. Consequently, Communication Canada was not involved in CDIC's decision to advertise its services.
Question No. 189--Mr. Leon Benoit:
Concerning the Canadian Forces: (a) how many
operational aircraft has the air force had each year since 1940, broken down by
aircraft type by year; (b) how many operational ships and submarines has
the navy had each year since 1940, broken down by ship type by year; (c)
how many tanks, light armoured vehicles, self-propelled artillery and towed
artillery and other heavy equipment has the Army had each year since 1940,
broken down by equipment type by year; (d) how many regular force
personnel have the Forces had each year since 1940, broken down by army, navy
and air force regular force personnel by year; and (e) how many reserve
force personnel have the forces had each year since 1940, broken down by army,
navy and air force reserve force personnel by year?
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
A detailed list with the requested information is not readily available. Developing such a list would be labour intensive and expensive. It would also involve extensive coordination, and a manual search of existing and archival material. Such an undertaking cannot be completed during the time period allotted to respond to Order Paper questions.
Question No. 210--Mr. Ted White:
With respect to products and services provided by the
private sector in the precinct of the House of Commons during fiscal years
1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, what percentage of those
contracts were awarded to, or in the case of long term contracts, held by
companies or individuals based in the Province of Quebec, and by companies or
individuals based in the Province of Ontario, and what were the nature of those
contracts for products and services?
Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.):
The subject matter of this question falls within the
responsibilities of the Speaker of the House of Commons and not the Government
of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it agreed that the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Request for Emergency Debate
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
[S. O. 52]
The Speaker: The Chair has applications for emergency debates pursuant to Standing Order 52. The first one received was from the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52 I wrote a letter to you dated April 23 requesting an emergency debate on severe acute respiratory syndrome, SARS. In the absence of a response in the House from the government, I believe this debate is critical. I quote from my letter to you, Mr. Speaker:
|
Ignorance and panic are significant enemies in battling this disease. A debate in the House of Commons would allow the government to place facts before the House. |
That is something it has not done.
|
Members of the House of Commons would also have an opportunity to express their views on the measures taken. |
We would be able to review and debate some of those measures taken by the government and put forward some of our own ideas.
This is not just a Canada issue; it does not affect just Canada, or only Toronto or Vancouver. It affects all of Canada and in fact the international world as we know it. Despite our best efforts, we cannot function in isolation from the rest of the world. This disease does not understand international boundaries. It does not respect international boundaries.
It has taken a huge toll in Canada, not only a human toll, but a huge economic toll. We only have to look at the tourism industry and the words of the governor of the Bank of Canada who said that it has had a severe impact on Canada's economy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, our original request back on March 31 was put forward by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. Mr. Speaker, I think you were accurate in your response to that request and in fact, giving you full credit, you invited us, once the facts were out and known by all of us, to reapply for the emergency debate.
We believe the time is right to bring this issue before the House of Commons. There has been a notable absence in the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health. As individual members of Parliament, we have an obligation to bring an issue as important as this one to the floor where it can be debated. I think Canadians support us, the opposition, in that request.
Mr. Speaker, the request is now before you. I look forward to a timely response on your behalf.
The Speaker: The Chair has also received an application on the same subject from the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. He knows it is the practice not to hear two submissions at the same time, but I note that he has forwarded an application. I know of his interest in the subject and for that I thank him.
* * *
Fisheries
The Speaker: The Chair also received an application for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore which he withdrew, but he has filed another for tomorrow.
The hon. member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, however, also filed an application in respect of this matter. Since his has not been withdrawn, he may proceed to tell me about the issue he wanted to raise.
Mr. R. John Efford (Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52 I wrote your office and asked for an emergency debate on the situation of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We consider the announcement the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made last Thursday to be unnecessary. Many other options could have been put in place to deal with the serious situation of the fishery.
In 1992 people in the fishing industry were decimated in the province. It is 11 years later and communities now have been kicked again. The people involved in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador are saying very clearly that DFO does not understand the situation with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and it is not working with the people in the industry to create a major rebuilding plan.
We need this debate in the House of Commons to get across to and implant in the minds of the people in DFO and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who inherited this problem, an appropriate way to deal with a very serious situation. The biomass of northern cod today is less than it was in 1992. The outmigration of people from Newfoundland and Labrador has continued at a rapid rate and is unnecessary.
This is a renewable resource. It is part of the world food chain. It does not benefit just the people living in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador; it is part of the world food chain. It is the responsibility of the Canadian government to manage this resource appropriately. We want the opportunity to debate this in the House of Commons to send a clear message and work in partnership with DFO and the minister to create an appropriate rebuilding plan.
* * *
(1520)
Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
The Speaker: I note also that the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is interested in this matter, as has been indicated previously. Again, I know he knows that I do not normally hear two submissions on each of these matters.
I want to thank hon. members for drawing to the attention of the Chair their concerns on these important issues.
Having considered the matter carefully this morning and having heard their submissions this afternoon, I am inclined to grant an emergency debate in respect of the request of the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, to be held this evening. In respect of the hon. member for Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, I will grant the request, the debate to be held tomorrow evening. We will have two emergency debates in the next two days.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Government Orders]
* * *
[English]
Criminal Code
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore.
This debate today is about Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts. Bill C-32 is an omnibus bill that changes the Criminal Code in a variety of ways. I want to start out by saying that I wish, by way of talking about amendments to the Criminal Code, that we had before us those amendments to the Criminal Code for which we have been lobbying for such a long time. It would have been great if today, on April 28, the national day of mourning for workers killed or injured on the job, we could have begun a debate on amendments to the Criminal Code which would have incorporated some kind of criminal penalties for corporations that behave in ways that lead to the death or injury of workers. Of course I am speaking of the cry for such legislation that came out of the tragedy of the Westray mine disaster over a decade ago.
Let me begin with that. I know the government has indicated in the past that it intends to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Code along the lines of what came out of the Westray mine disaster inquiry, but we are not sure exactly what it is the government has in mind. We understand that this kind of legislation might be coming forward in May. May is not long off. I would certainly urge and I am sure my other NDP colleagues would urge the government to bring in that legislation in May. Let us have a look at it. Let us see if it is good enough, and if it is not, let us get it into committee and make sure that it is good enough by the time it comes back to the House at third reading.
