1999-02-19

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to oppose Bill C-63, the government's proposed changes to the Citizenship Act.
My constituents and I are well aware, as are many Canadians across the country, that our immigration and refugee system is in bad shape. In this legislation the government has chosen to deal with issues concerning Canadian citizenship instead of the serious flaws in our immigration and refugee system. This is mismanagement by the minister. She is mismanaging her priorities. Canadians want her to work on our broken refugee and immigration system.
We should welcome genuine refugees. They deserve our protection. In his December 1997 report the auditor general said that the current process does not quickly grant Canada's protection to claimants who genuinely need it.
The Liberals have no political will to improve the situation. The Liberal members on the immigration committee even refuse to study in the future business of the committee the abuse of our immigration and refugee system by drug dealers, terrorists and other criminals.
Imagine one morning waking up and seeing someone sitting in your living room. You wonder how that person entered your home. No bells rang. You had not let anyone come in. Eventually you find that while the front door was closed the person had no difficulty using the back door. It had been left wide open. After dealing with the person, would you not make sure to keep the back door closed? Then the next time someone rang the bell you would know who your visitor was and you would have the opportunity to show the courtesy of welcoming the guest in and making him or her feel at home.
In our immigration system the front doors are closed or partially closed. But the back doors are wide open and the government is keeping it that way. In our refugee process and system the back door is abused by criminals. Drug dealers come here to sell drugs to our children.
Canada is a country of immigrants. Genuine immigrants should be welcomed through the front door. Their cases should be processed as quickly as possible without any harassment or unnecessary court expenses.
The Liberal government has no political will to fix the system. Rather, it wants to make patchwork changes to the Citizenship Act. The auditor general cautioned the government against making patchwork changes. He indicated that the problem is complex and that there is a need to conduct a total review of the refugee claim process. It is four and a half years—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are supposed to be debating an act respecting Canadian citizenship. What the member is talking about has nothing to do with the citizenship bill. He is talking about a piece of legislation that will come to the House in good time, which is the review of the Immigration Act.
This has been happening continually from that side of the House. They have not been talking about the citizenship—
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been through this a number of times now. Our colleagues have a right to come into the House of Commons and speak directly to a bill in any fashion they wish if they think they can get their point across. If the Liberal government members do not like it, that is just too darn bad.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Standing Order 101(2) speaks to relevancy. Relevancy in committees of the whole is very strictly applied. Relevancy in debate is not as strictly applied.
It has been the decision of the Chair during the course of this debate that relevancy would be applied but not strictly applied as it would be applied in committee of the whole.
I accept the admonition of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I think it is valid. During debate we do have to be germane to the issues at debate. However, in the debate on citizenship and immigration the two very often overlap from both sides of the floor. We need to give each other a little elbow room.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am debating Bill C-65 and I was on clause 2(1) under interpretations. I am discussing—
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The bill is Bill C-63, not Bill C-65 or any other bill the hon. member would like to talk about. It is a citizenship bill. Twenty-seven million people in this country are Canadian citizens. They were born here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. parliamentary secretary has made his point.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am debating Bill C-63 which is in my hand. I have read every page of it thoroughly. This is an act respecting Canadian citizenship. I was on clause 2(1) under interpretations. I am discussing the definition of citizen and citizenship and also in clause 6 and clause 8 which state “The minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who”. I am talking about the person who, which is very much relevant and I am sure that the member will let me proceed.
It is four and a half years since the Liberal dominated committee presented its report but we have yet to see any action from the government. That is why it does not want to listen to what I am saying.
In my constituency a genuine refugee has been waiting for over five years and still has not been granted this status. He was tortured for his religious beliefs. After he arrived in Canada, his brother was tortured and killed by the police. Now his wife and children are being harassed and tortured. His family cannot reunite until he is granted this status in Canada. A day is too long for him to wait. My constituent is under tremendous pressure and mental torture.
Why is it this way? Who is responsible? The Liberal government is responsible for this mess. That is what we are talking about today.
As Canadians we want to welcome genuine refugees to our country. We want to help those people who need the help. Our refugee system is so full of flaws that it does not grant quick protection or provide protection for those who genuinely need it.
Instead of fixing our broken immigration system, the Liberals have us debate changes in the Citizenship Act, Bill C-63.
The auditor general deplores the fact that it takes on average more than two and a half years to settle a refugee status claim. The average processing time went from seven months in 1993-94 to nearly 13 months in 1996-97. It almost doubled in two years. This same period saw a sharp increase in the backlog of claims waiting to be processed, from approximately 17,500 to 29,000. A person claiming refugee status can count on staying in Canada for more than two and a half years.
Over the past several years, close to 60% of claimants have presented themselves to Canadian officials without a passport, personal identification or even travel documents. This makes the refugee determination process longer and makes it extremely difficult to remove failed claimants.
The auditor general says that out of 20,000 persons ordered deported, the department could act on only 4,000 cases and the remaining 16,000 are consumed in the system. If that is not a cat and mouse game being played by the department, then what is it?
The Immigration Act requires airlines to ensure that their passengers are properly documented.
These very same concerns were addressed nearly 10 years ago by the auditor general. The Liberals continue to make Canadians wait for changes.
It is essential that the realistic expectations for the speed and efficiency of claims be set out.
It is also important that federal agencies respond to these expectations within well defined parameters. There is need to ensure the integrity and efficiency of the refugee determination process. Fairness and efficiency are legitimate and important objectives. The Liberal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is choosing not to do anything about the problem. Instead we are going back to changes in the Citizenship Act.
Let us look briefly at the conditions of granting citizenship as proposed in Bill C-63. On presence in Canada, clause 6(1)(b) proposes to define the term “permanent resident” more concisely than does the current act. Bill C-63 calls for 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada in the five years preceding application for citizenship. However, Bill C-63 does not provide any mechanism for determining when the applicant arrives in Canada or when the applicant leaves Canada.
On penalties for bureaucratic delays, the current act allows individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for the citizenship application. According to this act, applicants will now be penalized for the system's bureaucratic delays.
Similarly in the case of adoption it is left up to the minister to define the parent-child relationship in cases of adoption. In defining family, clause 43 gives the minister the power to redefine spouse, marriage, family and family relations. She will not consult Canadians. She will not consult parliament. She will decide herself.
There are many things I wanted to say about patronage appointments, about the language requirements and about the oath which was designed by the minister and not by parliament.
We are seeing Liberal arrogance and a lack of respect for parliament and the people of Canada. The minister's first legislation should have been aimed at fixing a failed immigration system rather than citizenship. There is no political will to do anything about these problems.
I predict the government will not attempt to change the immigration and refugee system in the immediate future. It is already too late for many of those who are victims of crime. The minister has been in her portfolio for three years. She should have addressed the serious problems of our immigration and refugee system before tinkering with the Citizenship Act.
Therefore I will be voting against the bill on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and many more Canadians who are looking forward to changes to this act. We have been terribly let down and disappointed by the government's lack of action in addressing the serious problems in the immigration and refugee system.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about immigration and citizenship from a historical perspective because I think it helps us to understand something about ourselves and about how we got to this debate on Bill C-63. Everyone needs a history reminder once in a while.
Immigration to Canada is very much based on the Canadian dream of upward mobility. A fascinating book was published in 1988 called The Chinese in Canada by Peter S. Li. Being from British Columbia, the story in this book is of strong interest to me. As of the 1981 census about 75% of Chinese origin Canadians resided in B.C. and in Ontario. I have no reason to believe this has changed significantly.
Aside from our native population it is commonly held that no other racial or ethnic group has experienced harsher treatment than the Chinese in Canada. The Government of Canada passed the first anti-Chinese bill in 1885. It is no accident that this coincided with completion of the CPR railway. Fifteen thousand Chinese labourers worked on the B.C. section of the CPR between May 14, 1880 and July 29, 1885, saving the company millions of dollars.
The 1885 bill brought in a poll tax put in under the Conservative government of the day, a poll tax being a head tax. The Liberals increased this poll tax to $100 in 1900, a hefty sum indeed in those days, and then increased it again in 1903 to $500.
In 1923 the Liberal government passed the Chinese Immigration Act which suspended Chinese immigration until 1947 when it was repealed. Chinese Canadians refer to the passing of the 1923 act as humiliation day. Between 1923 and 1947 essentially no Chinese were allowed to immigrate to Canada and those already here were denied many of their civil rights.
The 1885 to 1947 policies resulted in few women Chinese Canadians. Prior to 1923 Chinese immigration was usually arranged by contractors or with individuals and voluntary. Typically, as a consequence of the head tax which was a cost for bringing wives or parents to Canada, men arrived single and lived as bachelors in Canada. In 1931, for example, out of a total Chinese population of 46,000 in Canada, less than 10% were women.
The 1885 to 1923 migrants were largely men and then essentially all Chinese immigration was stopped for a period of 24 years. This bachelor society inhibited a second generation of Chinese Canadians and the population of Chinese Canadians shrank dramatically between 1923 and about 1950. It was only post-World War II that family reunification and new immigration brought normality to Chinese immigration and family relationships in Canada.
Structural racism in Canadian immigration gradually disappeared after 1947 due to a combination of court challenges and government initiatives. In 1957 a major event occurred with the election of Douglas Jung as a Conservative MP in Vancouver, the first Chinese Canadian member of parliament. We all know of the valued contribution of the Chinese Canadian community in Canada today.
As distasteful as the story is of how government handled Chinese immigration to Canada, there are lessons for us all. The story I have told is to demonstrate that government has discriminated against racial groups in Canada and it is important to design our immigration and citizenship rules in such a way that this discrimination does not occur.
Canadian citizenship is an enviable status in the world community. Canada must set the rules and we must do so in a way that is fair to legitimate aspirants who match Canada's needs, that offers fair opportunity and that penalizes those who want to impose their priorities on the country by queue jumping or abusing Canada's hospitality.
Some of the provisions in Bill C-63 give too much discretion to the minister and are invitations to abuse our hospitality. This is distasteful and should be changed. My colleagues have pointed out many of these shortcomings.
In many ways a nation is defined by its immigration and citizenship policies. Ours need major rework and this act does not contribute in a major way to doing that. Today Chinese Canadians are represented in all professions in Canada and in all walks of life. As a cultural group they have emphasized education because that is how best to express upward mobility. This is the legacy many cultural groups have brought to Canada and that is what we want to encourage.
I will now get into some of the specifics of Bill C-63. The bill is intended to replace an act which has been in existence without any real change since 1977. It has been billed as a major reform but it really does not do that. Critical areas have been neglected and other areas have been altered in a negative way.
The unwillingness to change integral elements of the act will result in the court system ultimately creating law and an increase in power of the minister to make closed door decisions without oversight by parliament.
There is one major section on citizenship at birth. Bill C-63 states in effect that all children born in Canada will continue to automatically acquire Canadian citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration or citizenship status.
