1994-06-16

Routine Proceedings
Integrity In GovernmentRight Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about trust; the trust citizens place in their government, the trust politicians earn from the public, the trust in institutions that is as vital to a democracy as the air we breathe, a trust that once shattered, is difficult, almost impossible to rebuild.
Since our election in October no goal has been more important to this government, or to me personally as Prime Minister, than restoring the trust of Canadians in their institutions.
When we took office there was an unprecedented level of public cynicism about our national institutions and the people to whom they were entrusted by the voters. The political process had been thrown into disrepute. People saw a political system which served its own interests and not those of the public. When trust is gone the system cannot work.
That is why we have worked so hard to re-establish those bonds of trust. The most important thing we have done is to keep our word. We said we would cancel the helicopter contract and we did. We had to be satisfied that NAFTA would meet our concerns before it was finalized and we were.
We said we would create a $6 billion infrastructure program with all three orders of government and we have.
We brought in a budget that restores hope for Canadians while meeting our campaign commitment of reducing the deficit to3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and we did; and we have addressed the stabilization of Canada's fisheries-particularly the Atlantic fisheries-and foreign overfishing as we said we would.
Honouring the promises we made is a key part of restoring the trust of Canadians. We have also worked hard to restore trust by restoring relevance to the House of Commons. We have given MPs a larger role in drafting legislation and greater influence over government expenditures.
For the first time ever, MPs debated the budget before it was tabled. We have also had policy debates on issues like cruise missile testing. We have had two debates, here in this House, about what should be the government's position on Canada's presence in the former Yugoslavia. Everyone agrees that those discussions have produced positive results; and they took place before the government made a decision.
Finally, we have worked to restore trust by showing Canadians that as far as this government is concerned, integrity is more than just nice words or photo ops, it is a way of life.
There is no better example of this than our cancellation of the Pearson airport deal. We sent out a strong, clear message that the integrity of this country's institutions is not for sale, that this government and this Parliament would serve the interests of all Canadians, not the interests of the privileged few, no matter how well connected.
Keeping our promises, giving a meaningful voice to the elected representatives in this House and putting an end to the politics of cronyism and secret back door deals is how this government has been restoring faith and trust among Canadians.
I am pleased to announce today that we are continuing to re-establish trust by delivering on a number of key commitments we made to Canadians during the election and by taking unprecedented action to open up the process of government in Ottawa.
Today we are introducing amendments to strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act. These improvements are in line with the unanimous June 1993 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs respecting the Lobbyists Registration Act.
These changes will force lobbying out from the shadows into the open and make it clear to everyone who is representing whom, on which issue, and what they are doing.
We have no disagreement with individuals or companies that choose to have someone represent them. That is their business and their right. But Canadians nonetheless have a right to know who is trying to influence elected and public officials.
Deals like the Pearson Airport deal must never be allowed to happen again. That is why, through our changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act, we will be able to force the disclosure of lobbying fees related to government contracts.
That is why we are building in tough penalties-up to and including prison sentences-for those who break these new rules. That is why we are prohibiting the inclusion of contingency fees in lobbyists' contracts. That is why we are appointing an official who will have the teeth to investigate and take action.
I am pleased to announce today the appointment of Canada's first ethics counsellor, the current assistant deputy registrar general, Mr. Howard Wilson. Mr. Wilson's experience and his well-earned reputation for probity and integrity make him an ideal choice for this important post.
The ethics counsellor will oversee and enforce both the strengthened Lobbyists Registration Act and a revised, more comprehensive conflict of interest code that will replace the old conflict of interest guidelines.
We have broadened the powers and responsibilities of the ethics counsellor from what we laid out in the red book. In the red book, the ethics counsellor was to deal with the activities of lobbyists, but as we started examining implementation, it became clear that this will only address half of the problem, basically from the outside in.
We wanted to be sure that our system would also be effective at withstanding lobbying pressure from the inside. That is why we have decided to expand the role of the ethics counsellor to include conflict of interest.
By merging the Ethics Counsellor's function with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General's existing role in enforcing guidelines on conflict of interest, we will have both a stronger and a more unified oversight role, one with real teeth and strong investigative powers. We will also avoid the wasteful overlap and duplication inherent in creating an entirely new office.
We also said in the red book that we wanted a Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and Senators. This Code would guide their dealings with lobbyists. We will ask a Committee of Parliament to take this matter on and have a Code of Conduct in place as soon as possible, because I feel that MPs themselves must take responsibility for those decisions, as I myself have taken responsibility for the activities of the government, lobbyists, parliamentary secretaries and others.
We also consulted with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Reform Party on the choice of the Ethics Counsellor a few weeks ago, and I know that they look forward to this person's annual reports to Parliament as much as I do. They know, as we all do, that trust in the institutions of government is not a partisan issue, but something all of us elected to public office have an obligation to restore.
I know they will work as hard as we will on this side of the House to build on the renewed trust Canadians are showing in Parliament and in the political process.
The steps we have announced today are important. They will go a long way toward guarding against the excesses of the past and making the system more transparent and open.
There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. The Prime Minister sets the moral tone for the government and must make the ultimate decisions when issues of trust or integrity are raised. That is what leadership is all about.
As Harry Truman put it, the buck stops here. I vow to you, to this House, to Canadians, that I will never abdicate that responsibility. I will never pass the buck.
Of all the lessons we learn in life, many of the most valuable are the ones we learn at a young age from our parents. My father taught me early on that nothing, not wealth, nor social status, nor fame, nor glory, is more important than your good name.
In the end, it is all that we really have. It cannot be bartered or traded. When it is gone, it can never come back. My father's teaching has also been the credo of my political life. For more than 30 years it has served me quite well.
What is true for an individual is also true for a government. We pledge to you and to all Canadians that we will guard our good name with all that we can and that we will not betray the hopes so many Canadians have vested in us.
At the end of the first part of the session, I would like to pay tribute to all members of Parliament.
After a long career in politics, and in spite of some pretty tough debates and some pretty exciting Question Periods, I think that is what observers are saying; I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and his party-
I would like to say thank you to the Reform Party and its leader. This Parliament has operated a a level that was not known before. It is my duty to thank all members of Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Reform Party for having helped us to achieve that.
I think the finest compliment this Parliament has received since we opened this session in the middle of January was the poll taken by an American firm and reported in the newspapers here in Canada a few weeks ago.
A poll was taken in April in the world's nine largest democracies, including Mexico, the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France and Germany. Canadians were the ones who said they had the most trust in their government.
That poll is a compliment to all of us and we should take credit for it. During the campaign when I was trying to get candidates sometimes people were very reluctant to run in politics because of the disrepute unfortunately into which the profession had slipped. Today we have managed to restore the prestige of this institution. It is a credit to all members of Parliament who were elected, whatever their political opinions and options.
Public service is a great calling. Public service is a very honourable profession. A public calling is the desire of all of us to try to make society better for all our citizens. I have been a professional politician and I am very proud of it. I could not have had a better career because perhaps in my riding or travelling in the nation I have been able to do something good, making some progress in the quality of life. Every member of Parliament will have this experience.
I am telling hon. members that when they are alone and they think about it they will feel good that perhaps some people are happier because we have offered our service.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, nothing makes the job of a leader of the opposition who plans to criticize the government more difficult than being complimented by the Prime Minister first.
I would like to start by thanking the Prime Minister and expressing my appreciation for the opportunity he has given this House and Parliament as a whole of joining in consideration of an extremely important issue, the proposed legislation on lobbyists and the tightening up and improving of ethical standards in public life. I fully endorse, I echo, the Prime Minister's remarks just now on the need to maintain and promote respect for our institutions and especially for the institution of Parliament.
Parliament is the ultimate forum where democracy can speak out rationally, respectful of the value of others. It is here that our problems, whatever they are, must be solved, and solved in the right way. To this extent, the steps the government is proposing to take-with the opposition's co-operation, I am sure-to tighten up and strengthen standards of conduct within the federal administration, and on the federal scene, are most welcome.
I want to make clear right away that we fully support the appointment of Mr. Howard Wilson as Ethics Counsellor. We are aware that Mr. Wilson has had a praiseworthy career in the federal Public Service and that we can have every confidence in his ability to take the helm in this matter at a critical time.
Second, we are also fully in favour of the proposed combining of the duties and responsibilities of the Ethics Counsellor. It seems to me that the government is right to want to avoid duplication and to safeguard consistency and greater effectiveness in the implementation of provisions ensuring respect for ethical standards, especially as regards lobbyists.
I want to add that we also support-it gets tiring to keep repeating that the opposition agrees with the government-we also support the creation of a joint committee of the House and the Senate to define a code of conduct for MPs and senators, for everyone, in fact, who is not already covered by the existing guidelines, which are, I understand, going to be broadened and tightened up for senior public servants and ministers.
Now we have reached the nub of the matter before us this morning, the Lobbyists Registration Act. During the election campaign the government made a commitment to strengthen controls and improve the Act. The Act was a commendable first step, but it proved in practice to be too weak. A House committee considered the matter for quite a long time, worked hard under the chairmanship of MP Felix Holtmann, and tabled a report last June that found there was a need to change things to improve the Act. The government adopted the committee's proposal, since as we all know the red book promised that its recommendations would be implemented.
First, as far as the Ethics Counsellor is concerned, the powers of investigation attributed to him strike us as appropriate, a step in the right direction. If an Ethics Counsellor can on his own initiative launch investigations as soon as he has reason to suspect that a violation has been committed, that is a step in the right direction. Our examination has been purely preliminary;
naturally as the proceedings on the legislation unfold we will go into greater detail.
I understand that the Ethics Counsellor will be given powers of investigation, so that he will be able to summon witnesses, compel them to testify, and under oath, and that the evidence he obtains in this way will be admissible in court if a criminal offence has occurred. These provisions are more or less the same as the rules of evidence in the case of depositions to commissions of inquiry.
This having been said, I want to go on to some remarks that I think are very important, on the need to improve the legislation, because this bill has some serious shortcomings. I think the government can be persuaded of this. It is the opposition that will have to do this. We will of course have an opportunity to work with government MPs and we think we can persuade the government to change the legislation in a number of ways.
First, the Ethics Counsellor must be appointed not by the government but by the House of Commons. The government should have to submit Mr. Wilson's name to us. We know we will approve, it is not the individual who is at issue, we are committed to supporting his appointment. But the Ethics Counsellor should hold his mandate from Parliament. That would considerably increase his authority, his powers and his ability to intervene directly in anything related to the way government operates.
Remember, this is no ordinary appointment. This is the person who will have the authority to intervene in the way government manages its affairs, in Cabinet ministers' personal ethical conduct vis-à-vis their public responsibilities, even in decisions the Prime Minister might make; the person who will be able to make sure that the conduct of whatever Prime Ministers the future may produce will be consistent with the ethical standards that have been set.
So the person holding this position will be that much more comfortable, and the public will be that much more confident that he will carry out his duties as he should, if he is under the ultimate authority of Parliament. That is why I would urge the Prime Minister to consider the need, as I see it, to submit this appointment to Parliament as a government recommendation to be endorsed by Parliament, so that the Ethics Counsellor would be answerable directly to Parliament.
I do not want to run out of time before I have a chance to discuss two shortcomings in the bill that are, in my opinion, very serious. First, it maintains the distinction between two categories of lobbyists.
Reading the Standing Committee's report of last June, it is clear that the fundamental criticism the Committee made of the existing legislation-and there were Liberals on that Committee-was that the distinction between the two levels of lobbyists ought to be done away with, that a preferential system should not be maintained for lobbyists employed by big corporations over professional lobbyists.
The Act distinguishes between firms of lobbyists that identify themselves as such and take ad hoc contracts to make representations to the government and influence decisions, and other lobbyists, known as in-house lobbyists, whose official title might be "Vice President for Government Affairs" with a big company, and who might be based here in Ottawa, doing exactly the same work as professional lobbyists.
The existing legislation, which the bill being tabled this morning is supposed to amend and improve, provides that the lobbyists in this second category, the ones who work full-time and on salary for big corporations, do not have the same obligations. And when I skim quickly through the bill, as I said before, the distinction in requirements is still there.
For example, a Vice President for Government Affairs based here in Ottawa and working for a big company, whose sole job it is to lobby on his company's behalf, would not be obliged to divulge what contract he wants to obtain when he meets with senior public servants.
He is obliged to divulge the program and the type of legislation, but the others, the professional lobbyists, are obliged to divulge the contract. People are indicating to me that I am wrong. We will see. It often happens that people tell me I am wrong, but we will see as the proceedings unfold.
A second and I would say more serious, more fundamental shortcoming, is that lobbyists should be obliged, just as they used to be, to divulge the target of their interventions: whom are they going to approach? That way we know the nature of the role they are going to play. The Act simply says they have to divulge the names of departments and government bodies, but it is absolutely essential that they say which minister they are going to see.
Is a particular lobbyist going to see this or that senior government member, who may be in a position to exercise greater influence, for example, because he has something to do with campaign funds? It is important to know these things. It is the very essence of the legislation, it goes to the very heart of its effectiveness and the goal it is trying to achieve, that it should spell out very clearly, much more clearly than this bill does, in any event, the requirement that the individuals, the decision-makers who are going to be approached by lobbyists in the
course of their representations on behalf of their clients, be identified.
So there is plenty of work to be done. We are very pleased that this House has the opportunity to do it. We are going to work closely with other parliamentarians. We are not resigned to failing to convince the government of the need for improvements. I am sure that the government is open to these suggestions and that we will be able to give the people of Canada and Quebec a law that will assure them that there is a group of people in the federal Parliament who are working for their well-being and giving them every guarantee of doing so with the most scrupulous honesty.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister has correctly identified a need for trust in government. We too have found that many Canadians are disillusioned with government and cynical with its processes. But the question I want to ask is whether the statement of the government today is going in the right direction and whether it is going far enough.
Before I comment on the Prime Minister's speech I would like to make a comment on the process that has been going on here with respect to this legislation. I have found it extremely frustrating to try to build the response I am giving now because of the guarded secrecy which has surrounded this issue until today. I challenge the wisdom of operating in secret to this degree especially since the topic of the day is openness.
The Prime Minister has outlined some of the achievements of his government so far. There have been some minor cosmetic changes, some symbolism, but not much substance. The right words are being used but they have not in my opinion delivered anything substantial to this point.
The Prime Minister indicates that they have given MPs a larger role in drafting legislation and greater influence over government expenditures. Then he goes on to say that for the first time, MPs debated the budget before it was tabled.
If the question is whether the people of Canada through their elected representatives have power to control government overspending, the answer is a resounding no. We did in fact have an opportunity to speak, but no one heard. We gave many well documented facts and figures and they were ignored.
The government is continuing on its path to increasing debt despite the protests of the taxpayers who can see clearly that this is wrong.
No, there is little here beyond the fluff of correct terminology. There is not yet any substance to a promise of more open, more responsive, and more representative government.
The Prime Minister made mention of the Pearson airport deal. Indeed, this deal stands as a monument to the evil of backroom dealings without accountability. We must commend the government for taking prompt action to bring that deal to a halt, but now what is happening?
The Reform Party moved an amendment to the bill which would require full disclosure of any agreements entered into to terminate the Pearson deal. We felt that Canadian taxpayers should know the amounts paid and the recipients of those payments. Yet every Liberal in this House voted against that amendment, defeating it and preventing Canadians from possibly ever knowing what kind of backroom deals the present government engaged in to bring this project to a halt.
I seriously doubt that the measures being proposed today would have the effect of being able to prevent another deal like the Pearson deal.
The government is proposing to send this bill to committee right away. Hopefully all the members of that committee will have meaningful and substantial input into its final wording and impact. However, I want to remind the members of this House and all Canadians that this process was completed last year and the results of the Holtmann report have not been implemented.
I can only wish and hope that the government will not waste a bunch of time repeating the whole process. The red book promised: "A Liberal government will move quickly and decisively in several ways to address these concerns about conflict of interest, influence peddling and selling access".
The response we have today from the government is a beginning. It seems to me that the measures taken are woefully inadequate. We will be watching with interest to see if this committee work will result in a report which will actually be implemented in legislation, or if it will be like the previous efforts, much work for the backbenchers with little or no tangible results. We will be watching to see if the new committee will expand on the work of the Holtmann report and whether the government will implement its recommendations.
I note just in passing that among other things the Holtmann report has one chapter with six recommendations to remove the distinction between tier one and tier two lobbyists. I have not yet seen the bill because of the secrecy I was speaking of earlier, but I was informed just before I came in that this new bill does not even mention distinguishing between tier one and tier two. Maybe it is the lobbying of the lobbyist groups themselves that prevented this from getting in.
The Prime Minister has announced the appointment of an ethics counsellor to oversee and enforce the strengthened Lobbyists Registration Act. Since we know very little about the individual named, it is prudent on our part to wish him well. We will be watching his work with great interest.
Finally, I would like to ask a few questions, not to embarrass the Prime Minister or the government but to challenge them to really deliver what Canadians are expecting.
If the Prime Minister says: "No goal is more important to this government than restoring the trust of Canadians", then why is this government spending dollars hand over fist in the Prime Minister's riding for a theme park? Why is this government conducting polls in private, released only when a minister gives approval? Why is this government giving fat advertising contracts to old political buddies? Why is this government continuing to hedge and waffle on the much demanded overhaul of the MPs pension plan? These are items which would produce great leaps in the increase in trust by Canadians in their government.
Would it not be better if we had a government in which the members of Parliament were actually empowered to do what they were elected to do, to represent their constituents in a meaningful, effective way?
Would it not be better if all of us who are charged with the responsibility of forming government policy would do as I always do when approached by a lobbyist? I tell them that my constituents, the people who elected me, are my lobby group. I take my direction from them.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development regarding Bill C-216, a private member's bill standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. The committee has examined the bill and has agreed to report it without amendment.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
This first report is intended to be an interim report; we met with 11 witnesses. In September, we intend to meet with many additional witnesses and place more specific emphasis on certain crown corporations that will have to provide information on their programs regarding Canada's official languages.
Lobbyists Registration ActHon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
PetitionsMs. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am tabling a petition signed by residents of Victoria, British Columbia which the hon. member for that riding has passed along to me.
This petition signed by hundreds of Victoria residents calls for the reinstatement of the Military Marching Navy Band at CFB Esquimalt or the relocation of one of the four remaining military bands.
The petitioners point out that in the absence of the navy band, western Canada will be without a military band as the nearest band is in Winnipeg.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition, which I wholeheartedly support, from constituents of Fraser Valley West.
The petition asks that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which indicates that most people would acknowledge that young people are the country's greatest asset. Most people would recognize the number of pressures young people have encountered, for example, the breakdown in the traditional family structure, urban decay, youth unemployment, and difficulty in accessing the appropriate education.
These petitioners also ask that whatever social policy changes occur and whenever there is a reduction of the deficit including the debt that it must not be without recognizing the realities of these particular challenges to our young people.
They also say that job creation must continue to be the government's first priority.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition from residents of the Port Moody-Coquitlam area.
The petitioners state they are concerned about the issue of euthanasia. Human life is sacred. Using active measures to bring about the death of an individual would lead to frightening situations in which individuals no longer deemed useful to society could be at risk in the hands of others.
We are against any act of Parliament that would legalize euthanasia.
I am pleased to present this and totally support it.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of my riding who state an ethanol industry will provide definite stability for Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy in general.
Whereas ethanol is one of the most environmentally friendly fuels available, whereas Chatham, Ontario was recently selected as the first site for a major ethanol plant, 20 times larger than any in Canada today, creating approximately 1,100 person years of work and contributing an estimated $125 million annual economic impact; wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol for a decade, allowing for a strong and self-sufficient ethanol industry in Canada.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by numerous members of my riding of Medicine Hat. The petitioners call upon Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a similar petition to my friend's across the way which asks not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions and is signed by constituents of my riding of Victoria-Haliburton.
The signatures come from such places as Haliburton, Minden, Eagle Lake, West Guilford, Tory Hill, asking that Parliament not approve same sex relationships.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition which has been duly certified by the clerk and signed by 840 residents of my constituency, Oakville-Milton.
The petitioners call on the government to ban the sale and/or possession of all firearms with the exception of those for duly appointed law enforcement officials and further to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to increase penalties whenever firearms are used.
This petition was initiated by students who attend St. Thomas Acquinas High School in Oakville. I commend their efforts and their participation in the democratic process.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions in the same form requesting that section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows a review of parole eligibility on first degree murder from 25 years to 15 years be repealed.
The signatories are from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario.
Questions On The Order PaperMr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the questions be allowed to stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform my colleagues that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)( b ), because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended 35 minutes.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, June 15, 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to ensure that the record shows the reason I did not vote was that I did not arrive at my seat on time. Had I arrived on time to vote, I would have voted with my party without hesitation.
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of Bill C-28, an act respecting the making of loans and the provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, there are three amendments on the Notice Paper concerning the report stage of Bill C-28, An Act respecting the making of loans and the provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other Act in consequence thereof.
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted upon separately.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): moved:

Motion No. 1
That Bill C-28, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 34 to 46, on page 2 and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"3.(1) The appropriate authority for a province may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in or outside of Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions."
Mr. Speaker, the first amendment moved by the Opposition is meant to improve the bill so that it will become slightly more acceptable to Quebecers and to all Canadians, particularly to young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, you have already read the motion but I think a second reading would be welcome since all the commotion following the vote made it hard to hear.
It is being proposed that clause 3 of the bill be amended by replacing lines 34 to 46, on page 2, and lines 1 and 2, on page 3, with the following:

"3.(1) The appropriate authority for a province may designate as designated educational institutions any institutions of learning in or outside of Canada that offer courses at a post-secondary school level, or any class of such institutions."

We have moved this amendment because the other amendment made by the bill was divided into two sections whereas, in our view, it defines the role of the appropriate authority for a province.
We would have preferred by far the old section in the existing act where, for the purposes of the present act, the appropriate authority was defined as a person, an organization or any other authority designated as such by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province.
Unfortunately, this was defeated in committee. But it is most appropriate to highlight the change it has brought. Until the bill is enacted, designation of the appropriate authority is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province concerned, that is by the province's Minister of Education.
What is new here is that the designation would be made by the federal minister designated by the Governor in Council. It says "the Minister" because ministerial structures are undergoing so many changes that it is preferable not to say which minister. But, in this case, it is the Minister of Human Resources Development.
This means that, ultimately, our federal Minister of Human Resources Development will become almost a federal minister of education. I wish to remind this House once more-as I did during first reading-that, under the Constitution, education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is important to keep this in mind.
What in fact have we just learned? That the appropriate authority for the province will be designated by the federal minister in order to accomplish two things essentially: first, to designate or not to designate post-secondary institutions in or outside of Canada and, second, to deliver eligibility certificates to students entitled to federal financial assistance.
In my view, designating institutions and delivering eligibility certificates are definitely two educational matters, the responsability for which normally belongs to the provinces.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there are two nations in this country. Some provinces do not mind much that a federal minister would be responsible for educational matters. However, education is very precious to Quebec as it is at the very root of the development of our culture and our identity. We are witnessing another attempt by the government to interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
I would like to remind the House that, during the election campaign, the Liberal members and the Prime Minister himself said that they would not talk about the Constitution. This was reassuring for some maybe, but what is happening in reality?
They say they do not want to talk about it, but they are almost changing the Constitution through administrative agreements, by increasing the role of a federal minister in the field of education. As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, we would have preferred them to talk about the Constitution and we would have hoped that the present government would not go against the spirit of the Constitution, at least in the field of education.
How must we interpret such a strong desire on the part of the federal government, on the part of the Minister of Human Resources Development, for that minister to be the one who designates the appropriate authority from now on? There is a connection with the employment and learning strategy that he himself announced on April 15, and student loans can now be seen to be the fourth element of that strategy.
This is the first piece of legislation put forward by the government which relates to this employment and learning strategy. That is a new term, a play on words: learning is essentially education. We believe that behind this aspect of the strategy-and this is reflected in the press release-the government is barely hiding the fact that it wants to impose on the provinces national, meaning Canadian, standards of education.
From Quebec's standpoint, from the Official Opposition's standpoint, that is unacceptable. For us, what is national applies to Québec, to the nation of Québec, and the concept of "Canadian standards" flies in the face of the attachment of the people of Québec to their culture, to their education. That is why the members of the Committee, with the help of other members, fought relentlessly against this will to centralize.
But, since there are only a few hours left, we have to recognize that we failed to make the government back down. I would like to point out other centralizing initiatives. There is the one that I have just talked about, but there is another one. The federal government not only interferes with provincial jurisdictions, it gives itself increased discretionary authority, an authority which is almost without precedent in that a minister will be able to intervene, to manage by regulation. And that is quite important because we see what role he has in mind for the appropriate authority.
The second amendment is also about this, but the appropriate authority will play a key role and it will be completely controlled by the minister himself without any right of appeal. At least, the bill makes no mention of a right of appeal. Maybe the regulations will, but when one makes a law, one must foresee all the possibilities, even changes of minister, even changes of government.
In a democratic society, a law must be as clear and precise as possible, especially in areas like education, which lends itself to conflicting interpretations, to hesitations, to pulling and tugging, all of which is detrimental to both levels of government.
I think that Quebecers and Canadians-when the Prime Minister was saying that he did not want to hear any talk about the Constitution, that was not quite it-want to avoid duplication, having two governments that want to do the same thing in the same fields, when there is so much to be done in terms of jobs and economic development.
We see a government that wants to reduce its funding in the fields of health care, social services, education and postsecondary education. Yet, while it is reducing its financial contribution, it is increasing its desire to control, its desire to run everything from Ottawa, in a field that Quebec jealously guards: education.
Education is a major portfolio, it is important in defining an employment strategy, it is important for the future of young people and for the entire community.
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I should make it clear that the debate is to complete Motion No. 1. Then we will go to Motion No. 2.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.
I heard many of the arguments and points which he raised during his intervention at the committee. I must say that the comments at times steered away from the content of the amendment which he was making. He spent a great deal of time talking about the constitutional impact of the changes to the Canada student loans. It is unfortunate that the members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot appreciate the fantastic results we have received in co-operating with the province of Quebec for over 30 years in providing important financial aid to students.
Regardless of where they come from, whether it is the province of Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, they have definitely been given access to much needed funding so that they may complete their education and give great strength to our country.
I suggest to the hon. member that the best indication as to how the provincial governments feel about this legislation can be found in statements that have been made by various ministers or their representatives in the last few days, not in hypothetical statements made by the Bloc Quebecois.
First, let me say that Mr. Chagnon, minister of education for Quebec, on June 9 answered the following to a question by the Parti Quebecois on whether Bill C-28 will force national standards in education on the provincial government of Quebec: "La réponse est non".
I think that is fundamental to the debate. I do not wish to engage in a merely political discussion when there are thousands of students waiting for this government and this House to act on this very important piece of legislation.
I want to go specifically to the point raised in the hon. member's amendment. This amendment does not make much sense. It would leave the program without an appropriate authority at the provincial level for purposes of assessing and according aid to students and designating eligible institutions. That is quite clear from the hon. member's amendment.
It is my belief that students need some assurances that they will be able to gain access to the aid that is available under this legislation.
I remind hon. members of the Bloc that provinces have played a critical role in the administration of federal students' assistance program. We expect the provinces to continue to act as the appropriate authority for the purposes of assessing students needs, according aid and designating eligible institutions.
At the same time, both levels of government are actively exploring ways to improve services to students and streamline the administration of student assistance programs. A number of provinces even during committee here signalled their interest in harmonizing both the administration and financing of student aid. Such initiatives are extremely important. They will reduce overlap and ensure greater value for our funding.
In this regard several provinces have indicated an interest in looking at different machinery for delivery of provincial and possibly federal aid. This could entail assigning the administration of the program to a third party other than a provincial student aid office. As well there is interest in streamlining the process of designating foreign institutions for purposes of the federal program. Currently over 4,500 international institutions are designated.
This is very labour intensive and maintaining up to date information is extremely costly. One approach would be to establish a broadly representative entity with the necessary expertise that could undertake this task in respect of student aid programs generally. For example, a mechanism such as the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials which is jointly funded by the CMEC and the federal government could serve the interests of both levels of government in this regard.
The centre brings together representatives of provinces, the AUCC and the ACC and it might be appropriate to expand its role in this regard.
For these reasons we have provided the necessary flexibility to allow for different types of machinery at the provincial and federal levels. Of course, we intend to continue to work in close collaboration with the provinces. The Canada student loans program is an example, a model example, of how the federal government can work together with the provincial governments and deliver a very important service to Canadians.
This view is widely shared by the provinces. I was very pleased to hear senior provincial representatives who appeared before the committee speak positively about the program and speak positively about the partnership that this program has allowed our federal government and the provincial governments to participate in. This type of collaboration is an example to all federal-provincial governments as to how federal and provincial governments can in fact work together.
Everyone we spoke to basically said to go ahead and push this legislation through. It has many positive features. It is necessary for those students who are waiting for our help. This legislation also takes extremely positive measures, whether you are looking at deferred grants, the help it gives to part time students, women pursuing doctoral studies, or high need students. Not only is it good legislation, it is progressive legislation. It brings in middle class families that have in the past been shut out of the Canada student loans. They may have over $2,000 available.
A person benefiting from a deferred grant with a debt load at the end of a four-year BA of $22,500 now will have the debt load reduced by $6,000. That speaks to the type of legislation this is. It speaks to the progressive nature of this legislation.
For all these reasons this motion obviously should be defeated.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion.
My remarks will be quite brief. The hon. parliamentary secretary has said quite a bit about some of the reasons why this motion should be defeated.
I was very conscious of ensuring that the rights of the provinces were looked after when this legislation came into the House. I looked quite closely at this clause to ensure that the rights of the provinces were not being infringed upon. I reviewed the transcripts from when provincial officials were before the committee to see what they had to say about this clause and about the possibility of any infringements. I placed phone calls to provincial officials to ask them if they were concerned about this. In every case they said they were not.
I believe they used their provincial jurisdiction and delegated their authority to the federal minister in this case because they were confident they could have that authority back at any time. They do have the protection of the Constitution in this matter.
There are many problems with this bill and there are some good things about it, to be fair, as well. I do not believe that this clause that the Bloc Quebecois is concerned about is one of the problems. There are many other things that we can be greatly concerned about, but this is not one that we need to worry about.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that we will be speaking later on about some of the problems with this bill. At the end of the day, however, you will find we support this bill, but at this moment we will be speaking against and voting against the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr Speaker, I would like to say as an introduction to this bill-although it includes an opting-out provision that we shall discuss later in a third amendment and that has become extremely finicky and departs from what has been the spirit of this type of legislation since 1964-that as Official Opposition we worked very hard to keep one thing in this bill. Some people might say it is not the most important thing, or our business, but we wanted to do our job as Official Opposition. We wanted to stress the historic change of replacing appointment of the appropriate authority by the provinces with direct appointment by the federal minister, with no compulsory consultation of the provinces.
This bill was introduced late, and as a result the legislative process has been speeded up.
Although the hon. colleague who spoke before me said that he had consulted-and we know he carried out consultations; so did we-it is not all that clear that the provinces know their rights, for the plain and simple reason that in this bill they have only one right left, one single right, and that is the right to opt out.
Aside from opting out, any initiative or power in this matter, which is extremely important to education, belongs to the federal minister, and we shall see in the second amendment that the minister has even been given an amount of latitude that is rare, not to say unheard of, in a piece of legislation.
Why, in order to establish the co-operation between the provinces and the federal government mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, must the federal minister take the place of or decide in this bill to take the place of the provinces? Some people in Canada may think-and we saw this in committee-that education must become an area of shared jurisdiction. Of course, everyone made an exception for Quebec, which would always oppose that notion with all its might. And it is understandable that, in light of economic imperatives and the importance of education to a country, some people might think that way.
But let us debate this issue for what it is. It does not concern only the provincial minister of education who is left dangling; I think it concerns Canadians, because -and maybe this is becoming the case-unless the provinces of Canada are just administrative authorities with no real power of initiative, education, their field, has to be of concern to them.
Why do we find it so dramatic that the appropriate authority will now be appointed by the federal minister and not by the province? Because, elsewhere, this bill addresses only relations between the minister and the banks, in broad terms; but students-and I shall come back to this point later-despite the good intentions listed by the minister, nowhere does the bill mention any obligations to students. Nowhere! And if we look at the budgets, there again, nowhere is there any mention of students: between last year's budget and this year's budget, after all the terrific promises that were made to us, how much of an increase is there? A million dollars for the whole of Canada! Congratulations! What openness!
Where is the extra money, the stuff that promises are made of, going to come from? Where? The banks are supposed to go and get that manna from graduates, that is where; there is no money anywhere else. At none of the hearings did I hear that there was any money anywhere else; there certainly is none in the budgets.
So I come back to my question: why is it so dramatic that the appropriate authority will now be appointed by the federal minister instead of the provinces? Because the appropriate authority has essentially two powers; including that of designating institutions, as my colleague said earlier. What does a designated institution mean for ordinary people? It simply means that Queen's University cannot accept students who qualify for scholarships unless it is designated by the appropriate authority.
So we can see the decisive importance of designation. We could say, "But does not that go without saying? Come on, what university could lose its designation?" Well, Mr Speaker, let me tell you that the Association of Universities, which may have the right to an opinion here, is extremely worried by the very next provision, which provides not only that the minister may appoint the appropriate authority to designate, but also that that appropriate authority, reporting directly to the federal minister, is empowered to revoke designation.
Now, the universities told us that they have been threatened for a long time that if they do not participate and do not know how well students actually pay back loans, if their rate of defaulting on loans is too high, they could lose their designation.
And what could the province do in that case? Nothing. It is the federal minister-as if that person did not have enough to do with that immense department that accounts for nearly half of federal government expenditures-it is the federal minister who, in the end, will consider the case.
There is another worrisome aspect to the bill. If I were speaking on behalf of another Canadian province, it seems to me that I would be saying exactly the same thing. Where designation is concerned, is it to ensure effective co-operation among the various provinces, which are responsible for education, and I shall speak-How much time do I have left? Three minutes?
Why is it assumed that the provinces cannot co-operate except under the appropriate authority? They will no longer be equal; they will be subjected to the authority of the minister. People may say, "Oh, but there is no bad faith on the part of the minister; the minister is going to consult". Sure. I can already hear my hon. colleague telling me that, with characteristic flair. But you do not draft legislation for the incumbent minister. You draft legislation for as long as it lasts. There have been two acts since 1964, so you can guess that this one, too, will last for some time.
The provinces have only one right left, one single right, and that is the right to opt out.
I want to return to the appropriate authority. That authority can designate and revoke designation, but it also has an extremely important power, the power to determine which students will qualify for loans. That, too, is important.
Which students will qualify for loans? According to which criteria? We read:

12.(1)( a ) to have attained a satisfactory scholastic standard;

If the student has "attained a satisfactory scholastic standard" and, obviously, if the student needs the money. Whether the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard is clearly an institutional matter; but, what is more important, the use of this provision can have a decisive influence on all degree courses at every institution and every university.
I must say that there has not been much of an uprising in Canada in the face of that provision, although Canada is a big place for an uprising. People have not read it carefully; they have not looked at it carefully; they trust the minister. That provision is eminently dangerous.
To the fact that the minister has been given latitude to appoint the appropriate authority-and of course we would have liked to retain the former wording, the wording of the present act, which-not this new wording- until it is amended, is still the current act and the one we shall defend-I add the fact that the minister can also appoint a bank, a financial institution. In committee, it was very clear that a financial institution could decide whether the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard.
People may say, "No, no, that is not the ministers intention". But there is nothing in the bill to prevent that from happening.
We could not ignore this extremely important provision. It is easy centralization because it is about student loans; however, it indicates a worrisome trend, not just for Quebec, which I hope will settle that problem once and for all, but for the provinces in general.
I suspect that, even without Quebec, Canada will be talking about the Constitution again.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): moved:

Motion No. 2
That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 18 to 26, on page 3.

Mr. Speaker, after having worked on this bill in committee for several days, we have finally reached the report stage at which time we can propose improvements in the hope of convincing the House that such improvements would give us a clearer piece of legislation which could survive many years without being called into question.
Similar in spirit to the previous amendment, this amendment would ensure that the minister, who in clause 3 may designate for a province an appropriate authority, will not have the power to muzzle the appropriate authority. Perhaps as a result of the previous vote this will no longer be the case, but the basis for this amendment being moved is that this provision of the bill will not be amended. The portion of the clause that would be deleted reads as follows: "The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority".
Since the legislation must provide for all possible situations that could arise, it is possible that in a given situation, the directive given by the minister would be unacceptable for some legal reason to the appropriate authority. The fact that the proposed legislation gives the minister the right to compel the appropriate authority to comply with his directive is tantamount to saying that the appropriate authority is not needed because he would have to implement any decision taken by the minister.
The clause in question states that the minister designates and gives directives to the appropriate authority and that these are binding on him. In our view, deleting lines 18 to 26, as proposed in the amendment motion, would remove the sword of Damocles that is being waved over the heads of the designated appropriate authorities and would give them a minimum degree of flexibility to be effective. Clearly, this piece of legislation, as was the case with the previous student loans legislation, applies more to the other provinces than to Quebec which is the only province to have opted out, or the Northwest Territories. Our duty as legislators is to ensure that the legislation is the best it can be.
While Quebec will certainly continue to exercise the right to opt out-because in Quebec, we have developed an entirely different system, we have a completely different approach to student loans-and continue to do its own thing, legislation is needed and, in the provinces which will be governed by it, this legislation must be administered correctly, honestly and effectively.
In committee, serious work was done and a number of amendments were proposed, some of which were adopted, thus improving the legislation.
I think it is important to note also that in that respect, we end up in a rather symbolic situation at the same time. The hon. member inquired earlier as to where the money came from. Ultimately, grants and bursaries in Quebec are financed by the program, through exchanges between governments. But in fact, it has never been denied that Quebecers' tax money ought to come back to them in the form of grants and bursaries, under a program managed by the province, as this has become the practice, and Quebec has demonstrated that it has the expertise required to grant loans to its students.
In this case, as far as the designation of the appropriate authorities is concerned, we believe that in the spirit of the Constitution and its provisions on jurisdiction, the bill could have provided that the provinces have the authority to appoint them and to delegate this authority to the federal government if they so please, which could have been the case in nine provinces out of ten. A wording along these lines would have avoided infringing upon provincial jurisdiction, which we end up doing with this bill with I must say some contempt for the authority of the provinces. That is what motivated the amendment I have moved.
Seeing that infringement is to be expected, as legislators, we want to make sure that these authorities will retain a minimum of leeway as we move from the old provisions under which the government of each province designated the appropriate authorities to new ones whereby the federal minister will designate the appropriate authorities for each of the provinces. If we cannot persuade the government to change that, let us at least make sure that, as far as the performance of their duties is concerned, these authorities retain some leeway, because the minister might decide for example to sign agreements with banking institutions which could affect the student loan and bursary system, and the authority representing a province may feel this decision was not the most appropriate.
I can give you a specific example: francophone and Acadian students in all provinces of Canada except Quebec asked that caisses populaires be formally identified as banking institutions that could be accredited for loans and bursaries by the government. In a situation like that, one province, for example, could realize that the minister would sign an agreement with only one bank for all of Canada; then the authority in the province might say: "That is not how we want it to apply here and we have some suggestions for you, Minister".
Theoretically, as it is now written, the minister can impose it and the appropriate authority cannot even challenge the decision. This means that even if a provincial government held hearings on loans and bursaries because it considered opting out, for example, those designated as appropriate authorities could receive a notice from the minister that they are not allowed to testify at the hearings.
In the bill as it now reads the minister has indeed too much authority in his spheres of activity, and even more so when past experience is considered, especially in Quebec, which has opted out.
We also considered-because we must always look at the laws regardless of the individuals who apply them and a long-term view-we want to ensure that we will not have a recurrence of what has happened in many other fields, a sort of competition between governments. For example, if the program of a province that wants to opt out is not what the federal minister wants, he might try to override the province, and his power over the appropriate authority would be one way he could control the situation, perhaps to the detriment of the provinces concerned.
That is why we consider it important to support this amendment.
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat perplexed by the comments of the opposition, particularly as they relate to federal-provincial relations.
My recollection leads me to believe that the provinces are quite happy with the program. They look forward to participating as they have for almost 30 years. If I may quote the minister from Quebec on May 10, he said:
"It says in this bill that the option taken by Quebec in 1964 to create its own student financial assistance network, that is, a loan and bursary system in place since 1966, will be protected".
It is very clear there is a great deal of support from the province of Quebec to continue with the type of effective partnership that has existed with the federal government.
Since I need to bring evidence to the floor of the House of Commons, I should like to quote the minister of education for the province of Nova Scotia, John MacEachern, who wrote to the Minister of Human Resources Development on May 4: "I believe that the development and implementation of the youth employment and learning strategy, which includes the reform to student loans, will assist our young people in their success in today's labour market. Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on the initiatives under this strategy". That is a very strong endorsement from the province of Nova Scotia.
Lastly I refer to the representation made by representatives of the New Brunswick and Alberta governments who kindly answered the invitation to all provinces to appear before the standing committee on HRD. Mr. Smith from New Brunswick responded to a question by the member for Mercier on whether the bill was an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.
"Really, because all New Brunswickers expect the other governments to agree on how to serve this student while keeping additional costs to a minimum".
He added that the federal-provincial agreements provided for in the bill, as well as the enhanced administrative and technical co-operation, would lead to a further guarantee of continued federal-provincial co-operation with respect to designation of authority.
This is what Mr. Hemmingway from Alberta commented. I think one of the problems we have today in relation to the federal loan program is discrepancies between and among provinces with respect to which institutions may be designated. I know that the federal concern has been that given it is a national program, benefits should be reasonably equal across the country. We are presuming and it is our understanding that we will have a great deal of input in developing the designation criteria that will be put in place and that those criteria would be negotiated on an ongoing basis between the two levels of government.
To me what this legislation clearly indicates is that if there is one single group of people against this legislation it is the members of the Bloc Quebecois.
I want now to return to the specific issue, the specific motion. We as a government are committed to providing consistency and fairness under our student assistance program. The amendment presented would repeal subsections 42 and 43 of the bill which provide the minister with the flexibility to establish policy directives.
I think if we are to look at this in a very clear and rational way there is nothing wrong with the federal minister's having something to say about a federal initiative, a federal policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong. It is within his right. It is his duty and obligation to make sure he has something to say about the policy initiatives, the policy direction under this particular act.
I fail to understand, and I have spent a great deal of time trying to figure it out, exactly what the opposition is saying and trying to follow a logic of the opposition. Perhaps the problem is not one of logic. Perhaps the problem here goes above and beyond that. It is a question of vision.
For the moment I am not going to engage myself in a constitutional discussion. The reason I am debating today is that there are hundreds of thousands of students who are awaiting this program, provinces awaiting this program, part time students, students with disabilities, women who want to pursue
doctoral studies, students who have been victimized by a heavy debt load. This is the issue we are debating today.
It is for this reason that I simply cannot support the amendment as proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.
The government must be in a position to ensure that the policies which are developed are applied consistently across the country. It would appear that the opposition is not overly concerned about treating students fairly throughout Canada because of its own political agenda.
On behalf of the thousands of students who are awaiting this program, the thousands of students in need who want to acquire the skills to be competitive, to acquire the life skills necessary to meet the challenges of the new economy, to acquire the education that is part and parcel of life today, as we live through a learning continuum, as we engage in life long learning, it is fundamental that we support these students. It is for that reason that I will not be supporting the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion of the Bloc Quebecois.
It seems to me that the provinces have spoken with one voice on this issue. They had a chance to speak up on Bill C-28. They came before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to talk about this piece of legislation. In every case they suggested they will go along with this legislation and that they are in support of it.
We cannot start giving carte blanche to provinces including Quebec simply because the members down the way demand it. We must be respectful of what the provinces are saying. Quebec has indicated it is quite comfortable with this piece of legislation. The people in Alberta are happy with it, the people in the maritimes are happy with it.
I do not really understand the paranoia down the way. I can only assume that there are other reasons for this motion coming up than the ones stated.
Having said that, we cannot support this motion. We will be saying more down the road about some of the problems inherent in Bill C-28.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the Reform Party's reaction. They did not argue very long against this amendment, that I will read since it is important to understand the situation.
I will not read the amendment as such but what we wanted to delete:

The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority.

That is a good example of the co-operative federalism the parliamentary secretary referred to earlier. A partnership where everything seems to happen in harmony and in a climate of good understanding. If that were true, the minister would not have to include such provisions in this bill.
Let us try to figure out the minister's intentions. First possibility, when they say they want to add that "such directives are binding on the appropriate authority", does it mean that, in the past, appropriate authorities in the provinces did not follow directives or that the student financial assistance system did not work well? I am not talking about Quebec but about the other provinces, because Quebec had exercised the right to opt out, which it wants to preserve.
The fact that they felt the need to include "such directives are binding on the appropriate authority" in the bill, being very strict and everything when it should go without saying, suggests that there are many problems.
I see my colleague from Louis-Hébert, a former teacher, and I give him an example. It is like saying to a young person that under school regulations, smoking is strictly prohibited. And then adding: "Thinking of smoking is strictly prohibited".
They enact regulations upon regulations, which are binding on the authority. When have we ever seen that in a bill? I have read a number of them, more in Quebec than here, but it is very rare. I think it should go without saying. It shows an incredibly authoritarian mentality. The parliamentary secretary talks about partnership and co-operation. I will remind him of certain facts.
Regarding this year's reform of social programs, the minister has postponed his action plan two or three times because the provincial ministers did not agree with him on the agenda. What a good example of co-operation! They cannot even agree on what to include in the agenda because the provinces are so suspicious.
Another example of co-operation is a National Assembly resolution on job training, which was passed unanimously on April 15, I think, telling the federal government not to meddle in education and training matters in Quebec. Even Premier Johnson, a stauncher federalist than his predecessor, voted for this resolution. What a good example of co-operation! Everything is going awfully well with people working in harmony. Only Bloc members see problems.
I just said that it is not only the Bloc members but also all members of Quebec's National Assembly, including those in the Liberal Party, the sister party of the federal Liberals. There should be harmony, yet motions are adopted unanimously in the National Assembly. There should be another solution, as having such an item on the agenda speaks of a lack of confidence. The
past is often a harbinger of the future. Things happen, but why? Always because of the centralizing will of the federal government in an area in which it has no jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Government members are surprised at the Bloc members' reaction. Bloc members complained to the standing committee studying the bill. We insisted on seeing the regulations because the legislation was vague in many respects, and, without a right of appeal, the Minister has a lot of power. We were finally given an overview. I would like to underline here that regulations can stipulate that appropriate authorities may sign entitlement certificates, designate educational institutions, sign entitlement certificates regarding registration confirmations, and so on. It goes a long way.
Confirmation that a student has registered at a university or college is not a national objective. We are now dealing with registration. The borrower signs the entitlement certificate concerning the loan application, the contract-All we got to see was an overview, not even the real regulations.
Other than being excessively centralizing, this bill reflects a will to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. There is a double centralization, but this time from the Minister of Human Resources Development, who wants to control and manage things, through appropriate authorities who are being told in advance that they have to agree to everything the minister says. This is co-operation! How modern can you get? This is unheard of.
This is a power over which the House of Commons and its members would have no control, since it would be delegated to the federal Minister of Human Resources Development. We are concerned by that and this is why we are trying so hard, while there is still time, to convince the members opposite to change their mind on this issue.
We want to convince them before it is too late. The minister gave examples of co-operation and he read a statement from the education minister in Nova Scotia. For those who are not aware of that, three provinces previously benefitted from a trial agreement which served as a basis for this bill. The parliamentary secretary mentioned Nova Scotia.
Yet, based on testimony heard by the Human Rights Development Committee, and I attended every single meeting and consultation of that committee, it appears that Nova Scotia is the worst possible example one could provide, according to the students, because there is a lot of concern in Nova Scotia at present.
The parliamentary secretary also mentioned Alberta. I do not have the newspaper article with me but, yesterday, it was mentioned that many students are worried there as well. Students are concerned about the reduced financial assistance provided by the provinces. They are also concerned about the financing of post-secondary education. And they are concerned about something else too. It is all very well to raise the loan ceiling and bring in scholarships. Indeed, there are some good provisions in this bill, including for part-time students, for single mothers and for others as well, but what we oppose is the government's will to centralize. We object to this show of authority.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this bill which does not surprise my colleague on this side of the House and which was praised by the member opposite, to whom I will answer a bit later, contains some gems that we can smile at, once we get over our anger, which we can never do completely. It includes a very rare provision. When asked, before the committee, if such a provision was usually found in bills, the legal counsel answered that he did not remember ever seeing one like that, which was, in any case, very rare.
The minister now has the power to designate. He refused to let the provinces continue to exercise their power enshrined in the Constitution and reaffirmed in federal acts since 1964. The minister changes the whole process, but there is more. He is afraid that the appropriate authorities may be influenced by the provinces. So, he expects strict obedience from the appropriate authorities, as we can see in one provision which says: "The Minister may give directives to any appropriate authority respecting the exercise or performance of any of its powers, duties or functions under this Act or the regulations, and such directives are binding on the appropriate authority".
There is a third issue here which is also very important: the Statutory Instruments Act does not apply in respect of directives given under subsection (2). Hence, these directives will not be published in the Gazette .
So, this provision shows you the spirit in which the bill was drafted. The minister is going from one extreme to the other in his relations with the provinces. We have here a situation where the province, under a federal act, is recognized as the appropriate authority since it has jurisdiction over education. Not only is the minister saying: "From now on, I am the one who decides", but he also intends to follow through. He says: "Not only will I be designating the appropriate authority, but it better not let itself be influenced by a third party, because my directives prevail". After all, his directives are binding.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, how the appropriate authority will be free, under these circumstances, to exercise its power, as long as it follows the minister's directives. There is something funny in this bill. In every other piece of legislation, the appropriate authority is defined. In this one, the legislator must have forgotten to do so, because he says the directives are binding on the appropriate authority. In other words, the appropriate au-
thority has now become merely an authority which is never mentioned in the bill, except under appropriate authority.
Thus, the fact that this appropriate authority has now become merely an authority speaks volumes about how they see the relationship with the provinces and one must have a great sense of humour or be generous enough to say, as does the hon. secretary, that this bill will "enhance co-operation". The provinces are left with a single right, that is the right to opt out. Otherwise, not only is the appropriate authority designated by the Minister, but the Minister's directives are binding on the appropriate authority which has now become merely an authority.
These directives apply to all the powers provided in there. There are well-known powers, but there is also a power to make regulations that I have not seen elsewhere-but I am not familiar with all the statutes. Also, to improve the act, they even had in some cases-and it is somehow contradictory, but this was the only way to proceed-they even had to try to increase this power to make regulations, since neither the provinces nor the students have any rights and the minister has no obligations, only some powers and an authority. This sums up rather well what this bill is all about.
Thus, when the parliamentary secretary says that hundreds of thousands of students are anxious to know the results of our work, he has got an absolute nerve! And there are several reasons for this. First, there is already a system in place. An act already exists. Second, they introduced this bill only two weeks ago although they have had it for some time now! Third, despite the minister's generous intentions, there is in the estimates, as I said, only $1 million more for all Canadian students this year. Wonderful!
So, how is the minister going to keep his promises? He is relying on the banks to make students pay back their loans-and we know that, depending on where they live, the new graduates have difficulty finding a job and are deeply in debt-so the minister is relying on this money to honour his generous commitments.
So, when the hon. member down the way talks about paranoia, I remind him that the opposition has a role to play. When the opposition sees what is in the legislation, notwithstanding-not the clause-the intentions of the present minister, the opposition can only object vigorously to those provisions which do not enhance co-operation with the provinces but enable the minister to make decisions without consulting them.
The minister will consult and listen only if he wishes to. A future minister of education could use those provisions to decide who should have a loan and who should not. If one area of responsibility in a democracy is important for a province, which is responsible for education under the Constitution, it is the issue of who has access to education. We will come back to that aspect because, in the opting-out provision, the minister paid a lot of attention to the conditions for repayment to the banks and to the repayment arrangements for the students, but did not care much about accessibility.
We hear a lot about increased access for single mothers or for the handicapped but the truth is that the real objective is to try to negotiate a better deal with the banks; I have nothing against that, but stop taking liberties with the truth.
As the Official Opposition, we have the responsibility and the duty to denounce nonsensical actions and measures that do not promote co-operation with the provinces. Even though some of the people consulted said that they had nothing against the measures, nothing guarantees that those provisions will not give another minister-supposing that another government is in office-excessive power that would allow him to avoid co-operating with the provinces.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. Members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Francine Lalonde: moved:

Motion No. 3
That Bill C-28, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 27 to 41, on page 12.