In the legislation that we actually have before us, Bill C-32, we do have amendments to the Criminal Code that are relevant to the question of protecting workers. For instance, Bill C-32 contains amendments to the Criminal Code having to do with more legislated protection for on duty firefighters and first responders from criminal acts.
Bill C-32 institutes harsher penalties for Canadians who protect criminal businesses such as drug labs or grow operations with traps that would likely kill or injure a person. The proposed maximum sentence of 10 years in prison increases to 14 years if injury occurs and to a life sentence when a trap kills someone. This change was strongly supported by the International Association of Fire Fighters, the IAFF, which has lobbied the government for a number of years now to have just this kind of amendment made to the Criminal Code.
Certainly we in the NDP support the government in bringing forward this amendment. We know, for instance, that in the recent budget there was one other change for which the firefighters had lobbied for a long time, one having to do with the changes in pension accrual. It would seem to me that we at least have something to celebrate in terms of the things for which the firefighters have been asking for a long time.
I remember rising in the House a year ago this week when the firefighters were here and saying that if we are all for it, if the firefighters come here year after year to lobby individual members of Parliament and nobody is against it, why does it not ever happen? I remember saying that to the then minister of finance, now the aspiring Liberal leadership candidate and prime minister. At the time, members on this side of the House and perhaps even members on that side of the House in chorus agreed with me. If all members of Parliament think something is right, then it should happen. It took a long time, but at least it finally happened. We hope the other things for which the firefighters are lobbying this time around will happen at some point. I hope it will not be too far into the future. That is what we have before us here in these amendments to the Criminal Code: more legislated protection for on duty firefighters and first responders from criminal acts such as the setting of booby traps. We certainly support that.
Bill C-32 clarifies Canadian law, which generally recognizes that anyone may use reasonable force to prevent a serious crime. The amendment brings Canada's laws in line with international law by recognizing that everyone on board an aircraft is explicitly authorized to use force to prevent a criminal act that endangers the safety of the aircraft or other passengers. Again this sounds like something that is certainly supportable.
(1525)
The bill would also modify section 117.04 of the Criminal Code to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will not go into the details of how this section of the code is made charter compliant, but certainly anything which will make our laws more compliant with Canada's basic law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is something to be welcomed. There may be some discussion of that in committee, I do not know, but certainly in principle we support that.
Bill C-32 would amend the Criminal Code to allow the civil enforcement of all restitution orders, thus making it easier for people to collect restitution, money that was to be paid to them following an offender's conviction. Currently these orders can be enforced only by civil court action if the order is separate from the sentencing order. This is something that has deserved attention in the past and we certainly welcome the attempt by the government to deal with this particular problem. We would welcome more exploration at committee stage to see if more can be done to make it easier for people to obtain restitution.
Bill C-32 also adds a new clause to section 160 of the Financial Administration Act to create exceptions to the offences of intercepting a private communication and of disclosing its content. This, as I understand it, is to allow information technology managers in government and the private sector to use intrusion detection systems, otherwise known as IDS, to screen suspicious electronic communications and to detect attacks on computer systems by hackers, viruses, worms, et cetera. To address privacy protection concerns, we are told, the government will impose limits on the use and retention of private communications harvested through IDS. Treasury Board will issue standards to ensue that the application of IDS technology across all government departments is consistent and complies with the Privacy Act and the charter. This is good to hear, but I think one of the things we will want to hear more about in committee is this whole question of privacy. I would personally recommend that the privacy commissioner, if he has not already done so, certainly should be taking a look at the bill and giving us his best judgment as to whether or not this is an acceptable intrusion on the privacy of Canadians.
All in all, let us get the bill to committee and let us see if we can improve it in some respects. As I have said, we welcome the changes, particularly with respect to protection of firefighters and other first responders and the section having to do with the strengthening of restitution orders.
(1530)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Winnipeg. It is April 28 and we have been waiting 12 years for legislation like the Westray legislation. Twenty-eight miners were killed in the Westray mine disaster and still to this date we have no effective legislation in this country to prevent something of that nature from happening again. If possible, could the member elaborate as to what Bill C-32 would mean to workers and their families if this type of legislation were enacted?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, of course what are we looking for in the way of legislation is something that would create a criminal offence for corporations and act as a deterrent. We hope that such a law would never have to be used, because if it did it would mean workers already had been killed or injured on the job. It would be basically a form of deterrence.
Right now, knowing what we know as a result of the Westray mine disaster, there is an opportunity there for negligent corporate ownership to act in ways that they know would lead to the death or injury of their employees, and they need not have any fear of the criminal law in that respect as a corporation. What we want to see is legislation that would deal with this.
The hon. member for Halifax has brought forward private member's legislation in this regard, as has the hon. member for Churchill. Twice this subject matter has gone to committee, and twice committees have recommended that the government act. After two committees, two sets of recommendations, and two private member's bills that have gone to committee in order to get the kinds of recommendations that have come forward, surely if there is a shred of integrity or accountability in the parliamentary system the government must now act and bring forward such legislation.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona has taken the opportunity, appropriately on April 28, to focus in on an aspect of the Criminal Code of Canada that needs to be changed. Regrettably, the government has chosen not to deal with it in the changes that are now before the House and in debate.
I also appreciate that he stressed, because it is very important, that the point of introducing criminal liability for corporations which knowingly endanger the health and safety, and lives of their employees, is to act as a preventive measure and deterrent. This is an important point to stress. The member is aware that it was widows of the deceased Westray miners who said to not let their children have lost their fathers' lives in vain by ensuring these changes to the Criminal Code.
Given that there have been several private members' bills and given that the justice committee has twice recommended that the House move on this, what is it that is causing the government to delay, 12 years after the Westray mine disaster?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what it is that is causing the government to delay except that we know that this is characteristic of the Liberal government when it comes to important matters.
However, I can say to the hon. member, and I know it is true of her and others in our caucus, that we will not be deterred. We will continue pushing and working with the United Steelworkers of America and other unions that are concerned about such legislation until the day finally comes when we get that legislation.
Last summer I made a point to visit the Westray memorial in Stellarton, Nova Scotia, and the little park that surrounds the memorial. I can certainly give my own personal commitment, and I know the commitment of the NDP in general, that we will not rest until those who are resting at the bottom of that mine have the appropriate legacy, which is the introduction and passage of appropriate criminal liability legislation.