Recommendations from the 1994 all party standing committee stated that children born in Canada should be Canadian citizens only if one or both their parents is a permanent resident of Canada. In the judgment of Canadians there is abuse of the provision of the Citizenship Act granting automatic citizenship to children born on Canadian soil. The minister stated that she made no changes to this clause because there was no research done on how big a problem the citizenship at birth issue is.
That is quite a statement, recognizing there is a problem, not addressing it and not taking the four and a half years since the report came out to do anything about gathering statistical evidence to support or refute the dimension of the problem.
Under grant of citizenship the current legislation allows individuals whose application for permanent residence is approved to count each full day of residency in Canada from the date of application as a half day toward the total needed for their citizenship application.
Bill C-63 penalizes applicants for bureaucratic delays within the system, even if those delays are no fault of the applicants. Many groups have petitioned the minister to change this provision so that applicants are not penalized for bureaucratic delay. The official opposition calls for reinstatement of this provision.
The last point I will speak about is the citizenship oath. This may as well be called the minister's oath. It was not done in the public domain with public input. We missed a grand opportunity. The government wants to retain its monopoly on citizenship and immigration against the better judgment of Canadians.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-63.
I want to take a more personal perspective on it. As an immigrant to this country it was an honour when I, with my parents and my other brothers and sisters, finally swore the oath of allegiance to Canada. I have an understanding of what an absolutely wonderful thrill that was. Growing up in such a free and great country as Canada, I had hoped that other immigrants and other people wanting to come here would not be side stepped or roadblocked or delayed in any way from their achieving the same possibilities that my family and I have achieved.
Unfortunately Bill C-63 is a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare. To say to people coming here that they may or may not be accepted as citizens of this country because of bureaucratic bungling in the department is unacceptable. It goes to prove that the people who drafted the bill did not think of all the particulars. It would have been better if they had taken more time and carefully drafted the bill.
I also have concerns regarding the oath of allegiance. Even though I come from an area which is very much in favour of the monarchy, there are many aspects to the oath of allegiance that I think need to be modernized and accepted to more Canadians. The previous speaker from the Reform Party was correct that there should have been a wide open debate. Something of this importance in stature across the country should have been open to all Canadian to debate exactly what kind of an oath of allegiance we should have for new Canadians.
The concern that is often neglected in the aspect of citizenry is our aboriginal people. They were the first citizens of this country. Nobody asked them. They seem to get bypassed in all these circumstances and everything else. We came to this country 400 or 500 years ago and literally took over from them. They had a very good way of life for thousands of years and we came in an said we were going to change everything. That is stretching the argument a bit, but unfortunately the fact is they are an integral part of our society.
We talk about two founding nations in this country. We actually have three and they were the first. The part that really disturbs me is the fact of having an understanding of the French or English language, the two official languages. It is really a hardship on new immigrants who come to this country. There is no question that when my family came here they hardly knew a word of English at all, not a word. According to the bill they could be restricted from entering this country because of an act of that nature. I find that wrong. I wish that the minister and the government would take that back and review the situation and go through the clauses that many of us on the opposition side feel are flawed in this department and in this bill.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill because the bill does not address the real problems in immigration that are reported to every one of us as MPs almost on a daily basis. I know some members in the House are in rural constituencies and they really are not exposed to the sorts of problems with the immigration system experienced by members of parliament in urban centres.
I can give some examples of some of the problems in the Vancouver area that simply are not addressed by the content of the bill. I am sure many of the members have seen the news items on television where up to 80 Honduran drug dealers are arrested at one time in Vancouver in drug sweeps. These 80 Hondurans are criminal refugee claimants. They are not genuine immigrants. They are people who have come through our borders using false passports, using false documentation and they go straight to the drug dealing trade on the streets of Vancouver and east Vancouver. Some of them are as young as 12 and they are here illegally.
The minister has done absolutely nothing in her bill to deal with that type of problem. In fact, we are so stupid in Canada that we even brought a social worker from Honduras to look after all these illegals who are already here taking our welfare payments, taking free medical care, taking free dental care and all the other benefits that hardworking Canadians are entitled to while they deal drugs on the streets of Vancouver and we cannot do anything to get rid of them.
These very same people are arrested over and over again every week. They are taken down to the court house and within an hour they are back on the streets. There is an example of a major problem in the Vancouver area that has been completely ignored in the bill by the minister.
We have the same sort of problem in Vancouver every night with illegals where up to half of those arrested in the Vancouver area on any night of the week are illegal refugee claimants. Imagine that, half of those arrested in Vancouver every night of the week are illegal refugee claimants. That gives members an idea of the size of the problem, the strain on our police forces, the strain on our welfare system, the court system, all the issues that flow from that one problem of porous borders, our inability to keep criminals out of the country.
Some of the refugee claimants who say they are in Canada because they would be persecuted in their own country—
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the Reform Party that we are debating Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. It is important that we have some relevancy. What the member is talking about and what the Reform—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for North Vancouver.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, I know that my constituents consider what I am saying to be extremely relevant to this bill. The fact is the bill does not address the problems that they have identified for years. They have begged the minister to deal with them. I have already given some examples.
One of the things my constituents have suggested to the minister, and she heard it on radio talk shows when she was out there last year, was that she include in a new bill an ability for us to get rid of these criminals, to deport them in lieu of sentence.
We have this absolutely ludicrous situation where a refugee claimant can come in and commit a crime, they go into the court system and if we are really lucky the person gets put in jail. As soon as that person is released on probation, that is considered to be a part of the court sentence. So the immigration deportation process cannot start up. The person can wander around the streets, commit another crime and go back to jail. This process is repeated over and over again. Thousands of people are doing it in the Vancouver area. I am certain it must be happening in Toronto and it has to be happening in Montreal.
For an unknown reason the minister is ignoring the problem. She brings in these bills that fiddle around the edges of the problems but never deals with them.
Let me give the House some examples of the sorts of things that happen in my office. On a weekly basis we get anything up to about a dozen immigration case inquiries. I am an immigrant. No one can say I am against immigration. I could not have come here if I was against immigration. But what I stand for is a quality in immigration. There is nothing wrong with screening people to find quality immigrants to come here and who want to be Canadian, not for them to bring their problems from some other country or to bring criminals into this country, but to bring decent, hardworking people who can contribute.
About 20 years ago the immigration department worked through the embassies to find quality people to come to Canada who had skills and who could help the country grow. Now the immigration department is captive of its own system. The quotas are filled almost exclusively by family reunification and people who come to invest money. It is not done in a proactive way to find people we really need.
Let me give the House four or five recent examples of the types of cases that come to my office. A short time ago a man called to say he was having trouble sponsoring his wife from Pakistan because the Canadian embassy refused to recognize his marriage. We did an inquiry. What did we find out? This man married someone he had never met. He had never seen the women. He had never been to the town she lived in. He could not produce any wedding photographs. Someone else stood in for him so all the photographs were of someone else. He expected me to be an advocate for him when he had not even met the woman he was sponsoring.
Last week an Iranian man called me. He already had a sponsorship list of five people he wanted to bring in. He called to ask us to cancel the five he had already decided to sponsor. He wanted to change them to a different five. What sort of nonsense is this? A person does not know who he wants to sponsor into the country? It is an indication of another problem that occurs in the Vancouver area which is a pyramid selling scheme for citizenship.
People sell sponsorships. I know my colleague with the same name from Fraser Valley had a problem in his area where there was a big pyramid selling scheme. People would go back to India, get married and sponsor the person who would then sponsor the family. They would go back and get married and sponsor the next group. There was a huge amount of money changing hands. That structure was broken up a couple of years ago. It gives us an idea of the sort of problem.
I had another case a week ago where a refugee claimant who was sponsoring his wife from India called to ask why they had done nothing for almost a year.
Our contact at immigration Canada advised that the refugee claimant in my riding was due to appear in court on kidnapping charges. He had actually kidnapped someone in Canada. At the same time as he is committing these crimes he is trying to sponsor more people in. It is absolutely ridiculous.
The state of our immigration system is appalling and the minister's bill is doing nothing to address these problems.
Toward the end of last year another woman called asking me to write a letter of support to immigration Canada so that her husband, who had already been deported back to Iran, could come back to Canada. He had committed a crime in Montreal and had been deported twice. He was counterfeiting money in Canada and this woman wanted me to write a letter in support of his coming back. It is absolutely amazing what is going on.
We have had more cases over the past few years than we can count of refugee claimants in my riding who have actually gone back to the country that they claim they were persecuted in. They claim to be destitute and persecuted but somehow they have the money to go back on a vacation to the country that is supposed to be persecuting them.
Then of course they get found out. One would think that it would be an easy job to deport them. No, sir. It is impossible to deport them. On average it takes 10 to 12 years to get that done.
As members can tell I am just getting warmed up. I have a list of stuff here but with only one minute left I know I will not get through it all. However, perhaps I have been able to illustrate very well the sorts of problems this minister has not addressed.
I will try to sum this up in the last minute I have. Last March a refugee claimant from Sri Lanka was arrested near Toronto with 10,000 fake Canadian citizenship cards in his possession. He had paid about $15,000 for them, $1.50 for each Canadian citizenship card. A Nigerian was arrested in May with dozens of false immigration documents, citizenship cards, social insurance cards, drivers licences and false passports. Even here in Ottawa the RCMP is constantly confiscating false passports.
The system is in a mess and Bill C-63 does absolutely nothing to address it. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-63, an act to amend the citizenship act.
Citizenship and immigration matters are extremely important to many of my constituents in Markham. It therefore gives me great pleasure to speak to this proposed legislation.
Just last month we signed up 360 new citizens. Markham has a population of 190,000. Roughly 55% are of ethnic origin.
My caucus colleagues from Saint John, New Brunswick and St. John's East have spoken very eloquently about the human side of citizenship and immigration cases. I would like to outline some of the details of Bill C-63.
This legislation amends the citizenship act by changing certain citizenship rights and conditions for citizens and applicants. This bill also revises the criteria for obtaining citizenship, the process for granting, denying and revoking citizenship to Canada.
This bill is a result of the report of the immigration legislation review advisory group which was submitted to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in December 1997. The report was entitled “Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration”. The government had commissioned the review to determine how immigration and citizenship legislation could be reformed.
The report was met with mixed reviews from the press and the public. Concerns were raised about a number of issues, including new citizenship tests that require a physical presence in Canada, dropping reference to monarch successors from the citizenship oath and the new requirements that the person speak one of Canada's two official languages.
I hope the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration gives these and other issues due scrutiny. We need to hear from organizations representing our immigrant community. Furthermore, we need to hear from other individuals and groups concerned with the different aspects of this bill.
I would now like to review some of the substances of the legislation. Bill C-63 stipulates that a person born in Canada becomes a citizen unless the parents are diplomatic staff of a foreign government or the United Nations.
The act also allows the minister to grant citizenship to a person who is at least 18 years old, meets the residency test of being present for three of the past five years, has an adequate knowledge of English or French, and has adequate knowledge of Canada, citizenship responsibilities and can communicate that knowledge in English or French without a translator.