Mr. Speaker, proceedings in the House do not always reflect exactly what goes on in committee. I have said that, as the Official Opposition, we have tried to do our job the best way we could, to a point where, at the committee stage, we even moved amendments with which we were not comfortable. For example, we proposed that the minister be at least required to consult the provinces before designating the appropriate authorities.
You can certainly understand that it was difficult for us to do that, but we thought that we had to move such an amendment in order to force the minister to hold consultations. Of course, our amendment was defeated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the clause that concerns Quebec the most. The committee sat for many hours, but that subject came up only during the last half hour. The clause that we want to delete affects the right of the provinces and territories to opt out. I have to tell everybody who is listening to us today that the right to opt out has been part of this legislation since it was first adopted in 1964, but there was no condition attached to it.
The province that chose to opt out received its share of what was spent elsewhere, depending on its population and the amount of money spent. They were saying: "There are two situations: either you take part in the national program or you opt out and, in that case, inasmuch as you have a provincial program, we will redistribute to you the equivalent of what has been distributed to other provinces".
We have to realize that in the context of the old struggles under Duplessis and later of the first arrangements under Pearson, before centralizing federalists took over the Liberal Party and formed the Liberal government, the right to opt out was not subject to any conditions. The first program, enacted in 1964, has been changed. The current act too, under which we have been operating since 1984, provides a right to opt out, this time subject to two conditions I would describe as light and formulated as objectives to be achieved.
The concern was that the provincial program should have provisions that had essentially the same effects as far as part-time students and exemptions from interest payments were concerned. Those then were provisions related to accessibility. They did not jeopardize the whole program, the whole approach of the program. There was a recognition that a province opting out from the program had its own approaches, its own objectives, its own criteria and its own administration, but on the other hand they were saying: "Make sure that part-time students enjoy the same rights and that in some cases there can be exemptions from interest payments".
But this new measure is quite another story. This bill turns the conditions into bothersome requirements affecting program administration with seemingly very little concern for objectives. Besides, it is not that we would want the program to be different, because Quebec did not wait for the central government to show the way to set up a loan and grant program.
Quebec did not wait for the central government of Canada to invest more in education, even more than the wealthiest province. I want to come back to those figures.
It is important to know that university funding has been largely provided-when I say largely, it should be pointed out that provincial efforts vary, and I shall refer to Quebec's effort-by the federal government; this is money from the provinces redistributed on the basis of demographic criteria. From 1977 to 1985-86, according to the most recent study I was able to find, which was published in 1992, that effort declined considerably.
General financing for the entire education system is not provided through student loans but through a program of transfer payments covering both health and education. The provinces have all chosen to give preference to health over education, resulting in a considerable proportionate decline in funds devoted to education. As to the provincial contribution offsetting the lower level of federal spending, Quebec has made a remarkable effort. From 1977 to 1986, Quebec invested 2.3 percent of its gross domestic product in education. This has since declined to 2.1 per cent, which means that 0.2 per cent went over to health. We do not have the time to go deeper into this.
By comparison Ontario-which is far richer than Quebec in terms of individual and overall wealth, for well-known historical reasons-invested 1.4 per cent of its GDP in 1977, and only 1.1 per cent in 1986-87. This means that Quebec, a poorer province, spent twice as much of its GDP on education. Concerning student loans, the figures submitted by the department indicate that Quebec contributed the same amount in 1992-93, even though the number of students was proportionately lower because Quebec has only 70 per cent of Ontario's population.
Under these conditions, it is a shameful, indecent and unacceptable situation when one is told in a federal bill that Quebec has to respect eight points, that it has to report-and that is why I will be sending additional documentation to the Quebec minister of education-and that most of these points relate to program administration; in particular, it indicates the direction of these reforms. This reform of student aid shows what is in store with the reform of social programs: centralization, meddling in provincial jurisdiction and a right to opt out with national standards that apply even to administration.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct when she says that 30 years is a long time. We have had this program for 30 years. Federal-provincial co-operation has existed under the Student Loans Act for30 years and the co-operation and support continues.
We heard from the parliamentary secretary earlier today that the provinces in this country do support this act. This is very important.
Under this bill provinces will continue to be able to opt out of the federal student assistance program if they choose to offer their own program of student assistance. There is nothing new here.
Opted out provinces will be able to receive compensation if they have a program which has substantially the same effect as the federal program. This is nothing new. The government is simply carrying forward provisions from the previous act.
Moreover we are expanding provisions for compensation to provinces which choose to opt out to ensure that their students benefit from the proposed reforms. This is a positive initiative.
We are also providing for accountability. This is something I believe is very critical if we are to be accountable to the taxpayers of this country. Accountability is something that taxpayers have asked us to make sure we have.
For this reason we are asking those opted out jurisdictions to satisfy the minister that they have in place a program that is substantially the same as the federal program in order to receive compensation. Surely this is only responsible and reasonable.
This can be accomplished by a simple letter once a year from non-participant provinces. It is not an onerous detailed demand. It is a simple letter of response and communication. It is not terribly demanding.
Subclause 14(7) establishes that a province choosing to opt out is compensated for those program elements which are in place at the provincial level. Without subclause 14(7) an opted out province could be compensated for program elements which are not available within that province. To me, that would not be responsible. We must be accountable and continue to be accountable to the taxpayers. We would increase the government cost without any assurance that students are receiving the benefits provided for under this legislation. Again, that is important in this country, and we have discussed it for the last eight months. Accountability on how we spend federal tax dollars is very important.
The provinces have agreed with the provisions in this bill. They agreed to the provisions because they feel comfortable that in fact their jurisdiction is not being affected, that they are protected under the Constitution and that this is a co-operative process working together for the benefit of the students of this country and in doing so, ensuring that students across Canada will receive the same programs and have the same access to good programs for post-secondary education.
I really see nothing new and nothing terribly earth shaking in these changes. I believe they are for the benefit of Canadians. Therefore, I suggest that this motion is out of order. If the motion stands I would urge all members to vote against it.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, earlier an hon. member referred to the duty of the opposition when the opposition looks at legislation such as we have before us today.
I think it is incumbent upon the opposition to give the legislation a thorough vetting. When opposition members come across a clause that they are uncomfortable with, they check it out, consult the stakeholders and find out what the different opinions are on it. After having done that if they are satisfied that the stakeholders do not have any particular problem with it, they should not oppose it for the sake of opposing it.
I point out to the members in the Bloc that although the Government of Quebec was invited to come before the HRD committee to talk about this, it did not. It is comfortable apparently with this particular clause of the bill. It has the ability of course and has taken advantage of the ability to opt out of the previous act and presumably this one as well.
It is very important that the opposition picks its time and place to make a big deal about these things. But to cry wolf too often only guarantees that you will have no audience when it is really important.
I was very suspicious throughout the meetings that we had with respect to this bill about some of the intentions of the government. I wanted to ensure that the provinces' rights were not being tampered with, that they were not being infringed upon.
In looking at it, after talking to all the people involved, talking to the ministers' departments and their officials, they do not have concerns.
I do not understand why we are even talking about this, given that even the Government of Quebec does not seem to have any concerns.
In the interests of expediency, I would hope that we will defeat this motion.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent, the amendment before us can be considered a symbol. If our amendment is passed, it will be a sign that this government acknowledges that provinces which choose to opt out of the program can do so with dignity, and in full awareness of the situation, and fully take advantage of the opportunity to set their own requirements for their program.
If that clause remains unchanged, however, this bill on financial assistance to students will no longer recognize that provinces have the right to opt out with full compensation; it will reduce them to the status of beggars. Each time provinces want to specify a number of points in a section, they will have to abide strictly by the federal financial assistance program, so that it will be impossible to take into consideration special circumstances prevailing in a given province.
I will give you three examples in the bill before us in clauses 7, 10, and 11.
Clause 7 provides for an exemption from interest costs for a borrower who ceases to be a full-time student. If a province wants to exercise its right to opt out of the program, be it the Maritime provinces or Quebec, which has already opted out, and thinks a more substantial exemption is in order, it will not get it because big brother does not agree. There will be no room for adjustment to special conditions in a province where it is harder to find a job. It could be that in Toronto it would be normal to start paying back student loans the day after graduating, but not in New Brunswick where high unemployment makes it harder to get a job and where the provincial government might want to give students a better chance.
With this bill, the federal government forces all provinces to implement a system which is identical to the one defined in the present law.
The second example I wanted to give you concerns clause 10. These are all examples which pertain to people in everyday ordinary activities. It says that the lenders' obligations end if a student dies before completing his studies. How much latitude is there? Could some provinces not say that if death occurs the year after, the same exemption should apply? Some governments can be more humane than others or they may be able to afford more. Other provinces could impose more restrictions on that kind of situation.
With this bill, we will reintroduce the absurd situation which we now have in the health sector, where the federal government imposes standards on the services offered, but reduces its financing every year.
With the clause as worded in this bill, the federal government prevents practically any province that wants to exercise its right to opt out from doing so, because the conditions for opting out are such that there would be no benefit for the provinces, which are left with no room at all to manoeuvre in the areas where they would like to operate.
Clause 11, which deals with permanent disability of the borrower, is another example. The federal legislation says that when a student becomes permanently disabled, the minister can reimburse the amounts owed by the student. Now, a province might feel that in the case of partial disability, the government could repay part of the loan.
The three specific examples I wanted to give you show that an apparently minor clause that, on the face of it, seems quite benign, in fact hides a deep-seated desire for centralization. Instead of tabling a bill in which the opting-out principle is clearly explained, with full compensation for the province, if the government had told the provinces that there would be no more opting out, of course there would have been a tremendous hue and cry. However, this is an attempt to sneak through what the government has been unable to do in a more direct manner.
We suggested a slightly different amendment in committee, and when it was finally defeated, there was a moment of silence as members realized this was a clear example of the very different view we have of government intervention. On the federal side, there is the perception-perhaps it comes from the bureaucracy which answers directly to the ministers-that they know what to do and that is how things are supposed to work, and last but not least, it has to be the same everywhere.
A loan and grant program may include many areas where a province wants to do things differently. As for the previous remarks by the member from the Reform Party, I would ask him to moderate his enthusiasm about the fact that the current provincial Liberal government made no representations at the hearings, because that government exists in name only. It is nearing the end of its term. It is threadbare. It will soon be replaced by another government that will be genuinely committed to defending the interests of Quebec. It will do so, knowing what is involved, and it will ensure that every time, for as long as it is still part of the Canadian federation, the interests of Quebec and those of the provinces will be protected.
It is not only a matter of defending our powers province by province because it is written in the Constitution Act. It is simply obvious when it comes to loans and scholarships. We have had the proof with the representatives of francophone students in the rest of Canada who came and told us: "The law must provide clearly that we will be able to deal with our banks, caisses populaires and other financial institutions headed by francophones". Therefore, often the institution where a student chooses to negotiate his loan will be the institution he will deal with for the rest of his life.
That is why we need systems that allow provinces to opt out and to establish their own rules in order to meet such demands. I think the situation can be assessed very differently, for instance, in New Brunswick compared to Alberta. They could have different goals. There can also be a link between the way the provincial government is funding universities and the student loan and scholarship system.
For example, if a provincial government advocates free education as much as possible, the operating costs of the university will not diminish. Therefore, the government will support those costs in its administrative operations but its student loan and scholarship program will be reduced. Another province might go for a program in which education expenses, the real operating costs of the university will be paid for almost totally by students, while the government will not significantly contribute to the funding of education.
I think that we should have flexibility and pick one of the two following options: We either opt for a centralized system where the conditions are the same for everyone or we allow the provinces to use the important development tool that is education in order to acquire the leverage which will enable future generations to face the future.
I invite the government to reconsider its position on that amendment. It will only have to retain the right to opt out with full compensation and in no circumstances should a province have to convince the minister that its position is right. It should only have to inform him of its position.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on the amendment that the Bloc is proposing in order to eliminate that clause. On May 9, the federal Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his Bill C-28, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill and I support the amendment on the outright elimination of clause 14(7).
This bill as worded is as if the government wanted to eliminate 30 years of history. The hon. member for Mercier was saying earlier that the Canadian act has been in effect since 1964. Quebec has given itself its own system, but with this bill, it is as if that system did not exist. It is a kind of negation of history.
We must remember that education is recognized by the Canadian Constitution as an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. However, the federal government has long been assuming certain powers in that sector, such as student financial assistance. In order to be able to interfere in the education sector, it refers to its spending authority. It is ironical that a government with an accumulated debt of more that $500 billion and an estimated annual deficit of almost $40 billion, is behaving as if it was on top of it. Because it has spending authority, it says: "Let us spend". Whether or not it is able to spend does not make any difference; it just spends money.
The height of irresponsibility in the bill is that the government, with revenues that it does not have, is preparing to put even further into debt the young people that it wants to train. If this is not the perfect example of what can be called a vicious circle, then I do not know what it is. The government spends money that it does not have and asks the so-called beneficiaries to foot the bill without knowing whether it can create jobs for them!
Until now, provincial governments which, like the Quebec government, managed their own student financial assistance program could almost automatically exercise their right to opt out of the federal program and receive an alternative payment. This system worked relatively well for all. However, with the new bill introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the rules are completely different.
The provinces will not be able to exercise as easily their opting out right. This bill provides unacceptable new procedures with which provincial governments will have to comply if they want to exercise their opting out right and receive alternative payments. I refer here to clause 14(7) of the bill.
We feel that this bill is, as my colleagues from Levis and Mercier mentioned before, a centralizing measure which threatens the provincial autonomy recognized in the Canadian Constitution, by giving the Minister of Human Resources Development too much power. One wonders if the government is not seeking, through this bill, to create its own Department of Education and to impose national education standards.
Speaking of national standards, it is important to recall the basic, recurring problem in this area. The federal government imposes standards, then-invoking a lack of financial resources or other excuses-gradually withdraws while maintaining the standards.
To prove that, I will simply remind you that as far as established programs financing is concerned, including post-secondary education, in 1977-78, federal funding amounted to 48 per cent of the funds required for cost-shared programs, while in 1994-95, they will only amount to 32 per cent. If the federal government pays only 32 per cent, it means that someone else will have to pay the difference and it will be the provincial governments. Even so, they will have to comply with the national standards.
Let me give you another example. I would like to talk about the changes that occurred in the revenues of the government of Quebec between 1984 and the projections for 1998. In 1984, federal transfers accounted for 28 per cent of the Quebec budget, while in 1998, they are expected to account for only 15 per cent. There again, the people of Quebec will have to pay.
That way of doing things and imposing national standards takes away responsibility from the provincial governments which are elected governments and which are much closer to the people than the federal government.
That way of doing things shows that local needs are ignored. Much has been said about the major differences between the various regions of Canada, but national standards do not take those differences into account at all. The bill that we are debating is just like the others. It assumes that as far as student loans and education are concerned, the needs are exactly the same in Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia.
Finally, these national standards infringe upon democracy because people in the provinces have elected members to provincial legislatures, they have placed their confidence in them and given them powers, and the introduction of national standards will eventually erode an important part of provincial responsibility.
In fact, clause 14 provides that, in order to receive alternative payments, a provincial government will have to satisfy, not inform but satisfy, the minister, I quote: "by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial student financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect as the plan established by this Act".
This is totally unacceptable and I wonder, if the Supreme Court were to study this intrusion in a provincial jurisdiction, it would not decide in favour of the arguments presented by the Official Opposition.
It is unacceptable that provincial governments would have to justify their student financial assistance plans to the federal Minister of Human Resources Development since education is exclusively a provincial jurisdiction.
In the context we all know very well, where a large proportion of Quebecers are against the federal system, one could say the central government is doing all it can to provoke a general outcry. This seems due to a very questionable sense of politics; it is hard to say if it is pure stupidity or provocation.
This whole question is particularly important for Quebec because it is crucial that Quebecers manage their own education system.
Let me conclude by saying that Quebec's record in this regard shows that Quebec has acted responsibly in setting up such a system. We must also keep in mind that education is a vital instrument for cultural and linguistic development. Quebec cannot afford not to be in control of this sphere of activity. Our French-language universities are shining brightly. They are almost everywhere and their vitality leaves no doubt. You can find graduates of French-language universities in every sector. I think we set a remarkable example for the rest of Canada. While developing its French-language universities, Quebec was generous enough-I think the word is exact-to allow its anglophone minority to have its own universities. No other province did such a thing, except New Brunswick with Moncton University. Everywhere else, francophones must make do with bilingual universities. We know the results.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, it was refreshing to hear the hon. member for Louis-Hébert give us this historical reminder of what we always accepted in Quebec. The hon. member mentioned the rights of English-speaking Quebecers, rights that we respected to the point that, at one time, there were three English universities in Quebec: Sir George Williams, McGill and Bishop's, in Lennoxville, and only one French university, Laval, which had a campus in Montreal. This does not go very far back in the collective memory of Quebecers. We have to repeat it, over and over again, to show the degree of tolerance we exhibited in the area of education. Of course, we have caught up. The Montreal campus became the Université de Montréal, a university was created in Sherbrooke and then, in the mid 1960s, we had the creation and expansion of the Université du Québec network.
This being said, the rights of English-speaking Quebecers are well protected, and a sovereign Quebec would guarantee these rights in its constitution.
The bill in front of us questions the concept of opting out in the historical meaning of the term, in its constitutional meaning, a concept which was introduced at the time of the first agreements, the so-called Sauvé-Diefenbaker agreements at the end of the 1950s. Quebec could opt out, because at that time it was the only province to ask for the right to withdraw from a federal program in exchange for full compensation. That way, Quebec was not subject to what we call federal standards, and what others call national standards. The opting out provisions were always maintained. We had the Lesage-Diefenbaker, Lesage-Pearson and Johnson-Pearson formulas, and finally the Bourassa-Trudeau formula, although the agreements were scarcer at that time.
Essentially, what Quebec Premiers Sauvé, Lesage and Johnson have obtained is the right to opt out with full compensation without having to justify their decision. Finally, we are back to the concept advocated by Sir John A. Macdonald of a legislative union in Canada. They want to legislate here for all of the provinces while leaving them a small way out. Ottawa tells them: If you want to opt out, you will be able to do so provided you can convince us, the federal government, that your provincial legislation meets federal or national standards. In the end, the one giving that power, the federal government, under conditions precedent, is reserving the right to say: No, you have not convinced us and so we are keeping that power and we are going to continue to administer the program or else you will receive no transfer payments.
Misrepresentation of Canadian federalism did not start with Bill C-28. In fact, federal attempts to do so go back to 1867, but they increased at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s and have been growing steadily.
Quite possibly there may not be a single sector that has not been touched by federal legislation. To my knowledge, according to the research that I have done, the one area in which the federal government has really not been able to venture is the administration of provincial public servants. That was the gist of a Supreme Court ruling when the Trudeau government imposed wage and price controls. This government had succeeded in getting elected on the promise that it would not freeze prices and wages. However, once elected, it proceeded to do exactly the opposite, like any good Liberal government worth its salt.
I agree with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands who followed the events of the Trudeau era closely and who noted this massive incursion into fields of provincial jurisdiction, this disdain for provincial legislatures who are treated as junior level governments, whereas the senior level government for our friends across the way is the federal Parliament of Canada.
Why must we remind the member for Kingston and the Islands and our colleagues opposite, who are fully aware of the situation, that they conducted the same studies we did, that they have lived and will continue to live for the next few months in the same country as us and that they should know that provincial legislatures have as much sovereignty over their respective areas of jurisdiction as the federal Parliament has over its own?
We have to constantly remind them that this struggle for the recognition of provincial sovereignty dates back to our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers. We hope that our generation will be able to complete the task undertaken by those who came before us in the House and in the Quebec National Assembly and who participated in all the struggles for the survival of the Quebec nation. Well, we are tired of merely surviving. We have now decided to start living. We will live as Quebecers under the authority that we will freely delegate to the Quebec National Assembly when we have freed ourselves once and for all from an institution that has more to do with feudalism than with modern democracy. We will rally Quebecers to a collective plan for Quebec's sovereignty and take back our powers so that we no longer have to beg and convince anyone of the legitimacy of our demands. We will quite simply make our own decisions as people who have full political maturity, and that is coming soon.
People in English Canada and elsewhere in the world are already waiting to see a new country emerge and take its place in the international community. The decision for independence is coming soon and we must prepare for it. And we must prepare even more when we see the kind of highly centralizing legislation presented to us by the present Government of Canada which is not so different from its predecessors.
The Gordian knot that has been strangling us for decades in Canada, the fact that there is a country missing in this country-we will have to make a decision on it in Quebec and then of course negotiate with our friends in English Canada on the consequences of our decision. But if we think about it carefully, historically, I believe that both sides can benefit from the decision that we will make in Quebec so that each of us can have our own decision-making bodies and instead of arguing bitterly over bills on which we can have extremely divergent views, we can each make our own decisions in our own legislature and then discuss what unites us as friends and neighbours instead of what divides us.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-28, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.
The way the federal government is acting here exemplifies, in a way, the failure of the Canadian federal system and can explain, to a large extent, why a sovereigntist political party like ours was voted into the House of Commons of Canada.
Student financial assistance is obviously an education matter. And in Canada, under the existing Constitution, education comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The government, the English Parliament that passed the British North America Act in 1867 had clearly defined the jurisdictions of each of the two levels of government we have in Canada: the federal government and the provincial governments. And each of them have exclusive powers within their jurisdictions.
Under section 42 of the British North America Act, education was defined at that time as an area of provincial jurisdiction. But for years, actually decades now, the federal government has been invading this provincial area of responsibility. By virtue of what authority? By virtue of its own power to spend.
It is somewhat ironic to see, while jurisdictions are clearly defined in the Constitution, the federal government is intruding in an area under provincial jurisdiction, saying: "We are rich. We have loads of money. We have money to spend. Therefore you have to take our money".
The bill before us speaks volumes about the government managing to ignore the uniqueness of provincial governments in the end. In time, this practice has caused the federal system to fail in Canada, with the result that communities like ours, in Quebec, have decided to take responsibility for themselves and run their own state business in their interests, according to objectives set by and for themselves.
This bill sets out standards any provincial government would have to meet to avail itself of something we have been enjoying in Canada for over thirty years, namely the possibility of opting out. As you know, since the 1960s, many voices were raised in Canada to warn the federal government: "You are interfering in such and such an area of provincial jurisdiction". With things heating up, the federal government of the day put forward the opting-out formula, which means that a provincial government can invoke its right to opt out, get full compensation for and administer certain programs in the interest of its people.
Quebec opted out of a number of these programs, including the loan and bursary program.
This bill preserves the opting-out formula, but the conditions each province must meet in order to exercise the right to opt out are so stringent that the day will come when opting-out will not be in a province's interest.
The bill says that if a province wants to withdraw, its program must have essentially the same criteria as those of the federal program. So what are they really telling the province? They are telling it to administer-repeat, administer-the federal program in such a way as to obtain the same results.
At first glance, we could say: "Yes, it is quite normal in a federation. The federal government has a responsibility to ensure that all parts of the country and all citizens are treated the same way". We would then completely ignore one important aspect: Within the Canadian federation, there are some very obvious local differences. British Columbia, Newfoundland and Quebec often face particular situations that require adjusting the programs from which they asked to withdraw. Also, they cannot always pursue the same objectives and effects if they want to ensure that the people who stand to benefit get the most out of the programs.
I think it is rather obvious in the area of education. I myself am a teacher by profession. Before being elected to the House of Commons, I worked as a guidance counsellor in a secondary school. I saw that the Canadian education system has its peculiarities. It was quite obvious every year during Canada Career Week. Schools then received boxes full of brochures suggesting activities, in French, of course, because we are still Canada's French-speaking province. We received documents in French suggesting activities geared to the various levels.
Every year, it was something of a novelty for everyone. We were eager to see what was proposed. The school's guidance counsellors and teachers tried to find out together what Canadian people elsewhere thought up for us in French and wanted us to do during Career Week. Often, it was written in acceptable or sometimes even in excellent French. We had difficulty understanding the type of activities proposed and figuring out to which students or levels they were aimed at. The various systems work differently and also the values underlying them vary from province to province. So, in the vast majority of situations, we simply could not use the material provided to us.
Nevertheless, we would do like the rest of Canadian schools and have a career week, except that we would use material prepared in our own school, and it would work very well. This example illustrates how, in a field as critical as education, Canadians and Quebecers have different approaches, views and ways of doing things.
At the time, we more or less did what Quebec wants to do in the next few years, in that we decided to act independently. We told ourselves: Our school will have its own career week, based on our own methods, objectives and procedures, and activities will be geared to our students.
This modest work experience has taught me that, in fields as important as education, the needs of citizens and provinces must be taken into account, and those needs are not the same throughout Canada. That is why the bill before us is a bad piece of legislation. It includes several clauses promoting such standardization, and some provinces might not be able to make the necessary adjustments to ensure that the system runs smoothly.
Let us go back to clause 7, which refers to the interest-free period for a borrower who ceases to be a student.
Why does that clause impose a standard procedure for every province in the country? We all know that the unemployment rate varies from province to province. It is not true that a student in a given province has the same chances of finding a job when he graduates as a student in another province.
Yet, based on that clause, the situation is presumably the same right across the country. I will conclude by simply asking the House to support the amendment tabled by the Bloc Quebecois to delete this provision which forces provinces to adopt and implement standard procedures, thereby making the option to withdraw from the plan non applicable for all intents and purposes. If this bill is passed in the form proposed by the Liberal government, it will confirm once again that Canadian federalism cannot work in the current context. Consequently, those who are looking for an alternative in the interest of their community have no choice but to withdraw from it, as I hope Quebec will do in the next few years.
Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, subsection 14(7) we want to see deleted adds to the conditions imposed on the provinces which want to opt out of the federal financial assistance program and establish their own program, just like the province of Quebec and the Northwest Territories are currently doing.
This provision only adds to the existing conditions and Bill C-28 on financial assistance applies, as you know, to new matters. Pursuant to subsection 14(7), in order to obtain alternative payments, the Minister of Education or the province concerned must satisfy the Minister, by written notice received by the Minister before the beginning of the loan year in question, that, in relation to the matter in question, the provincial student financial assistance plan has substantially the same effect.
It must have the same effect not in general, with some small exemptions, but in every matter in question, as the plan established by this Act and the regulations. We have moved to delete this subsection, because section 14 already has six provisions which, according to a study we ordered and have had reviewed, are enough to provide all the provinces which decide to opt out of Bill C-28 with all the financial assistance they need.
Of course, we think the status quo would have been better, because the previous provisions were very specific. Pursuant to the old legislation, the provinces only needed to convince the minister where part-time student loans and special exemption periods were concerned.
To convince the federal minister, is it not a bit much? A provincial government must convince the federal minister when it needs financial assistance! Sometimes, people think that the federal government gets its money elsewhere, but I want to remind Quebecers that their taxes make up 24 per cent of all federal revenues. We do not take this money away from other provinces; it comes from their own tax dollars sent to Ottawa, which in turn provides financial assistance in an area under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So, the minister must now be convinced. That was also a requirement under the existing provisions and admittedly these people had adopted a centralist approach. Before, we also had to convince the minister in order to opt out of the program, but only about very limited aspects such as part-time studies and special exemptions, not about loans. Let us not forget that fact.
Why is Quebec so insistent on managing its own financial assistance program? Of course, the program is not perfect and some will never be totally satisfied. Most Quebecers would prefer to see more grants than loans awarded, but, up until now, the federal program was restricted to loans. Grants will now be included, although this has long been the case in Quebec. It would take be too long to enumerate all the features of the Quebec legislation respecting student financial assistance, which was amended in 1990, but, as my colleague from Jonquière said, there are many of them.
Here is one characteristic which does not appear in this bill. For example, instead of imitating the federal legislation where a sword of Damocles hangs over the heads of students with poor grades, Quebec uses the carrot rather than the stick approach by saying that students graduating within the required time benefit from a reduction in their loan payments. We are thus encouraging those who succeed without penalizing or limiting access to those who have satisfactory results in certain fields, but who may go through difficult times because of personal problems, illness or family problems. Troubling events can always happen. According to this bill, the federal minister, through the appropriate authority, must ensure that the student has satisfactory results. In Quebec, it does not work this way. In our province, a scholarship program is already in place, even for part-time students. Therefore, the situation is already very interesting in Quebec.
However, it is a question of principle. Quebec must manage its own student loan program. Why? Because, as we know, every province invests in its own postsecondary education system. So does the federal government, but the stakeholders at that level are the provinces. What happens?
In Canada, for example-although this varies from one province to the next and even from one university to the next-the universities, which by getting less money from the higher levels of government, tend to raise their tuition fees. On average, these fees have increased threefold in all of Canada since 1984. In Quebec, universities have succeeded so far in maintaining lower tuition fees, since access to higher education is very important for Quebecers. This is a principle on which they all agree. There is a consensus on that. There must be access to higher education. Members of Parliament and ordinary citizens often say that people must take control of their own destiny and that students are no exception. They must pay a greater part of the cost of their education.
The example of the United States is often given. True, this is the case in the United States but this is the only western country where tuition fees are higher than in Canada. In France, university education is free, because access to university education is also considered to be important. With this right to opt out, Canada looks more and more like two countries in one. We do not want to prevent English Canada from putting in place a loan system according to its own values and needs, but Quebec has its own concepts on this due to its cultural identity. Quebecers have their own values.
We find it unacceptable that a government which said that it did not want to talk about the Constitution anymore is discreetly amending legislation containing quasi-constitutional provisions. It says one thing and does the exact opposite. It waited till the end of the session to force us to adopt its measure in a hurry even before the Minister of Human Resources Development reveals his action plan for social security reform and before the consultations on this subject take place. Students are considered
to be a distinct group since it has already been decided how they should be treated.
The government could have raised the ceiling on student loans simply by amending that aspect of the existing act, but no. It chose to present a bill that represents a further encroachment in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, namely education.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I would probably have regretted not participating in this debate, so that is why I am doing it now, even though it is getting near the end. I will remind the members that we are now at report stage and that the study of this amendment will complete the consideration of this bill at second reading. I will probably be the last person to speak at this stage of the process.
The amendment before us is aimed at deleting paragraph 7, in clause 14 of the bill. We want to delete it because, from now on, a provincial government will be able to exercise its right to opt out only if it can convince the minister. And convincing Minister Axworthy is no easy task. The provincial government will have to send written notice to the minister before the beginning of the loan year, even though the number of students is essentially the same from one year to the next in the various disciplines. The federal government wants to put one more obstacle in the way to make it more and more difficult for the provincial governments to opt out of the national standards that the minister of education of Canada-since we may have to call him that from now on-wants to impose on all Canadians.
I think it is extremely difficult to accept such a change. Several of my colleagues who spoke today mentioned that Quebec has always exercised its right to opt out. We also heard that this student financial assistance program was first established in 1964 by a great Liberal, Mr. Pearson, who had a totally decentralized vision of Canada. But we can see clearly in the intent of this bill the centralizing influence of the former Trudeau government since several Cabinet members who were probably involved in the drafting of this bill, including the minister and the Prime Minister, have followed in the footsteps of this great man who, according to some people, marked the history of our country, certainly because of his excessive centralizing policies.
To opt out with full compensation, provinces must also adjust their loan and grant conditions to their particular situation. Over the past few weeks and the past few months, we have been saying it over and over again, there are two countries within this one. Soon, there may be ten or even twelve, because I doubt if provinces will want to operate under such a centralized system. Moreover, people will realize that this legislation contains real danger. It is as if people had fallen asleep all of a sudden; it would appear that parliamentarians have also fallen asleep and are unable to see the traps in this piece of legislation; the danger is real. When they wake up, it will be too late.
I am thinking of the francophones outside Quebec who presented a brief. I do not want to be quoted out of context nor be accused again on the basis of my supposed intentions. I will therefore quote the brief presented by French-speaking Canadians, by our young francophones. It says that francophones and Acadians often have lower standards of living. Their education level is lower than their English-speaking counterparts, which leads not only to lower incomes but also to a situation where post-secondary education should be systematically promoted as a means of breaking out of the vicious circle our communities are trapped in. Besides, because of their linguistic situation, these young students must often leave their community, or even their home province, to further their education at the university or college level.
The provinces should have a piece of legislation or regulations that would be flexible enough to allow them to organise their own loan repayment system according to students' needs. Incentives could be taken into consideration such as Quebec's initiative to grant a substantial break on loan repayment to students who manage to complete their education within the specific time frame normally needed for a bachelor's degree, a master's or a Ph.D.
I urge the government to carefully review this bill before passing it at third reading.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Statements By Members
Stanley CupJohn O'Reilly: Mr. Speaker, the curse is over. Messier, Graves, Anderson and company will no longer have to listen to opposing mocking crowds saying: "1940, 1940", because Tuesday the New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup for the first time in 54 years.
Although I was hoping for a Canadian team to win, I am not disappointed that an American based, original six was able to capture Lord Stanley's holy grail. In particular I congratulate
Jeff Beukeboom, a hulking defenceman with the Rangers who is from my hometown area of Lindsay, Ontario.
Jeff, who has never been shy when it comes to rough play, displayed the character, commitment and leadership needed in helping the Rangers win the cup, and there were no riots in Lindsay.
Producers On Orléans IslandMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, on June 7, the shore regions of Beaupré and Orleans Island, near Quebec City, were battered by torrential rains and hail.
The municipalities of Saint-Laurent, Saint-Jean and Sainte-Famille on Orleans Island and Château-Richer on the north shore of the St. Lawrence were particularly hard hit by this downpour. The strawberry and potato crops are the most seriously affected.
Damage reports indicate that potato farmers suffered the heaviest losses. Surface runoffs completely destroyed all of the work which potato growers had done in recent years to control soil erosion.
This torrential rain swept away years of hard work. Potato growers are looking to the federal government and the Minister of Agriculture for support to which they are entitled to repair the heavy damage caused by this disaster-damage which I had occasion to view personally when I visited the area on the weekend.
Brent EppKen Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and express profound respect for a young Albertan who has left Canada for the fourth time in his young life to serve needy people in other parts of the world.
While he was a student he spent a summer working as an unpaid volunteer in the refugee camps in Thailand. Upon graduation from university he worked for a year in southern Sudan, Kenya and Somalia at considerable personal danger to bring food and medical supplies to starving and suffering children and adults. Last year, he was in the war-torn former Yugoslavia working at a home for women who had undergone much suffering and violence.
Last Tuesday he left again, this time to serve the suffering people of Rwanda. Susie, his bride of 12 weeks, will be joining him there in July.
I salute this young man, his wife and the Christian relief agencies he has represented. I am especially touched by this young man's humanitarian effort because this man is Brent Epp, and my wife and I are his parents.
Lead Shot And Fishing WeightsHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, lead shot, gun ammunition made mostly from lead, is widely used in Canada for small game hunting. When birds and animals eat lead shot, it dissolves in their stomachs and slowly but surely kills them. The same can be said about lead fishing weights. Loons, eagles, herons and cormorants are among the birds affected by these toxic products.
There are good alternatives. Steel shot has been developed as a practical, effective, economic and non-toxic substitute.
In Denmark and Holland, lead is banned from all products, including gunshot and fishing weights. Lead shot is banned in the United States but Canada does not have similar legislation.
I urge the government to adopt a policy whereby lead shot and fishing weights made of lead are not to be used or made in Canada.
Friendship FestivalMr. John Maloney (Erie): Mr. Speaker, the community of Fort Erie, Ontario is nestled on the shores of Lake Erie at the mouth of the Niagara River. This picturesque community is the co-host of the Friendship Festival.
The festival was originally organized seven years ago to recognize and commemorate 175 years of peace between the communities of Fort Erie, Ontario and Buffalo, New York and between the countries of Canada and the United States. The festival takes place on both sides of the Niagara River, one of the very battlegrounds of the war of 1812.
The festival's mission statement is to provide a forum for the people of Canada and the United States to celebrate this historical relationship and to enhance community spirit, pride, economic development and cultural awareness. The festival takes place from June 25 to July 4, encompassing these two fine countries' national holidays of July 1 and July 4 respectively.
The Friendship Festival attracts over 500,000 people annually along with hundreds of vendors, artists and hobbyists. Most important, it is a festival focused on the family and the harmonious existence of two communities that were once at war.
In a time of international political unrest and conflict, I am proud to promote an endeavour which celebrates peace and harmony among nations.
Religious LeadersMr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the many thousands of Canadian men and women who devote their lives and their work to the service of God. These religious leaders, both Christian and non-Christian alike, serve God through serving the Canadian people. By so doing, they help to mould and shape this nation for the better.
In particular today I wish to thank the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, a brave and dedicated army of men who have done so much to serve the peoples of this land for over four centuries.
I welcome Fathers Charles Sitter and John O'Brien to Ottawa and thank the men and women of all faiths who serve God so well, through serving Canadians so selflessly.
Rail TransportationMr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr. Speaker, for remote areas of Canada, the train is often a prime link with the rest of the country. The train is also a powerful engine of economic development for many communities, and is a factor contributing to the quality of life of the local residents.
The Chaleur line, for example, makes a strong contribution to the revitalization of the entire Gaspé Peninsula by generating tourism activity which benefits from the loveliest coastal region in eastern North America.
This government seriously lacks vision if it does not understand the potential of a railway system offering quality services. Contrary to all other industrialized countries, Canada is giving up on rail transportation. This is a decision of concern to the entire Canadian public, and the government should hold regional public hearings before going ahead with it.
Sexual OrientationSharon Hayes: Mr. Speaker, our children are the families of tomorrow. It is essential that we do what is necessary to protect them. The inclusion of the undefined term sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act holds dangerous implications for Canadians and their children.
This is not simply a recent concern. The danger of including sexual orientation in the charter was addressed on January 29, 1981 by the Minister of Justice. Allow me to quote his words: "I am not here to determine what sexual orientation means. It is because of the problem of the definition of those words that we do not think they should be in the Constitution".
Those same problems of definition exist today. Consequently, the undefined term of sexual orientation must not be included in any federal legislation.
By the way, the Minister of Justice who acknowledged the problem in 1981 is the Prime Minister of Canada today.
Internal Trade AgreementMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about the current negotiations between federal and provincial governments to complete an internal trade agreement by the end of this month. I share these concerns with the labour movement and organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The drafts of this agreement are not available to the public. It is being negotiated behind closed doors and with little consultation. I call upon the governments involved to open up this internal economic constitution to an open and public debate and delay the signing date until this consultation has taken place.
It is one thing to negotiate co-operative agreements which put a stop to practices of some governments, like tearing up bricks in a sidewalk because they were purchased in the wrong province. It is another to duplicate within Canada a free trade agreement that will hamper the ability of governments to establish, maintain and improve labour, consumer and environmental standards, and to regulate corporate activities.
Atlantic CanadaPierrette Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, comments made in this House two weeks ago by the opposition parties concerning the people of Atlantic Canada were an insult, not only to Atlantic Canada, but to anyone residing in a democratic society. Today, I will accept the apologies of the Reform Party member and of the leader of the Reform Party.
But the people of Atlantic Canada are all awaiting appropriate apologies from the Bloc Quebecois member for Rimouski-Témiscouata and her leader.
Mr. Speaker, we await these apologies.
Ethics PackageRonald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, we said we would do it in the red book and we have done it.
We have delivered the goods.
Today the Prime Minister announced the following:
The appointment of the first ethics counsellor in the history of this great nation.
Second, the strengthening of the Lobbyists Registration Act.
The clarification and strengthening of the conflict of interest code.
And that is not all. This Parliament will develop a code of conduct for members of Parliament and senators. We have met our commitments and more.
Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Internship ProgramMorris Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to thank the Foundation of Ukrainian Studies, the sponsor of the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Internship Program.
Because of the hard work and financial support of this foundation, seven young students from Ukraine are now in Ottawa participating in the program. This is the third year of the program. If the demand for these industrious and personable interns is any indication, this program will continue for many years.
I have the privilege to share the time of Alex Lysenko, one of the interns. Alex will be travelling to my constituency in Saskatoon where I am sure everyone will mutually benefit from this exchange.
I am of Ukrainian heritage and many of my constituents are proud descendants of the hard working and stalwart pioneers from Ukraine.
This program is one that will ensure a close working relationship with the new Ukraine as it evolves into a strong and viable entity in the global community.
Referendum On Quebec SovereigntyFrançois Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stunned everybody this week when he stated that the federal government itself could organize a referendum on Quebec sovereignty. What contempt for Quebecers, for their National Assembly and for their sacred right to self-determination!
This right belongs positively, legitimately and unquestionably to the people of Quebec and to nobody else. This was recognized by the Conservatives and the New Democrats. It was even recognized by the federal Liberals as well as by the Prime Minister when they took an active part in the 1980 referendum in Quebec.
Officially, this government says it does not want to talk about the Constitution. Yet, in secret, they are preparing a new constitutional offensive. This double talk does not fool anybody. Quebec has now realized that the rest of Canada no longer wants to offer anything to Quebec. It is "take it or leave it". It will soon be up to Quebecers to draw their own conclusions.
Arts And CultureMonte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, we have an industry in our country called Canadian culture. It is run by bureaucrats, financed by subsidies, yet virtually unaccountable to the government from which it gets its funding.
This explains why we have what looks like a pile of carpet underpadding on display in our National Gallery and boxes of Brillo pads stacked up to the roof. It is why for years we have subsidized the homosexual theatre group, Buddies in Bad Times, despite the fact that this group advertises violent sado-masochism seminars featuring abduction, guns, knives, forced confinement, blood sports and rape play.
For those of you who say art must be subsidized in order to survive, read your history. The finest theatre in the English language was produced by Shakespeare. His plays were considered popular art at the time, as were Chaucer, Dickens and endless others.
The finest painters or sculptors had patrons, but they at least were accountable. Not in Canada though. Slap something on a canvass, call it Canadian, make friends with the bureaucrats and you will get your funding.
Let us leave these funds in the hands of taxpayers so they can-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.
Welsh HeritageMr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, the St. David's Society of Peterborough recently hosted the Gymanfa of the Ontario Welsh Festival. A highlight of the event was a performance by the Cantorion Glan Alun from Mold, Wales. As a result of that choir's visit to Ottawa, I rediscovered two Welsh facts associated with Parliament Hill.
First, the inscription in the Peace Tower chapel, "All's well for over there, among his peers, a happy warrior sleeps", is from the poem "The Returning Man" by John Ceredigion Jones.Mr. Jones was a Montrealer who was born in Wales and died in Chapleau, Ontario in 1947. He wrote the poem in Calgary in 1921-22.
Second, the name of 24 Sussex Drive is Gorffwysfa which means place of rest in Welsh. The house was built in 1867 by John Currier. I am not sure why a Welsh name was chosen.
I refer members interested in Welsh heritage to the Ottawa Journal for Remembrance Day, 1948 and to Maureen McTeer's book, Residences-Homes of Canada's Leaders .
Infrastructure ProgramMr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, this is further to my statement of June 13 in this House when I made mention of an Angus Reid survey which showed that 52 per cent of Albertans support the initiatives of this government.
I rise today to congratulate the Prime Minister for his demonstrative commitment to our party's election promises made in the red book. I would also like to thank him for personally showing that commitment to the constituents of Edmonton North when he visited a repaving project in my riding. That project was made possible in part by this government's increasingly successful infrastructure program. As well, I convey the gratitude of my constituents to the ministers involved for their co-operation with local authorities.
D-Day CelebrationsMr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are Canadians who are serving their country well while being conscious of our indebtedness.
I was in Normandy last week with the official veterans delegation observing the 50th anniversary of D-Day. We remarked on the dedication and efficiency of Colonel (retired) John Gardam who has organized for Veterans Affairs a guard of honour, trumpeter, piper, and flag party made up of Canadians serving in the militia.
This group is doing an excellent job representing Canada at ceremonies throughout Europe. They are doing so in the most economical way possible, by staying at barracks rather than at hotels.
I salute Colonel Gardam and his troops for demonstrating that excellence does not necessarily equate to the expenditure of money.
Occupational Health And Safety WeekMr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, next week is Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week sponsored by the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering.
The purpose of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week is to focus public attention on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.
Every 12.3 hours an employee is killed on the job. In 1992, 714 workers were killed on the job and another 864,000 workers were injured. It is estimated that the cost of occupational injuries and illnesses in Canada is close to $11 billion.
Clearly we have a fiscal and social responsibility to ensure that the general public is empowered with information designed to prevent injuries and illnesses in the workplace and save lives.
In this regard I would like to express my sincere appreciation for all the individuals and organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in my riding of Hamilton West that produce general information and research on injury and illness prevention in the workplace.