(1535)
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we would assume that when a tragedy of this nature occurs, as happened at Westray 12 years ago, that we as parliamentarians and the government would use the tragedy to bring some good from it.
The people in Nova Scotia, the United Steelworkers of America, the mothers, wives, children, parents and friends of the miners have been asking that the miners' deaths not be in vain.
The best thing we can do to honour those fallen is to ensure that there is enough effective legislation in place to ensure that corporations, businesses or anyone of that nature not get away with this again. If we did that then we could have some movement in the country.
There is another thing the government should be doing in this particular legislation. When somebody dies on a corporation's property or when the corporation commits an environmental offence of some kind and it is fined, the fine could be $5,000, $20,000 or $100,000, the reality is that the corporations are allowed to write the fines off as a business expense. That is unacceptable.
We have fines in legislation to act as a deterrence. That deterrence should not be allowed to be a tax deduction. Imagine how we would feel if one of our children was working in a hardware store and died because of negligence of the management of the hardware store, then we found out the store was fined, paid a $100,000 fine, and was eligible to write the fine off as a business expense. That is unacceptable and it needs to be changed.
Another aspect the government should be focusing on in the omnibus bill, which we in the NDP are very supportive of and would like to see get to committee, is the issue of child pornography. The government still does not get it when it comes to child pornography and the need to protect the most vulnerable citizens in our society, our children.
Just recently in Halifax, a pedophile, who is known by the medical profession to probably repeat again, received house arrest after being convicted for sexually touching a 12 year old. This has caused quite a controversy in our area of Nova Scotia. The people are asking how a pedophile, who the medical profession and psychiatrists have said poses a risk to society, would be given house arrest? What kind of deterrent is that?
The pedophile basically gave the 12 year old child a life sentence in terms of scaring that child for life and the deterrent by the judge was that the individual would get house arrest. That is unacceptable and the law should be changed where there is no discretionary consideration used by a judge at any level when a person molests a child in any way, shape or form, and that the person would go to jail, period. No ifs, ands or buts.
That is the type of legislation that should be within this bill. As the father of two girls, one of them being 12 years old, if a pedophile ever did that to my child the last thing I would want to see is that individual getting house arrest. That individual should get help but receive help while in prison serving time.
Another aspect of the bill deals with protection of first responders: police officers and firefighters. That is a very good aspect of the bill that we support wholeheartedly. When the call goes out at any time of day, firefighters, police officers and first responders are the first on the scene and in many cases they use their experience to assess the situation, but behind any door, behind any shed, and behind any area lies potential danger that could do fatal harm to these brave people who protect our society.
The legislation should be tough enough to act as a serious deterrent that would tell anyone that if he or she were about to do harm to unsuspecting first responders, that person would pay the price and it would be a severe price.
(1540)
Anyone who takes advantage in any way, shape or form of the great actions of a firefighter, a police officer or a first responder deserves to go to jail for an incredibly long period of time.
That message should get out and justice should be swift. It is irresponsible of us as parliamentarians to dither on this particular issue. It is extremely important that this type of legislation go before committee so that we can have a thorough coast to coast to coast debate.
We should not just have a debate with academics. It is time to invite the people of Canada into committee through representation to allow them to voice their concerns. There is no reason why the firefighter associations, those who are paid and those who are volunteers, should not have the opportunity to appear before the committee in the city of their choice. The committee should travel across the country to hear the views of Canadians on what they want in terms of tightening up this legislation.
As one who has travelled on various committees for over five years, I find those types of hearings extremely beneficial. It helps me understand the very nature of what people are saying. The concerns may be a little different in Nova Scotia than they are in British Columbia, from Alberta to Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador to Yukon, but it is imperative and important that we as parliamentarians hear the views of Canadians and enact those views into legislation.
We cannot just say to people “Thank you very much. The copy was great. We loved to hear you, nice to see you, great weather, and where is the golf course?” That is unacceptable. Canadians have told us time and time again that nothing ever seems to happen. We must take their views into account.
We represent the people of Canada from various parties, from various backgrounds, and from various ridings across the country, but one thing on which Canadians are unanimous is ensuring that there are laws in place that are strong enough to act as a serious deterrent to ensure that other people will not commit these violent crimes against Canadians, especially when those crimes go against unsuspecting workers, unsuspecting first responders like firefighters, police officers and ambulatory staff, as well as young children.
If we as parliamentarians cannot enact legislation to protect our children, then we have no right to be sitting here. Even though that vast voice of Canadians under 18 do not get to vote, it is imperative that we enact legislation quickly and make it strong enough to ensure that those who have no voice or no vote in the House of Commons be protected from the sins and evils of pedophilia.
With that, I would like to thank the Chair for the opportunity of an emergency debate tomorrow on the fisheries situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to say that the federal NDP will be supporting this bill to committee for further discussion with Canadians from across the country.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore a question arising from his earlier comments regarding the changes to the Criminal Code that are before the House. Those comments concerned specifically the national day of mourning of April 28. It is a sad irony--I am going to say tragedy--that the government has not seen fit to include the recommended changes to the Criminal Code amendments for consideration by Parliament that would finally establish some liability for corporations and senior executive officers who knowingly put the health, safety and lives of their employees at risk.
The member for Winnipeg--Transcona who spoke before him cited and acknowledged, in fact applauded, the United Steelworkers of America and the trade union movement for their leadership in this ongoing campaign, one that will continue until we gain these concessions from the government. However, it is also true that a great many workers in this country, who do not now enjoy the protection of a union, would benefit from such changes. One example which comes to mind is a 19 year old Ontario youth in the prime of life who was clearing brush for Ontario Hydro a couple of years ago when he was electrocuted. He became a triple amputee and is now an articulate spokesman for the need for change in the Criminal Code along the lines of what has been recommended by the NDP and by the labour movement.
I wonder if the member could elaborate a little on why this legislation is so important for all workers, but particularly workers who do not now enjoy the benefit of any trade union protection which has implications for health and safety enforcement in the workplace.
(1545)
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, absolutely a large part of the Canadian workforce does not have the protection of a union. Its protection comes from municipal, provincial and federal statutes and laws.