The residency test is changed in two significant ways. First, prospective citizens must have been residents for three of five years prior to application rather than three of the previous four. Second, the rules are changed to require that the prospective citizen be physically present in Canada during those three years. Currently it is possible to be a permanent resident of Canada while actually living abroad.
Minimum residency requirements may be waived on compassionate grounds. The minister may grant citizenship to a minor or adopted child on application. The minister may also grant citizenship to someone who was born outside Canada to a citizen parent, is less than 28 years old, has resided in Canada for at least three of the past five years and has not been convicted.
Persons may be stripped of citizenship if they were born outside Canada to Canadian citizens who was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977, respectively, at aged 28 unless they meet minimum residency requirements.
Citizenship may be renounced if persons apply to the minister because they are citizens of another country or successfully apply for another citizenship, not a minor, able to understand the significance of citizenship renunciation and not residing in Canada.
The cabinet may order the revocation of citizenship if a person obtained it by duplicity. Persons referred for citizenship by someone who loses citizenship could also lose their citizenship.
The minister may not revoke a person's citizenship if the person is not notified or if the person within 30 days of notice requests appeal to a federal court and it is determined by federal court that citizenship was not obtained by some false representation or fraud.
Bill C-63 allows the minister to restore citizenship to a person whose citizenship was not revoked under the act or prior to the legislation or was a permanent resident of Canada after loss of citizenship and has at least 365 days of residence in Canada as a permanent resident in the two years preceding application for citizenship.
If the minister or cabinet believe that it is against the public interest, any person may be disallowed from taking the citizenship oath. Such a decision would remain in effect for five years. Any person determined to be a threat to Canadian security under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act may also be barred citizenship.
Additionally Bill C-63 specifies that persons may be denied citizenship if they are on parole, probation or imprisoned, charged with an indictable offence in or outside Canada, under investigation by the Minister of Justice, the RCMP, CSIS or are or have been charged under the Criminal Code, have not been granted legal entry to Canada or are under removal order.
Bill C-63 lets the minister monitor conformity to the act and reverse citizenship decisions.
Citizenship judges will be renamed citizenship commissioners and will be responsible for promoting Canadian values, respect of law and social harmony. While they will preside over citizenship ceremonies, they shall no longer approve citizenship applications. Instead applications shall be decided by departmental officers. The salaries and benefits of the position will remain the same.
Bill C-63 changes the oath of citizenship. Where the current oath swears or affirms allegiance to the Queen and her successors, the new oath swears allegiance only to the Queen but not her successors.
Finally, the bill makes it an offence to misuse citizenship related documents. It sets punishment standards for citizenship officers who engage in wrongful behaviour.
By and large these changes appear welcome and somewhat overdue. It seems that every year we keep getting consultation papers or reports released by the minister without any concrete action.
I do worry about the impact that Bill C-63 tougher citizenship qualifications will have for international business people and others who travel extensively outside the country. The bill would force immigrants to be physically within Canadian borders for 1,095 days, a total of three years within a five year period before applying for citizenship. We need to be careful not to unfairly restrict international commercial activities in the private sector.
The intent of Bill C-63 is positive. The devil is often in the details. However, careful study and consultation at the citizenship and immigration committee will help improve the bill and address problems highlighted by others.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-63.
There is one problem that I and others members of the House see repeatedly in our offices, that the immigration department is in a mess. The minister has had three years to deal with it and yet she has done nothing. In fact things are spiralling out of control. Most members of the House have put cases into the her lap, only to see them completely disappear and evaporate without any action being taken.
Let me talk about some of the problems that are taking place. As are other members of the House, I am an immigrant to this country. We are deeply grateful for what Canada has given us. Let us make no mistake about that. However, the traditional role of immigration into Canada, the backbone and building block of our nation, has been watered down by incompetence on the part of the minister.
We have traditionally relied on an independent class of immigrants, who are trying to get into Canada, to build the country. They are going through the hoops and are told to leave the country. They are told they cannot get in. They do all the work, put their money down, and are sent back to from where they came, even when they are employed in this country. On the other hand, individuals who are criminals and commit offences on our soil are allowed to walk free on Canadian soil. What kind of immigration policy is that?
People who are trying to get legitimate family members into Canada are not allowed to do so. People who are legitimate refugees cannot come in. However those who are bogus refugees are allowed to come in. Why is that so?
Over and above the incompetence the minister shows in botching up her portfolio and in what she does to the citizens of this country, she does a greater disservice to legitimate immigrants who want to come to Canada to build a safe and secure future for themselves and their family. Those are the people the minister is slapping in the face by botching up her portfolio. This needs to be fixed. The minister has had the opportunity to fix it but she has not.
Clause 4(1) of the bill indicates that individuals who are born on Canadian soil automatically become Canadian citizens. Let us talk about some scams. One of the scams is that persons can bring in their children between the ages of 12 and 16, let someone here adopt them and when they become 19 they can bring the whole family into Canada.
When I was delivering a baby I learned of another scam. People can come into the country in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, have babies on Canadian soil and the children automatically becomes Canadian and can then bring the entire family into the country. That is not good immigration. That is gypping the immigration system and immigrants who come into this country by going through legitimate hoops.
It would have been more intelligent for the minister to have a residency requirement for persons coming into the country who are having a child who will become a Canadian citizen. There should be a two year residency requirement or they should be landed immigrants before they ultimately become Canadian citizens. If those provisions were included this loophole would be blocked. Also the loophole with respect to adoption needs to be blocked.
The minister can do a number of things. My colleague from Vancouver mentioned the issue of the oath of allegiance. We have a lot of rights in Canada but we do not talk about a lot of responsibility. The minister could have included in the oath of allegiance an allegiance to Canada, an allegiance articulating the responsibilities of people when they come to the country. That would have made the oath of allegiance, the oath of citizenship, meaningful. She failed once again.
If we are to build an immigration policy that does justice to Canada, if we are to build an immigration policy that will be fairer to immigrants as well as to Canadian citizens, we have to get back to basic principles. We have to build an immigration policy that focuses on the independent class of immigrants. We have to make sure the people who come into the country have the skills to contribute to the Canadian economy and have the linguistic skills to be able to function within Canada.
We have to recognize our responsibility to live up to our international obligations under the United Nations treaties we have signed with respect to refugees. Letting in legitimate refugees is a good thing, a humanitarian and compassionate thing, but letting in bogus refugees, people who are using refugee claimant status as something to queue jump, does a disservice to Canada and Canadians. Above all else, it does a disservice to the legitimate refugees and immigrants trying to come into the country.
As has been mentioned before, immigrants to the country who commit crimes should be sent back to the country they came from and banned from coming back into Canada for at least 10 years. In that way we would ensure the safety and security of our country for both immigrants and Canadian citizens.
We are seeking from the minister an element of fairness, an element of intelligence, and an element of a co-ordinated strategy within the ministry of immigration which will ensure we have an immigration policy that strengthens and not weakens Canada.
Immigrants come through the offices of every member of the House with stories of how they have been forced to pay for the mistakes of the ministry. When people who try to bring their beloved into the country they come here with a certain set of rules and guidelines, only to be told that they have to return to their countries of origin and go through the process again. When they go back to their countries of origin they are told to go back to Canada. This costs them money they often do not have. It also causes them an unnecessary amount of time to go through the process of becoming a legitimate contributor to our country.
We cannot understand why the minister, after three years in her portfolio, has failed to deal with these fundamental issues. She was even guided by the House Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship. Four years ago the committee placed 28 recommendations inn the minister's lap. Was anything done about them? No. Why does it take four years to deal with 28 recommendations from a bipartisan committee to strengthen our immigration system? What we see is Bill C-63 which, if anything, nibbles around the edges of our system.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have a couple of minutes remaining in his time when the debate on this bill resumes.

Statements By Members
Harness RacingMr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every sport needs its superstars. Harness racing has a superstar family. The legendary Keith Waples is the patriarch having been the first driver in Canada to crack the two minute barrier. He is a Hall of Famer. His cousin Ron Waples won pacing's triple crown and trotting's Hambletonian. He is a Hall of Famer.
Now the torch has been passed to Ron's son, Randy Waples, who was named Canada's driver of the year in 1998. Randy raced to victory 472 times and won over $4 million in purses. More than that, his charismatic style won legions of new fans to standard bred racing. He is what any sport craves. Randy Waples is dashing, dedicated and driven to succeed. He is equally proficient behind a microphone as he is behind a horse, a public relations dream.
The hopes and aspirations of harness racing will ride on the wings of this energetic, electric superstar. I congratulate Randy. One day Randy Waples will be a Hall of Famer.
TaxationMr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we obtained an internal document put together by a consortium of 11 environmental organizations which exposes the shocking truth.
Big money from wealthy American corporate and family trusts is driving a campaign to kill jobs and investment in Canada. Hewlett Packard, the Rockefeller Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation and even Ted Turner are putting up big money to support the Sierra Club, Sierra Defence Fund, the David Suzuki Foundation and a host of others to stop a mining project in northern B.C.
Never mind that Redfern Resources Ltd. went through a rigorous three and a half year review. Never mind that people living in Atlin, Dease Lake, Stewart and the Yukon who care deeply about the environment desperately want the Tulsequah Chief Mine to proceed.
These environmental organizations do not care about facts. They do not care about the truth, about balance and above all, they do not care about people.
I call on the revenue minister to stop facilitating this and immediately revoke their tax holiday as charitable organizations.
SkatingMs. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Oakville the pursuit of excellence is alive and well not only in industry, science and technology, but also on the playing fields and in the arenas.
Last Sunday, February 7, the Oakville Ice Expression Novice Synchronised Skating Team competed in the Central Ontario Championships and won a berth to represent Ontario at the Canadian Championships in March.
I want to congratulate these Canadian girls, age 12 to 15, for their dazzling performance.
Their success has been made possible by the support of parents, volunteers and corporate citizenship. I wish to recognize and thank all these people for their hard work and dedication.
I believe that the pursuit of excellence when begun early through sports or the arts sets the pattern for adult life that benefits the individual, the community and the nation.
Canada 1999 Winter GamesMr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House this morning that Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte is about to embark on an absolutely fantastic event. Tomorrow morning in Corner Brook, Newfoundland we are going to be hosting the entire country at the Canada 1999 Winter Games.
The Prime Minister of Canada will be attending, as will many of my fellow cabinet colleagues and members from the House. It is a great event.
Planning for this particular event began several years ago when the communities of Corner Brook, Steady Brook, Stephenville, Pasadena and Deer Lake began in earnest planning for the Canada 1999 Winter Games.
The event is going to be a great celebration. Watch it. TSN and RDS are going to be providing 50 hours of live broadcast time.
Congratulations to all. I want to say thank you to the federal government for all of its support.
Child PornographyMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today, February 19, marks the 36th day since the possession of child pornography was made legal in British Columbia.
That might not be of concern to the Minister of Justice and her parliamentary secretary who take great solace in telling Canadians that child pornography is illegal in the rest of Canada. But those of us from British Columbia, especially those with children and grandchildren, resent the minister's dismissal that she has things under control.