Oral Question Period
Social Program ReformLucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in a letter to a meeting of his provincial counterparts in Halifax, the Minister of Human Resources Development included a requirement that the provinces get back to him on his proposed reform of social programs within 36 hours. Not three weeks, not one week, not three days, not 48 hours but 36 hours. An unrealistic and unacceptable deadline, considering the extent of a reform that has met with legitimate opposition from the provinces.
I want to ask the minister whether this means he still insists on imposing his views on the provinces by making them feel they are up against the wall, since he sent them a 36-hour ultimatum.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is once again building a question on a strong base of fantasy. Never, in a letter, comment or direction did I say that there would be any limit of 36 hours.
This morning I spoke directly to the chairman of the social services ministers, Dr. James Smith. I asked him where he heard it and he said it was brought up by somebody in the meeting and the press asked about it and he responded. I asked: "Had you heard it from me?" He answered: "No. You are talking about10 days, two weeks, whatever time is necessary for a response".
I would say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that before he asks a question he should get his facts straight.
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in a democracy like ours, the best way to be informed is to read respectable and respected newspapers. The Ottawa Citizen said today-
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Lucien Bouchard: The Ottawa Citizen is a very good newspaper. It reported today that provincial ministers were given 36 hours to get back to the minister.
I want to ask the minister whether he realizes that by being so uncompromising and setting this deadline for a quick response from the provinces, he is aggravating the impasse between Ottawa and the provinces.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the press release from the Minister of Health and Social Services: "The ministers have reiterated their commitment to reform of our social programs. They also stressed the need to find more effective ways to implement social programs so as to reduce poverty and improve services to the neediest in our society".
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of social services understand the priority: get down to work to find new answers to deal with poverty. The only person who is not engaged is the Leader of the Opposition and his party.
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the provincial ministers want social reform, but they do not want the minister's reform. That is the difference. Does the minister not realize that instead of his usual unhealthy obstinacy, he should show-
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Lucien Bouchard: Unhealthy-misguided.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It is a synonym.
Lucien Bouchard: Instead of being so obstinate, would the minister agree he should show some common sense and make a point of not only involving the provinces in his reform but especially of respecting their practically exclusive jurisdiction in this area?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have said always that this reform is bigger than any one government, any one level of government. It is a reform that requires the full participation of all Canadians. We will work with anybody: provincial governments, interest groups, Canadians on an individual basis. We did that during the first phase of the Commons hearings and we intend to do it again in the second phase.
I said specifically in the letter I wrote to the ministers of social services-if the hon. Leader of the Opposition would take the time to read the letter and find out what was really said-where I said this must be based on the full participation of all partners in this process. The only people who are avoiding participating are the Bloc Quebecois and we know the reason why.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The Ottawa Citizen , referring to off-the-record remarks by a government spokesman, disclosed parts of the social program reform being considered by the federal government, a reform that will be made public at the end of July, during the summer holidays, after Parliament has adjourned.
Can the minister confirm that his reform will require that all income security program recipients, be it welfare or unemployment insurance, will have to do community work or take training courses in order to receive their benefits? The National Anti-Poverty Organization said this will amount to a cheap labour policy, and will not form the basis of a real employment policy.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the time or opportunity to read the press report referred to by the hon. member.
However, I would suggest to her that any press report at this stage is purely speculative and hypothetical. We will know the kind of options we want Canadians to debate is when we table the report.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that, through this bulldozing operation, the minister wants to impose his views on the provinces, by threatening to reduce financial contributions to provinces that refuse to link the payment of benefits to the obligation to do community work or take training courses?
Lloyd Axworthy: No, Mr. Speaker.
Ethics CounsellorMr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr. Speaker, scandals, unfounded allegations and unanswered questions have plagued governments and Parliaments throughout our history. Certainly the Prime Minister's statement this morning was welcome in light of our past history.
In his speech this morning on integrity in government, the Prime Minister claimed that the power of the ethics counsellor will prevent deals like the Pearson airport privatization from happening again.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. What is there about the Pearson deal that the ethics counsellor would prevent?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a deal like that will not occur again simply because the government will never sign such a deal. I do not know if it is very easy. The ethics counsellor is there. There is legislation. The members of the committee will have an opportunity to interview him. He is a very competent person. He will give advice to the government.
As I said, in the final analysis, it is the government that decides. When we have a bad government like the previous Tory government, you know it is the type of government that produced things like that. You can be reassured that will not happen with a Liberal government.
Elwin Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, we are hoping that some of the clout that this ethics counsellor will have will prevent the Liberal government following in the footsteps of the previous government.
The Prime Minister said this morning that deals like the Pearson airport deal must never be allowed to happen again, and I concur.
Would the Prime Minister tell us if the ethics counsellor would have power of intervention to stop deals such as the Pearson when ethics issues arise? That is what he indicated to us this morning.
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if you conclude that the deal was made because of the lobbyists, you know the counsellor will look at the lobby business and intervene. At the end of the day, any deals, any contracts by the government are made by the government.
We cannot deny our responsibilities as government. We have been the government for eight months. The people are very pleased. You just made reference to that. It is not like it was before. Why? It is because the government is committed to honesty and integrity in the public eye.
This government will remain this way. The ethics counsellor can help us. That is why I appointed him, to help us. In the final analysis, as I said this morning, the government remains the government. We have been elected to make the decisions. We are trying to get the best advice possible.
Mr. Howard Wilson is a man of credibility that has done his job properly, advising ministers over a long period of time. He is competent and we are very happy that he has accepted to face these new responsibilities. His job is not to replace the government. The government will remain the government.
Elwin Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. He has made it fairly clear in our minds that the new ethics counsellor does not have power of intervention. His power lies in his ability to report to the public.
Recently it was decided that a single annual report from the Auditor General was not sufficient. This morning the Prime Minister informed the House that the new ethics counsellor would report just once a year to Parliament.
Based on past performance and our history, conflicts of interest and ethics may arise on a regular basis. Certainly an annual report to Parliament will not be sufficient.
Can the Prime Minister explain how the ethics counsellor can effectively communicate to the public without a chance of political interference regarding the conduct of government if he is only required to file a report annually?
John Manley: Mr. Speaker, the question being raised concerning the ethics counsellor misses
the point. What the hon. member should be noting is that, at the present time, there is no ethics counsellor and no reports have been filed.
The government has moved forward on a number of important commitments that were contained in the red book: commitments to fulfil the report of the standing committee of the House of Commons from last June; the commitment to appoint an ethics counsellor; the commitment to give him investigatory powers; the commitment to stop the contingency fees that were polluting the government procurement process.
These are important commitments. We have met them. They should be applauding us.
North KoreaMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yesterday, the United States pleaded in favour of commercial sanctions against North Korea. The proposed sanctions include a mandatory ban on North Korean imports or exports of arms or weapon components, a ban on technical and scientific co-operation in order not to enhance North Korea's nuclear capacity, and terminating all economic assistance through the UN or its subsidiaries.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House whether Canada unconditionally supports the U.S. position on banning North Korean imports or exports of arms, and on the whole range of proposed commercial sanctions against that country?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell the hon. member that Canada supports the U.S. position and that, if needed, we will lobby other members of the Security Council so that it passes this resolution. If the UN goes ahead with these sanctions against North Korea, we will certainly fully comply with all of them.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what action has been taken by the government of Canada to bring North Korea back into the fold of the Atomic Energy Agency and to ensure that that country's nuclear program is compliant with the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, we do not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, and are not able to express our views directly to that country. However, we did so through public statements, and indirectly, by presenting our point of view to people who are in regular contact with the North Korean government.
During the recent visit by the South Korean foreign affairs minister, the Prime Minister and I stressed how important it was, in our view, to fully respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to have all the nations of the world renew it, and to convince the North Korean government that it cannot isolate itself in that way. It must join the ranks of most other countries of the world who want us not only to ban nuclear arms but also to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
JusticeMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On March 14 the minister said in the House: "I do not believe it is reasonable for anybody to interpret the term sexual orientation as it appears in the human rights legislation as including pedophiles".
Whether child molesters are homosexual or heterosexual in their orientation they certainly are not reasonable. Child abusers will find it entirely reasonable to launch a challenge to the Criminal Code on the basis of this sexual orientation if the term is not defined in the human rights act.
Why is the minister so reluctant to define the term sexual orientation?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that the Minister of Justice is in no way reluctant to define the term sexual orientation. He has expressed the seriousness of this question in the relevant situations.
It is going to require a good deal of study to deal with it. The Minister of Justice is now in the middle of doing this study with the department. We will not only have a definition of sexual orientation, but we will be able to bring forward to the House a program and a policy of which I think the House will approve.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer. If the meaning of the term sexual orientation is so clear-and he referred to jurisprudence previously as being the avenue by which he would have it defined-I believe the government should take over, should not shirk its responsibilities and should define the term. The minister said: "I do not think matters of public policy should be determined in the courts".
Why is the minister not willing to take that responsibility, let that be discussed here, and define it properly in the legislation?
Russell MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has put before the House a record which in my opinion is enviable. He has brought forward legislation on young offenders and sentencing and amendments to the Criminal Code.
If justice is to be done laws must be framed properly. Not all the amendments we would like to see can be done at the same time, but reflection and due care must be given to the presentation and the formulation of these laws. That is exactly what is going to be done.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationSuzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Patrick Watson, who just resigned as chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, said yesterday that advisers of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney contacted the management of the CBC on several occasions, particularly during the referendum campaign on the Charlottetown accord, to make the content of the news more in line with the government position.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the kind of political pressure exerted by the previous government, and does he not believe that this kind of interference violates the freedom and integrity of journalists?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it seems that it was not very effective, and I dislike being ineffective.
Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the position of his party is to convince broadcasters to promote Canadian identity. He will probably do it effectively.
What I want to know is if he is ready to guarantee, on behalf of the government, that they will never exert pressure on the CBC to make it alter its news during a future referendum on Quebec sovereignty.
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is a law governing the operation of the CBC, and I will ask that the CBC respect that law. The law says, in defining the mandate of the CBC, that it must inform people on the advantages offered by Canada. This is the reason for the creation of the corporation. Objectivity is all we ask for.
I never called the CBC and I do not intend to. Freedom of the press is a fact of life I am used to. It did not always make my life easy, but I survived.
Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Over half a million dollars of tax money was budgeted for a national AIDS survey focusing on the gay community. AIDS education is important. However the money was used instead to publish a sex recipe for gay men detailing in explicit gutter language how men engage in sex with one another. This is absurd.
Does the minister condone spending one half a million dollars on this kind of garbage?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I must say that AIDS is a very serious epidemic. If we can save one life then we must do everything in our power.
This booklet was put together especially for those communities at risk. There are times when one has to call a spade a spade or people will not understand.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is about the most ridiculous answer I have ever heard when I look at pamphlets like this one. Oral sex, anal sex-
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. member will want to put his supplementary question.
Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to me how this material got into the hands of 10, 11 and 12 year olds in schools across the country? Will the people over there laugh when their grandchildren bring that kind of garbage home?
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, this information was certainly not put together for young children, but these kinds of behaviour are extremely risky. Those who do participate in these kinds of behaviours should have the knowledge they need to make sure they do not spread the AIDS virus.
Air Traffic Control CommunicationsMichel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, 25 years after passage of the Official Languages Act and 20 years after the debate on the use of French in air traffic control communications, French-language air traffic control services are still not available everywhere over the Quebec territory.
Airspace over the North Shore and the Magdalen Islands is covered by the Moncton control unit which offers services in English only; it takes eight to fifteen minutes to obtain services in French.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us why some regions of Quebec still do not have access to effective and fast air traffic control services in French and does he not agree that those regions would be better served by a control centre or unit offering bilingual services?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to see my colleague's commitment to bilingualism. To answer his question, I would reply that we always try to provide services in both official languages of Canada where it is necessary. There will always be some corridors here and there in Canada where it will be more difficult to offer services in English and French, that is in both languages.
We made all possible efforts, and I think even my hon. colleague will admit that Canada has made fantastic efforts in order to offer services in French in Quebec airspace.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that if the coverage of airspace over the North Shore and the Magdalen Islands were transferred to the Quebec control unit, traffic control would be sufficient to keep it operational and Transport Canada could then offer quality services in French to all regions of Quebec?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker we are very proud of the air navigational system in Canada. It is as good as any system anywhere in the world.
What we attempt to do in Canada is to prevent the kinds of incidents that would be deplorable whether they occurred in Quebec or any other part of the country.
Our responsibility is to provide a first class air navigational system. That is what we do, and we can provide it from a bilingual province like New Brunswick just as well as we can provide it from anywhere in Quebec.
Social HousingMrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the parliamentary secretary to the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
On June 8, federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers met in Bathurst, New Brunswick, to discuss among other things a social housing strategy aimed at helping low-income Canadians.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell us what concrete steps the federal and provincial governments have agreed to in their efforts to house Canadians in need?
Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of agreements.
There is agreement to remove and reduce duplication and overlap and to harmonize the building codes in Canada. They have completed consultations on environmental problems but, most important, it was agreed to develop new partnerships, to develop additional strategies to attack social housing, to-
I am saying so for everyone, through the Speaker.
-establish priority of need in each of the jurisdictions by the end of the summer and to come forward with new concrete initiatives that they will develop from the savings and efficiencies that they have undertaken.
It is a boon for Canadians who earn low income in remote, small, isolated rural and urban areas, as well as for home owners and renters.
ImmigrationRandy White: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On September 19, 1993 a young lady in my riding was raped by an illegal immigrant. I have in my possession a lengthy criminal record of that individual which reflects sex offences, drunk driving, theft and on and on it goes.
What system is in place to ensure that people like this are kicked out of Canada and stay out of Canada?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this government does not accept illegal immigrants as much as this member or this party. In fact, tomorrow we will be tabling legislation in the House of Commons to further strengthen the fact that those individuals who come here illegally and who commit crimes against the very system of justice and values that we believe in as Canadians will pay the price. Those amendments will be an effort to further strengthen the laws and those who wish to abuse our laws will pay the price.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to have a good opportunity today to show how well he backs that up. This young lady agreed to drop the sexual
assault charges on the condition that this repeat offender was deported which he was in November last year.
Now I find this chronic sex offender, this failed refugee claimant is back in my community to appear, by invitation from this minister's officials, at a second hearing to be allowed to stay in Canada.
Why is this man even getting a hearing in the first place? Why has the government reneged on its promise to keep this criminal out of Canada?
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to engage on the floor of the House of Commons in a case when the member has not given me advanced notice of the person's name or the case file.
The member may not wish to respect the privacy legislation, due process. I say again to the hon. member that no one on that side has a virtue or a monopoly on virtue about those cases that are abhorrent to all Canadians.
I will certainly look at the case that the hon. member speaks about. Tomorrow we will be putting forward amendments with the aim of making it very, very clear that those in the minority who abuse will have those loopholes closed. I hope that his party looks forward to the speedy passage of that legislation.
United NationsMr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, in a report released yesterday, the Canadian Committee for the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations is proposing the implementation and funding by Canada of a peacemaking unit which would be at the disposal of the UN to take part in different peace missions. This UN rapid intervention standing force would particularly be used to prevent conflicts and massacres, to protect humanitarian assistance convoys and to maintain interposition forces for the enforcement of ceasefires.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the context of the review of the Canadian foreign policy and defence policies, is the minister in favour of this recommendation to create a Canadian peacemaking unit?
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting proposal which will certainly be examined on its merits by the parliamentary committee mandated to review our foreign policy and defence policies.
Jean-Marc Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the minister's answer, because it gives some leeway to the joint committee on foreign policy review as well as the joint committee on defence, and I thank him for it.
Can the minister also tell us if he agrees with another proposal made by that committee to increase the membership of the UN Security Council in order to accept more developing countries?
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that, indeed, studies are currently being done within the UN Security Council. In fact, at the last UN meeting, a special committee was given the mandate to review the membership of the Security Council. Several proposals are currently being examined.
Canada is very interested in a Security Council that would better reflect the current reality of the UN, in view of the fact that a considerable number of countries have been added since the creation of the first Security Council. Canada did not make any specific proposal, but we are examining very actively different proposals currently under review. When that special committee tables its report, Canada will certainly be at the forefront of a major reform of the Security Council.
ImmigrationMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is further to the question raised by my colleague from Fraser Valley West.
The minister in the past has told Canadians that these are isolated cases, the aeroplane analogy as I call it. I would like him to tell that to the young lady anxiously awaiting the results of her HIV test while this rapist walks the streets of her neighbourhood.
My question is this. In Matsqui prison in B.C. today is another repeat offender who has been ordered deported nine times. Does the minister intend to deport this rapist nine times as well? How many innocent citizens must suffer because of government incompetence and inaction?
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Reform Party takes great pleasure in citing cases where it seeks to exploit whereas we see cases and we try to fix the system that allows those cases to occur.
There is a big difference. The gory details, day in and day out, give no satisfaction and no pleasure to any member on this side as it does not give any pleasure or satisfaction to that side. We have laws. We have a process. We also move to deport individuals and we have. We will further strengthen that.
I will give a commitment to look into those individual cases, but I refuse to engage on the floor of the House of Commons to give out justice Reform Party style.
Art Hanger: I have a supplemental, Mr. Speaker.
At the present time we are waiting results from consultations and studies. I would like to offer the minister the chance to show Canadians that his bite is as big as his bark.
The hearing for the once deported rapist that my colleague referred to will be held at 8.30 a.m. tomorrow. Will this minister stop this hearing immediately, deport this individual and guarantee Canadians that he will never ever enter Canada again?
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, first, I am not aware of the individual case.
Second, if the hon. member is as concerned about this case as he demonstrates on the floor of the House of Commons, I caution him that that excitement can in fact throw the case out because he and other members could be in contempt of court.
First, why don't you settle down? Maybe you should settle down.
Second, if you do have the case at heart and want to create justice, do not be in contempt of court and do not give that individual any further legal angles.
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members will want to include the Speaker in their answers and in their questions, absolutely.
Air Embargo Against HaitiMr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. As a result of the air embargo against Haiti, Canadian nationals are in a hurry to leave the country. However, this morning, we were informed by the media that several Canadians, men and women, could not leave Haiti even if they had valid return tickets because of an airfare increase at Air Canada.
What does the minister intend to do to deal with that situation?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I just found out today about the allegations referred to by the hon. member. I want to say that we obviously have no control over airfares charged by airlines. However, I want to tell all the members of this House that we are very concerned by this whole issue, if those allegations are founded.
Although we do not have any regulatory power on this particular issue, it is with a great degree of sadness that we learned of this kind of situation having developed in Haiti, if in fact the allegations are correct. We will want to inquire. I am sure that the carrier in question will want to explain the facts of the situation and make sure that Canadians understand exactly what did take place.
ImmigrationMr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. For several months now, immigration officers, especially in Montreal and Toronto, have been requiring from refugees whose status has been recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board a passport from their country of origin. They have been requesting those people to contact their embassy or consulate to apply for a passport in order for them to review their application for permanent resident status.
My question is this. Is the minister aware that the demand imposed by immigration officers upon refugees whose status has been recognized jeopardizes the safety of those people and that of their families in their countries of origin?
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, documentation is normally required after a refugee is accepted and upon landing. I think it would be easily understood that documentation for a number of individuals is impossible if in fact they are refugees. If they are fleeing from a regime, documentation sometimes is an impossibility, which is taken into account.
Gun ControlMr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. We have been told that law abiding firearms owners are the primary source of guns used in crime because their firearms can be stolen. Accurate information regarding the sources of guns for criminals is necessary to determine if further firearms controls will reduce gun related crime, yet the statistics are unavailable.
Will the minister undertake a comprehensive national study to determine the source of firearms for criminal activities and will he make the information readily available to all Canadians?
Russell MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, we do not have accurate statistics on the availability of firearms for illegal purposes. As the hon. member has said there are those who say that most of the firearms that get into the
hands of criminals are stolen, but the Official Opposition yesterday said that firearms smuggled across the border were the main concern.
The Ministry of Justice is looking into this. The minister has given his undertaking that he will get as much information on this question as he possibly can and make it available to the House.
TransportHon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Recently the minister gave an address outlining the government's plans to systematically dismantle the transportation system in this country. It should have been entitled "Goodbye to the National Dream". The minister calls his plan commercialization but it is clear that he means privatization and it will affect 75 per cent of the department's activities.
I ask the minister to be clear with Canadians. His policy clearly follows the Tory royal commission on transport.
I would like to ask the minister to explain how his plan to commercialize is different from the plan of the Tories to privatize which he opposed so vehemently in the last Parliament?
Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that there is no intention to dismantle the transportation system. We are trying to ensure that an integrated, affordable transportation system is available for Canadians to move both people and products.
I want to say to my hon. colleague that many people who follow the transportation scene will recognize in the commercialization approach that we are trying to maintain the involvement of the Government of Canada in a supervisory, a regulatory, a policy way in the work we are doing in transportation. We also understand that business and commercial practices have to be applied to the way we administer the transportation system.
The people who have been around here for some time have seen former ministers of transport of a Liberal stripe attempt to do these kinds of things. It is not a Tory agenda. It is an agenda designed to provide Canada with a transportation system that will support the economy that is required to pay for the social programs that are at the heart of Liberal policy.
Business Of The HouseMr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-28 without further debate and to dispense with the ringing of the bells on any recorded division.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
(Motion agreed to.)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-28, an act respecting the making of loans and the provision of other forms of financial assistance to students, to amend and provide for the repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(1)(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The first question is on Motion No. 1.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will obtain unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to Motions Nos. 2 and 3 and to apply it in reverse to the motion at report stage.
The Speaker: Does the House agree?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Baker: Mr. Speaker, point of order. I wonder if you could include my name as voting with the government on these motions as well as, I think, a couple of other members here behind me.
Jim Karygiannis: Put mine there, too, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my name added to that too.
The Speaker: Order, order.
The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:
Lloyd Axworthy: 
moved that the bill be concurred in.