It is so very important for the government, after 12 years of dithering and if it does anything today when it sees our flags at half-mast, to announce in the House or in committee that it will now bring forward legislation which enacts exactly for what we have been asking.
Organizations such as the steelworkers, the Canadian Labour Congress and many others have been asking for very strict deterrent legislation to ensure that when corporations knowingly put the lives of workers at risk or endanger them to impairment of physical or mental concerns that they themselves will be held liable for the actions that they have caused.
I thank the member for Halifax who has raised this issue continuously as a provincial member of the legislature as well as a federal member of Parliament.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
The proposed bill, as we are all very much aware, will establish a more serious offence for placing or knowingly permitting to remain in place, a trap or device that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person. It also will permit the use of as much force as necessary on board an aircraft to prevent the commission of an offence that would seriously harm people on board. It also makes a number of other amendments to the Criminal Code.
I am pleased to deliver these remarks on behalf of my colleagues, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who is the critic in this area. He could not be here today because he is away on Her Majesty's business.
I would like to welcome the International Association of Fire Fighters in Ottawa this week for its annual legislative conference. In Canada it is over 17,000 members strong. We cannot say enough about the work the members do. Those on the frontlines need the support of government, and positive changes to the Criminal Code can send a very strong message to those who would willingly or unwittingly endanger the lives of these brave men and women.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that good ideas and strong legislation that can act as a deterrent in crimes of this nature are long overdue. I am reminded of a private member's bill introduced last October by the member for Nepean—Carleton. His bill seeks to give greater protection to firefighters by creating two new offences of aggravated assault and first degree murder, when the victim is a firefighter acting in the course of his or her duties. That fits quite nicely with what the current Minister of Justice is trying to achieve with the bill.
On a daily basis Canadian firefighters put their lives at risk to save ours. It becomes important that we recognize the sacrifices they are willing to make on our behalf.
As with all legislation, nothing is perfect. A closer examination of the intricacies of the bill will need to be conducted of course at committee stage. However the bill is a great first step and a much needed piece of legislation.
The main portion of the bill amends the Criminal Code by creating a new offence targeting those who would set traps in a place used for a criminal purpose. Currently the offence of setting a trap in any place, which is under section 247 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. The new offence raises the bar by providing for significantly lower stringent penalties. As subsection 247(2) states:
|
Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other persons is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. |
If someone should commit an offence under section 247 that causes injury, the penalty increases to a maximum of 14 years. If that offence causes death, the offender can receive a sentence of life imprisonment.
This legislation of course is aimed directly at illegal drug operations which pose a myriad of dangers to firefighters. Many of these illegal drug operations are rigged with hidden devices such as crossbows and explosives designed to kill or maim anyone who interferes with the operation. Other dangers include illegal electrical wiring, which poses the additional risk of fire, electrified door knobs and cutaway floor boards.
(1550)
It should also be recognized that all too often these illegal residential grow operations put at risk the lives of those in the community when the fire spreads from one house to another. Innocent families can lose their homes, their valuables or even their lives when criminals rig the wiring in their homes. Anything we can do as lawmakers to put a stop to this criminal behaviour is a step in the right direction.
These types of incidents are not new to those on the frontline. They have occurred in the past. For example, there are multiple cases of Canadian firefighters who have been injured and nearly killed while responding to illegal drug operations. A British Columbia firefighter, for instance, received a very severe electric shock when responding to a blaze. In Brampton, Ontario a firefighter's life was at risk when he fell through floorboards that had been previously cut away.
The International Association of Fire Fighters has pushed for legislation of this sort and is encouraged to see the government finally recognizing the contribution that members of the IAFF play in the daily lives of Canadians.
It is important that we recognize the dangers Canada's firefighters face as a result of illegal drug operations. As I noted earlier, the legislation will amend the Criminal Code by adding provisions to the existing section of the Criminal Code that deals with setting a trap. The legislation also adds provisions for setting a trap used in a place kept for criminal purposes that is likely to cause bodily harm, with a maximum 10 year prison sentence.
If a trap used in a criminal enterprise such as a drug operation causes bodily harm, the legislation calls for a 14 year maximum sentence and life imprisonment if a trap causes death.
Frontline firefighters have to be protected from this growing danger. The nature of these criminal activities creates a risk of fire, with volatile chemicals used in drug labs and electric power stolen through unsafe means. If firefighters and police officers are put at risk, or injured or killed by traps set to defend these criminal enterprises from law enforcement or rival gangs, those who set the traps have to feel the full weight of the law.
In another case earlier this year, Oshawa firefighters had to back away from a residential fire when they discovered that it was an illegal drug lab, loaded with dangerous chemicals. Of course the home was allowed to burn.
While the problem has been most serious in British Columbia and in Ontario as well, illegal drug operations are found in all parts of Canada. They pose a growing threat to firefighters in every province.
We should also be cognizant of the fact that a large portion of firefighters in Canada are volunteer firefighters. They give up their spare time. They give up their evenings and weekends to volunteer in their communities to take courses which will ultimately help them protect our property and our lives.
Amendments to the Criminal Code of this sort are long overdue. I would encourage the government to take a closer look at initiatives brought forth recently by the International Association of Fire Fighters.
For instance, a $500,000 annual investment, a fraction of the cost the government wastes on a daily basis, would give firefighters access to hazardous material training. Currently military reaction is hours if not days away. Firefighters are on the scene in minutes. Training is necessary for their protection and for our protection as well.
(1555)
Liberal cuts to ports policing, the Coast Guard and the military have put at risk the safety and security of Canadians. The real threat of bio-terrorism, delays in response time and the inability to board planes could cost lives. On these and other important issues the government is only paying lip service. What firefighters need to do their jobs is action and resources. The lives of our firefighters and those who they so selflessly serve and protect deserve no less than our complete protection when the opportunity occurs.
The government also needs to listen to the IAFF when it talks of support in the area of pensions and compensation for those who have been injured in the line of duty.
In his address to the House today, the minister said that he was happy to see that his government was finally addressing the important issue in regard to setting deadly traps. He told us that the number of deaths and injuries sustained by firefighters continues to rise in Canada and that it was a true tragedy when these events occurred.