The fact is the insensitive Shaw ruling of January 15 has already precipitated the dismissal of one charge of child pornography in British Columbia. There are another 38 pending that are in jeopardy of being brought to justice.
No, it is not business as usual in British Columbia. It is open season for these depraved parasites to practise their pedophile behaviour with immunity.
On February 2 the Reform Party gave the Minister of Justice and her party an opportunity to protect all Canadian children and we gave them another in committee on February 17. They have abandoned and rejected them twice.
AgricultureMr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's most recent budget contains important measures for our economy's three key sectors.
The Government of Canada will be spending $2 billion in the mining, fishing and agriculture sectors. By doing so, the government is honouring its commitments to the rural community.
In addition, let us not forget that the federal agriculture minister announced on December 10 that $900 million would be available over the next two years in response to a major concern about farm revenues.
The Government of Canada is also funding a number of programs benefiting the agricultural sector within the context of the safety net envelope.
The reason our government works for farmers is simple: the Liberal government believes there is a need to preserve and ensure the growth of agriculture in Canada, which is fundamental to our modern economy.
Mathieu Da Costa AwardsMs. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the recipients of the 1999 Mathieu Da Costa Awards.
This awards program commemorates the legacy of Mathieu Da Costa, the first recorded black person to set foot in Canada. Mathieu Da Costa was an interpreter of the Micmac language for Samuel de Champlain during his voyage to Canada in the early 17th century.
This year's winners of the awards are: Kylene Cachelin of Kamloops, B.C.; Christina Young of Orleans, Ontario; Lucius Dechausay of Scarborough, Ontario; Samuel Carter-Shamai of Toronto, Ontario; Jennifer Ligget of Victoria, B.C.; Raelyne Linton of Parry, Saskatchewan; Mala Rambaran of Regina, Saskatchewan; Odolys Azondékon of Aylmer, Quebec; and Jennie Dorsaint of Laval, Quebec.
Congratulations to you all. You have made us proud through your willingness and commitment to learn more about our country's rich cultural heritage.
East TimorMr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Indonesian government recently declared that it was prepared to grant independence to East Timor, a former Portuguese colony invaded and annexed over 20 years ago.
As the Indonesian president, BJ Habibie, recently said “Give them freedom. It is just and fair”.
The Bloc Quebecois is delighted that the government of Indonesia intends to act on the desire of the people of East Timor for sovereignty. Reports indicate, however, that the pro Indonesian militia are receiving arms. This is the very militia that are trying to further integrate the Timorese into Indonesian society.
The Bloc Quebecois hopes the government of Indonesia will demonstrate its good faith by working on a peaceful and negotiated solution to the East Timor problem and the right of the Timorese to decide their future freely may not only be recognized but honoured as well.
United AlternativeMr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, desperately hoping that Canadians would see their convention as something fresh and new, the Reform strategists behind the Reform dominated convention decided to call it the united alternative.
They want to fool Canadians into believing that a brand new political movement is arising by making superficial changes. They can give Reform another name, another logo and another contrived public image, but it will be the same old Reform Party with the same old name, same old logo and another contrived public image.
The Tory leader is weary of the united alternative for good reason. The opposition leader and the Reform Party are incapable of providing an acceptable alternative because they are intolerant of values and views that do not fit their neo-conservative ideology. Instead of trying to accommodate Canadian voters, Reform strategists are conspiring to eliminate other choices so Canadians will have to vote for them whether they want to or not.
It is a dumb strategy that serves only to highlight Reform's desperation. The only Tories at this convention will be reformatories and that dog won't hunt.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, they are getting worried over there and well they should because today more than 1,500 Canadians from across the land will be gathering here in Ottawa to ad lib on this government.
They will be gathering here to revitalize Canadian democracy. These delegates to the united alternative convention come from a variety of partisan backgrounds but they share a common conviction: that it is time to end the top down, tax and spend, soft on crime, anti-family, patronage ridden, Ottawa knows best, arrogant misgovernment of this Liberal regime.
These delegates know the Liberals won 100% of the power with only 38% of the vote in the last election, the smallest plurality ever to result in a majority government. They know they lost the election in eight of the ten provinces. They know they won nearly all of the seats in Ontario with less than half of the vote and Ontarians are now misrepresented by the 101 health care cutting, tax raising Dalmatians opposite.
A growing majority of Canadians want a united alternative and 53% said in today's National Post that they would vote for a united alternative and that—
The Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. members that the convention has not started yet and we do not want to destroy the element of surprise. The hon. member for Mississauga West.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker:
There once was a party named Reform, Representing anything but the norm, So to find their roots, They've put on their boots, And the united alternative was born.
It seems the first meeting will be the last, Although the weekend should be a blast, It's off to Ottawa they go, Sadly looking for Joe, But stuck with the same old cast.
Many will go to the ball, Including two Tories in all, And to observe this mess, The Liberals send their best, Who will likely go up the wall.
“To unite, to fight”, Is the cry of the right, They will work through the night, Many will get tight, And they will awake with the same old plight.
So on Monday morn, We'll see a brand new Reform, With hangovers in tow, Missing their leader and Joe, And Canada will surely not mourn.
United Nations Biosafety ProtocolPeter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, the United Nations biosafety protocol negotiations are under way in Cartagena, Columbia.
On February 11, the European parliament voted on legislation to make biotech companies legally responsible for the adverse effects of releasing living modified organisms.
We have learned that this Liberal government is negotiating against liability or redress responsibilities in Cartagena.
My questions for the government will be: What will protect Canadian farmers if a biotech crop fails? Why is the government against liability for biotech companies?
The EconomyMr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this House has received two pieces of good news concerning the economy this week.
First, a budget that reflects the Liberal government's commitment to administering public funds efficiently and providing maximum support to all regions of Canada.
The second news came to us just this morning. According to Statistics Canada, exports have increased by 7.4% in 1998 over 1997, to $320 billion. This growth remains comparable to that of the last two years, which have actually been excellent years for Canada.
These statistics get us thinking. To maintain its unique place on the world stage, today more than ever, as we move toward the year 2000, Canada must remain united.
If we want them to represent a viable economic force in the future, all Canadian provinces must continue to co-operate in a spirit of consultation and negotiation, making Canadian federalism evolve in the interest of quality of life in Canada.
Long live Canada.
The BudgetMrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently the government was faced with a serious problem: how could it get Alberta and Ontario to sign the social union agreement, an agreement which was not in their best interest?
After looking at the problem from every angle, a solution soon emerged. Premiers Harris and Klein should be offered something in exchange. Why not take a few billion dollars from Quebec and give it to them for health care?
There was one rub: Would the Liberal members from Quebec go for it? It was extremely painful to see the Quebec caucus of the Liberal Party turn into a red carpet to be merrily trod on by the rest of the federal Liberal caucus.
The carpet has been rolled out, but it is soiled. Does this deserve respect? Mercy, perhaps? No. After all, mindlessness deserves nothing besides indifference.
But when an entire population is cheated without hesitation by Liberal members, elected in Quebec, only outrage can express people's reaction to such an irresponsible behaviour.
I cannot wait for Quebec to get its loot back.
Emergency Service VolunteersMr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the House to a serious inequity in our current tax system. Emergency service volunteers across Canada who are not paid for their time and efforts are penalized under existing laws. Currently a $1,000 tax free allowance is provided only to those volunteers who receive remuneration for their services.
The Progressive Conservative Party recommended to the finance committee that the Income Tax Act be amended to provide a tax credit of $1,000 to all emergency service volunteers. The PC Party believes this proposal will end the discrimination against rural firefighters who rarely receive any compensation for their work.
The Minister of Finance had a chance to rectify this unjust situation in his latest budget but chose to ignore this recommendation. The current policy is unfair to all those who volunteer their time. We urge the minister to reconsider his decision.
This country needs sound opposition. It does not need group therapy sessions for a united alternative.
MentorpriseMs. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Friday, February 26 I will be attending the Mentorprise recognition and awards celebration.
Mentorprise is a progressive human resource strategy to attract, recruit and train new employees. It is also a valuable tool for new graduates in their search for career related work.
Mentoring allows for leadership development through the partnering of experienced business people with enthusiastic and talented graduates. Mentoring is a unique relationship with both professional and personal dimensions. Mentoring fosters skill development, promotes the exchange of ideas and knowledge, encourages independent initiatives, and builds teamwork.
At the awards ceremony I am going to have the opportunity to present awards to both employers and youth who have demonstrated a commitment to the principles of mentoring encompassed in the mentorprise program.
I would also like to take this opportunity to ask all members to join me in acknowledging the important work of the York Region Neighbourhood Services and those people who have made the mentorprise program a success.
YouthMr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Canada's greatest natural resource, our youth.
What we do in parliament has a lasting effect on the children and youth of today for they are the leaders of tomorrow. Let us not forget this as we deliberate on the matters before us throughout the remainder of this parliament.
As the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, I would like to take this opportunity to make an announcement. With us today is Miss Chanel Rodrigues from Nanaimo, British Columbia. Chanel is only 10 years old but unlike many of her peers, she has an appetite for politics.
Although it will be another eight years before she will be eligible to vote in a federal election, she has taken an interest in the political process now. Chanel has travelled to Ottawa with her mother in order to take part in the great and historic united alternative conference this weekend.
I commend her and would encourage other like-minded youth to become involved in the political process. When we are accountable to voters today, we must remember that we are also accountable to the voters of tomorrow, young people like Chanel Rodrigues.
On behalf of all members I would like to welcome Chanel to Ottawa and encourage all of Canada's youth to become involved in the political process. Welcome, Chanel.
ChildrenMs. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has made a lot of promises: getting rid of regional rates of pay, the GST, and more importantly, child poverty, none of which it kept.
At one time the Liberals talked about attacking child poverty and providing child care to allow parents to take full time, family supporting jobs. They have not done so. Budget after budget more and children became poor. It is continuing. The child care promise also disappeared along with pay equity and abolishing the GST promise.
This Liberal government does not seem to understand that in order to eliminate child poverty we need to do away with their parents' poverty. The NDP has always supported the creation of a national child care program. We believe that children deserve a chance to show what they can do.
Parents have been waiting for six years for this government to keep its promise. Canada's children deserve the chance to build a better future.

Oral Question Period
TaxationMr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Picture this, Mr. Speaker. It is the year 2019. Rumours are that the Rolling Stones are breaking up. Dick Clark celebrates New Year's rock'n eve and his 100th birthday. The parliamentary renovations are just winding down.
Why is Jo Jo the finance minister telling us we have to wait until 2019 to get the tax relief that Canadians need today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the member was working on plans for the new reformatory party when the budget speech was read. He did not hear the Minister of Finance announce billions of dollars of general tax reductions for all Canadians starting right now, added to the billions of dollars of tax reductions for middle and low income Canadians announced in the last budget.
There is tax relief for Canadians now. It will continue on and on as Liberals continue to be supported by Canadians, unlike the Reform Party in its desperate attempt to survive.
Monte Solberg: Look who woke up, Mr. Speaker. I can't get no satisfaction or tax relief from that answer or this government, which is why we are going to see this government out in two years let alone twenty.