The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
The Speaker: I declare the bill concurred in at report stage.
When shall the bill be read the third time? Later this day?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Business Of The HouseMr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the deputy government House leader to tell us the business for the coming days.
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, today, the House will continue the debate on Bill C-37, to amend the Young Offenders Act. Tomorrow, the House will consider the motion from the Minister of Industry to refer Bill C-43, on lobbyists, to committee before second reading.
Since much of the business for next week depends on bills coming back from committees, scheduling of votes and other ad hoc arrangements will be arranged on an ongoing basis of interparty consultation.
We will want to complete Bill C-28 regarding assistance to students, Bill C-30 regarding fisheries workers, Bill C-32 regarding taxes on tobacco, Bill C-40 the miscellaneous statute amendments and Bill C-37 the young offenders bill.
We would also like to complete consideration of the two bills affecting the Yukon, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 if they come out of committee on time. We will also have to deal with anything else left over from this week.
Of course, we would also like to discuss completing any other bills that my be reported from committee in sufficient time.
The Speaker: My colleagues, last week we had a question of privilege raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am prepared to give my ruling on this. Following that, I will give my ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.
PrivilegeThe Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the matter raised last Monday, June 13, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In his submission, the hon. parliamentary secretary sought to clarify a number of issues related to allegations made against him by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre during Question Period on June 2 and 3, 1994.
The parliamentary secretary claimed that, by bringing into question his compliance with the federal conflict of interest code, the allegations had damaged his credibility and had thus impeded his ability to function as a member of this House. The parliamentary secretary then informed the House that he had complied fully with the conflict of interest code and had formally resigned as a director and officer of the company in question. The parliamentary secretary also refuted other allegations made by the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.
From the information provided during the exchange and from my review of the Debates of June 2 and 3, it would appear to the Chair that this is clearly a disagreement as to the facts. I refer the hon. members to citation 31(1) of Beauchesne's 6th Edition: ``A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege''.
May I also quote from the Journals of June 4, 1975, at page 600. In a ruling on a case of allegations made by one member against another in respect of his conduct, Speaker Jerome indicated that ``a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege''.
The government House leader pointed out that there have been many occasions when members have risen to make statements under the guise of a statement of personal privilege in order to put on record their understanding of a situation involving themselves. As your Speaker, I take these matters very seriously and understand the need for members to express themselves in these cases. When I intervened during the parliamentary secretary's presentation, I felt that he had made his point.
Not every matter raised as personal privilege necessarily constitutes a basis for a question of privilege. It is incumbent upon the Chair to ensure that the time of the House is used judiciously, and Members can assist the Chair by being succinct in their presentations when bringing such matters to the attention of the House.
I would like to thank the hon. government House leader, the hon. parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Simcoe Centre for their contributions.
My colleagues, I am now prepared to rule on a point of order.
Point Of OrderThe Speaker: On June 1, 1994, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona raised a point of order concerning the designation of party status for members of the New Democratic Party. I would like to thank the hon. member for his detailed and well researched presentation, and the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands, Laurier-Sainte-Marie and Kindersley-Lloydminster for their contributions to the discussions.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona asked that I consider and rule upon the request of the members of the New Democratic Party caucus: One, to be designated as New Democrats; Two, to be seated together; and three, to be treated as a recognized party for certain procedural purposes.
I am now ready to rule on that point of order. First, let me deal with the question of what constitutes a party for procedural purposes, a question which has long preoccupied the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona argued at length that the definition of "recognized party" in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Board of Internal Economy bylaws applies only to certain matters of money and allowances. He maintained that the definition should not be used to define the meaning of "party" or "recognized party" in our standing orders or our practice.
He noted, for example, that Section 50(3) of the Act which sets the composition of the Board of Internal Economy makes specific reference to a caucus which ``does not have a recognized membership of 12 or more''. That reference, he claimed, implies the possibility of a caucus without 12 members, yet identified as such.
The hon. member presented detailed accounts of the situations which existed in the House of Commons in 1963, 1966 and 1979 when smaller parties were recognized in various ways for purposes of procedure and practice. He also argued that the same rights should be extended to members of the New Democratic Party today.
Having studied the circumstances of each of these cases and having reviewed the rulings referred to by the hon. member as well as others touching on this matter, the conclusions I draw are quite different.
The status granted to minor parties for procedural purposes in certain of these cases was the result of the political exigencies of the time. In none of these instances did the Chair act unilaterally.
In his ruling of September 30, 1963, at page 386 of the Journals , Speaker Macnaughton, while dealing with the status of a New Democratic Party in the House, pointed out that the status of a party in the House was for the House itself to decide.
Speaker Macnaughton also made two comments which I feel are very important and which I would like to quote to the House. He said:

It is in consequence among the duties of the Speaker to see that the Standing Orders of the House are followed in the course of its procedures and that the privileges of the House, once they have been defined and recognized, are protected. It is also the duty of the Speaker to be impartial and removed from politics, which has already been my aim since, honourable members, you did me the honour to elect me as your Speaker.

I am still quoting Speaker Macnaughton.

It seems to me that having in mind the authorities from Sir Erskine May to Lord Campion, from Bourinot to Beauschene, and from Anson to McGregor Dawson and many others, a situation such as that now facing the House must be resolved by the House itself. It is not one where the Speaker ought by himself to take a position where any group of members might feel that their interests as a group or a party have been prejudiced. Nor should the Speaker be put in the position where he must decide, to the advantage or to the disadvantage of any group or party, matters affecting the character of existences of a party, for this surely would signify that the Speaker has taken what is almost a political decision, a decision where the question involves the rights and privileges of the House itself.

In the Journals of February 18, 1966 at page 159, Speaker Lamoureux, in the ruling on ministerial statements referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona, was loath to institute any change in the practices of the House at that time and indicated that he would not veer from the contemporary practice until such time as the House amended the Standing Orders to do otherwise.
In October 1979, when the issue of party status was again raised, Speaker Jerome returned to the 1963 ruling of Speaker Macnaughton to reiterate that this matter is not the responsibility of the Speaker to decide but rather, a matter for the House. I would draw the attention of members to the words of Speaker Jerome on page 69 of the Debates for October 11, 1979.
In his presentation, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona quoted from a subsequent ruling of Speaker Jerome given on November 6, 1979, and found at page 1009 of the Debates . This ruling concerned the Chair's responsibility to protect the rights of members of small parties.
One of the portions of the ruling quoted only in part by the hon. member is worth repeating:

The House will recognize in what I have tried to do, I think both representing the spirit of the protection of minorities in the House and also, I think the generosity of the House, that what those members are entitled to can be given to them with a generosity and a recognition that respects the fact that they are members of a political party, so long as it does not give them an advantage that they would not otherwise enjoy as five members and, secondly, so long as it does not deprive other members of their right to participate in some way.

Yet again, Speaker Jerome declined to go beyond the contemporary practices of the House while ensuring that the rights of the individual member were protected.
This important theme was once again taken up in a ruling by Speaker Fraser given on December 13, 1990 and found at pages 16703 to 16707 in the Debates . At that time the Speaker declared in very strong terms that the basic rights and privileges of individual members of whatever political persuasion are fully protected by the Chair. Stating, on page 16704: ``The Chair pledges to do its utmost to continue to serve this House in as even-handed and impartial a manner as possible''.
In the current circumstances, the existence of the New Democratic Party caucus has not been denied and the Chair will continue to ensure that each member of the House is treated fairly by the rules.
In arguing his case, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona acknowledged that his party's situation could not be resolved without, what he called, "an appropriate will to discern the difference between some previous situations and the situation we find ourselves in at the moment".
I find myself agreeing with the hon. member up to a point. In my view, what he called "an appropriate will" to resolve the situation must be found not in your Speaker acting alone but in the House acting as a whole.
As the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie rightly points out, the status of minority parties in the House has always been determined in general by the political make-up of the House.
If the hon. member's argument persuades his colleagues to the solutions he seeks, then the House will have to give new guidance to the Chair.
As your Speaker and the guardian of the rights of minorities and each individual member, I remain fully aware of the grave responsibilities of the Chair in this regard. Indeed, an analysis of the last two months shows that a member not belonging to a recognized party has participated almost every day during the period reserved for members' statements and, on the average, every other day during question period. The House may be assured that I and my deputies pledge to continue to do everything we can to facilitate the fair and active participation of each member in the work of the House.
In my view unilateral action by the Chair would mark a significant departure from the interpretation of our rules and practices as they have evolved over the last decade. As your Speaker and the servant of the House, I believe that I cannot arbitrarily impose a new interpretation but must wait until the House as it is now constituted indicates to me what, if any, action it wishes the Chair to take.
Let me now address the two other matters: the designation of members as members of the New Democratic Party and their wish to be seated together.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona complained that his party is not designated, as it should be, as a caucus on the seating plan of the Chamber. He presented copies of seating plans from previous parliaments to support his view. He did, however, acknowledge that his party is clearly designated as the New Democratic Party in the Debates .
Let us review the current situation. The Members of Parliament belonging to the New Democratic Party are identified as such in the Debates and on the televised proceedings of the House. They are designated as ``others'' in the back row to the left of the Speaker on the seating plan of the Chamber.
Seating arrangements in the House have traditionally been decided following negotiations among the recognized parties.
The chief government whip places members of the government in seats to the right of the Chair and, when there is not enough room on the right to accommodate all government members, some may also be placed to the left of the Chair.
Of the remaining places, the Whip of the Official Opposition assigns seats to the members of that party and the whip of the third party then assigns seats to members of that party. The responsibility for assigning to other members the seats that remain vacant has traditionally fallen to the Speaker.
To determine the seating arrangements for those members who do not belong to a recognized party, the Chair follows the order of their seniority as elected members.
In considering the NDP's request, the New Democrats' request that they be seated together and that their leader be granted the rank due her as a Privy Councillor, I was struck by a phrase of the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. Explaining the timing of his point of order he stated:

I thought it was appropriate for the House to become acquainted with itself after the unprecedented upheaval of the last election.

I applaud the wisdom of that comment. The Chair has made every effort to accommodate members fairly in the present situation. Having now been your Speaker for some five months, I have received various representations from members of Parliament and their constituents on this matter and I have carefully reviewed the precedents. For example, on September 24, 1990, at page 13216 of the Debates , Speaker Fraser noted on a ruling dealing with seating arrangements that the Speaker can exercise some discretion in these matters. He stated:

I also think members should understand that as your Speaker, I have some discretion in dealing with the rights of every person in this House who is in a minority position. I think we have a great tradition of protecting the rights of minorities, and I can assure the hon. member that the rights of minorities will be protected by the Speaker in a way that is fair and equitable for all other members.