Using statistics, he noted that there were 13,724 arson fires in Canada last year and that 30% of the fires in his own riding were a result of arson. He acknowledged that firefighting was four times as dangerous as any other occupation and that it was a job that commanded the highest public trust and respect, more than any other professional in the country. Firefighters are people who people trust.
A poll released by the Canadian Press and Leger Marketing in February of this year showed that 96% of Canadians trusted firefighters, the highest level of trust among 20 occupations included in the survey. That says quite a lot.
It is time that the minister and the government truly recognized the sacrifice made by those on the front lines and recognized it in a very substantial way. Firefighters, professionals and volunteers need the support of the federal government in the areas of pensions and compensation for spouses and children. The government should act today and begin the process of establishing a national public safety officer compensation fund in Canada.
The government's argument that the majority of firefighters are municipal employees and therefore not the responsibility of the federal government is hollow and I do not believe sits very well with Canadians.
As the IAFF has stated on a number of occasions, the Canadian government continues to avoid addressing the need for the establishment of a national compensation fund. The families of the nation's firefighters stand to endure financial hardship in addition to the grief of losing a loved one. It is time for the federal government to stop using jurisdictional arguments and implement the national public safety officer compensation fund to benefit the families of Canadian firefighters killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make these few remarks today on Bill C-32. Again I welcome the International Association of Fire Fighters to Ottawa this week for its annual legislative conference. The association is 17,000 members strong in Canada. We cannot say enough good things about the work it does.
(1600)
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
|
That when the House begins proceedings under the provisions of Standing Order 52 later this day, no quorum calls nor dilatory motions shall be entertained by the Speaker after 9 p.m. |
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is there unanimous consent to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this particular bill, Bill C-32. At the outset I want to say that the opposition intends to support the legislation. There might be changes suggested when the legislation goes to committee for study and we will rely upon our justice committee critics to search out weaknesses and recommend changes before final approval.
One proposal here is, I believe, an amendment to the Criminal Code for which all Canadians would approve. The proposal would make it a criminal offence to set a deadly trap that could kill or seriously injure another person such as a firefighter or law enforcement officer. This would protect first responders, as they are often called, meaning firefighters or police officers, and is a response to calls from the International Association of Fire Fighters. These brave men and women have enough on their hands when they are doing their jobs without having to worry whether some criminal has planted booby traps that might endanger their lives.
One only has to monitor the news to know that manufacturers and dealers of illegal drugs often plant traps to deter other criminals from raiding their illicit goods.
We have heard rumours in my home province of British Columbia and from bordering American states of booby traps being set along trails that lead to high mountain marijuana crops. Stories have been told of fish hooks being suspended at eye level along trails to deter raiders. Whether these stories are true or are rumours started by those who cultivate such crops as a deterrent is not certain but the fact is that we know from news reports that those who deal in these illegal cash crops will do anything to protect their profits.
The same is true where illegal chemicals are manufactured. We hear and read in the news of the enormous profits to be reaped by those who manufacture amphetamines. It would not be a stretch to presume booby traps are set in these buildings to deter raiders as well.
Our brave firefighters and police officers deserve at least the comfort of knowing that this Parliament will single out and punish those who would set such traps.
The maximum sentence, generally, has been 10 years depending upon the outcome. If injury occurs, whether it is to criminals, firefighters or police officers, the sentence can be increased to 14 years. If death occurs, the penalty maximum would be life.
I would digress slightly here and say that under the Liberal government, a life sentence does not mean very much. It certainly does not mean life. More often than not, a life sentence means living the good life in some comfy prison where all the comforts of home are available to the inmates and that includes the right to vote in general elections.
What Canadians want is for life to mean life. If a life sentence for murder is handed down, Canadians want to know that prisoner will not be out on the streets again, but that is not the Liberal way. The Liberal way is to sentence them to life and then let them out in 10 or 12 years, maybe more, maybe less.
We salute the International Association of Fire Fighters and the law enforcement people and, through this legislation, recognize the dangers they face daily. We are forever grateful to them for the jobs they do for all Canadians. We hope the legislation will serve to deter those criminals who would put the lives and safety of good people in jeopardy.
Another amendment we are considering here today will address a problem raised in R. v. Hurrell where the court found weaknesses in the warrant provisions of the Criminal Code pertaining to firearms search and seizure. The court ruled those provisions were unconstitutional because the warrant application section did not include enough protection of individual rights. The court said that it was not clear that a peace officer had to have reasonable grounds to make an application for the warrant. The court generously gave Parliament time to react and address its decision, and the legislation before us is the result.
The bill would amend the Criminal Code to require that an officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is in possession of a weapon and that it is not in the interests of that person to possess that weapon. Only after the officer is convinced personally and in turn convinces the court, will a warrant be issued. This appears to be a reasonable response to the court's earlier ruling. It seems to safeguard individual rights and satisfy the constitutional concerns of the court in the R. v. Hurrell case.
(1605)
The meatiest part of the legislation before us is an amendment to the Criminal Code to explicitly recognize that everyone on board any aircraft in Canadian airspace is justified in using reasonable force where he or she believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime aboard the aircraft. In essence, it allows civilian use of force to save lives. This essentially is the right of self-defence. It is what those brave souls did on September 11 when their aircraft was hijacked. They attempted to save lives by trying to overpower the hijackers. In some cases they were very successful, and all of us are grateful for the sacrifices they made.
The legislation also clarifies that this justification also applies on board any Canadian registered aircraft in flight outside Canadian airspace. That means any brave soul who attempts to thwart a hijacking or any crime aboard any Canadian airplane will have the protection of the courts no matter what the outcome.
Canadians would probably feel a lot more confident and comfortable if they knew that armed and trained air marshals were aboard select flights, but that is a debate for another day. Members should rest assured that it will come up again. At least this recognizes that innocent civilian passengers have a right to defend themselves and to use whatever force they deem necessary to do so.
The bill also contains amendments that could be very controversial due to perceived infringements on individual privacy. Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Financial Administration Act would allow both the government and the private sector to disclose the contents of private communications intercepted by intrusion detection systems in certain circumstances.
The Criminal Code amendments would allow for the disclosure of intercepted private communications if the disclosure were necessary for the protection of a computer system and if the disclosure were made appropriately. This will require further study and I trust our very knowledgeable members on the justice committee will give it the due diligence it deserves.