I would like to think sometime in my adult life before I retire I am going to get some tax relief. However, according to Jo Jo the finance minister, I will be picking out a burial plot before that happens.
Canadians are hurting now. Why does the minister expect Canadians should wait 20 years when they need tax relief today?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member can't get no satisfaction. I am sorry that in spite of all his efforts he cannot get relief. I would suggest he see his therapist, his physician, his guide in these matters and allow the government to continue bringing real tax relief, dollars and cents, into the pockets of Canadians as it started in the last budget, as it is continuing in this budget and as it will continue for years and years to come.
Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Viagra falls.
I have a better plan for the government. It is called tax relief in my lifetime, tax relief before they throw dirt on me.
Why should Canadians have to wait for 20 years for the tax relief they need today?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have already thrown dirt on himself and buried himself. He did not hear the budget speech and the pledge of billions of dollars of tax relief now for all Canadians.
He ought to have his party uncover him so he can find out what is going on in the real world.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I may not get no satisfaction but at least I am not screwing any taxpayers.
We ought to look at the fine print in this budget to see the real truth. The real truth is this government voted for the largest tax increase in Canadian history, a $10 billion CPP tax grab. It took it effect last month. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians will pay more because of bracket creep.
Why is the finance minister forcing us to pay more taxes and not less after this budget?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, here is a guy who really isn't getting any satisfaction.
The fact is the changes lowering taxes put out in this budget will relieve Canadians from bracket creep for years to come. We are taking into account the concerns about bracket creep. The budget is dealing with that.
In the meantime the hon. member should find somebody to help him deal with his own problems.
Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the joke is getting as old as that minister.
A small business teetering on the verge of bankruptcy does not need to hear more rhetoric from this government. It needs tax relief today and not 20 years from now. A small family struggling to get by does not need tax relief 20 years from now. It needs it today. But with bracket creep and the payroll tax increases it will spend more in taxes than it did last year, than it does this year.
Why is this government telling Canadians they will get tax relief when in fact they will end up with less money in their wallets at the end of the day?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of small businesses, for the 24th month in a row business bankruptcies have gone down. This is a result of our polices.
If the hon. member is dissatisfied with our budget maybe he should take a couple of words from the book of their keynote speaker at their alternative gathering this weekend. Ralph Klein said “The feds did the right thing in the budget and I have to admit that”. Does this mean they are going to throw him out of their caucus?
Social Union AgreementMr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three provinces, along with Quebec, constituted a group determined to get the federal government to respect the common front on the social union. They were Ontario, Alberta and, to a lesser extent and a bit later on, British Columbia.
Quebec very quickly found itself isolated and, less than two weeks later, these three provinces hit the jackpot in the federal budget.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Were there in fact discussions and negotiations on a financial basis with the three provinces?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the social union negotiations, it was always agreed that we would talk about the social union and the ministers of finance would talk about the money angle.
In fact, on June 15, 1998, the finance ministers from all provinces except Quebec told the Government of Canada that they wanted to go back to equal social transfer payments, as long as equalization payments could be increased accordingly.
That is what the Minister of Finance announced a few days ago, the result being that Quebec will receive 34% of the overall transfer and Ontario only 25%. Ontario is therefore not necessarily the big winner.
Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that there were discussions to convince British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to change their positions on the social union framework agreement and that a financial argument was never used?
In other words, they changed their positions without knowing that it would be to their financial advantage.
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what change in position the member is referring to.
The meeting in Halifax went off very well. The following meeting did not go as smoothly. There were misunderstandings that were clarified and we now have a social union that will make it possible for the provinces and the Government of Canada to work together for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is going around telling people that the social union agreement is the eighth wonder of the world.
Under that agreement, the federal government pledges to consult with the provinces at least one year prior to implementing funding changes in existing social programs.
Since, in its budget, the government significantly changed funding for social transfers, when did it give notice to Quebec of that change?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. The eighth wonder of the world is the Quebec City bridge.
As for giving notice under the social agreement framework, we have been talking about that change not just for one year, but since 1990, when the ceiling was imposed on the three richest provinces, for two years only. At the time, the current premier of Quebec was a federal minister, so he should know.
I remind the hon. member that the first Campeau budget provided for equalizing the transfer in 1996. Therefore, we have been talking about this issue for a long time.
Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, once again, the David Copperfield of Canadian politics is not answering our questions.
How can the federal government invoke social union to interfere in the health sector, but not comply with the terms of that same social union when it changes the funding of social programs, a change that adversely affects Quebec?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, there are three inaccuracies here. First, I just explained that this change, which was necessary, was discussed over a period of several years.
Second, Quebec is not adversely affected. Out of the $21.7 billion in transfers to the provinces, Quebec will get $7.4 billion or 34% of the total amount.
Third, there is no interference in health. The federal government is involved in research because it is also its responsibility, and Quebec researchers are very pleased about that. I could provide the hon. member with several quotes to that effect.
Health CareMs. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the real question today is why do Reformers think they need a united alternative conference when they have the Liberals to do their bidding on health care.
Both are cheerleaders for privatized two tier health care in this country. The Liberals do it through the back door through neglect and inaction. The Reformers are just more explicit by saying let us end the public monopoly on health care.
Now that we know the budget only gets federal spending up to 12.5% in five years time, a long way from the 18% that existed when the Liberals came to power, what is this government doing specifically to stop the slide toward Americanized two tier health care?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, we categorically oppose two tier medicine.
We have gone far beyond what the NDP itself has been calling for. Before the budget it called for only $2 billion to be put back into health care. We are providing $11.5 billion of which $3.5 billion can be drawn on right now in addition to $1.4 billion directly from the federal government.
No wonder Roy Romanow, the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, said about the budget “I am very pleased and I think the federal government should be congratulated”.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, this government continues to refuse to answer the question about money from its budget, public money, going to private, for profit health care companies.
We have a situation in Ontario where a company, Olsten, 100% U.S. owned and which has been under investigation in the United States for fraud, is getting home care contracts while the Victorian Order of Nurses, a non-profit organization to minister to the sick and suffering which has been around since 1897, has been shut out.
Canadians want to know what is this government doing to stop public money from going to American for profit corporations.
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question for the member last week. I will try again and I hope this time she will understand.
The federal government has responsibility for the protection of the Canada Health Act which requires public administration, comprehensiveness, portability, reasonable access and universal coverage. The provinces have responsibility for planning, managing, delivering, all aspects of the administration of health services. We do not interfere and tell them what to do and I am surprised the member is suggesting we should.
FisheriesMr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, the salmon farming industry in New Brunswick, particularly in New Brunswick Southwest, is a hundred million dollar industry. It could be threatened because of some international protocols being enforced by NASCO. I want some assurances from the minister that the industry will be consulted and have input into these protocols before they could endanger the survival of that industry.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest in this. I take this occasion to thank the hon. Minister of Labour who has taken a very close interest in the matter. I can assure the member that what he requested will be followed. We will be having full consultations before there is any implementation of any new process as a result of the international protocols.
The BudgetGreg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a question for the finance minister with regard to this so-called health care budget. The minister yesterday responded that some of that money is going to pay down past debts. In other words, this health care budget will have a very short shelf life because it is doing nothing to resolve the waiting lines crisis in health care. In fact, it is going to pay off past debts. Can the minister assure us that all that money is going to patient care, or is it going to pay down past debt?
Elinor Caplan: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is an important funding partner. The provinces deliver services. In order to assist the provinces the federal government in the budget made the enormous commitment of $11.5 billion over the next five years. What is really significant is that $3.5 billion of that money is available immediately and the provinces will decide how they will use those dollars to solve whatever problems they have. We want to know that people in Canada will have access to the services they need when they get sick. They need them but it is up to the provinces to deliver those services.
National DefenceMr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister admitted he did not know anything about the condition of our troops in Kosovo or in Macedonia. For the information of the minister, Macedonia is only 10 kilometres away from the war zone in Kosovo. He laughed and said he did not believe what he heard.
We all want to protect the lives of innocent Kosovars but we also want to protect the lives of our troops. Why would the minister want to send our troops into harm's way and not give them the tools they need to protect themselves?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they are well protected. They are in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. There are engineers there who are doing an effective job. They have just completed renovation on a hospital. We had some trouble with the food contract. We changed the contractor. But they are well protected. As part of the collective defence there are proper patrols of armed guards to ensure they are safe and secure. I remind the hon. member that they are not in Kosovo and they are not intended to go to Kosovo. They are in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.
Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong about Macedonia and he is wrong about Kosovo. The minister relies on the French to hand out axe handles to our troops for protection. He also tells them not to worry, the French will protect them. Again, if the minister is to send our troops into harm's way, into a war zone, why will he not give them the equipment they need to protect themselves?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, they are not in a war zone, they are not in Kosovo. They are in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. They are there with the French and with other countries that are part of a collective and team effort. Different roles are played by troops from different countries. The French are doing the protection while the Canadians are doing the engineering work. It is a team effort.
Furthermore, the hon. member needs to get his facts straight with respect to this question of axe handles. There is a problem in that country as there is a problem in many other countries in terms of stray dogs. That is the reason they were issued those handles, not for protection against enemies.
Equalization PaymentsMr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government gave Quebec $1.4 billion in equalization payments to get Quebeckers to swallow the fact that they will get only $1 billion of the $11.5 billion the federal government will be investing in health, when Ontario will be getting five times more.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Can the minister finally admit that the sum of $1.4 billion is a one-time payment covering the past five years and that it is in no way a guarantee of the future for Quebec?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, if we look at how things have gone in recent years, equalization payments have been stable or have increased. That is a fairly solid guarantee.
What must be said, and I repeat, is that if we add up the planned increased in equalization payments for the next five years, plus the unplanned increase in the past three years, plus the planned increase in the Canada social transfer, we arrive at the figure of $21.7 billion, of which $7.4 billion will go to Quebec. That is 34% of the new transfers.
Could I ask the Bloc Quebecois to acknowledge that?
Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, equalization payments vary a lot from one year to the next according to the state of the economy. Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that, while he guarantees Mike Harris $5.5 billion to organize health care, he is saying to Bernard Landry “Good luck with your budget. That is about what you are going to get in equalization payments”?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, I have the figures here to show the hon. member the stability of equalization payments in recent years and those planned for the future. This is for Quebec only. In 1995-96, $4.2 billion; in 1996-97, $4.2 billion; in 1997-98, $4.8 billion; in 1998-99, $4.6 billion; in 1999-2000, $4.5 billion; in 2000-01, $4.7 billion; in 2001-02, $4.9 billion; in 2002-03, $5.1 billion; and in 2003-04, $5.4 billion.
It is very stable and it will increase.
Health CareMr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there was a time when we had one of the best health care systems in the world. That was before the Liberals took power and cut $20 billion from our health and social programs. The result of that is 200,000 in waiting lines and the wealthy and desperate going to the U.S. For example, a woman from Kelowna said: “It scares me to think about what would be happening to me now had I not gone to the U.S. for my neurosurgery last fall”.