Having concluded that some remedy does lie within the purview of the Speaker, I have therefore asked my officials to modify the seating plan as of the return of the House on September 19 to implement the following changes in the seats that the Speaker assigns:
(1) The hon. members for Sherbrooke and Saint John will be seated together and identified as the Progressive Conservative caucus on the seating plan.
(2) The hon. members of the New Democratic caucus will also be seated together and be identified as such on the plan.
(3) The hon. member for Beauce will be identified as Independent and the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville will be identified as Independent Liberal.
This appears to the Chair to be a fair response to competing claims. Members of the same party will be identified and seated together, with the precedence of their respective leaders determining their place in the sequence. The two other members will be assigned the two remaining seats according to their seniority and designated according to their express wishes.
I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona for his thoughtful, in-depth presentation. I appreciate the contributions of the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands, Laurier-Sainte-Marie and Kindersley-Lloydminster. I hope the steps I have taken to solve matters within my discretion will go some way to remedy the situation. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and his caucus colleagues may be assured that if the House indicates to me that it has been persuaded by his arguments I stand ready to be guided accordingly.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be now read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, 35 years ago, I opted for a career in education, specifically in the training of pre-school and primary school teachers.
I also decided to speak for those who have no voice, the children and adolescents who rarely get an opportunity to express their views, defend their position or demand their rights. Therefore, I am especially pleased to speak today to this debate on Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.
At the outset, I want the House to know that I fully support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert who is also the justice critic for the official opposition. This overly regressive bill should not proceed beyond second reading and should be withdrawn by the government.
Moreover, the amendment states that the Young Offenders Act "introduces no concrete measure for the rehabilitation of young offenders" and "does not encourage the provinces to take legislative or other measures necessary in order to set up comprehensive crime prevention programs".
I would like to add my voice to those of my colleagues and join the broad consensus in Quebec which opposes any attempts to make the provisions of the Young Offenders Act more stringent. In the time allotted to me, I would like to outline our main reasons for opposing this bill.
First of all, far be it for me to deny the existence of youth crime and violence, much less to minimize the seriousness of the problem. In point of fact, vile, unacceptable crimes such as premeditated murder are committed by juvenile delinquents. The present system acts as a kind of safety valve and works well in that the existing legislation already makes it possible to transfer such cases to adult court and to sentence the offenders accordingly.
During 1992-93, 33 cases involving serious crimes were transferred to adult court. The problem is that we do not have the data to confirm or invalidate the government's decision to move in this direction. As for other serious crimes which can be categorized as relational crimes, reintegration into Canadian society should be the preferred approach.
The legislator showed that social reintegration was one of its main concerns, as he clearly stated in the principle of the bill by including Paragraphs a ) and c .1) in Clause 1, and I quote: Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending behaviours in the future''. The bill goes on to say:The protection of society, which is a primary objective of the criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by rehabilitation, wherever possible, of young persons who commit offences, and rehabilitation is best achieved by addressing the needs and circumstances of a young person that are relevant to the young person's offending behaviour''.
Where the shoe pinches is that the legislator's goodwill does not extend beyond stating these nice principles. Too bad. The Minister of Justice had everything he needed to bring about the changes that would have made the youth justice system more efficient. He financed a late-February seminar hosted by the University of Toronto's criminology centre. This seminar brought together a group of experts including academics, government officials and professionals working in the field of youth justice.
The introduction to the final report dated March 28, 1994 says that the purpose of the seminar is explicit in its very title, "Beyond the Red Book: A Workshop on Recommendations for Amendments to the Young Offenders Act". What is the minister proposing to us in his bill? The promises in the red book, and nothing that goes beyond this now outdated document. Nothing takes into consideration the opinion of the experts who met at that seminar to advise the minister-at great expense to the taxpayers, need I remind you.
They give themselves a clear conscience. They study. They consult. But why, I ask you, Madam Speaker, since everything was already in the red book. So the essential amendments in this bill concern heavier penalties for serious crimes and the presumption of referral to adult court.
A reference document dated May 1994 and published by the Department of Justice says that the public is very concerned about the need to control youth crime and to protect society. Therefore some believe that stricter sentences are the best way to deter young people from committing criminal acts.
By the way, what does the experts' famous report say about stiffer sentences? I quote:
"Variation in dispositional severity will have little, if any, impact on crime" and "there is no obvious pressure within the youth justice system for higher maximum penalties".
In other words, the experts who rely on facts, on their experience, on what they see, contradict those who rely on perceptions and their own imagination: tougher sentences are not the way to reduce youth crime.
Faced with this dilemma, what does the minister do? He decides not to take the path suggested by his experts. He even ignores the fine principles set forth at the beginning of his own bill and he opts for more severe sentences. Nevertheless, this same document issued by the department says: "All our efforts in criminal justice seek to prevent crime, including youth crime. Prosecuting someone who committed a crime may provide some comfort to the victim and reassure the public, but it cannot be as satisfactory as preventing the crime as such.
It is often harder to implement crime prevention programs than to merely sue an offender after the fact. Prevention is based on the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions which generate crime and it requires efforts to change those conditions. The co-operation of many departments from all levels of government, as well as of the private sector and the public in general is needed. Making crime prevention programs effective is a major challenge. However, the results obtained with such programs, namely a reduction in crime, is much more beneficial for young people, and also for Canadians who, otherwise, might have become victims. Consequently, the rehabilitation of young offenders must be a major objective of the legislation".
This is an ambitious program. Joint action is necessary. We must co-operate with the other governments, the private sector and the public. We must change the economic, educational, social and moral conditions in our society. We must promote awareness, education and tolerance. Together, we must meet the challenge of reducing crime because, in the end, it will prove more beneficial for everyone.
Experts also insist that rehabilitation is more effective outside the criminal system. The Canadian Sentencing Commission says that 70 per cent of Canadians want more money to be allocated to the development of other types of sentence than incarceration.
Yet, this is not what the minister has decided to do. He prefers the easy solution. The challenge was probably too big for his government. We must look elsewhere to find out why the minister tabled such a bill, especially considering that the Young Offenders Act was amended in 1992, precisely to extend by three to five years the sentences for violent crimes. Merely two years later, when we have not even had a real chance to see if the amended act works and to assess its impact, the government comes up with new amendments to once again lengthen sentences for violent crimes, this time by five to ten years.
It seems obvious to me that the government's chief concern, in bringing this amendment, is to keep an election promise, perhaps made off the cuff by the leader of the Liberal Party during the last election campaign when he was being pressured with questions in the Reform Party's stronghold. Or perhaps the minister bowed to various pressures by trying to please everybody, but satisfying no one. The bill does not go far enough for hard-liners who want society to be protected at all cost, and it also turns a deaf ear to those who would like to maintain the status quo and those who support the social reintegration and rehabilitation of young offenders.
The second important amendment to this bill concerns the presumption of transfer to adult court.
Youth crime and violence by young people are of real concern to the public. But this concern is based on the public's perception, not on actual facts. More and more Canadians are afraid of rising crime, particularly involving young people, and many Canadians feel that the government is not doing enough to address this problem.
In a 1987 report, the Canadian Sentencing Commission noted that 75 per cent of the population believed that 30 to 100 per cent of crimes were violent crimes.
But the reality is quite different. In 1992, for example, only one of every ten crimes under the Criminal Code that were reported to police was a violent crime. In its background paper, the government recognizes that the extent of violent crime in Canada is not well known, and that rational responses to criminal behaviour among young people should be based on facts and not on perceptions. Since 1970, the average number of homicides allegedly committed by adolescents has declined sharply. The department also tells us that young people between the ages of 12 and 18 make up 8 per cent of the population, and that about 6 to 9 per cent of suspect investigations in all
homicide cases in Canada since 1986 have focused on young people in that age group. It is therefore patently false to claim that adolescents are more likely than adults to commit murder.
To deal with this problem, the government had two options: the easy, populist and short-term solution, which included the bill before the House today, or stressing the long-term interests of the teenager and society and opting for rehabilitation. When a young person who has committed a reprehensible act is charged and tried by a judge and jury, and especially if he is sentenced to life imprisonment, it may be some consolation for the victim or the victim's family and it may be reassuring for society. However, what does society gain by sentencing a young person whom we might be able to rehabilitate through community reintegration? What do we gain by sentencing a young person to closed custody or imprisonment, a school for crime with no drop-outs and where good attendance increases the risk of recidivism?
Nothing at all, Madam Speaker. Statistics show that only13 per cent of young people are responsible for violent crimes, while this was 22 per cent for the 18 to 25 group and 33 per cent for the 25 to 34 group.
According to the experts, the minister should have gone beyond the red book, because the main problem with the Young Offenders Act is not the act itself but the administration of justice.
For instance, it is a fact that the crime resolution rate is very low. The average for all types of crimes is around 29 per cent. Another administrative problem is the time it takes for the court to hand down the sentence. It takes far too long, especially when we are talking about teenagers, where time is a very important factor. When the time lapsed between the crime and sentencing is too long, this tends to erode the causal link between the two events and consequently undermines the credibility of the adults who make the decisions that alter the course of their lives.
Our so-called civilized and industrialized world has no initiation rites to mark the passage from childhood to adulthood. Instead, we invented adolescence. What are the messages teenagers get from our society? You are too big to be a child and too small to be an adult. You have to settle for being a teenager. You have to meet standards of acceptable behaviour. You have to go to school, because you are too young to work. You have to go on welfare, because there are no jobs.
Between the ages of 14 and 18, teenagers experience a major identity crisis. They are trying to find themselves. They want to test the limits of society. They need understanding, support, supervision, explanations, information, education, training, but they are often left alone with a list of instructions. In other cases, they are often exposed to confrontation and violence.
I have heard some quite remarkable speeches in this House on traditional family values and the need to subsidize women in the home to allow them to raise their children. But those same members were among the first to call for more repression, more punishment and stricter standards. Have we forgotten that children do not come into this world as delinquents and that the environment in which they were raised has made them what they are? Are we overlooking the fact that we are the sum of our experiences? Are we trying to disclaim all responsibility for the mess we have made?
I am disappointed, even sad. Sad because we do not seem to care about working to improve our collective well-being. We have the power to save our children, but we are choosing to put them in jail. Yet, are not parents responsible for their children until they reach 18? Then, why not consider alternatives like the ones suggested by the expert panel? For example, we could have added the option of imposing a suspended sentence, which would protect our society and give young persons a chance to prove their willingness to modify their behaviour.
To improve the delivery of justice we could have considered a better co-operation between the Crown and the defence, in order to reach a decision best suited for the accused. Personally, I think that the probation officer could have been involved, to find alternatives to prison.
To conclude, amendments to an act will never make up for not enforcing of that act properly. The federal minister is responsible for the Young Offenders Act, but its application comes under provincial jurisdiction. To reach his objective, better youth justice administration, the minister should have involved the provinces in the legislative review process.
He did not do that and that goes to show, in my opinion, that he is not looking for an effective, long-term solution, but rather for a short-term, popular solution, even if it is counter-productive. Once again, the federal government demonstrates that it has but one concern: to centralize. It follows its own course, irrespective of the good of the children of Quebec, among others.
Jim Karygiannis: Madam Speaker, I have been working on amendments to the Young Offenders Act since the day I was elected. Some of the comments made by my hon. colleague across the way I certainly could not comprehend.
This particular act we are dealing with was first tested in 1985 when a young individual in my riding killed three people: a mother, a father and their seven-year old daughter. The young offender received three years in total. There are no words to describe the feelings of my constituents.
What I am hearing from the hon. member is that the Liberal Party wants to appease the Reform. I do not think the Liberal Party brought these changes about because of the Reform Party. For a long time the Liberal Party has been a beacon for changes to the Young Offenders Act. Certainly I disagree with what my colleague is saying.
My colleague is saying that in a civilized world we should have something which is called an adolescent. This young individual who snuffed three lives was not an adolescent; he had already moved into the adult world. He committed a crime. As the saying goes: You do the crime, you pay the time.
I heard with great interest my hon. colleague saying that we do not need prisons, that we need rehabilitation. I quite agree we need rehabilitation.
What in the hon. member's view should a young offender get for committing a severe crime, such as a killing or a rape? Do we say: "You are a nice adolescent so don't worry about it. We will give you a pat on the back because you are not old enough to do it", or: "You did the crime, you pay the time"?
Closer to home, if a young offender were to kill a member of the hon. member's family, how would she want to see justice served? What kind of time would that young offender be paying?
Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, it must be understood that I never said that teenagers, including criminals, were all very nice individuals. Let us not get carried away.
I think that it is extremely important to realize that there are around two million teenagers in Canada and that the member is talking about something that happened three years ago in his riding. One out of two million, that is not a lot to justify amending an act. According to statistics, over the past 20 years, around 46 teenagers a year commit odious crimes.
The example given by my colleague clearly proves that the problem is not with the act or sentencing, but with the enforcement of the legislation. If, in his riding, this odious murderer had been tried in adult court, as allowed under the present legislation, he would have been sentenced accordingly. He would have received a life sentence, Madam Speaker, not three years.
It must be understood that once again, the member, with his question, is providing me with a beautiful opportunity to make my point, a point which is in keeping with the question he asked me.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Madam Speaker, my colleague in her speech mentioned that the preamble of the amendments to the Young Offenders Act falls very short. What does my colleague from Quebec say about what should be the balance between the needs of the victim and the needs of the offender as outlined in the preamble as to the general direction the act should be administered?
I noticed the word "victim" is not mentioned at all in the preamble. I would like her views on the balance between victim's needs and offender's needs, especially as it should be outlined in the preamble of the Young Offenders Act.
Suzanne Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I think we need to make a distinction between the various types of crimes. There are the serious, horrible and unacceptable crimes, which should be dealt with before adult courts, as stipulated in the current legislation.
Now, for all the other types of crimes, we know that the majority of crimes committed by young people are property offences. The most important thing is to find a way to allow the young offenders to directly compensate their victims. Let me give you an example.
If we were to ask a 14- or 15-year-old who broke into my house to mow my lawn for a whole summer, I think that might serve as compensation for the crime and as a constant reminder to the offender of what he did wrong. That could improve relations in our society. I would probably lock my doors while he mowed the lawn, but still there may be some innovative alternatives to intolerance and repression.
Teenagers and children are victims. They were not born this way. We have to understand that they are not totally responsible for their actions. The economic and social conditions in which we have them live and the school situation they find themselves in have a significant impact on the lives of 14- to 18-year-olds. When they need to identify with someone, there is no one around: their fathers are gone, their mothers have new boyfriends or vice versa. They change home every week, they never live at the same place, they have problems at school. We built them huge schools where they do not feel as though they belong. All of these things make life very difficult for our young people. That is why they are constantly testing society to see what is allowed and what is forbidden.
The more innovative and tolerant we are towards young offenders, in order to give them the opportunity to right the wrongs they did, the better their chances for rehabilitation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. I think she understands the problem of young offenders and she presented the issue quite well.
The member is also surely aware, from what the Minister of Justice has said, that he wants to address this issue in two steps: the first step being the amendments which he proposed last week and which are being undertaken, as you said so well, without first knowing the results of the 1992 amendments. The Act is therefore being reworked again before those results are even known. The second step will take the form of large-scale consultations on the entire young offenders issue, possibly resulting in a report to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, along with proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act. This is just one more snag for the Young Offenders Act, which was passed in 1984.
I have two questions for the member, Madam Speaker, which can be answered quickly. First of all, does the member find this to be a normal process in dealing with an issue as important as young offenders? Second, do this process and the amendments proposed by the minister-although she did touch on this point in her address-conform to Quebec's expectations concerning this issue, and in particular the expectations communicated very clearly to the federal justice minister by the National Assembly and the provincial minister of justice?
Suzanne Tremblay: I thank my colleague for his congratulations and his two questions. The process seems quite abnormal to me. If the minister had made a career in the same field as I did, and if he had applied for a grant to bring new amendments without first awaiting the results of a previous amendment, he would never have got the grant. It makes absolutely no sense to make amendments without really knowing the results of previous amendments.
In my opinion, therefore, since this is a two-stage process, it would be logical for the minister to be patient, wait for the second stage and postpone his bill for the time being. He is sending us on vacation but not sending our young people to jail as he does with this bill. The presumption of transfer to adult court is a problem that will increase the enforcement requirements of this Act, although he seems to say somewhere between the lines that it will be possible, for anyone so inclined, not to follow the Act and perhaps to circumvent it.
Now, as for Quebec's position, the only thing I find to cheer about in this bill, if one can say anything good about it, is that it gives me one more argument in favour of voting for Quebec sovereignty. Once again, the federal government is turning a deaf ear to Quebec concerning an Act that, while it could always be improved, is working very well in Quebec. The federal government will not win points in Quebec by making amendments such as these. It is showing us again that we have one more reason to leave this country which is not ours.
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training and Youth)): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today in support of the government's recent actions to crack down on violent young offenders who commit serious crimes.
As a preamble to my speech, we all have responsibilities in this country that we should not predicate the effectiveness of programs on what our political agendas are. I think we have a responsibility for the young people of this country and this piece of legislation and the amendments are clearly to address the needs that are there.
I am happy to be a member of Parliament and a contributing member so to speak who will perhaps add to a healthy debate and make viable suggestions that would fortify the country, bring people together and carve out a future for young people in this country rather than talk about some rather destructive means that would not bring any enjoyment or any good health to the country such as it is.
I am pleased that on June 2 the Minister of Justice tabled amendments to the Young Offenders Act. These amendments recognize the public's growing concern about youth violence and demonstrate the priority this government places on protecting the public.
These amendments, by shifting the onus on young people to take responsibility for their violent crimes, sends a strong signal to young people that their actions carry serious consequences. We are a country that basically wants Canadians to know that we all have a responsibility for our country and consequently for our actions.
However, as the Minister of Justice made clear, legislation is only one part of the answer to violence among young people. Protecting the public is the primary and necessary objective but we must focus our attention on helping our young people if we are to find lasting and effective solutions to youth crime.
I am encouraged to see that the amendments to the Young Offenders Act include provisions for the rehabilitation and treatment of young offenders in the community. There are many complex questions surrounding youth crime, questions that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be examining as part of the reform of the youth justice system.
I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues in the House to take action on the contributing factors to crime and violence such as unemployment, poverty, alcoholism, drug and substance abuse, family violence, racism and illiteracy.
This is not to say that any of those factors justifies any kind of violent crimes or should contribute to saying that young people have the right to commit crimes. These are mitigating factors. These are things that make it very difficult for young people to have a life that is well, a life that is healthy and a life that keeps them from the negative side of life, so to speak.
Socioeconomic misery and crime are two sides of the same coin. By addressing these problems in our society we will be tackling the root causes of youth crime and ultimately adult crime. It does not take any stretch of the imagination to see how such socioeconomic misery fuels anger, frustration, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity among young people.
I would like the House to consider the adverse conditions that many of our aboriginal youth face as they walk through the perilous path to adulthood. Unemployment among aboriginal people is twice the Canadian level. It is the number one problem facing aboriginal communities and they have the lowest incomes of anyone in the country.
The illiteracy rate among aboriginal people is twice the national average. High school dropout rates can be as high as95 per cent in isolated northern communities; 57.7 per cent of aboriginal people are under the age of 24. The aboriginal population is very young, growing fast and on the move.
The majority of aboriginal peoples do not live on reserves and the migration of on-reserve aboriginal peoples to urban centres particularly in western Canada is increasing. In Manitoba it is estimated that one out of four new entrants into the job market will be of aboriginal origin. In Saskatchewan it will be one out of three.
Are they destined for a life of unemployment, social problems, crime? The odds seem stacked against them but this need not be the case. Five to six times the number of aboriginal peoples are incarcerated in provincial and federal institutions as compared with aboriginal peoples in the general population. Yet aboriginal peoples only represent approximately 3.7 per cent of the Canadian population.
The state of many aboriginal peoples in Canada is not a pretty picture. Despite these socioeconomic problems, progress has been made in health, education, economic community development and social services.
Such progress is often linked to aboriginal peoples having culturally appropriate services controlled by aboriginal peoples. I am proud to be a part of a government that recognizes the enormous potential that our young people have to offer and that is prepared to invest in their abilities and to give them hope and opportunities for the future.
This government has implemented a number of programs and services we feel will help aboriginal youth and other youth as well recognize their strengths and grow to their full potential and to see the sun on the horizon in an optimistic manner.
I, as Secretary of State for Training and Youth, and the Minister of Human Resources Development have announced a youth strategy. This strategy will attack some of the root causes for turning youth into young offenders.
In my riding last month we made a contribution to a youth program with the Gwich'in people. The Gwich'in people have taken it upon themselves to build their own healing centre, to deal with many of their social and justice issues, many of their health issues. They have done so along with the partnership they are building with people who have the expertise in and outside their own communities.
Last month we announced 37 projects as part of the first wave of Youth Service Canada. We believe it is necessary to send a signal that young people can contribute to rather than take away from their communities. Many think of young people very negatively because young offenders tend to get all the stories, all the ink. The news media always covers them. However many young people are doing wonderful things but are not being celebrated or recognized.
Youth Service Canada aims to help 18 to 24-year olds gain work experience, develop their skills, learn good work habits and improve their self-esteem through community service projects. Youth Service Canada should provide opportunities for youth to break away from the socioeconomic factors which have held them back and have seduced some to become involved in a life of crime.
Recently I attended the University of Calgary's graduation for its native students. It has graduated 18 native students with university degrees, some of them with a Bachelor of Social Work, some of them with a Bachelor of Education. A young woman graduated with an engineering degree. Those young people are very healthy models of outstanding citizens who will help their communities and this country.
So far it is not all bad news. These 18 students from the University of Calgary graduated under the leadership ofMr. George Callion who works with native students across Canada. He works on the Calgary Police Commission and contributes in a number of ways.
It takes leadership. It takes caring. It takes generosity. These must be expressed to our young people to encourage them and to let them know that the government cares and the people in their communities care. We must let them know that we in this House care about them and are directing our efforts to deal with those things.
Thus far from all the colleges and universities across Canada, there have been 92,000 aboriginal graduates. That is quite a huge cadre of professionals who will contribute in some way to their communities.
On Monday the Edmonton Journal featured the graduation of native law students. Five or six of them were pictured on the front. I know most of them, but the one that leaped out at me was none other than Mr. Brad Enge from the Northwest Territories. He is a native student and a 20-year veteran of the RCMP who has contributed to his community and his country. He is a proud Canadian who has worked hard for law and order. He is a proud Canadian who has worked for the young people in his community. He is a model for these young people.
That is how it is done. Success is the way in the native communities to bring further successes. These 92,000 graduates thus far, along with the law students who were pictured on the front page of the Edmonton Journal are the way to go.
There is more than one way to deal with young offenders, the whole issue of social justice and a number of other justice issues as well. There is rehabilitation but there is also the way of leadership, young people who set an example as those people will do.
Part of the consultations on the concept of Youth Service Canada had me in contact with many youth across Canada. I met with hundreds of groups. We talked about all the bad things which are happening.
I had the occasion to go to the SkyDome stadium in Toronto. There were 50,000 young people accompanied by their teachers. They were celebrating what they called the journey of hope. It was a positive celebration to show that Canada's young people are not just involved in crimes. They are doing many wonderful things.
I have attended many graduations across the country, many of which involved aboriginal youth, but many of which involved ordinary Canadian citizens.
It is positive and wonderful to see people doing something constructive for which they get no credit. I wanted to celebrate that with my hon. colleagues.
Speaking about the Youth Service Canada I believe that every department and crown corporation will do its part to forge those partnerships which will produce healthier and better contributing young people across Canada.
In the Dene language we have what is called Dene Tulu. It is the path you walk on and the path you walk on is the path of your own choosing. We have integrated that as one stream into the youth services corps because of the young people who have been marginalized or have been left out, who have dropped out of school and have given up learning and are out of the labour market. Essentially, they become so marginalized they drop out of life. We need to rebuild their confidence. We have to get them back to work and back to learning.
This stream called the Dene Tulu or Tulu would have them contributing. Whether the path you choose is good or bad is really up to you. That is the Dene form of justice. Tulu is one of our four guiding themes for Youth Service Canada to look at directly assisting those young offenders who are in community based rehabilitation programs.
Young offenders were also prominent at some of our consultations across Canada, along with the disabled and the homeless youth. Youth Service Canada is one part of the government's actions to help young people to make the transition from school to the workforce or to reintegrate into society.
We could talk about the many attempts which the government has put forward. We have put forward a youth strategy and a youth internship program. We have been discussing the changes to the Canada student loans program. They will help young people to participate positively in their learning for future jobs they will engage in for nation building. There are exercises in their communities at the community and regional levels.
For that reason part of the youth internship approach is industry driven and involves the sectors of automotive repair, logistics, environment, electrical manufacturing, horticulture and tourism. Aboriginal youth will benefit from the youth internship, acquiring the hands-on knowledge and skills required in today's workforce.
The success of all our young people as they step into the adult world is crucial not only for their own self-esteem but also for the well-being and prosperity of society as a whole. The government stay in school aboriginal campaign is using innovative methods to increase public awareness and spur community action to reverse the appalling trend of having young people drop out of school, to the tune of 95 per cent in some areas as I have indicated.
A lot of discussion that preceded these amendments to the Young Offenders Act focused on violent crime and a need to get tough with young criminals. However let us not lose sight of the fact that less than 20 per cent of the youth crimes are violent acts. Of course they get most of the attention. It is very unfortunate and very negative that that is what usually gets a lot of the ink and the air time.
Let us not lose sight of the fact that less than 20 per cent are violent acts. Most youth crimes are property and alcohol related. Getting tough and throwing these young people behind bars is not necessarily the best answer in these situations. We are not saying that leniency is the answer. We are saying that perhaps there are other ways of forging relationships and partnerships that will help to reconstruct and rebuild communities.
We as parents have a responsibility. When a child is born and when a young child leaves the house to go to kindergarten, you do not know how that child will turn out. But if you do not do your level best, if you do not do everything in your power as a responsible member of the community to provide the nurturing, love and guidance for that child, it is almost guaranteed that you are sealing the fate of that child to a life of negativity and downfall. Even if you do everything right there is no guarantee but if you do not do anything to help young people you are almost sealing their fate to a life that is not very positive.
I encourage all the people who affect young people in the communities. It takes one person to make a positive impact on your life. That person could be a counsellor, an RCMP officer, a teacher. That person could be a friend, an aunt, or an uncle. Somebody to be there to reach out and encourage a young person is what it takes sometimes.
Remember, the responsibility is not just in legislation or amendments. The responsibility is the relationship we forge as members of this wonderful country, members of our wonderful and diverse communities, that contribute to making life better for everyone.
We have a responsibility for Canada's future which is going to be drawn out through the young people whom we nurture, guide and teach. Government and all of the governance we leave behind is in their hands. We have an onerous responsibility, but if we do nothing, we will reap nothing.
I appeal to all Canadians to remember that laws are guides. They guide us. We work in the highest court in the land. We are building, remaking and changing laws, but we cannot legislate caring, loving and nurturing, the things that we have to give to ensure that the situation with young offenders is abated.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River): Madam Speaker, the secretary of state talked about a crackdown in this legislation which is coming forward. I certainly would like to know what type of crackdown is being proposed.
A constituent who has written to me, Mr. Forsen, talks about the need for tougher penalties. This gentleman is a grandfather. His two grandsons are repeat offenders and all they got was a slap on the wrist. He is afraid to leave home because he has been robbed by these two grandsons in the past.
I want to know what kind of crackdown the hon. member is speaking of here? She has suggested that only 25 per cent of the acts are violent, but I would put those I mentioned in that violent class as robberies were involved. Can the hon. member explain to concerned Canadians what type of crackdowns are being proposed?
Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, this is directly from the news release of the Minister of Justice who tabled the amendments on the Young Offenders Act.
The highlights of the bill include: increased sentences for teenagers convicted of first or second degree murder in youth court to ten and seven years respectively; dealing with 16 and 17-year olds charged with serious personal injury offences in adult court, unless they can show a judge that public protection and rehabilitation can both be achieved through youth court; and extending the time that 16 and 17-year old young offenders who have been convicted of murder in an adult court must serve before they can be considered for parole.
The bill also includes: improved measures for information sharing between professionals, like school officials and police with selected members of the public when public safety is at risk; retaining the record of serious young offenders; provisions that will encourage rehabilitation and treatment of young offenders in the community when this is appropriate.
This does not necessarily speak to the question the member asked. I do believe in the various communities that will be affected by this legislation there are people, for example the provincial and territorial justice ministers, who are looking at attempts to better deal with young offenders in their own regions and provinces. That might include community service work for example.
One suggestion has proved to be quite viable in the aboriginal community. Young offenders have been sent out on the land to do hard physical labour in camps. They have had to cut wood, haul water and do a lot of physical work. It has been found that the recidivism rate with those young offenders is virtually nil. It is not necessarily boot camp. They learn something. They learn how to survive. They learn coping skills. They regain their self-esteem. Those are the kinds of ideas that are being entertained and I do not find them totally offensive if they are coupled with other positive rehabilitative measures.
Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, as the Official Opposition critic for Training and Youth, to question my counterpart, the Secretary of State (Training and Youth). As a courtesy, I had agreed to change my speaking schedule, and I am not sure this will suit the hon. member opposite, because she has given me a golden opportunity to talk about the Youth Service Corps which was the subject of the first part of her speech. I will start with a comment and then ask a few questions.
The employment and learning strategy includes the Youth Service Corps, but I would like to point out that this year, only 2,500 young people across Canada will be able to take advantage of this initiative, while we have 400,000 young people across
Canada who are unemployed. It depends on the age group, because if we look at the 16 to 30 group, as we do in Quebec, we could say there are 600,000 young people who are unemployed.
So 2,500 does not have much impact. When we realize that of the $10,000 spent on each young person in the Youth Service Corps, about $4,000 goes to administration, there is only 6,000 left. It all depends. There are some variants in the pilot projects, and incidentally, in Quebec, pilot projects tend to be found in Liberal ridings, in most cases, although in Laval, there are two Bloc ridings and one Liberal-
[Intervention]
An hon. member: It was a mistake.
Antoine Dubé: It was probably a mistake. So there is a coincidence, and I do not know whether in Western Canada our Reform colleagues may wish to help us out on this, there are not many, but they tend to be in ridings that are carefully chosen. The Secretary of State says the program will also be used to rehabilitate offenders, and I do not mind, but when they announced this plan, it was supposed to be about jobs.
I wish she would try and convince me, and I would also like to ask her about the $150 per week, because I remember that initially it was $61 per week for those living with their families, and it went up to $121. She talked about partnership and consultation when she came to Quebec City. I heard she was coming the day she came, so it was too late for me to be invited. Another point is that to finance this Youth Service strategy, the government is taking funds intended for existing programs, including women's programs, which means that the government is more or less robbing Peter to pay Paul. Is this the kind of attitude the Liberal government wants to take? So I listened very patiently to the Secretary of State, but quite frankly, she has yet to convince us that she made a very positive presentation on the subject before the House today.
Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I would ever be capable of convincing the hon. member to believe anything the federal government does. I am sure he will recognize that since we have been in government there has been a boost in the economy. We have created 183,000 jobs since we were elected. Sixty-six thousand of those jobs have gone to Quebec. We have just had the signing of the infrastructure program recently.
Our youth initiative is an initial first step. We believe that this is one way to stimulate a very downtrodden and a very cynical group of young people who have been marginalized. We do not feel in the five and half months we have been in office we have had enough time to do all of the things we should do.
The hon. member spoke about consultation. This from the party that did not agree with us interfering jurisdictionally by bringing forward this program. We had nothing but headaches and heartaches from its members. Now they want into the program. I am glad. Any time the hon. member wants to put forward a proposal I would be more than happy to receive it. I would be happy to meet with him outside the Chamber to discuss this program. I would also be happy to discuss all of the other programs we have.
The opposition members know we are having a very difficult time. We are streamlining, restructuring and in some cases collapsing boards and getting rid of programs that duplicate other services. This will allow us to reallocate for other positive purposes such as the youth service corps. We managed to maintain a level of service that is adequate for the public.
I do not really know what the hon. member is complaining about. However, I am certainly willing to work with him in the future on all of these initiatives.
Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what the Secretary of State for Training and Youth said. I think that she understands the problem well, particularly in a riding like mine where there really is a problem with young native offenders. I think her analysis of the situation was excellent.
I would like the hon. secretary of state to tell us however, with regard to social rehabilitation and reintegration-because I am sure she has ascertained with the Minister of Justice that it does-if indeed this aspect is covered in the bill. I am quite sure she did check because the minister alluded, albeit half-heartedly, to rehabilitation or reintegration. I would like to know where in the bill this aspect is emphasized. Is it emphasized by imposing stiffer sentences? By reversing the burden of the proof? How exactly does the bill provide for the reintegration of young offenders into society?
Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, this whole issue of young offenders is not an either/or. We are attempting to create a balance within the justice system, especially as it pertains to young offenders.
We are looking at some rehabilitative measures. We are not going to lock up young people and throw away the key. We know that the costs for incarceration are prohibitive.
I know that because in my riding, and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River can attest to it, we had the highest rate of recidivism, of repeaters. We know what it costs to keep people incarcerated for long periods of time. The upkeep costs are prohibitive. The Minister of Justice and other members are attempting to create a balance to address the issues of violent
crimes committed by young offenders and still maintain a section for rehabilitation.
As I indicated, the Department of Justice is not the only department that has that responsibility. Communities, parents, regions, provinces as well as hon. members in the House have a responsibility to contribute in a positive way.
Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I may have the unanimous consent of the House to ask just one brief question of my colleague?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, can my colleague advise the House on behalf of the government if aboriginal young offenders need special attention for those likely to receive a custody sentence? Is the required denunciation of custody different for native young offenders?
Ethel Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, I believe there is equal application of the law for young offenders. Because of the rate of recidivism and the higher rates of incarceration for aboriginal people generally, as I indicated, the rate of incarceration exceeds the population for men in particular. I am not sure that pertains to young offenders but I would venture it would be very close.
Having said that, I do not think there is any special treatment. If there is any special treatment it is to create equality not to create inequality. There are such inconsistencies and such marginalization right now that there is definitely a constitutional disadvantage applied to young aboriginal people.
Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-37 as to Opposition critic for Training and Youth. Two principles are set out in the first clause of this bill which are worth repeating first, crime prevention is essential to an orderly society and second, young persons should not be held accountable for their behaviour as adults, but must nonetheless bear responsibility for their actions. These principles go along the same lines as points made by other Official Opposition members.
Bill C-37 refers to crime prevention, yet it contains nothing but repressive measures. It would seem that rehabilitation for young offenders is dependent upon coercion and imprisonment. Transferring to adult court 16- and 17- year olds charged with serious crimes is not in keeping with the stated principle that young persons should not be held accountable as adults. Yet this transfer procedure is a major feature of Bill C-37.
Amendments are introduced in clauses 3 and 8, whereby 16- and 17- year olds charged with criminal offenses causing death or serious injuries would systematically be proceeded against in adult court. The onus is on the young person to apply to be tried before a youth court judge.
Also, 16- and 17- year olds charged with assault causing severe bodily harm will have to convince the court they should be proceeded against in youth court, or else they will be tried in adult court. It used to be up to the Crown to decide whether to transfer the young person or not. A transfer procedure is now in place for young people aged 14 and up, and it is up to the Court to demonstrate that adult court is the only court qualified to hear serious cases.
So different age groups are treated differently by the courts. Those between 12 and 15 will not be treated the same as 16- and 17-year-olds if they commit serious crimes. Some lawyers will undoubtedly argue that this violates the right to equality before the law as provided for in Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now on to psychological and medical considerations. Clause 4 of Bill C-37 would allow the courts to direct that teenage repeat offenders undergo psychological or medical examinations. At the present time, such examinations are allowed only if the court has reasonable grounds to believe that a young person may be suffering from a psychological disorder. Young repeat offenders are regarded as mentally ill rather than as normal human beings damaged by their living conditions. This clause also has a legal dimension. Requiring a person to undergo a psychiatric assessment based on their criminal record may violate basic rights in the Charter.
This measure is troubling because some provinces like Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan do not have a system to look after young people in trouble. Youth custody conditions and their administration come under provincial jurisdiction. These young people may be the victims of some provinces' lack of supervision resources and end up spending more time in adult jails.
It is not normal for a court to bypass the reasonable grounds prescription to send a young person to a psychiatric institution for assessment. These psychological reports could be disclosed to third parties, which may violate the principle of confidentiality for teenagers' records.
This disclosure of records is expanded upon in Bill C-37, which calls for a better exchange of information on young offenders between the various police forces, school authorities and social workers involved. We must ensure that this exchange of information is restricted, because the public and the media are getting more and more interested in young offenders, so that
the principle of confidentiality may be seriously threatened by this openness. It is the Lieutenant Governor in Council who will rule on the clause concerning the disclosure of information.
The reaction of the Quebec Minister of Justice suggests that would not change, at least in Quebec, but what about the other provinces?
The last of the major changes proposed in Bill C-37 is unquestionably the harsher sentences provided for in the case of first- and second-degree murder. Pursuant to clause 13(3) of the bill, the maximum sentence for first-degree murder would rise from five to ten years. In the case of second-degree murder, the maximum sentence would increase from five to seven years.
This is a strange provision in that 16- and 17-year-olds can already be tried in adult courts. Therefore, the ones who stand to suffer the most as a result of this measure are 12- to 15-year-olds. Youth crime statistics do not justify such a harsh stance. Youth violence is generally on the decline. In the big cities, violence is either increasing or changing in nature with the upsurge in gangs. We are now seeing different kinds of violence than in the past. One can believe the government has been influenced by the families of victims of violent crimes who are motivated by a desire for vengeance. The Youth Protection Act was amended in 1992 to increase the sentences from three to five years. Why is the government taking this hard-line approach when the number of murders has declined? It is not even waiting to see the results of the initial changes and here it goes increasing the length of sentences again. Will it decide to lengthen the sentences again in two years' time?
It is obvious to the official opposition that the government is acting with undue haste in bringing in this legislation and that it is trying to please everyone.
Surely the rising popularity of the Reform Party in Ontario, a Liberal stronghold, has something to do with this decision. As far as the Quebec government is concerned, the bill should not have been introduced in the first place and the government should work within the parameters of the existing legislation and enforce its provisions.
It should be noted that the provinces are responsible for enforcing the provisions of the legislation and, in the opinion of the federal justice minister, they will enjoy considerably more latitude in this area. However, if ever a genuine legislative review process were to be undertaken, the provinces would have to be seriously involved.
No further details are given about the federal government's crime prevention policy mentioned in clause 1 of Bill C-37, despite the fact that it is an essential component of an effective juvenile crime prevention strategy. The bill is also silent on another problem, that of adults who use young people to commit their crimes and who get off scot-free.
The Official Opposition supports harsh penalties, but only in the case of premeditated, first-degree murder. With respect to other crimes, the existing provisions should remain in effect. It has also been said that the Youth Protection Act should not be mentioned too often because it only confuses matters.
Instead, I will quote statistics. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the average number of murders committed by teenagers in Canada fell from 55 between 1972 and 1982 to 46 between 1982 and 1992. In 1992, police laid charges against 140,000 teenagers for violating the Criminal Code and other federal laws. The number of charges laid has risen by 25 per cent in the last seven years. Two thirds of the 115,000 cases heard by youth courts led to a guilty verdict. About one third of teenagers found guilty by youth courts were committed to custody in correctional institutions or to open custody.