We know the Criminal Code already provides for several exceptions where private communications can be intercepted and disclosed. We do have to protect our computer systems because we know the economic devastation hackers, for instance, can cause. The protection of computer systems is an important objective for both government and industry, so incidental disclosure of private communications for this purpose may be tolerable. We in the opposition will rely on our members who serve on the justice committee to ponder the ramifications and to propose amendments if necessary.
The provisions of the bill relating to setting traps, use of force on an airplane and civil enforcement of restitution orders are all worthy of our support. We will accept the amendment regarding warrants for firearms searches as nothing more than a response to a court decision. That is in fact what put this in place. We believe an intended consequence of this will be to offer more protection to firearms owners from unreasonable search under this section. Perhaps when the Liberals discover that it might offer firearms owners more protection than it has in the past, they themselves will move to make an amendment. I hope that does not happen. We know how much contempt Liberals have for innocent and law-abiding firearms owners. It has been displayed over and over for years under the registry.
The safety and security of Canadians and their property is the stated objective of the Canadian Alliance criminal justice policy. The bill is largely in keeping with our philosophy. The Canadian Alliance policy number 29 states:
|
--We recognize the rights of victims of crime and will introduce programs of financial restitution from the offender to the victim as a component of sentencing and parole. |
Therefore the Official Opposition is prepared to support the legislation knowing that it will be subject to further study and scrutiny.
In my closing remarks I would like to mention that if the House had adopted the motion that was put forward by my own colleague from Surrey a year ago, we might already have seen this put in place and we might have seen it working today. Whether or not that happened was in the hands of the House and it was voted down. We do have something in place now and we will work with it. That was a good start. We will begin again.
(1610)
We have only had a brief time to look at the piece of legislation that is before us. If further study and scrutiny reveal weaknesses not evident to us now, we will return with our own amendments some time in the future. In the meantime, I am pleased to support this proposed legislation.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 appears to have broad support in the House. I appreciated the remarks from the members opposite. It is encouraging to see that when good legislation comes before the House we all come together and support it. I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak to the bill for the good reason that it is an excellent example of how Parliament does work very well.
Exactly a year ago a delegation of the Hamilton Professional Firefighters Association came to my office. It was a year plus one week; I think it was April 23, 2002. They came to make a representation on behalf of all firemen that the Criminal Code should be amended whereby people who set dangerous or deadly traps in order to harm firefighters responding to alarms would be subject to the maximum penalty that the law allows, life imprisonment, if that trap actually killed a firefighter.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the proposed amendment that the professional firefighters brought before me in my office a year ago. They hoped to amend section 433.1 of the Criminal Code. That amendment would have read:
|
Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property, whether or not that person owns that property, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life where the fire or explosion causes death or bodily harm to a firefighter who is acting in response to the fire or explosion. |
The object of that amendment was to complement another amendment that they also proposed to the Criminal Code which read that every one who commits an aggravated assault, who wounds, mains, disfigures or endangers the life of a firefighter acting in the course of his duties would be subject to these offences under the Criminal Code.
What that basically refers to, Mr. Speaker, is the idea of setting a trap for firefighters responding to an alarm which might emanate from a premise that is engaged in some sort of illegal activity, presumably drugs or something similar. We have heard from earlier speakers that actual incidents occurred where sites where illicit drugs were being manufactured were deliberately booby trapped so that firefighters who responded to an alarm would be harmed or even killed.
What delights me as a member of Parliament is the fact that this was an initiative to change a law that came from the people, in this case the people were the association of firefighters, responding to a similar situation that was occurring in the United States.
I am happy to stand in the House and draw to the attention of the public that the government did indeed act. Again, as members have commented, what the government has done by Bill C-32 is it has amended section 247 of the Criminal Code and specifically defines the crime of setting a trap for the purpose to injure a firefighter.
What happens here, Mr. Speaker, is that if a person sets the trap, just the very fact that he has set a trap or knows that a trap has been set means that is an offence right at the outset and is liable to a term not exceeding five years. It further goes on that if this is done in a place where there is illegal activity, the term of imprisonment is 10 years. Better than all of that, and which reflects what the firefighters were after, is that everyone who commits an offence under section 1, that is setting a trap, and I am now reading from Bill C-32 “and thereby causes the death of any other person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life”.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that is a very good legislative initiative. It is important to remind Canadians that this is Parliament--I will not just say government--this is Parliament acting as a result of representations by Canadians going not just to government MPs, but to Canadian Alliance MPs, to Bloc MPs and to Conservative and NDP MPs.
(1615)
I well remember when I first came to Parliament nearly 10 years ago that it was quite uncommon for citizen groups to make representations to MPs in their offices, to lobby the MPs. The normal practice was to lobby government officials. In the 1980s under a previous government here in Ottawa, lobbying flourished and that lobbying was primarily directed toward bureaucrats.
I think if one change that has occurred here that has been a very positive change in the last 10 years it is the fact that more and more Canadians are recognizing that the appropriate people to lobby for changes in law, to lobby first, to get onside, is not even the government, is not even the ministers, it is come to the MPs first.
This was a classic example. The association of professional firefighters divided the job across the country. My group came from close to my riding and they were people who were already known to me and made these representations. And there we have it, exactly one year later the law has changed, and the law has changed in a way that I think actually improves the original proposal of the firefighters. I wanted very much to make that comment.
I wanted to comment also on another change that I do not think has been mentioned so far in this debate. That is the change to the Canada Evidence Act. In this change there are three paragraphs in the Canada Evidence Act that refer to information received from a foreign entity that pertains to the Security of Information Act, and then it goes on to make the connection to national defence or--and this is the change--it inserts the words “national security” where only the word “security” existed. Then it goes on to discuss the whole process of getting a certificate pertaining to this secret information.
The reason I wanted to mention that is that is a change that reflects an error or an oversight that was in our anti-terrorism legislation that was brought forward and passed in the House I believe about a year ago. That was Bill C-36. It was Canada's response to September 11, in which various very necessary changes were made pertaining to the protection of secrets, pertaining to the collection of information. This touched on the whole business of terrorist financing and so on and so forth.