Is the Liberals' worst nightmare not coming to effect, two tier American style health care because they are the cause?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Macleod has in effect been calling for two tier health care for years. For example, he said: “The Reform Party is prepared to support the complete rearranging of the concept of health care insurance. This concept might include such elements as basic deductibles and other variations of the health insurance concept”.
If that is not two tier medicine, I guess I am wrong when I say that the other hon. member, formerly head of the taxpayers federation, can't get no satisfaction. I think the hon. doctor is wrong even though he has been calling for two tier medicine. He has to take—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, there is room for an honest debate on health care which this crew will not enter into. But here is what it will enter into. It will enter into rhetoric on one side and actions on the other. The actions on the other side are very straightforward: 200,000 on waiting lists and the wealthy and the desperate going to the U.S. for care.
Again, is it not true that the Liberals have been the creators of two tier health care in Canada?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the one who has been pushing two tier medicine on behalf of the Reform Party. Why do they not look at themselves in the mirror and admit what they have been doing?
The hon. member said not long ago that he proposes removing the existing restrictions to the Canada Health Act. What does that mean if it does not mean two tier medicine? No wonder the Conservative Premier of Alberta said about the budget, including what we are doing to preserve and strengthen health care: “The feds did the right thing in the budget and I have to admit that”.
Why does the hon. member not admit that and get on the right side of what Canadians want?
Social Union AgreementMr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1995, that is four years before decisions were made on the budget brought down this week, the current President of the Treasury Board, who was the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs at the time, stated that the per capita formula for distributing the Canada social transfer would not be used as it would put Quebec in the most unfavourable position.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the minister's successor proclaim from the rooftops, four years later, that the per capita formula is now the best for everyone?
Stéphane Dion: The answer is relatively simple, Mr. Speaker. As long as the Canada transfer was being reduced, it could not be restored to its previous level on an equal footing.
We had to wait for the transfer to grow, in conjunction with equalization, before we could do that. And all the provinces save Quebec have asked us to.
The Government of Quebec was the only one to disagree, even though it receives 34% of all federal transfer payments. It should be very pleased that the equalization portion of the transfer keeps growing since it comes with no strings attached.
René Laurin: What happened at the Privy Council during these four years that could bring about such a drastic change in philosophy?
Was it the arrival of the minister who once said that Quebec had to suffer for support for sovereignty to drop?
Stéphane Dion: Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard qualifies as a false allegation, as the Bloc knows full well.
But since members of the Bloc have decided to stoop that low and I have no intention of sinking to the same level, I would like to tell my colleagues from the other provinces that the pathetic show put on by the Bloc this past week has nothing to do with Quebec culture, which is one of trust and solidarity, not petty jealousy.
EmploymentMrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the human resources minister dodged legitimate concerns about the integrity of the Canada jobs fund. The best he could do was call the fund remarkable.
It sure is remarkable. It is a remarkable slush fund to reward Liberal friends. It is a remarkable misuse of public money for political purposes and there is a remarkable whiff of corruption hanging over it.
When will the minister get out of denial, do his job and clean up this mess?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, no one is in denial on this side. We have a research and evaluation report on the transitional jobs fund which is very positive.
For example, it says that by the time the program ends more than 30,000 new jobs will have been created, most of which would never have been created without the program. The report says that the program was creating real sustainable jobs and that the majority of the partners were impressed with the rigor and partnership approach of the program.
In terms of the reference about political presence in the program, there is a difference between legitimate political presence—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, if everything is on the up and up with the jobs fund, why can we not get to the bottom of the $164,000 grant that was given to the man who took a money losing hotel off the Prime Minister's hands? Why is the correspondence of the Prime Minister supporting this grant being hidden?
If everything is all right, and to lay concerns about the fund to rest, will this correspondence be tabled in the House today? Will he do that?
Bonnie Brown: Mr. Speaker, only members of the Reform Party can take a piece of good news like the research report and turn it into bad news.
When it comes around to this project to which she refers, I must assert that all cases have the same criteria applied. The project must create sustainable jobs, the department's contribution must not exceed 50%, and the project must be consistent with local and regional economic priorities. This project, as with all others, did measure up to those criteria.
Professional SportsMrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the owner of the Ottawa Senators just added his voice to those of other team owners to put pressure on the federal government to get some tax relief, as was recommended in the report of the subcommittee on the study of sports in Canada.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us if, in its budget, the government kept the necessary margin to lower taxes for sports tycoons, or has that possibility been totally ruled out?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just asked a question about a committee report. She knows that the government has 150 days to provide a response to that report.
It is clearly this government's intention to comply with that deadline and to provide a timely response, as it always does.
Official LanguagesMr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the budget just brought down, the official languages envelope was $285 million, a $70 million increase over last year's budget.
Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us more about this increase and explain to the House what impact it will have on official language communities?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were expecting our colleagues opposite, especially the Bloc Quebecois, to congratulate the government on this announcement, but they are silent.
This substantial increase of $70 million, or 33%, over last year's budget will go to official language communities throughout the country. Details on how and where this money will be used will be given in the coming weeks.
But this confirms the government's firm commitment to linguistic duality, the cornerstone of Canadian public policy.
ImmigrationTed White: Mr. Speaker, Staff Sergeant Rockwell of the RCMP has called the people-smuggling problem in the Vancouver area mind-boggling. He says that passport forgery is now so common that people have become blasé about it and they do not even consider it to be an offence.
The B.C. government will not use Canadian passports for identification purposes because there are so many forgeries around.
Why has the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration completely ignored this problem when she has known about it for at least three years?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, people-smuggling across international borders is a global phenomena affecting many countries.
Canada is committed to combating this problem. CIC co-operates closely with the RCMP, CSIS and Revenue Canada, as well as with local and provincial police to combat the trafficking of human beings.
I make it clear that when CIC officials discover someone who is abusing the provisions of the Immigration Act they initiate enforcement actions.
Ted White: Mr. Speaker, that answer is a good example of why there is Liberal alienation in the west.
When an immigrant comes to Canada a T-1000 landed immigrant form is stapled into his or her passport. When the immigrant becomes a citizen it is that T-1000 form that can be sold to the passport forger.
Why is the minister not doing the obvious when she knows that a policy of simply removing or destroying the T-1000 form would put the passport forgers out of business overnight?
Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, the department and the government take very seriously the whole issue of Canadian passports.
Let me state again that permanent residents refugee claimants and visitors are subject to the laws of Canada. They can be charged under the Criminal Code and other acts of parliament for offences committed in this country.
The CIC takes very seriously any matter that relates to commissions of crime within Canada and every effort is made to remove those individuals.
KosovoMr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated during the take note debate on Kosovo that he did not know the details concerning the involvement of troops in a peacekeeping mission. The details would be worked out after the signing of a peace agreement. A formal request by NATO would be made of Canada and we would have two weeks to respond.
If this happens, will the minister commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote so that he might respond to the request with the full and open backing of Canadians through parliament?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we had a debate the other evening about this very matter. That was the purpose of it.
We clearly said that it would be between 500 and 800 troops. He has outlined the conditions under which NATO would request and then we would respond. That is the parameter of it.
Certainly we will divulge all the further information we get as it is finalized in Brussels or in the talks, should they succeed, in Rambouillet. All hon. members will be so informed.
Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the debate the other night was not based upon a specific detailed request from NATO.
In light of the fact that the Prime Minister said on TV last night that before any final decision is taken there will be a full debate in the House of Commons, will the minister commit to bringing the detailed request before parliament for a debate and a vote?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we had the debate the other evening. In fact the House leader of the NDP agreed to having that debate that evening. It has been done.
The government must now make a final decision and must make one expeditiously as the matters unfold. We will do so and we will keep everybody fully informed.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, NATO's secretary general confirmed that Canada would be directly involved in an air strike on Kosovo. This appears to contradict the Government of Canada's position.
To set the record straight, and in the event of an air strike on Kosovo, with the predictable loss of lives, can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us what position Canada will adopt and the implications of that position?
Will Canada officially support an air strike? Will Canada be taking part, as NATO's secretary general said, in one way or another in this strike, or is Canada opposed to any participation and not going to give any support for such an air strike on Kosovo?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear. Last October we had a debate in the House where all parties endorsed the notion that if it were required NATO would be asked to activate a force in order to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo.
We are still hopeful that before tomorrow there can be an agreement arrived at Rambouillet. We are working very hard. We are in active consultation today to make sure it happens. If it does not happen the Secretary General of NATO will have to consult the permanent representatives of the member countries to see whether the activation order will be brought into effect.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, in Wednesday's debate on Kosovo the Minister of National Defence said “As the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly stated we are not going in under some warlike condition”. The same day the Russian Duma passed an unanimous motion that in the case of force they would have the right to help Belgrade defend itself. NATO says today it will have to use force.
Did the minister change his mind between Wednesday and today, and under whose authority? Was Wednesday's debate just another PR exercise?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mixing up two matters altogether. The debate the other evening was about sending ground troops into Kosovo on a peacekeeping mission, not a warlike condition, that would come about as a result of the parties coming to an agreement at Rambouillet.
He is also mixing this up with what we did last fall when we had a discussion about the provision of six CF-18s which would be made available as part of the possibility—and we hope it will not happen—of air strikes to get the Yugoslav government to the negotiating table.
National DefenceMr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled in 1989 that women must be fully integrated into the Canadian forces.
In light of the recent allegations concerning abuse of women, could the minister inform the House as to the progress the military has made in implementing the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?
Art Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, Canada has the second highest participation of women of countries within NATO at 10.8%.
In this decade we have improved from a 1% participation of women in combat arms to a 3.1% participation. We are breaking down the barriers so that women can have the opportunity to serve according to their abilities in whatever part of the Canadian forces they want to serve.
Progress has been slow, but I am pleased to say that it is now accelerating. We have had more women come into our recruiting centres in the past year than ever before. With the appointment of our advisory committee on employment equity and gender integration we are moving the agenda forward faster.
MiningMr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Tulsequah Chief mine project in northern British Columbia underwent an extensive federal-provincial environmental review process and was approved.
Now the actions of Alaskan Governor Tony Knowles and a handful of environmental extremists are placing the mine in jeopardy.
The heritage minister is willing to stand up for the Canadian magazine industry even if it starts a trade war. Why will the foreign affairs minister not stand up for the Canadian mining industry?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again another Reform member just demonstrated how little he really knows.
The fact is that we have been in serious discussions with the Americans. We have told them that we do not intend to refer this matter to the International Joint Commission, that it is a matter that has been taken care of in the Canadian jurisdiction, and that we stand by it.
Port-Cartier PenitentiaryMr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the part time employees of the Port-Cartier penitentiary learned that their work contract would end on March 1.
A number of these employees have worked for this institution for many years, without ever obtaining permanent status.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As new permanent positions will be created in this institution in the short term, can the Deputy Prime Minister say that is fair and just to offer the new jobs becoming available to these former employees of Port-Cartier on a priority basis?