According to an article that appeared in the Toronto Star on June 6, it would cost between $70,000 and $100,000 a year to keep a young person in a detention centre. In 1992-93, the average number of teenagers in detention institutions was 4,734 a day, one third of whom were in secure custody. Fifty-three per cent of the teenagers convicted in 1992-93 were 16 or 17 years old.
According to the Canadian Department of Justice, in 1992, less than 15 per cent of violent crimes were committed by young people. According to an article published in a magazine called Canadian Social Trends in the fall of 1992, only 13 per cent of the charges laid against young people in 1991 involved violence.
According to a Statistics Canada survey, 70 per cent of all charges laid against teenagers in 1991 were related to crimes against property. However, the number of charges linked to crimes against property has increased by 17 per cent since 1986.
According to an article published in the Ottawa Citizen on April 19, 1993, one in three Canadians mistakenly believes that violence is as widespread here as in the United States.
In 1991, 753 homicides were reported in Canada, as compared to 24,000 in the United States. This means 32 times more homicides in a population 10 times larger that ours. There is just no comparison. The only detectable element of commonality between our two countries is the fact that repression does not make the crime rate go down, while media coverage of murders has a greater effect on public opinion.
A study carried out in Manitoba in 1992 showed that 90 per cent of young sex offenders had been assaulted in their childhood. Another study, which was carried out in London, Ontario,
in 1987, showed that 50 per cent of young persons charged with violent crimes had seen their father beat up their mother.
In its report on crime prevention, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Solicitor General noted that incarceration rates are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world and they currently spend $70 billion on law enforcement, judicial and correctional services. Nevertheless, in 1990, the United States ranked first in the world for the number of murders, rapes and robberies committed on their territory. In fact, U.S. figures in that area continue to rise.
The Minister of Justice did not include in Bill C-37 provision to toughen sentences for adults who solicit or hold young persons hostage to force them to commit crimes in their behalf.
Not only are these young persons forced by adults to commit crimes, but they will have to bear responsibility for the actions of adult criminals. The severity of this legislation should be directed toward these adults who often manage to evade the police, thus escaping prosecution, instead of the young people who get caught for such offenses.
The young people are taking the rap for adults. What is the idea? To brand young Canadians and Quebecers for the sake of making good a promise made in the red book? True enough, young people's inexperience often makes them easy game for police forces who are better at arresting young people than their adult counterparts.
The police make them spill the beans and take on full responsibility for the actions they are accused of, charges them and finally, have them convicted and sentenced in the place of adult criminals.
In Bill C-37, the Minister of Justice neither provides for nor supports any effective direct measure to eliminate juvenile delinquency. A proven direct alternative for eliminating juvenile delinquency is financial support for street workers.
At present, street workers are barely surviving on reduced subsidies. By the way, these subsidies, which most of the time called employment development programs and were subsequently cut could pay for a large part of youth services. This is an important point to note. Many communities in Quebec and in other regions of Canada used this employment program.
Resources are being cut back, resources which were used effectively but which could be even more effective if they were increased for this purpose. Organizations are already established, know their clientele, know their young people and are already up and running and what happens? Resources for them are cut.
Would the Department of Justice agree to give some of its budget to these street workers? Adult criminals who make use of young people's services do not have to pay the cost of their own defence since they are not charged and do not pay the cost of defending the young people charged in their place. In such a case, society now pays the costs involved in bringing them to justice.
Instead of punishing those who are really guilty, namely the adult instigators, Bill C-37 insists on punishing these young people who, I repeat, have been enlisted by adults.
I would like to conclude now with the impact of the message we are now giving our young people. Four hundred thousand young Canadians are unemployed-I am speaking broadly; I do not know how many are under 18-and the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata spoke of two million young people in Canada who are under 18. What message are we now giving these young people? It is this: "If you do wrong, you will be punished". It is a message declining responsibility, unlike the following: "We trust you. You may have done wrong, but we will try to give you a chance and rehabilitate you". Why do I say that? Because the provinces everywhere lack resources for rehabilitation and social reintegration.
I will not name him, but during an exchange, an hon. member told of his experience. This was actual testimony from his youth when he did something wrong at the age of 12. He was delighted that some adults took charge of him to help him straighten out, so much so that he is a member of this House today. This is an important position, unless the role of MP does not really amount to much.
The problem in this House now, as in Canada, is that people tell horror stories. Not enough success stories are mentioned, but there is a lot of experience. We need only talk to educators and to people who have been involved in community development, municipal recreation services or volunteer organizations. Every day they could tell us about the benefits of a prevention program based on the positive side of young people.
Right now, we talk about school drop-outs, delinquency rate, etc., but we forget to ask questions such as: What pushes young people to commit crimes? I remember one case in the Quebec City region. I will not give any names. Some young people had watched a violent movie which had led them to kill a taxi driver. They were influenced by the movie. Why not legislate at that level? Why let young and very young people watch violent acts?
I do not have exact figures, but a young person watching television all day can witness about 50 murders. And then people are surprised. I am not saying that there is more crime, but these are measures which we should think about.
The whole issue of firearms comes to mind when I read that young people still have access to such weapons. This morning again, there was a story involving military firearms. There are so many firearms.
This is another aspect, but I want to go back to the main issue. What is needed is some positive action to convince young people to get involved in the community, on a volunteer basis or otherwise. But, first, the message conveyed by our leaders must be a positive one. It must be a message of hope telling young people that they have an interesting future ahead, instead of being about harsher sentences and incarceration.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Human Rights.
Paul Forseth: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to my colleague. Does he believe that the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act in this bill go in the right direction? If he does not, what legislative provisions would he propose in addition to the usual request for more social programming and counselling services?
If the bill says the wrong things-and I believe he is taking that tack-what does he propose other than throwing more money at the problem with increased social services?
Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking this question. I thought I had said it rather clearly in my speech. We in the Official Opposition feel that this act already provides sufficient punitive measures and that we should instead-and this is really the crux of today's debate-be considering the need for additional resources to rehabilitate young people and reintegrate them into society-in short, preventive measures.
A parallel can be drawn with the health field, where money spent on prevention may seem like a lot initially, but pays long-term dividends. This is particularly true for young people. If we are harder on a young offender and send him to an adult prison, which is a highly criminalized environment, what will happen? In all likelihood-and I am tempted to use the word guarantee here-that young person will turn to a life of crime. Instead, we should tell the young offender: "You have done something wrong and you must acknowledge that fact, but we are giving you a chance to start over again". That is very important.
My colleague's question also indicates, quite obviously, that there are two countries within this country. I can understand the Reform Party members, they represent the views of their constituents; and I will admit that the newspapers clearly show that this is a major public concern, and I can understand that. But in Quebec-I must say this because it is the role of a member of Parliament to advocate the interests and demands of his constituents-there is no such collective reaction against young offenders. Yes, the issue remains a concern, but not on the same order of magnitude.
In the present federal system, the Criminal Code must be enforced the same way in every province, and I find that unfortunate. Clearly, some people, particularly in Western Canada, are not happy with the act in its present form. In Quebec, we are satisfied with the act as it now stands. It is often said that this is a big country. Now, that is all well and good, but when you try to dress everyone in the same clothes-tall, short, fat, thin-you find that "one size fits all" sometimes does not apply. I am drawing this parallel simply to illustrate my point, but I do feel that it is the essence of what I wanted to say. I see a difference of opinion, and we in the Bloc, obviously, say that the status quo is better in this case.
Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, for the information of the House and also because my fellow Bloc member mentioned a case in Quebec where a taxi driver was killed by a young offender, I just want to say that the act was correctly applied to this person by the courts in Quebec, in that there was a request for transfer to adult court, and in fact, this young person was transferred to adult court. He will be treated as an adult and will be sentenced as an adult, if he is found guilty. So in the present legislation, we have all the instruments we need to do this. The problem is one of enforcement, and I think the Bloc Quebecois tends to emphasize this because the problem is really how the law is enforced.
And this week, I was very surprised to see the crime statistics. If we look at the figures, and all the newspapers reported the Statistics Canada survey which tells us that the crime rate has not increased since 1988, even in the case of young offenders, and I must say this is even more encouraging, and it seems the number of all types of crimes went down during the same period.
I have a question for the hon. member, if he would care to answer. I realize this bill did not come from the Bloc Quebecois, because it would never have made it to the House, but I would appreciate it if the hon. member would explain to the House why we have a bill that is so repressive-we have always had a problem with young offenders, and as long as murders are committed by young offenders, the problem will exist -when the statistics clearly show the problem is not as serious as one would have us believe in this House. There has been no shocking increase in the youth crime rate, so why introduce a bill at the
last minute with stricter sentencing for young people, a bill that will be even more repressive?
Why was it absolutely necessary to table a bill like this in the House? And why reverse the onus of proof so that it will be up to the defence to prove that young offenders should not be tried in adult court where they may get more severe sentences instead of being tried under the Young Offenders Act? Could the hon. member explain why we have this bill, although the statistics show that no further legislation is necessary and that legal circles in Quebec and Ontario are very clear about not tinkering with the Young Offenders Act because it is good legislation, and so perhaps the problem is one of enforcement?
Antoine Dubé: Madam Speaker, clearly I agree with my colleague on some points. As to his question: Why? I think it is obvious, it is that public pressure seems to influence the Liberal government. In my opinion, we have to be wary of contradictions and inconsistencies.
For example, we are telling young people that they cannot vote before 18, that they cannot drive before 16, but if they commit a crime they can be treated as adults. I think we have to be consistent, we cannot have more than one standard. I believe this should be corrected.
As to the weight of public opinion, I would imagine that members of the committee will hear witnesses, and I hope they make them change their minds on the general direction of this bill. A good start would be for the people satisfied with the present legislation to be more active in order to balance the influence of those who request dramatic changes.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia): Madam Speaker, two months ago, almost 10 years to the day after the passage of the Young Offenders Act, Nicholas Battersby was shot down in cold blood on an Ottawa sidewalk. Because the person who shot him was a young offender, we know very little about him. All we know is that he shot a man for a lark, for fun.
There was a big public outcry, lots of calls for tougher law enforcement, and the media and the usual brown shirted brigades of gun control lobbyists were braying that we should stop crime by getting tough on honest citizens.
This is something like a man who has two dogs, one vicious and one gentle. The vicious dog bites the postman and so to appease the postman the man shoots the gentle dog and then takes the vicious dog and tries to sweeten his temperament by overfeeding him.
What will happen to this young man? Because of the date of the crime I presume he will be tried under the old Young Offenders Act; but for the sake of this discussion let us say that he would be tried under the new one. It is less likely under the new act than under the old that he will be tried in an adult court for the simple reason that the new law will lead to interminable court delays with the new process of reverse onus that has been written into it. If he is convicted he will face a maximum of 10 years in custody, no minimum, of which perhaps 6 years could be in closed custody. Judging on the way the laws have been enforced to date that is all rather hypothetical and somewhat unlikel
What should be done with a person like that? I respectfully suggest that murder by a 16-year-old is no less harmful to the victim than murder by an 18-year-old. Therefore the penalty should be essentially the same. I am not suggesting immediate incarceration with older prisoners where the young fellow would be the plaything of sexual predators. That constitutes cruel and usual punishment by any standards and is unworthy of a civilized society.
We should have institutions designed to serve specific age groups. We used to have them. They were called reform schools. Some hon. members may say that is too expensive and we cannot afford it. If we could rehabilitate some of these young hoodlums perhaps it would be money well spent. It should not be expensive anyway; it need not be expensive. Young people incarcerated in a reform school could do useful work, including growing their own food which adult prisoners in the penitentiaries used to do and which we have done away with in most cases. Why do we not go back to that? When the young offender is not working to earn his keep he could be educated. Go easy on the pool tables and TV.
A 14-year old young offender in open custody was recently quoted as saying: "It is easy time; it is kind of like a playground: Disneyland or something". What is that young fellow learning about the justice system?
The proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act are in our opinion purely cosmetic, a transparent attempt to pacify a public clamouring for meaningful change. The government's response to almost everyone's principal demand that the maximum of age of application be lowered from 17 years to 15 years is to be sloughed off with a silly and meaningless compromise requiring 16 and 17-year olds to establish, through a tedious and expensive court process, that they should not be tried in adult court for the most serious crimes: murder, attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault and so on. The cost and confusion will be enormous: a bonanza for lawyers.
Since both reverse onus and judicial selectivity are involved some lawyers will probably be able to seek the spotlight and beef up their incomes by mounting a charter challenge. This is
an act written by lawyers for lawyers. I think of the constituent who asked rather plaintively: "Can't you pass a law down there forbidding lawyers to run for Parliament?"
In the House on June 6 the hon. member for Saint Hubert said: "These motions will be similar to extradition proceedings. It is going to be a waste of energy and public funds and through it all young persons will learn how to foil the system and scoff at the law". I rarely agree with anything the hon. member says but I certainly agree with that. She was spot on.
Of course her proposed solution differs from mine. She would continue to treat these louts like poor little misguided children, subject to the same rules as 13 and 14-year olds. People of16 and 17 are not children, for heaven's sake. They hold down jobs. They drive cars. They have babies with or without the benefit of matrimony. If they are unhappy in the parental home generous social welfare will in most provinces provide reasonably comfortable independence.
Bill C-37, rather than ensuring that these older young offenders will end up in adult court, makes it less likely than ever because of the reasons I have cited. I do not want to sound like a nagging parent saying "when I was your age-", but at the age of 17 I was working in a bush camp swinging an axe to raise money so I could enter university. If anyone had dared to suggest to me that I was a child I would have been outraged. We do young people no favours by relieving them of responsibility.
One of the hon. members opposite probably will not believe this, but I can actually remember when I was 10 to 13-years old. My companions and I fought regularly but never dreamed of using the knives which as farm boys we all carried. We did not try to maim each other. We had an archaic code of conduct which might seem terribly quaint to the lawyers and social workers who have been trying to redesign our society.
You did not kick somebody who was down. You did not pick on little kids or gang up on anyone and you never, never hit girls. In other words, we knew the difference between right and wrong; so did my kids as recently as 20 years ago.
I venture to say to the young savages who terrorize their weaker classmates, vandalize property and give the finger to their powerless teachers, to exempt 10 and 11-year olds from the rules of civilized conduct is socially destructive madness. A child who gets away with it at 10 or 11 and whose parents are not held legally accountable for his or her actions learns a lesson which all the prattling counsellors and dreamy eyed social workers in the world cannot erase.
Now the minister tells us that section 43 of the Criminal Code which protects parents who do care about their kids and use reasonable force to discipline them is up for review. What strange world does the Liberal Party inhabit?
The road from uncorrected naughtiness to mean destructiveness to full blown delinquency is short and straight. The government owes it to the children of Canada and to the future of our society to re-enter the world of every day Canadians. Bill C-37 is a start, but only a start. Let us get on with it.
Madam Speaker, I neglected to inform you that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Red Deer. I hope I can put that in now.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I agree to accept it. You have already gone over. We had better get to questions and comments.
Michel Bellehumeur: I listened to the member, and he sounds as if he no longer belongs to the Reform Party, but rather to the nostalgia party. These problems are today's problems, and I think that they cannot be solved the way the member suggested. I think that the problem of young offenders is much deeper than it appears at first glance. When young people turn the TV on, what do they see? Violence. In today's papers, we can read that a father seems to have left his firearms unattended since a 10-year old brought army revolvers to school. I think that there is a problem with educating parents and making them aware of potential problems with their children. I believe it to be a much deeper problem.
I would like to hear from the member who comes from western Canada if in his province they have a mechanism to deal with these young offenders.
Is there some mechanism to decriminalize their cases, to steer them towards rehabilitation and social reintegration or is it an area, in this great and beautiful country, where they put young offenders in block A, and the adults in block B? Do they send them to the best crime school to turn them into real outlaws later on?
Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. He must be aware that reform schools or youth wings, as he calls them, do not exist anywhere in Canada any more.
I am advocating, and I am advocating strongly, that doing away with them was a mistake because there is now no real mechanism to deal with these young people. We have the open custody situation or we have jails for adults. We really do not have much in between. We have youngsters in remand centres interminably.
They get into more trouble there; they get educated. That is why we should have reform schools where they get proper education. Yes, I am nostalgic. I do yearn for a period of our history when society was orderly, when there was a discipline of
children, when the police and the courts had power and exercised it.
I do not have a yearning for a police state, but I do have a yearning for a state where people are safe and where there is a social contract which involves decency and mutual respect among people. We have lost that. A lot of it is due to the same frame of mind that framed the original Young Offenders Act and which did not have the courage to come forward and do a full job with Bill C-37.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Madam Speaker, Canadians have waited a long time for this day. For years they have been demanding substantial changes to the Young Offenders Act. Canadians say they do not feel protected. They have asked the government to put society first instead of the criminal.
Canadians have demanded changes and Canadians have waited. In the meantime there have been costs. The public confidence has been eroded. Young offenders who have been released for violent crimes have reoffended. All the while Canadians have appealed to the government to protect society and ensure offenders are rehabilitated before being released.
The government has tabled before us amendments to the Young Offenders Act, which it says will address these concerns. The amendments would change the declaration of the Young Offenders Act so that its primary objective is to protect society. On the surface this looks good. The protection of society should always be the objective of our criminal justice system. We as parliamentarians must ensure the protection of Canadians is paramount.
Bill C-37 falls far short of this goal. We as Reformers will be supporting the bill because it does do something about toughening up the system. Something is better than nothing. However there are problems. The government's proposed changes are merely cosmetic. They appear to give the act a smooth finish, but when we look beneath the surface we can see serious structural flaws.
Here are some of the flaws. Bill C-37 does not lower the age limit. Those young offenders who commit serious crimes and who are under age 12 are still not held criminally responsible, even though criminal acts are committed by children under age 12.
All we need to do is look at the newspapers today. They tell a harrowing tale about an Aylmer boy who held his classmates at gunpoint. The boy had a .357 magnum and 9-millimetre pistol. He was 10 years old and apparently threatening the lives of his classmates. Yet he has not been charged because he is too young.
In 1993 Regina police were paralysed to act after a nine-year-old and an eleven-year-old attacked two young boys. The victims were forcibly confined, beaten and sexually abused. Police could do nothing. Parliament has not given them any power to act. The stories could go on. We have heard many of them repeated in the House.
Young offenders like these ones should be included in our youth criminal justice so they can receive treatment, so they can learn that their crimes are not acceptable to society, so we can be assured they do not reoffend and, finally, so they can eventually become productive members of the community. We have the chance to reform the violent actions of these young children but we are missing this window of opportunity.
Bill C-37 also fails in another area. It softens the law for violent offenders under age 16. The amendments we are considering today will allow youth courts to deal more harshly with murders. Canadians across the country have demanded that the current five-year maximum sentence is a slap on the wrist.
The proposed changes will increase first degree murder sentences to 10 years. In reality this translates to six years of custody and four years of community supervision. Second degree murder sentences will be increased to a seven-year maximum. This translates into four years in custody and three years of supervision.
I would argue that these changes would work to soften the law in its treatment of murderers. The slightly higher sentences will mean fewer violent offenders under 16 will be transferred to adult court. The changes before us today will ensure that many murderers will remain under the Young Offenders Act.
The government argues that its amendments are sufficient. It says most of the murder related cases heard in youth court are committed by 16 and 17 year olds. In 1992 and 1993, 60 per cent of the cases heard in youth court involved this age group.
These statistics like the amendments before us today look good at first glance, but once we look a little deeper we see the blemishes. The numbers completely ignore an important fact. Offenders under age 16 committed 40 per cent of the murder cases heard in youth court at this time. I would argue this is a significant proportion.
There is yet another flaw in these amendments. The general public is kept in the dark about violent repeat offenders. The proposed changes will provide information on young offenders to the police, to school officials and to child welfare workers. Certain members of society whose safety is in jeopardy will also receive information on the young offender.
These seem like valid changes but in reality they are superficial. The general public does not have access to the information. If certain members of the public can receive information about a young offender because their safety is at risk, why is the general public not also informed? If there is a chance a young offender will reoffend then all society is at risk. It is impossible for anyone to know for certain that only a targeted few will be in danger. If the government were truly interested in protecting all
society then all society would be informed about dangerous young offenders. This is not the case.
An additional flaw is that violent young offenders' records are not kept on file permanently. The proposals also claim to protect society by allowing police to keep the record of young offenders on file for ten years instead of five. According to the justice department this change will ensure that the length of time a young offender's record is kept is in keeping with the seriousness of the offence. Keeping the young offender's murder record on file for 10 years does not begin to mirror the seriousness of the offence. Murder is permanent; it demands a permanent record. The victims' names and ordeals will be forever etched in the minds of their loved ones long after the murder record has been wiped clean. Society has the right to know. If the government were truly interested in protecting society it would keep all murder records and violent crime records on file permanently.
Bill C-37 also raises some questions about serving sentences in the community. Will the community sentences be adequate? Under the changes set before us today more non-violent offenders will serve their sentences in the community instead of in custody. This change has many attributes. Young offenders will not be influenced by harder violent offenders. Often jail is considered a training ground for crime. It will save government money. It costs approximately $75,000 to incarcerate an individual. However, the government in saving this money must be committed to redirecting some of it into the communities.
If these offenders are to live in our communities we must ensure that they do not become repeat offenders. We must protect society. To do this, some of these offenders may need treatment and we must ensure that they receive it. I am not talking about spending more money. I am talking about saving money and spending some of it more wisely.
In conclusion, when we make changes to our criminal justice system we must ensure that the system is predictable to society. In order for a judicial system to act as an effective deterrent, citizens must be able to anticipate the outcome of their actions.
It is therefore important that the Young Offenders Act mirror the adult system as accurately as possible. We still have a long way to go, especially in the area of criminal records and publication bans. I believe these changes before us today are a small step toward this goal. Bill C-37 is far from perfect but it will improve the current system somewhat.
Amendments to Bill C-37 are essential. I would urge my fellow members of Parliament to ensure that these are enacted.
Morris Bodnar: Madam Speaker, mention has been made of the negative effect of increasing the sentencing, that this will result in fewer individuals being transferred to adult court.
I remind the member that the onus is reversed. A person such as that is automatically in adult court and must be transferred down to youth court or the young offenders court in the case of serious offences such as murder.
As well there was mention made of the Aylmer incident yesterday but no mention whatsoever was made about the parents. What about those guns? How did they get into the hands? Were they in the hands of law abiding individuals? Were they in the hands of neighbours? How did they get into the hands of the children? Perhaps we should stop blaming the 10-year old and start blaming the adults who allow these guns to get into the hands of young people.
There is a lot of rhetoric about rehabilitation and productivity to society but no substance. Therefore, my question to the hon. member is what would he do? How would he change it? What specific items would he put into the act to deal with rehabilitation and to make this young person productive to society?
Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, there are a lot of things we could say that we would change. We could certainly take a look at things like boot camps and those sorts of things. However, more important to the question, we must include victim's impact statements. We must include parents in the actual criminal justice system. The parents have to be forced to be there to hear what the victim went through and what their little darling did to that person. If they are found in any way to be responsible, they have to be part of that restitution; that money that is paid back, that fence that is fixed, whatever that damage has been.
I agree with the member fully. We must involve the parents in this. We must involve the victims in this. I do not see that in Bill C-37. I see a wishy-washy bill that really just satisfies the red book claim that we are going to make some changes but will do nothing to improve the actual situation we have.
Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I would like to rectify what the member said regarding the case in Aylmer. I do not know if he read the same papers as I did, but this young person did not threaten anyone, he was going to practice shooting in a field with some friends. That is no excuse for the parents, though, but it is quite different from what the member said. It is misinformation of that kind that needlessly scares people.
This being said, I know now-I already knew it, but it was confirmed by a member from western Canada-that there is no mechanism in Western Canada to deal with young offenders and their problems.
Now that it has been confirmed, could the member tell me what his province will do the day young offenders are released, following the amendments to the Young Offenders Act, after spending seven to ten years in jail? What is the province going to do with them, if during all that time, there were no specialists to work with and treat them? If during their time in jail, nobody helped them, what is the province going to do with them once they are released after seven or ten years?
Bob Mills: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure exactly what the member is referring to but we are saying that we do not abandon those children. In fact, we have to do something about that rehabilitation.
We are already spending millions of dollars on social programs, on various types of retraining programs and it is not working. It is just not working. We have a bunch of academics who have this idealistic world where they think they have solutions but it is not working. We have to look at other things and that is the point. The money we are putting in there now is being wasted.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Madam Speaker, it is rather significant that on the one hand, we have the Reform Party telling us that the justice minister's proposal is nothing more than a cosmetic measure, while on the other hand, we have the Bloc telling us that the bill is far too repressive. Perhaps it is the happy medium.
I have listened closely to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, answer countless questions in the House about his views on young offenders and crime. He has said that his philosophy consists of cleaning up some of the outdated provisions in legislation, and at the same time focussing on the issue of crime prevention.
In our red book, we promised to take a look at provisions in the legislation as they pertain to certain violent youth crimes and to strengthen the act which is now ten years old. At the same time, however, we made it very clear that we would try to find ways to curb crime, and this is where prevention comes into play.
Just the other day after the Stanley Cup riots, all of us expected the riots to take place in New York City which is a city where crime has become a way of life. Yet New York City was quiet. It was lawful. The riots happened in Vancouver, a quiet peaceful city in normal times.
Last year it happened in Montreal, my own city, which is again extremely quiet and peaceful. We have to ask ourselves what the reasons are for lawlessness, violence and crime. We have to go back to the hopelessness in which youth sees itself.
I heard my colleague from Reform say that 17 years ago when he was 17 he went to bush camp and 20 years ago he knew what right and wrong were, as if today we do not have youth going to bush camps and other ways of work, as if today the youth does not know what is right and wrong. The great majority of youth in Canada are outstanding citizens, highly qualified, desirous of working. There is crime because there is hopelessness. We do not give them a chance.
A few years ago I had the sad privilege to serve on a committee with some other people about an ethnic group in Montreal who did not have the French language skills. They had very few educational skills and no work training skills. They could not find work.
The elders were saying because of that those people would resort to crime. They would rely on drugs and crime because there was no other open way for them. This is why in our electoral commitment we call it creating opportunity. Unless we create opportunity we are going to have to resort to more and more laws which will solve nothing. The more hopelessness there will be, the more crime there is going to be and then the more repressive laws we are going to be looking for.
What we need to do is to look at an integrated approach to society that looks at crime in its very sources. They say that an adult is born when a child is born. This is why we have addressed the question of day care for all the poor, single mothers that have to go to work leaving their children at home without adequate day care. So we have tackled day care. There is a correlation between day care and eventual crime.
Today we have a rate of drop out rate in our schools of something like 40 per cent. Sixty per cent of young Canadians have no vocational skills or no post-secondary skills. How can they approach the workplace in a competitive economy where work has to be more skilled than ever?
We graduate 24,000 apprentices a year compared to 600,000 in Germany. In proportion to our population we should graduate 275,000. How can we hope for these young people to find work, to find a dignity of life if we do not give them the chance?
This is why our program addresses itself to all the various causes of hopelessness.
Literacy, youth programs, the Youth Service Corps, apprenticeship programs and the reform proposals which my colleague the human resources development minister is now working on: this is the integrated reform which will affect all sectors of society and foster a climate in which job training will be a much more positive experience.
We have to restructure our industries toward the new industries of tomorrow; environmental technologies, broadcast technologies, information technologies, health technologies in which we can shine so that added to our thrusts to train young people into apprenticeships, into post-secondary education that is geared to these new areas of excellence, we can find them work, we can find them an opportunity, a chance.
We have wonderful young people in Canada, some of them highly qualified. Most of our youth are wonderful people. Those that resort to crime and hopelessness are those that do not find a chance.
We talk about prevention and we say that we have not addressed prevention. Yet our Minister of Justice pointed out that we are going to create very soon a national council for prevention of crime. I know some will say another council.
We intend to consult with Canadians, provincial and municipal governments, police forces and communities with a view to developing, not a short-term, hastily conceived strategy, but a comprehensive, long-term strategy, one that addresses all aspects of crime prevention, including long-term rehabilitation.
There is a saying that if we cherish the child and give him or her hope then we do not have to punish the man or the woman in later life. I believe in this fundamentally. What we need in our society is to give our young people, whether they be 12-year olds, 15-year olds, 17-year olds or 20-year olds a chance. To believe that the world has not changed since the 1960s or the 1950s is to delude ourselves. It is a new world today with instant communications. The world is very different.
Sure, there is more crime. There is more crime in Canada as there is more crime in France or England, in places which heretofore were very peaceful. That is the way of today's world. In all of these countries there is one common link, lack of opportunity for young people and for adults. When despair and hopelessness set in, people resort to any way to earn a living, to acquire dignity of life. That is what we must attack.
To say that 20 years ago all was sweetness and light when we all went to bush camps and everybody was nice is illusory. Today I find we have more frank young people than in my generation. We have young people who are far more committed to society, to truth, to integrity, to the environmental cause than we ever were in my time. We believed that you had to cane children and use law and order in our families. Today it is a more enlightened world where we rule by consensus and work together to try to form partnerships within our families, within our communities. It is a far more challenging world.
We have to resolve to effectively create opportunities so that our young people get back to work, find hope and dignity and then they will not have to resort to crime and violence.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in this House to participate in the debate on Bill C-217, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act.
Madam Speaker, I am against this bill. As you well know, criminologists have long argued that there is a wide gap between the public's perception of crime rates and the actual levels. Many believe that violent crime is a plague, in particular among young people, when the proportion of crimes committed by youths is very small. In fact, less than 15 per cent of all crimes committed by young people in 1992 involved violence. Despite the increase in the number of violent crimes committed by young people, most of this increase is due to minor assaults between peers, which, according to legal analysts, would not have involved the criminal justice system 10 years ago.
In April 1988, a study was conducted on the rehabilitation and social reintegration of 24 teenage murderers sent to Boscoville between 1968 and 1983. This study supports previous local and North American data on the typology, prospects and reintegration of young murderers.
It reminded decision-makers that, under certain conditions, these teenagers can be helped and become responsible and productive citizens.
Like other studies, the one I mentioned found that these teenagers have good prospects, that they do not commit subsequent offences and that their crime were due to circumstances and neurosis.
Young people charged with crimes have the right to be treated equitably under the law and enjoy special protection in this regard. Given their ages and maturity levels, young offenders have special needs that cannot be met in the adult system.
In fact, the bill attempts to reconcile the need to protect the public against teenage criminals by requiring them to assume responsibility for their actions with the need to protect young offenders' rights and help them become productive and law-abiding adults.
The media are often accused of contributing to the climate of fear. They tend to dwell upon spectacular and sensational crimes and to dramatize the vilest acts of violence reported on television, which apparently distorts reality, creating the impression
that crime has become rampant and exaggerating public fear. Fear is also fostered and intensified by rising crime statistics.
Some analysts are of the opinion that the intensity of the fear presently experienced by Canadians results in part from economic uncertainty. High unemployment has contributed to the climate of insecurity and vulnerability and is causing social and economic problems that reinforce the feeling of social disintegration.
The Liberal Party platform includes proposals to increase the length of maximum sentences imposed by the courts for first and second degree murders committed by young offenders; to relax the requirement to systematically dispose of police files on young offenders after a certain time; to allow the identification of some young offenders who have been convicted of violent crimes; and to create a "dangerous young offender" category for dangerous and habitual young offenders. We, Bloc members, cannot support the bill before us.
It has been established that through positive, early intervention in their lives, young persons struggling with social, psychological and emotional problems can be prevented from straying into crime and becoming dangerous repeat offenders.
There are a number of examples in support of the view held that young people commit offenses because they figure the gains derived from their unlawful activities will outweigh the price they will have to pay if caught. Criminologists and young offenders support workers have observed however that in many cases, young people commit offenses for reasons totally unrelated to the law. In their view, most young offenders commit property offenses which are not particularly clever and are more indicative of their lack of maturity and irresponsibility than of their maliciousness.
The overwhelming majority of young Canadians and Quebecers are ambitious, hard-working and respectful of their peers. Most of them become productive and law-abiding citizens. To put all young people on the same level as the minority who commit crimes is to do them a disservice.
Suing someone who committed a crime may provide some comfort to the victim and reassure the public, but it cannot be as satisfying as preventing the crime as such. It is often harder to implement crime prevention programs than to merely sue an offender after the fact. Preventing crime requires a review of on the economic, educational, social, moral and legal conditions which generate crime as well as an and it requires effort to change these conditions. The co-operation of many departments from all levels of government, as well as of the private sector and the public in general is needed. Making crime prevention programs effective is a major challenge. However, the results obtained with such programs, namely a reduction in crime, are much more beneficial for young people, and also for Canadians who, otherwise, might have become victims.
In conclusion, as parents, MPs and responsible adults, we simply cannot support this bill. We must take our responsibilities towards our children and teenagers. It is a lot harder to promote prevention, but it is also a lot more effective and rewarding. All those involved, including parents, educators and social workers, must work with young people to prevent crime.
I simply cannot believe that a ten-year-old child is mature enough to realize that he has committed a first or second degree murder. I have a ten-year-old daughter myself and I simply cannot believe that she has that comprehension. These children obviously know what is good and what is bad, but I doubt very much that they would understand that they committed a first or second degree murder. These children need protection. Yes, they must be punished. Yes, we must teach them, but how far must we go?
We must also do more in terms of promoting rehabilitation which, according to statistics, gives very good results.
It goes without saying that this approach will require additional efforts from all those involved in the process, but I am convinced that the results will be much better than if we hastily pass harsher laws.
Pat O'Brien: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in this debate on the Young Offenders Act and on a much-needed new bill to improve that act.
First of all let me congratulate the Minister of Justice for this bill. It offers to Canadians, as part of a two-step plan, some interim improvements to the youth justice system. It is important as members that we recognize and acknowledge this will be a two-step process. This is not the final and finished product if you will. If it were I would simply say to the minister that it does not go far enough in the ultimate sense but for now it is very good and major step in the right direction.
It is important to note that the second phase will be a thorough review by a parliamentary committee and by a federal-provincial task force on the whole youth justice system. There will be considerable public input in that review process, as there has been so far to this point. Obviously it is very important to involve provincial legislatures and provincial justice officials because the legal system is administered at both the federal and provincial levels.
The bill offers some very badly needed improvements. The original Young Offenders Act had an excellent rationale in my view. It was simply to recognize that society ought to deal with the young offender in a way different from a more mature offender, that the penalties ought to be different, and where incarceration is required that there ought to be different facilities. Canadians generally recognized and accepted that rationale.
Unfortunately as we know on all sides of the House and as Canadians from coast to coast to coast know, the Young Offenders Act has been, in at least a minority of cases, somewhat badly abused.
You see young offenders on national television telling Canadians that they consider the Young Offenders Act to be something of a joke and that they feel when they are incarcerated it is kind of like going to camp. When you hear that on national TV from repeat young offenders, there is no doubt in my mind that Canadians feel, and rightly so, that there are some problems with the current legislation. Obviously that is why the minister is seeking to put forward these improvements as step one of the ultimate act we will have in place.
If I might briefly consider the improvements that are offered in the proposed legislation, one of the major improvements is the provision that would put the onus on a 16 or 17-year old offender convicted of a violent crime, especially murder. The onus will now be on that individual to convince the court why he or she should not be dealt with as an adult criminal in adult court and subject to the tougher penalties of law.
That is an important change because under the current legislation we seek to amend, the reverse is true. A 16 or 17-year old convicted even of murder is dealt with on a much more lenient basis and is not tried in adult court. This legislation will correct what most Canadians consider to be a gross inequity in that area.
The provision or penalty for murder, I would remind hon. members and Canadians generally, started out at a mere three years for first degree murder. In my riding of London-Middlesex we had a sad situation a few years ago when one young offender murdered I believe three people-it was certainly more than one person-yet was subject to a maximum total penalty of three years. That was clearly not just and clearly not adequate for a serious crime like murder.
The penalty went from three years within the last short period of time to five years but this legislation would allow a doubling of that maximum penalty up to 10 years.
Some might still say that for first degree murder 10 years is inadequate and I suppose that is a debatable point, but it certainly is far more just than the five-year penalty that it will replace.
The under 16 and 17-year old offenders in that age category will not be eligible for parole as early if convicted of murder. In other words, a young offender convicted of murder will now find it much more difficult to earn parole than he or she has under the current legislation. Again, I think that is just common sense and simple justice.
As I say, Canadians know that there have been problems with the Young Offenders Act. They are crying out for improvements. I think the minister has offered major improvements as the first step of a two-step process.
As our red book stated during the election campaign and as the minister, the Prime Minister and members on this side of the House have continued to say since the election of last October, public safety must be the top priority as we address this issue.
Let me be completely fair and say that I have heard that statement from all parts of the House. I agree that public safety must be the first consideration when we are considering the justice system, in any part of the justice system, and that includes those offenders who are young Canadians. It seems to make that as its first priority.
Where perhaps I differ as a Liberal from some hon. members in the House is this. This party, this minister and this legislation seeks to find a balanced approach to this serious problem of youth crime. It is not enough to just simply say: "Let's throw them in jail for as long as we would any other adult, throw away the key and let them rot in jail". That is not the answer. We have not heard that attitude too much in the House, but I have detected that kind of approach by certain hon. members. I would find it shortsighted because it is not a balanced approach.
Legislation alone will not solve this problem. It is certainly a key component of addressing this issue but it is not enough in and of itself. I think that we are very shortsighted as a nation if we do not seek to treat the root causes of youth crime, the poverty that many if not most young offenders experience, the very real poverty that most Canadians do not experience but which a high percentage of young offenders have experienced in their lifetime. They have experienced repeated family violence, themselves often the victims of this violence both sexual and non-sexual.
Racism is unfortunately a real problem. There are young offenders who are from a minority group. When you analyse their background and why they committed crime, racism is a repeated theme in young offenders from minority groups.
The whole question of illiteracy and dropping out of school is another problem. As an educator for 21 years, the first signs to show that you may have a potential young offender on your
hands, and teachers will tell you this, are exhibited in classrooms at the youngest ages and the lowest grades. Obviously, as with criminals of all ages, substance abuse by young offenders is a major factor in their reasons for being involved in criminal activity.
If one were to summarize these root causes in a brief phrase, I think we could do no better than describe the dysfunctional family or the breakdown in the family and of good family values in this country, I hope in a minority of families. An analysis of young offenders will show that an overwhelming percentage of them come from dysfunctional families where there is not proper parental supervision and where there is not proper inculcation of values with these young people. In effect, as a society we reap what we sow. This party seeks to find a balanced approach.
I applaud the minister and the legislation, and I applaud the fact that he says time and again when he speaks to the House that we have to treat the root causes of crime otherwise we are not ultimately going to come up with an improvement in this important area. Sure we will lock away young offenders for a longer time at great cost to the nation, but that will not solve the problem which we ultimately hope to improve upon.
What we ought to do as a country and what the legislation seeks to do in my view is, while improving the legislation and coming up with more realistic penalties, not only be reactive to young offenders but to put preventive action into place.
The sharing of information among professionals such as police officials and school authorities will be an important part of preventive action. As a teacher, I say that any teacher in this country knows there are young offenders and in some cases violent young offenders walking around the halls of a particular school.
It is important that educators know that in the interests of the safety of the other students in that facility and indeed staff in that school. It is a fact that there has been an increase in violent crime in schools in this country. It concerns all of us.
I am pleased to join in the debate today. I applaud the minister for the legislation. It is a major first step in the right direction and we will await as all Canadians do the ultimate improvements in the Young Offenders Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.05 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business
Food Distribution In Canada's NorthMr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the necessary steps to make food distribution in Canada's North more effective and therefore more economical, in order to enable the Inuit to purchase higher quality food at a lower price.