When Bill C-36 was introduced, it caused, I thought, a lot of very healthy debate in the House because similar legislation to Bill C-36 was coming forward in Britain and the United States, the homeland security bill specifically in the United States. This was all to strengthen the ability of the police and the security services to deal with the terrorist threat.
The problem was that in bringing in laws that increase security, that increase police powers, there is always the danger that they will interfere unnecessarily with civil liberties. We had extremely active debate in the House on all sides in which MPs tried to balance the needs for increased police powers with not intruding any more than was necessary on civil liberties. I would like to say actually that I believe that Canada's legislation in Bill C-36 struck this balance better than occurred in the United Kingdom or the United States where I think that there were serious erosions of civil liberties in their parallel legislation.
The reason I am telling this story is that when Bill C-36 was in first reading and was dealing with changes to the official secrets act, which was changed to the Security of Information Act, there was a clause in which it defined potentially injurious information.
(1620)
This particular definition is an important definition that affected all other aspects of the bill, or almost all other aspects. In defining potentially injurious information, the original Bill C-36 said:
“Potentially injurious information” means information of a type that, if it were disclosed to the public, could injure international relations national defence or security.
What was wrong with that clause and why it was so necessary to change it was that the definition of potentially injurious information which affected all kinds of information that was to be collected and distributed by the police services, simply said “national defence or security”. By not having the adjective “national” security and simply using the word “security”, it opened the door in this legislation to expanding police powers that would touch all manner of policing events or all manner of criminal or even quasi-criminal or non-criminal investigations. Security was far too broad a word and it was a dangerous word.
This is another example, I want Canadians to know, of this place working I think extremely well. Some of us behind the curtains actually, approached the minister of the day and pointed out the danger of this clause referring only to security and not to national security. I am happy to say that subsequently when the bill came to report stage, the government amended that particular clause and put in the words “national security”.
I cannot emphasize how enormously important that apparently small change was because it limited the expansion of powers to terrorist acts, to acts that affected the entire country, not to acts that may affect narrow police interests or narrow security interests. I thought that was a very fine reaction to the government and Parliament working at its best.
The reason why I am referring to this in Bill C-32 is I do not think people would otherwise have noticed that the government is continuing to make sure that the police powers do not go too far and that there are proper limitations on police powers, because in making that change to Bill C-36 the government would have appeared to have overlooked the fact that the Canada Evidence Act has a similar problem where the word “security” was used without the adjective “national”.
Therefore, one of the changes in this legislation is to make these changes to the Security of Information Act. This is our official secrets act. It is a very important act because we cannot have the government keeping secrets for any security reason. We cannot give the government huge powers to clamp the lid on things for any security reasons, as they have done in other jurisdictions. We are not a police state. We are a democracy and it is very important to define that it is national security, not all security. There we have it. That is the change that is in Bill C-36. Quite frankly, it is an excellent bill in other aspects, but that change alone I think is simply excellent.
If I have a little more time, I would also like to comment on another aspect of this change that I think may be otherwise overlooked in the bill. My involvement in this particular debate is that I am very interested in issues of secrecy and police powers. I think it is important to note that this bill also corrects another problem that existed in Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, in making a change to the Security of Information Act, again the original official secrets act. This change is a classic example. The drafters have to be very careful in legislation because just a simple past tense or present tense error can lead to a serious problem.
(1625)
I draw everyone's attention in Bill C-32 to a change in section 21 which changes a single paragraph of the Security of Information Act. It basically says that there should be security of information on the identity of persons or bodies that have been approached to be confidential sources of information to the intelligence services of Canada. In other words, spies and human resource personnel for the gathering of intelligence.
In the original Bill C-36, they forgot to include those that may have acted in this capacity for Canada in the past. What we have here is a change to change the present tense to the past tense so that those who have given sensitive intelligence, police intelligence, or anti-terrorism intelligence to Canada in the past could continue to enjoy the protection of the Security of Information Act.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows today is April 28, the national day of mourning. What many labour groups, along with the United Steelworkers of America and the families of the Westray victims of 12 years ago, have been asking for is legislation to be brought forth so that corporations, directors and front line managers of these corporations, who wilfully and knowingly put the lives of employees at risk will be charged, fined and punished appropriately.
We have had two private members' bills in those 12 years. We have had it brought to committee which recommended that this type of legislation be put forward. Here we are 12 years later talking about justice legislation and this particular aspect is not in the legislation.
I would like the hon. member to elaborate as to why his government has yet to see fit to enact this type of legislation to protect the interests of workers and their families, and to enact a deterrent of serious consequences to any corporation that wilfully and knowingly puts the lives of workers at risk. Does he not think that the 26 miners who died and their families deserve at least that from the government?
(1630)
Mr. John Bryden: In my past, Mr. Speaker, I was a police reporter and I covered a lot of accidents that occurred in the industrial world. The most common cause of accidents that I covered as a reporter, and these were fatalities, were those that occurred in small businesses. It could be a bake shop where someone gets caught in the dough making machine. In fact, that actually happened.
The majority of industrial accidents that led to fatalities in my experience involved small businesses and small corporations. One of the reasons for this is that small enterprises--whether they be fishermen on the east coast or farmers, another good category--hire temporary workers. Lamentably, there is a tendency in these small businesses to ignore the rules or be ignorant of the rules. This often leads to innocent people being killed. Indeed, a very unfortunate accident happened like this very near to home with me in which a young man was killed. In fact, it was United Co-operatives, a farm co-op, where the young man was killed.
The difficulty with the legislation that has come to the House at various times as private members' legislation is that if we were to apply it to large corporations, like the Westray instance, that in fairness we would have to apply it to all corporations and all small businesses. I think this would be very difficult. If we were to pass that legislation in that form I think the sad thing would be that many thousands of small entrepreneurs would be driven out of business or alternatively would be sent to jail because that is what was proposed in those private members' bills.
I am very sympathetic to those who lost lives in the Westray mine disaster. There is no doubt that there was incompetence and improprieties that occurred at the time. However, to take that instant and try to apply it across all of Canada and all businesses from large to small, I think is something that may save some lives, a few lives perhaps, not many perhaps, but it could cause a lot of harm and damage to the many small entrepreneurs who do, I am sorry to say, take short cuts. While we lament that they do, I am not sure that we want to pay the cost that is proposed by the private member's legislation that was discussed here.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: That is an incredible statement, Mr. Speaker, to say that we cannot afford to protect workers from employers, whether they be small or big, who knowingly put their lives at risk.