Herb Gray: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the hon. member's question and will be happy to provide him with the necessary information as soon as possible. I thank him for his question.
Canadian Broadcasting CorporationMrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Members of the government are quick to lecture the opposition about the need for a Canadian voice in news coverage. This week that voice is threatened as budget cuts force CBC technicians on to the picket lines. CBC has announced the closure of three foreign bureaus in Johannesburg, Mexico and Paris.
My question is simple. Does the government agree with these closures?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a labour dispute at CBC because the employer and the union have been unable to reach an agreement on the terms and conditions of employment. It has nothing to do with funding.
Whenever there is a strike at CBC it affects services. We regret that, but the mediators are there waiting for them to call and we are willing to meet with them at any time.
Transfer PaymentsMr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The switch to per capita calculations for provincial equalization payments is a direct challenge to the ideal of sharing in the Canadian federation. The Liberal finance minister in Newfoundland called the government's rosy claims about transfer payments laughable. The health minister in Newfoundland says it creates a two tier health care system.
Why is the Liberal government abandoning this fundamental Canadian principle upon which equalization transfers are based?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it has always been a premise of the government that Canadians, no matter where they live, would have an equal right to federal transfers for their health care, for their post-secondary education and for welfare payments. This is what it is to be Canadian.
Foreign AffairsMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The minister recently announced $1 million in support of the West African intervention force to help re-establish stability in Sierra Leone.
Could the minister tell the House what further actions he is taking to move this item forward on the United Nations agenda?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us are appalled at the atrocities taking place in that fellow Commonwealth country, particularly the mutilation of hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children.
This week, as president of the security council, we have convened a meeting with the representatives of the west African peacekeeping group to see what we can do to mobilize international support in that relationship.
I want to thank the hon. member for helping to arrange a meeting here in Canada of Canadians who have been concerned so that we can help to develop support in this country for some real help in these very tragic circumstances.
The BudgetMr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, taxpayers deserve a lot of credit for keeping this budget afloat, but sadly interest on the national debt is still the largest single government spending program.
Where in the budget is the long term debt retirement plan that pays for past socialist sins? Why is the minister not sending clear signals about real targets for debt reduction? What is the government plan beyond just some leftovers to pay off the national debt? Where is the target? Where are the plans?
Jim Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very important question.
Our debt repayment plan is very simple. First of all, two year rolling targets which we have always met or surpassed. Second, very prudent economic assumptions. Third, a contingency reserve of $3 billion. Fourth, if not needed, that goes directly to pay down the debt.
As a result, we paid down the debt by $3.5 billion last year. Our debt has fallen from 71.2% of GDP to 65%, going to 62% in—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Jonquière.
The EnvironmentMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the federal budget provides no significant injection of funds to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto summit, we can legitimately question the government's intentions in this regard.
How can the Minister of the Environment achieve the Kyoto objectives with $150 million, when the United States will be spending billions of dollars?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to achieving the targets we declared at the Kyoto protocol.
In last year's budget we did put forward $150 million in order to put together a national implementation strategy. The provinces and all partners are working with us in the development of that strategy. They will produce a report by the end of this year. In this budget we did provide some assistance to the Canadian Federation of Municipalities because it will play a key role.
In the meantime, we also continue to invest in pilot projects, new technologies and public education to help all of us achieve our goals.
Presence In GalleryThe Deputy Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of all hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Stockwell Day, Provincial Treasurer of the Government of Alberta.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Business Of The HouseRandy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among the parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That Bill C-256, now in the name of the member for North Vancouver, stand instead in the name of the member for Surrey Central.
(Motion agreed to)

Routine Proceedings
Order In Council AppointmentsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table today, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Government Response To PetitionsMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
Committees Of The HouseMr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
PetitionsMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I again have quite a number of petitions so I beg your indulgence as I present them.
I am pleased to present two petitions containing the signatures of 100 Canadians from Ontario and Nova Scotia who are concerned about the rights of the unborn. They request that parliament support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal funding for abortions on demand.
I have the privilege of presenting these names to be added to the many thousands who have expressed their concerns not only for the unborn but for the women who undergo medically unnecessary abortions and expose themselves to the health risks inherent in this procedure.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, my next petition contains 25 signatures which supports Motion No. 33, parental rights and responsibilities which I introduced in 1997.
Petitioners call on the government to reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9, 1998 that the convention on the rights of the child undermines the role of parents as unwarranted and concerns that the government intends to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code are unwarranted. These citizens recognize that the family is the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of the children and that it should be protected.
I have two petitions containing 353 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast who support Motion No. 478 which I reintroduced on October 7, 1998. It proposes to add parental rights, responsibilities and liberty to the charter of rights and freedoms.
The petitioners call on the government to amend section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition containing 176 signatures from Canadians concerned about the protection of the institution of marriage as it has always been known and understood in Canada and that this institution be preserved and protected.
My petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act and the Interpretation Act.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition containing the signature of 560 constituents from the riding of Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan who express rejection of the recommendations of the MacKay task force pertaining to entry of banks into the casualty and property insurance markets.
These constituents affirm that independent insurance brokers account for approximately 60,000 jobs across rural and urban Canada and that banks' ability to retail property and casualty insurance will have a negative impact on this industry and the many thousands of employees it represents.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have the privilege of presenting is one containing some 730 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast who are calling on parliament to strengthen property rights in federal law.
These petitioners support Bill C-452 which would strengthen the protection of property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights and guarantee that every person has the right of enjoyment of their property.
These citizens are calling on parliament to guarantee that this most fundamental right and freedom is protected.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to be able to present a petition under Standing Order 36 that has been signed by hundreds and hundreds of Canadians from every part of this country. It is very timely because it pertains to the question of medicare and the ability of this government to preserve the principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act.
The petitioners call on this government to not only preserve the principles under the Canada Health Act but to enhance our ability to address patient needs and concerns in every aspect of our health care system.
The petitioners call for a commitment from this government to live up to the principles of universal coverage, accessibility, affordability, comprehensive coverage and federal funding.
Finally, they call on this government to work to ensure that national standards are put in place to guarantee quality publicly funded health care for every Canadian as a right by virtue of belonging to a civilized community.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of the citizens of the great city of Kamloops who point out many concerns they have regarding a number of our international trade agreements. They fear that they obligate the transfer of bulk water from Canada to the United States and northern Mexico.
The petitioners are simply asking the House to re-examine these agreements to ensure that is not the case.
Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first one requests parliament to reassure Canadian families and reaffirm written statements made by the government on June 9, 1998 that concerns that the convention on the rights of the child undermines the role of parents are unwarranted and concerns that the government intends to remove section 43 from the Criminal Code are unwarranted.
I have another petition that asks parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
The third petition requests parliament to support a motion introduced by the member for Yorkton—Melville which asks parliament to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and recognize the fundamental right, responsibility and liberty of parents to direct the upbringing of their children and urge the legislative assemblies and the provinces to do likewise.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from my constituents who are concerned that Canada does not effectively screen out those who become involved in criminal activities, including terrorism and drug trafficking. They note that these individuals pose serious threats to the health, welfare, safety and well-being of Canadians and that these individuals unduly burden our justice system, our immigration and refugee system at taxpayer expense.
The petitioners implore the government to take action and have the Canadian status of these individuals revoked and that they be deported.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today with 25 names on it from Ardrossan and Sherwood Park in my riding and a few others.
The petitioners are concerned about the state of marriage in Canada and its definition by government. They are asking that we define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
Questions On The Order PaperMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 11, back in 1998, I placed Question No. 284 on the order paper asking how many violent crimes have been investigated by the RCMP and how many involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms.
In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have now been waiting 335 days. The commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6 referring to his answer to Question No. 84. The RCMP gave its response to the government 218 days ago.
I raised this matter in a point of order on October 28, on December 7, and again on February 9. The parliamentary secretary said the question was being finalized. Question No. 84 is the oldest unanswered question on the Order Paper. For the fourth time, when is the government going to give my constituents the RCMP's answer to this important question?
Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider this. By not giving an answer to this question, my work as a parliamentarian is being restricted.
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I have not been responding to the previous points of order by the hon. member but he has my commitment that this point of order will be taken under advisement. We will look into this and provide an answer as early as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all the remaining questions stand?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When debate was interrupted, the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had the floor. He has two minutes remaining for his remarks.
Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my remarks on Bill C-63.
We in this House have the responsibility to do the best that we can in all of our endeavours. For four and one-half years this government has been told about the mismanagement and problems within our immigration system.
Immigration, as members have mentioned, has been a pillar and a building block of our country. Many of us are immigrants and were grateful to come to Canada. But the failure of the government to deal with the structural problems within our immigration system has done a huge disservice not only to Canadians, but also to immigrants who have come to this country and people trying to get into this country.
The problems have been articulated. The solutions are in front of us. Focus on the independent class of immigrants. Make sure that the family reunification class truly appeals to those who are immediate family members, not people who are further removed. People who come to this country cannot simply come here, have a baby and the baby automatically becomes a Canadian citizen. Children who are born in this country should retain the citizenship of their parents and once the parents become Canadian citizens, the children will become Canadian citizens too. One of the scams used by some people who come to Canada is to have a child and the child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen.
In the oath of citizenship the minister should have put specific and explicit references to the responsibilities a Canadian has to our country. That is very important. We have a lot of rights but we do not talk about the responsibilities.
There are enormous problems faced by immigrants. Immigrants go through the hoops. They try their hardest yet because of bureaucratic gross mismanagement they are forced to pay for the problems of the ministry. That has to end.
I implore the minister to listen to the constructive suggestions that have been put forth today. Listen to them, implement them and build a good system for all of Canada.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to Bill C-63.
Mr. Speaker, although I may not be talking specifically about Bill C-63, I can assure you that all of my remarks lead into that document most thoroughly. I hope members on the other side of the House do not get their noses out of joint too quickly and will pay close attention to where this is going.
I am especially pleased to speak to this bill because I am a citizen, a new citizen who came to Canada in the late sixties.
I came to Canada with the intentions of fulfilling a contract to teach in a school in Sundre, Alberta, my hometown. It was only supposed to be for a year. I came here in the sixties with my wife and small child and it only took a few months for us to fall in love with the country and the people.
I particularly liked the school system at that time in comparison to the one from where I had come. The schools in the United States were leaning toward some very serious social engineering. Problems were starting to develop and discipline was disappearing. I was disappointed that was occurring down there. When I came to Canada and saw what a fine system was in place and how it was being run, I had a strong desire to become a citizen of this country.
I made application to extend the contract. It was agreed that it would be extended if I would take out landed immigrant status, which I did, and if I would agree to become a citizen when I became eligible, which I agreed to do and also did. Upon entering the country my wife and I and our one-month old child had to go through some very stringent medical exams. I had to go through a lot of security checks. I was checked strongly in that whole area. Financial obligations had to be met.
My wife and I did not object in the slightest bit to all of those things. A number of immigrants who came in at that time and who even lived in the same town felt as I do, that all that was fair and right. They felt the government needed to do a thorough screening of the people who come to this land seeking to become residents and future citizens.