Madam Speaker, like my Inuit colleague on the other side of the House, I will try to say a few words in Inuktitut and I will also provide a translation.
It means that I am pleased today to introduce this motion. It follows my trip to Iqaluit when I did not feel pleased last winter. I arrived in an extremely harsh climate, with temperatures around-30o". This motion is before the House today to draw the attention of Canadians and Northerners to the astronomical cost of food in the Far North. Not only is the cost astronomical but the living conditions are surely the most difficult in Canada.
I often spend two or three days on location talking with people. I was troubled to see how they live and I think that the proposal before us today at least has the merit of trying to do something for them. I do not know how far we will go, but I was very happy that my motion was drawn and that I can make this presentation today.
As I usually do, I will give a brief introduction and give you a summary of the historical background. The Inuit's ancestors immigrated from northern Asia 8,000 years ago. They must not be confused with other native people; they do not want to be called Indians, they are Inuit. It is very important throughout our discussion not to treat them as Natives; that would be a mistake.
Originally, the hunters used flint stones as weapons with which they eked out a living from day to day in extremely difficult conditions, as I explained to you briefly. A little later, they started using bows and harpoons. One may wonder why people from northern Asia would stop in such a hostile land with such a harsh climate. It is fairly easy to understand. Indians from South America had invaded North America and the lands further south were already occupied, so they simply decided to stay in the Arctic.
Of course, hunting is part of the tradition of many Inuit and Natives. In 1839, the Hudson's Bay Company embarked upon its economic incursion into the Arctic. At the time, it was mostly interested in whaling, and when the whale population began to
decline over there, it went as far as Ungava. When it realized that the fauna and the flora, but mostly the fauna, were getting scarce due to hunting and trapping, the Hudson's Bay Company changed its economic approach somewhat.
It focused more on trapping, because fur trading was becoming a very lucrative operation for the Hudson's Bay Company. That is when a change in the way of life of the Inuit was first noticed. They went from subsistence hunting to commercial hunting, and became more and more dependent on Europeans. That led to a progressive decline in the number of animals and made the Inuit more dependent on us.
Later, during the 1940s and 1950s, with the building of military bases in the area came the modernization of the economy, which did not necessarily please the people over there, because, as I will explain later, there are a lot of problems with the standard of living in Canada's North.
There was more and more state intervention. In 1955, for example, the federal government started a housing program in the Far North, which I will address later, because, as we know, housing is a big problem for Inuit as well as Natives. But I do not want to dwell on this. I would rather talk about the cost of food and I am just coming to that.
Still in the same context, the education level is very low. On average, the 30- to 40-year-olds have only completed grade 4. Unfortunately, in a modern economy, these people are left out. That is why their unemployment rate is so high, around 35 per cent. With a very unqualified labour force in a modern economy, they end up with a very high rate of inactivity.
As for health services, the Far North is huge and can you imagine that there was no health support in the area before the first community clinic was opened in 1947. Two years later, a second clinic was opened in Kuujjuaq, Quebec.
As many as 42 per cent of deaths in the area are caused by violent incidents. That is terrible! Of course, alcohol and drugs play an important role. These people have no hope, they are fed up with life and they turn to alcohol and drugs, thus causing many violent deaths.
Regarding the contamination issue, the modern economy which was brought to the region by the Hudson's Bay Company and which was perpetuated by other companies has caused a major mercury and heavy metal contamination problem in the North. Significant levels of toxins are found in the breast milk of Inuit women.
These people can no longer hunt for food. Instead, they have to buy products in a grocery store, just like you and I do every week.
The situation is not much better with regard to housing. A two-bedroom house costs about $150,000 up North, as opposed to about $70,000 here. We have to understand that all the materials must be shipped to the North, and that is why the cost of housing is so high.
Those people have a standard of living that is still much lower than ours. Their life expectancy is very short, much shorter than ours. Since they live in such a vast territory, when they need health care, they often have to travel over huge distances to get treatment. In fact, this causes many deaths. As for the birth rate, which also causes housing problems, whereas we have 13 births per 1,000 people in Quebec, the rate for the Inuit in Northern Quebec is 34 per 1,000. We can see that their population is growing rapidly.
The cost of living index is revealing: the average income of an Inuit is about $9,700. That is an important figure and, according to my calculations, that works out to about $187 a week. That is not much. As you and I will see, Madam Speaker, when we finish shopping for groceries later, there would not be much left to live on.
I will mention the study I have in my hands; it was made by a group suggesting that they could provide food distribution in Canada's North much more efficiently. The company's name is Tikisaivik and they did a market study. Market studies can be done by anybody, but this one clearly shows us that food prices could be reduced by 10 to 20 per cent. That naturally would have a major impact on those people living on a budget averaging, as I mentioned earlier, $187 a week. As you will see, after we finish shopping for groceries later, there would not be much left to live on.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, we will now go grocery shopping with our friends across the way and my colleagues on this side. We will go to the Northern Store in Resolute Bay. I will give you a price list for groceries compared to the prices in Ottawa. A litre of milk costs $3.69 in Resolute Bay, but $1.25 in Ottawa; a loaf of bread costs $2.85 in Resolute Bay, and $1.59 here; a five kilogram bag of flour costs $11.25 there, and $4.49 here; a dozen eggs costs $3.85 there, and $1.29 here; a bag of apples costs $3.63 there, and $2.62 here; a sack of potatoes costs $4.95 there, and $2.99 here; a can of peas-I like peas with turkey, it is very good-a can of peas costs $2.95 there, and 69 cents here; apple juice costs $4.50 there, and $1.19 here. We could go on and on; ground beef costs $8.97 there, and $3.72 here. At the end of the list, I have Tang orange juice which costs $2.85 there and $1.09 here in Ottawa. If we add all items together, the total will be $124.77 in Resolute Bay, compared to $49.28 in Ottawa. If your salary is $187 a week and your groceries cost you $124.77, there is not much left for the rest of the week.
Why is this? It is due of course to the great distances and to a very complex distribution network which starts in Winnipeg, Ottawa or Montreal; for somes places, the goods are moved by train before being sent by plane; in others, they are moved by truck. In Quebec, they travel over something like 2,000 kilometers by truck before being shipped by plane to the Far North. So, the proposal that is being made, and this is only an example, there could be other proposals, as I said earlier, is that big
carriers with a single supplier could go directly from Montreal to Iqaluit, where I went, and I explained a bit earlier the living conditions that exist there. So, we would avoid all the go-betweens, those who make a profit along the way.
These people are simply proposing that big carriers be used to bring everything to Iqaluit and, from there, the food would be distributed by small planes to villages of this huge territory.
That proposal has the merit of reducing by about 10 to 20 per cent the cost of a shopping basket, as I explained. This is not insignificant. And there is also a series of other measures that would not only make this project viable, but also contribute to the Inuit really taking control of their lives in the Great North. This project would create 55 direct and indirect jobs in the Great North, particularly in Iqaluit, which is not insignificant, because in a context where 35 to 40 per cent of our people are without jobs, 55 jobs would be very welcomed in the Great North.
There is also the whole issue of the federal government that is already paying a lot. Canada Post-we are talking about the famous local transportation-is paying $20 million a year for food distribution, while the study that we have here suggests that we may be able to do the equivalent for $9.8 million. So, not only the cost of food products may decrease, but shorter transit times would allow for fresher products, while in the present system, when the food gets there-and I saw it myself- it is anything but fresh and barely acceptable. I think that we would not accept that in our shopping centres.
I do not want to talk too much about investment, but the federal government might be asked to invest in this area. However, considering we could save between seven and eight million dollars annually on the way food products are distributed, it seems to me that the initial funding requested is negligible.
Before I forget, I would like to say that Tikisaivik is 60 per cent Inuit-owned. Most of the shareholders are Inuit. Madam Speaker, I certainly do not want to be seen as playing favourites, but I took this company as an example because it had the best and most effective studies. Five students at the master's degree level did a market survey, and I have it here today.
I will try to be brief, because I see that my time is running out. The objective is lower food prices. I think that is essential. In fact, it is the focus of my speech today. It is important for the well-being of the Inuit in the North, whether they are in Quebec, on Baffin Island or even closer to the Arctic, to have a food distribution system that would not be a drain on the family budget. Reducing the price of food will enhance the quality of life of the Inuit in the North, and that is the most important factor.
Another point is improving food quality. Earlier, I talked about freshness. It will be possible to eat fresh vegetables at their peak and to improve the way they are handled, as opposed to what I saw in the shopping centres up there.
Job creation. This is also a very important factor, as I said before. Fifty-five Inuit jobs could be created.
Variety in the type of foods and creating a local economy. I think this is where the government could make a contribution so that the Inuit can escape the cycle of dependency in which they have been kept for too long. This plan for a modern economy will ensure that people can work in the food distribution sector in the North. In fact, this should be done by local people instead of companies from outside that do not know the local situation and operate on the premise that they have to give their shareholders a decent profit.
Local people have a stake in the quality of life of the Inuit, and I think that is important.
I will conclude with a few words in Inuktitut-I hope I pronounce them properly-"nakurmiik toma", which means we look to the future with confidence, and I hope that if the government takes a good look at how food distribution in the North can be made more economical, I think we can look forward to the future and ensure that the Inuit will have the quality of life they should have had many years ago.
Peter Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in tonight's debate. First of all, I would like to say, however, that I am not an expert in this area. I have often travelled to northern regions of our country to do some canoeing which I enjoy. I have often noted the regular prices of goods in the North. I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Jean for his interest in this question and for moving this motion in the House.
However I would like to stress that a reliable and affordable food distribution system is critical to the health and well-being of tens of thousands of Canadians living in northern isolated communities. This issue is one that must concern us as a national legislature in Canada.
Here in the south the issue of food distribution is not as significant for one or either of governments or residents. Nutritious food is broadly available at supermarkets or corner stores throughout the areas in southern Canada. Distribution of food
products is left in the hands of the private sector, with no demand for or need for government involvement.
In the north the situation, as the hon. member has indicated, is dramatically different. Many communities are isolated and do not have year round surface access so food supplies must be delivered in some cases by air and in other cases by sea. Perishable foods, which as a rule are the most nutritious, are very difficult to arrange for in some of these communities. The expense of transporting perishable foods to remote communities increases their cost to consumers. The hon. member provided the House with a list, the variety of which I have seen in my northern experiences.
These areas are not only isolated but they are often economically depressed. In some communities unemployment is as high as 85 per cent. Many families are living on social assistance, supplemented by whatever commodities they can harvest from the land.
The northern food mail program therefore is vitally important. It subsidizes the cost of shipping perishable, nutritious foods to isolated northern communities, and puts these basic necessities within the reach of northern families. On many of the flights I have taken to various places in the north I am aware that the plane is filled with bread, eggs, milk and other perishables that are shipped to these communities. However, even with the assistance of this program, it is extremely difficult for families to afford the proper and nutritious food that is demanded. Without the program it would be virtually impossible to do so.
I again stress that the prices the hon. member listed are not exaggerated. I am not exaggerating when I say the situation in the north would be desperate without this program. Government studies show that a family of four in isolated communities in the Northwest Territories would have to spend between $260 to $280 a week, or between 85 per cent and 110 per cent of their after shelter income for a basic diet. That is about twice the cost of a comparable basic diet in southern Canada.
I would remind hon. members that Canada is a signatory to the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child. One of those rights is the right to adequate nutrition. Children should not go hungry, especially in our country.
There can be no question in my submission as to the need for the program. The only question is what form the government subsidization for food distribution or food costs should be. We stress it is essential for the health of northern residents. It is also fair to say that the current program is achieving its intended purpose, notwithstanding the suggestions made by the hon. member.
The northern food mail program is strongly supported by the communities it serves, by the food distribution companies, by the merchants that form part of the distribution system and by the consumers. Canada Post, which ships food products and other essential goods by air, has been a willing and vital partner in the program.
In spite of all that, I commend the hon. member for Saint-Jean for urging the government to reconsider the current northern food distribution system. There is always room for improvement and governments should be continually looking at new approaches to program delivery.
Therefore I am extremely pleased to inform the House that the government has already taken steps to re-evaluate this program. In April the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Health committed their departments to a full review of this essential service for the next year.
This review will build on an evaluation of the program that was undertaken by consultants last year. It will include consultations with all the key stakeholders, including northern residents, merchants, air carriers, provincial and territorial governments, and aboriginal organizations.
This consultation process is fully in keeping with the red book commitment, and I know the hon. member has read the red book extensively, to ensure that aboriginal people are fully involved in decisions that affect their lives. Toward this end, regional consultation meetings will be held in the north this September and October. Written views and recommendations will also be accepted by the government.
My hon. colleague will be particularly pleased to hear that an interdepartmental committee is currently looking at terms of reference to guide this review. In addition to Health Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the committee has representations from the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, and Human Resources Development, the Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office.
This review will look at the issue of food distribution in the north from a very broad perspective. It will not just consider how much money is being spent or needs to be spent under the northern food mail program. It will address the fundamental question of whether or not this is the best way to ensure that northerners can meet their needs for food and other essential goods that are currently shipped under the program.
It will review alternatives for food distribution and food costs subsidization including income support to ensure that people have money to buy the essential foods. The role of local food production, processing, and intersettlement trade will also be considered.
The review may tell us in the end that the essential structure of the program is solid but that some fine tuning is needed. It may tell us that a completely new approach is needed, or that the program should be developed and looked after by another level of government, or indeed by an independent organization.
In the meantime, hon. members have the government's assurance that funding for the program in its current format will continue. In 1994-95 a total of $14.1 million will be available for the food mail program. The bulk of this, some $13.6 million, will come from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The remaining $500,000 will be contributed by Health Canada. This level of funding should be sufficient to maintain the postage rates at the current levels until March 31, 1995.
In closing, I want to say that I of course am not an expert on this subject. I have had some experience as I have indicated in the course of my remarks, but I am not an expert. The remarks I am alluding to and am in part reading have been prepared for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is tied up at a committee meeting tonight and is unable to be here to deliver this particular speech. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on his behalf and on behalf of the government.
In conclusion, this House must acknowledge that the northern food mail program has proven to be an effective and efficient way of making food and other essential goods more affordable in isolated northern communities. As a member who travels there occasionally I am pleased to support it. I am confident that if any improvements can be made either in the short term or in the long term, they will be identified in the course of the review which the government has under way and which will be reporting in due course.
I thank the hon. member for raising this issue in the House.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean. The motion asks the government to make food distribution in Canada's north more effective and more economical.
I could not help but notice that the member who spoke just before me must have done his research from exactly the same material that I did mine. His speech sounded a lot like the one I am about to deliver.
We in the Reform Party are always looking for ways to improve on existing programs. I commend the hon. member for his initiative in bringing this motion forward.
Since the 1960s the federal government in conjunction with the post office has made an effort to supply isolated northern communities with affordable fresh produce. Under the northern air stage program the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pays Canada Post a subsidy to cover a portion of the cost of bringing nutritious and mostly perishable food to communities that have no year round road or rail access. Approximately 125 communities serving about 86,000 people are eligible under this program.
As has been referred to previously, in the 1994 fiscal year this food mail subsidy will amount to some $14.1 million. Of this, $13.6 million will be coming from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with about half a million dollars coming from the Department of Health.
The residents of Canada's north face not only higher retail prices than we southerners but they also have a critical employment program. Most work in that area is, at best, seasonal in nature. The 1986 census showed that only 35 per cent of the aboriginal population 15 years of age or older were employed, compared to 60 per cent for all of Canada in the same age category. Of course a high unemployment rate means a lower annual wage and ultimately less purchasing power.
The high cost of transporting goods in the north, even with the government subsidized food mail program, results in higher consumer prices. As was also alluded to earlier, a family of four in these isolated communities in the Northwest Territories would have to spend between $260 and $280 per week just for a basic diet. That is at least twice as much as we would have to spend in southern Canada for the same diet.
A study by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development conducted in 1990 concluded that by reducing the merchant's transportation costs, the air strategy subsidy has been an effective means of keeping the prices of food and other goods in remote areas lower than they otherwise would be. The study also found that an elimination of the subsidy would likely result in higher social assistance costs, higher health care costs and an increase in isolated post allowances for government employees.
When the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development launched this study in 1990 there were no apparent alternatives. Today, as was indicated by my hon. friend, there may be a practical cost-effective solution for at least part of this problem.
As was also alluded to by the mover of this motion there is a corporation which is prepared to establish a food distribution network. I certainly do not want to propose one corporation over another but where there is one, there are likely to be others.
This corporation plans to supply food from a central distribution centre in Iqaluit which at the outset would serve some 38 northern communities. This unique Canadian enterprise predicts that the price of food products in the north could be
reduced by 10 to 20 per cent. This will be possible because of the company's plan to reduce transportation costs and because its purchasing power will enable it to negotiate lower prices and to pass the savings on to the customers.
This company expects to save on transportation costs by regrouping products and chartering aircraft that would carry up to $75,000 worth of merchandise per flight. While its plan initially is to be a food wholesaler, the company estimates that it can receive 88 per cent of the market share in two years by supplying perishable food products and other consumer merchandise needed by northern residents but not currently available at reasonable prices.
The overall cost to inaugurate the service is estimated to be some $1.65 million. Without going into too much of the financing it is safe to say that the company would probably need some government loan guarantee in order to get started. I think the operative word here is "loan". As was also mentioned by the mover of the motion, this company would create jobs for some people in the north and they also all are shareholders of this particular company.
What benefit is this for the Canadian government? The company's prospectus predicts initial savings for the government of up to $3.6 million. It expects to train and employ, as was mentioned before, about 55 local people.
Now as you know we in the Reform Party are strong believers in the free enterprise system. I am personally pleased to see that this group has taken the initiative to provide a better service to at least some of the isolated northern communities. It sounds like an excellent viable alternative.
If this group is successful, it is likely that other entrepreneurs will follow its lead. Then there would be no need for the Government of Canada to provide so much subsidy to Canada Post for the food mail program.
If this had been a votable motion, I would have asked that it be referred to committee. I would encourage our party to support this motion and refer it to a committee for further examination. Since it is not a votable motion, I would like to encourage the government.
I was very pleased to hear the member opposite say that the government has plans to review this whole program and, I hope, these proposals. Certainly what I would encourage is that the government look at every possible proposal to make the food distribution in the north far more efficient and effective as well as improving the quality of the food and ultimately the diet of the people who live in the north.
Morris Bodnar: Madam Speaker, I rise to address the House on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Jean.
As my hon. colleague has explained, the northern air stage program is critical to the good health of many thousands of people living in remote northern communities. It is also a federal initiative that is not well known to many Canadians or to their representatives in this House. I would like to take this opportunity to provide some background on the program so that hon. members can fully appreciate its importance.
The principal objective of the northern air stage program is to achieve food security in isolated northern communities. Food security is defined as a condition in which all people at all times have access to safe, nutritiously adequate and personally acceptable foods in a manner which maintains human dignity. Food security poses special challenges in northern Canada, where southern food is very expensive and retail competition is extremely limited.
There are also increasing pressures on traditional food sources as well as concern about contaminants in the food chain. Hunting itself is expensive, especially for people who are already in low-paying jobs or are receiving social assistance.
Under the northern air stage program the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development makes payments to Canada Post to subsidize the cost of providing air parcel service to communities that are not accessible by year round surface transportation. This payment covers between 50 and 60 per cent of the cost of sending these parcels, most of which are food items. This is why the program is more commonly referred to as the northern food mail program.
This program has become a vital element of the northern food distribution system. It ensures that supplies of nutritious, perishable food are delivered to about 45 Inuit communities in the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and Labrador. It also serves about 60 isolated First Nation communities in the James Bay region of Quebec, in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories, and about 20 mainly non-aboriginal communities in Labrador and the north shore region of Quebec. In total, some 86,000 Canadians depend on the program.
In 1989 the previous government announced that the food mail program would be phased out after more than two decades of existence. As might be expected, this announcement was met with a great deal of opposition both in the north and in the House, and the government decided instead to undertake a major review of the program.
As a result of this review steps have been taken to make the program more equitable in terms of the subsidization rates paid
for parcel delivery to communities in the Northwest Territories compared to the provinces.
The postage rates for shipments to the territories traditionally had been about three times as high as in the provinces. Important changes have been made also in how funding is applied. The lowest postage rates are provided now for nutritious, perishable food. Food of little nutritional value has been disqualified from funding.
As well, shipments of alcohol and tobacco products are not subsidized under this program. Merchants or individuals must use commercial air cargo service, winter roads, or seasonal marine service for the resupply of these items.
As a result of these changes Canada Post now charges 80 cents per kilogram plus 75 cents per parcel for nutritious, perishable food deliveries to all remote northern communities.
Non-perishable food and non-food items can be mailed to isolated communities in the northern parts of the provinces for $1 per kilogram plus 75 cents per parcel. In the territories the rate for these items has been maintained at $2.15 per kilogram plus 75 cents per parcel.
These changes have helped to reduce the prices of perishable food in the Northwest Territories. In some communities there has been a fairly significant reduction in the total cost of the basic northern food basket for a family of four.
In Pond Inlet, for example, the cost of this basket decreased by more than $30 between 1991 and 1993. Unfortunately there are many communities in which increases in the cost of non-perishable food have offset the reductions in the cost of perishables.
The lack of retail competition in many communities also continues to affect food prices. In Broughton Island where the local co-operative closed, leaving only one store in the community, the cost of the northern food basket actually increased by $40 between 1992 and 1993 despite the reduction in postal rates for perishables.
From a nutritional perspective, consumption of perishable food in Inuit communities in the Northwest Territories has increased significantly since the postage rates began to decline in October 1991.
In 1991-92 Canada Post shipped 758 tonnes of perishable food to the 10 communities in the Baffin region which traditionally have been on the food mail system. The following year when postage rates were further reduced these shipments increased by more than 35 per cent to 1,040 tonnes.
Despite this increased consumption, there is still a great deal of room for improvement. A government survey of isolated aboriginal communities taken in 1991 and 1993 shows that the per capita consumption of store-bought perishable food continues to be much lower in the north than in southern Canada.
As a result, the average intake of vitamin A and calcium is far below recommended levels and the average consumption of sugar in all communities is extremely high. This is obviously undermining the health of northern residents.
It is also evident that high food costs continue to be the major impediment to improved diets in the north. In the same survey I mentioned a moment ago, between 40 and 50 per cent of women reported that they were extremely concerned about not having enough money for food. In most communities, this was a greater concern than alcohol and drug abuse and family violence. The situation is obviously extremely difficult, but without the food mail program or some alternative, it could be much worse.
It is clear that some form of subsidization must continue for shipments of nutritious, perishable food items to isolated northern communities. The residents of these communities already have many problems to deal with: poverty, overcrowding, family violence, alcohol and substance abuse, cultural disruption, gambling and so on. Hunger and poor health brought on by an inadequate food supply should not be added to the list.
I want to reiterate that the government has already taken the action proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Jean. An interdepartmental committee is now developing the terms of reference for a fundamental review of the food mail program for the next year.
I would urge my hon. colleagues to support this important initiative. The food mail program costs each Canadian taxpayer an average of about one cent per week. This is a very small price to pay, considering the enormous impact the program has on the health and well-being of 86,000 Canadians.
André Caron: I am pleased to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague from Saint-Jean which calls on the government to take the necessary steps to make food distribution in Canada's North more effective, and therefore more economical, in order to enable the Inuit to purchase higher quality food at a lower price.
I listened closely to the speeches given by the hon. member for Saint-Jean and by my Reform and government colleagues. They have certainly defined the problem of food distribution in the North quite well.
I want to use my time to focus in particular on the situation in the Nunavik territories, that is in northern Quebec and certain parts of Nunavut which correspond to what used to be called Keewatin, Baffin Island and Kitikmeot. Everyone no doubt agrees that the major problem with food distribution in the
North is distance. On average, food is shipped over a distance of roughly 2,200 kilometres, and in some cases, of up to 3,000 kilometres.
Air and sea transportation modes are commonly used, with sea routes open only a few months of the year. To all intents and purposes, air transportation is the sole mode used. Obviously, transportation costs are astronomical, because after all, these territories are not inhabited by large numbers of people. Furthermore, considering the climatic conditions, costs can be exorbitant.
The big problem for the people of these territories and the people concerned-in the territories that I looked at, involving 27,000 people, including 8,000 in northern Quebec-is due to transportation costs and the cost of living. In these territories, the cost of living can be one and a half times or twice as high. So we see that it is a serious financial situation for these families. The situation is even more serious in that northern Quebec and northern Canada as a whole have a big problem with employment and inadequate incomes. For all practical purposes, salaries in these regions are modest, even very modest, and the cost of food is high.
The impact on the people's health is great. Many studies done in the South and some in the North show the connection between health and diet. That is why I wanted to speak on the motion of my colleague from Saint-Jean, because it really is a problem. I think that Parliament and the Canadian government must take the necessary action to deal with this situation for the good of the people concerned.
For the territories I am considering, food is transported by air from two places: Churchill and Val-d'Or. From these places food products are sent to the North. There is no distribution from major cities such as Montreal, for example, where wholesalers and retailers could send their products directly to the North. Goods are distributed through the two communities I mentioned.
Of course, it is not only a matter of costs but also of transit times, since goods sometimes take several days to reach their destination. It is a real problem but there are, of course, solutions. Many things are now being done to feed or help feed Northerners. There are government measures and subsidies, and I think the federal government's contribution is very worthwhile.
But there are still some problems. Costs are very high. Additional transportation costs to the North range between $0.70 and $7.75 a kilo, so we can see why costs are prohibitive. But there may be solutions we can contemplate. It was brought to my attention that the Inuit designed a project promoting the establishment of a distribution centre in the North, in order to combine the goods brought on the same plane, thus reducing costs and ensuring adequate distribution to the villages concerned.
I do not want to speak for and publicize the measures that may be taken by people who formed a private venture, but I think this project should be carefully analyzed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because it seems likely to lower food costs in the North and because this initiative comes from Northerners. There as elsewhere, the people directly concerned are in the best position to take the measures required to improve their economic and social conditions. Since this project is sponsored by Inuit, I think it could be of interest to the Department of Indian Affairs.
This project also promotes the employment of Natives, of members of Inuit communities in the North. I think this should be one of our goals. Given the high cost of food in the North and the initiatives taken by Northerners, I urge the Department of Indian Affairs to consider the motion of my colleague from Saint-Jean and take the necessary steps to make food distribution in the North more effective. And if we can thus support Northerners willing to invest their money and energy in developing their communities, I think we should not hesitate to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).