I do not care if we have to shut down every small business that does that. We should not allow anybody who employs another person to knowingly put lives at risk while the person is performing employment. It is simply unacceptable.
However, my other question for the hon. member pertains to companies that are fined, either through an environmental fine or through a legislative fine. For example, we had a particular warehouse in Nova Scotia where an individual fell to his death. The company was proven negligent. It had to pay a $100,000 fine and the company a year later was able to write that fine off as a business expense, a tax deduction. We can imagine how the parents of that young man must have felt.
Does the hon. member believe that any corporation or any business that receives a fine which is supposed to act as a deterrent should be eligible to write that off as a tax deduction because I find it incredible that it still exists in this country?
(1635)
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, it is very important to remember that every province has labour laws and there are federal laws as well that control the workplace to ensure that the workplace is safe and if there are unsafe practices being followed they are spotted and the people fined.
The problem with the negligence idea that was advanced by the member's party in its private member's legislation was that it would create a penalty of negligence that would be applicable to every farmer.
Obviously, the member opposite has never worked on a farm as I have. Perhaps he has never worked in small enterprises. Perhaps he has never worked on a ship at sea. However constantly, and certainly regrettably, people in these small enterprises that are not controlled by large unions take shortcuts and they knowingly take shortcuts.
If we were to send them to jail every time they took a shortcut, then we would stop all of industry. We would certainly stop the farming community because we cannot legislate to death human nature. People do take chances. I am sorry. It is regrettable, but it does happen.
However, I do not want to see a world in which everyone is afraid to move, afraid to take any risk whatsoever for fear that big brother will come down with both thumbs.
There are adequate laws and adequate legislation provincially that govern the workplace. To accelerate it, to make every farmer, fisherman, baker, and small entrepreneur liable to criminal negligence, I think would require a little tempering in what we are trying to do. No matter how well intended, we must always look at the grand unintended consequences and what the grand unintended consequences would be in this case.
Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague from across the way would care to answer a couple of questions.
Last year when my colleague from Surrey put forward Motion No. 376 the member's party thought it was bad legislation. I would like to know how it could have been bad legislation a year ago and good legislation today?
The second question I would like to ask is this. Does the hon. member believe, as I do, that when an offender is given a life sentence for committing a crime that it should indeed be a life sentence and the offender should not be out of jail in eight to ten years?
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I remind the member that what was proposed by her colleague was a motion. It was not legislation. What we had before and the change that we have here is legislation. It is the actual building change. It is not enough to simply come before the House and express one's good intentions.
I think the member's colleague, if he had been really serious about his intent to change the Criminal Code, should have presented it as a private member's bill. Indeed, I suspect he probably would have succeeded. We do not know looking back, but private member's bills from the opposition have succeeded in the House. The Bloc Québécois for certain has had several and I know the Canadian Alliance has had several. As a matter of fact, there have been more successful private member's bills from the opposition than from the government side.
It was a motion and we cannot go back in time. Perhaps this side may have felt that the motion was not the way to go and I do not remember the original wording. However, I am sorry that the member did not succeed in the sense that he obviously contributed much to the debate at least to Bill C-32.
If I may say to the member and to her colleague, we all succeeded by the changes in Bill C-32 that arose because we were lobbied. It was not just the Canadian Alliance that was lobbied. We were lobbied on this side and a motion or a bill could have come as easily from this side as a private member's initiative, but in the end it was the government that took up the baton and championed the cause.
(1640)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[English]
Canada Airports Act
Hon. Jane Stewart (for the Minister of Transport): moved that Bill C-27, an act respecting airport authorities and other airport operators and amending other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-27, the Canada airports act, introduced in the House on March 20. It is part of the vision for our transportation system policy framework embodied in “Straight Ahead - A Vision for Transportation in Canada” that was released in February by the Minister of Transport.
The Canada airports act would be part of moving this vision forward and would guide the continued development of a sustainable airport system. This is a piece of legislation that has been developed for the longer term. Its purpose is not to address the short term challenges facing the entire air industry sector at this time.
These more immediate concerns have the full attention of the government. Let me assure the House that the government is actively monitoring the current situation in the airline industry. As we all know, the air industry is facing challenges, such as the SARS health issue, the war in Iraq, and fluctuating fuel costs.
The government remains fully committed in reviewing its policy on rents collected at the airports that it leases. The minister hopes to be able to announce shortly the direction the government intends to take on this matter.
The Canada airports act would provide a legislated economic policy framework for the only part of our transportation infrastructure that is lacking one, namely airports. Canada's transportation policy has evolved over the years in response to changing times and conditions. Today, we need to modernize and reform Canada's airports policy by enshrining some key obligations and governance principles in legislation. In doing so, we are contributing to the governance agenda as set out in the most recent Speech from the Throne.
The act responds in a positive manner to the recommendations in the government mandated local airport authority review report of 1999 and the Auditor General's report of October 2000. It conveys the governance response to the recommendations on airport governance in the Canada Transportation Act review panel report and in the final report of the independent observer on airline restructuring.
[Translation]
It reflects comprehensive consultations with the affected airport operators, air carriers and provincial and territorial governments.
[English]
The Canada airports act is intended to build on the successes of the 1994 airport commercialization policy, while addressing new and emerging issues that have arisen, with 10 years experience since that policy was announced.
The bill contains a new declaration for a national airports policy that replaces the 1994 policy which was primarily divestiture oriented. This declaration is very much in line with the new transportation policy statement set out in Bill C-26, the transportation amendment act, introduced in the House on February 25.
The declaration recognizes that it is in the public interest to have a national system of airports that is operated in a manner that is safe, secure, efficient, economically sustainable, transparent and environmentally responsible. The new policy also articulates the requirement to provide facilities and services to air carriers in an effective, pro-competitive manner and to provide opportunities for air carriers and passengers to express their views on key airport development issues and fees.
(1645)
[Translation]
The policy recognizes local and regional interests through the activities and governance structures of airport authorities, as well as the role airports play in linking the air transportation system to other modes of transportation and linking the communities they serve to the rest of the world.
The new national airports policy declaration will g