I do not know where we have gone and why we have gone the way we have in regard to immigration policy or where we are at with the refugee policy. It is really disgusting. I will not go into any great detail on that because members who spoke prior to me have done a very thorough job of explaining where we are coming from in that regard.
I will talk about the early years. After four or five years I became eligible to become a citizen. Then I saw things starting to come into the education system and I did not understand why. I commented to some of my friends and people associated with education as to why they were allowing some of these things to happen in the school system. They had already been tried in the United States and they had failed desperately. It was not good for any education system to go in that direction. A lot of them did not know because these things were just happening.
The great white towers of government were bringing down mandated things that were going to take place. Nobody in any community on any scale was ever conferred with as to what kind of school or community they wanted. Things just started happening. Mr. Speaker, you will remember the era of Mr. Trudeau, the prime minister in the early seventies. That is when things started taking place that did not make a lot of sense to me.
I am not arguing with whether the metric system is good or bad but I remember when it was decided to go metric. I had not yet become a citizen so I did not want to be too boisterous in my feelings. Down south there were signs up to think metric and all kinds of things were being done to promote the metric system. The people south of the border in the United States spoke strongly and were heard by their government. The United States did not go metric because the people did not want it.
I searched around my community for quite a while and I could not find anybody who wanted to go metric either. Most of the people said no. I thought surely there would not be any problem since the people did not want it but lo and behold, we woke up one morning and now we have the metric system in this country. I asked people “Why did you let that happen? You people pay the bills, you are the taxpayers, why do you let these things happen?” They said that they could not do anything about it. That is just the way things are.
Then lo and behold up comes a certain bill that was being debated very strongly but apparently nobody across the land was very fond of it. They did not like the bill and did not want it to come into being. That was the language law. It seemed that the country was operating pretty well before all of that. There was a lot of debate and they said no, let us not do it. But lo and behold, we woke up one morning and we had to go through the process of changing signs because we now existed under the language law.
Once again I asked “Why did you let it happen? Why do you let these things go on? You are the taxpayers. You are supposed to be the boss. The members of parliament are supposed to be your servants, not your dictators. Why do you let it carry on?”
I can give example after example clear up until the mighty GST. I could not find a person anywhere who supported the GST. In a massive way people tried to illustrate it through petitions asking that parliament not implement the GST, but guess what? They got it.
Before that, I decided that if I was going to be a citizen in this country then I would have to get involved. I would have to speak out. Because I remembered what the country was like when I came here as an immigrant and I suddenly saw where it was going and I thought good grief.
Out comes the charter of rights. It was not debated to any great extent. Only a few of us noticed at the time that there was not an inclusion of property rights. I asked people “Do you realize what you were getting into? A document that does not have the freedom of property rights in place. Are you sure you want this?” I said “Mark my words. With some of the clauses in there, there will be a day down the road when you will have courts, judges and other judicial bodies making decisions that will affect your lives”. It became law.
Lo and behold, the most blatant example we could have is a judge in British Columbia saying that it is okay for a fellow to have child pornography in his home. He declared that, so that is the way it is. And we are supposed to sit back and say that is the way it goes, this is Canada.
A government of the people, by the people, for the people. The best description of democracy I have ever heard. I have yet to see it occur. We continually allow those things to happen.
Then along comes Bill C-63. I also remember a House of Commons committee that was put together four and a half years ago. It came up with some proposals and some ideas of what we should do to put together some corrections to immigration, to refugees and to citizenship. The recommendations were brought forward by the people of Canada through an extensive consultation program. The people stated loud and clear what they would like to see.
This piece of legislation comes out and it does not reflect one thing that the Canadian people said they wanted in this document. Not one. Why? Because those people over there always know best: “Those poor Canadian people out there do not understand. We are the smart ones. We have been elected and put in this place. We will solve all their problems”. They are supposed to sit back, shut up and take it.
Being an old sheep herder back in my farming days, if I was moving sheep from one place to another and I wanted to get them across some water to the other side, I had to drag one through the water and it would be bleating, screaming and kicking. I would sit it on the other bank. One was not enough so I would drag another one across and there would be two over there. Once I got three sheep on the other side, the rest of the sheep would say, “There are three sheep over there. As bad as we hate water, we are going to plough through it”.
And what do I see here? Bills like this one. We know it is going to pass because two or three here have crossed the water and all the rest of the sheep will rise to their feet and vote in favour of the legislation because those guys know best.
Stop the dictatorship.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-63. I am one of many Canadians who are very grateful that the hon. member for Wild Rose chose Canada as his home. Without members such as the member for Wild Rose we would certainly be further into a dictatorship than we already are now. I thank the hon. member for that.
I remind members of the House that I am from an agricultural background. Agriculture is very strong in my constituency. We all recognize, to put it politely, what load of fertilizer is when see it and smell it. When I look at the bill it certainly reminds me of that.
Some aspects of the bill go a very tiny way to addressing part of the problems in the country, but nowhere does it address the problems as it should. Whether or not members opposite like to admit it, they spent a great amount of time dealing with new citizens and the immigration laws in their daily work schedules. I want one of them to stand and deny this is true.
I have been a member in the House since 1993. Most of the concerns with regard to immigration and the downfall in citizenship come from first or second generation immigrants. They have an abundance of concerns about policy, where it is going and who we are letting into the country. They left their countries to come to Canada with great hope and expectations of creating a new life and new wealth for not only themselves but for their future generations.
Unfortunately they now live in a country where many live in fear because of immigration laws that allow the criminal element to come into the country, that allow the government to welcome them with open arms and give them the same rights as every Canadian citizen who has resided lawfully in Canada for their entire lives. Yet we have the criminal element coming into the country under the guise of some of the acts to create havoc.
People who have come to Canada to create a new life well recognize this. They had to put up with it in the countries they came from. This is one of the things they ran from to come here, and we are starting to embrace it here with open arms. That is just one aspect of what we have to look at.
Let us look at the blatant patronage aspect of the bill. One inclusion in the legislation is the continued tradition of so-called patronage appointments, namely citizenship commissioners. We do not have to be brain surgeons or rocket scientists to recognize exactly what the government means.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Far be it for me to interrupt the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap, but if other members in the House want to carry on private conversations, they can do so somewhere else.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I assure you this does not throw me off topic.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, what am I to make of an invitation for the member to come outside?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
Mauril Bélanger: No, not to you. The member for Wild Rose.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.
Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard from an member from the other side. This is typical of what goes on and that is fine. They do not like it when we raise the idea of patronage appointments.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: What are you talking about?
Darrel Stinson: That is what we are on now and why patronage appointments exist. They are a gift to those who support the government. That is all they are and nothing more.
Let us look at the hypocrisy of the government and what is going on. It was not that long ago the Canadians census came out. Many people in my constituency, first and second generation Canadians, filled in a little section by putting in the word Canadian.
What happened when they did that? The government threatened to sue and imprison some of these people because they had the gall to write in that they were Canadians. They came to my office and said “Mr. Stinson, I came here to become a Canadian. I want to take on the nationality of a Canadian. My children are Canadian and we look upon ourselves as Canadians”. Yet the government has threatened them for saying they are Canadian. Even as a seventh generation Canadian I was not allowed to put Canadian on that census. What exactly is going on here? It goes beyond being a joke.
Let us look at some of the powers in clause 43. Under this clause Bill C-63 grants the minister far-reaching powers, unbelievable powers. The minister has the right to specify who may make an application under this act on behalf of a minor, fix fees and define who is a spouse for the purpose of the act. I only have to see that part to start wondering what is going on. The minister may define what constitutes a relationship of parent and child for the purposes of determining the entitlement to citizenship under any provision of the act.
As a Canadian citizen I demand a voice in this regard. I demand the people of Canada also have a voice in this regard and not just the minister. This is arrogance of the highest form.
If the minister really wishes to improve the Citizenship Act, she should be willing to bring some of these questions into the open, have a debate and hear from the Canadian people, not make these decisions behind closed doors where she is not accountable to anyone.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: A committee is doing consultation.
Darrel Stinson: She is not accountable to anyone. She has the right to override anything. There are dictatorships that wish they had this kind of power. Canadians have sat back far too long and just gradually and grudgingly accepted this. It is time for the public to start voicing concerns about what is going on in the country.
The member for Wild Rose was dead on when he said what was happening. I thank the member for Wild Rose for bringing that matter to the attention of Canadians. I hope everybody realizes exactly what they are buying into when acts like this one are put into place.
I would like to end on that note. I see members on the government side are happy that I will be closing off the debate. To tell the truth, I wish I did not have to stand here today to talk to the bill at all. I know hon. members opposite do too, because they do not like people out there to hear what is really going on. That is fine. I understand that.
My ultimate wish is that this legislation goes on to the garbage pile where it belongs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on the second reading stage of Bill C-63.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed to will please say nay.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, March 1, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you would seek it, you might find that the House is disposed to calling it 1.30 p.m. and moving to private members' hour.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The government House leader has suggested that we see the clock as 1.30 p.m., the time provided for private members' hour. Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Young Offenders ActMr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to speak in the House today to Motion No. 508. In fact there is nowhere I would rather be aside from my province of Nova Scotia. I am anxious to get there and not to be at the only alternative conference that is happening this weekend.
The motion put forward states that the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of achieving funding on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments. This was the original intent of the legislation that goes back over 10 years.
When I refer to 50% throughout my remarks I am not referring to the ill conceived 50% release plan which is being surreptitiously hoisted on an unsuspecting public through the solicitor general's department. What I am referring to is the fact that the federal government has backed away from the commitment made in the original legislation to fund the administrative costs of the Young Offenders Act.
Everyone in the House is aware that the laws are only as effective as their ability to be enforced. The RCMP's ongoing financial problems testify to this challenge, be it in the overall budget or in the efforts of the force to try to combat organized crime.
The Liberal Firearms Act is another example of waste before the Canadian public. The spiralling costs and administrative problems are yet other examples that the Liberal government will put this type of legislation for political gain ahead of the actual costs of the law enforcement community.
The costs of the implementation of the Firearms Act could reach as high as an estimated cost of $350 million. These estimates could be even higher. This comes from the government's own officials.
Recently I met with representatives of the National Firearms Association who are travelling throughout the country promoting a more practical and simpler approach to firearms legislation and certainly putting greater emphasis on actual safety and actual use of government funds.
While the Liberal government advocates hundreds of millions of dollars for gun registry, the Canadian police information system that will house the data from this piece of legislation, the important tool police officers use for information purposes, is coming apart at the seams and is in need of a drastic influx of federal money, $200 million by some conservative estimates, to make it operational.
The Young Offenders Act throughout the country is perceived as not working for the average Canadian. It has been said aloud by the government and by the minister in particular on numerous occasions that we can expect changes or a revamped version of the Young Offenders Act in the near future or, to use the minister's often quoted phrase, in a timely fashion.
Eighteen months have passed since these pronouncements were first made and this legislative initiative is still forthcoming.
The Young Offenders Act is in itself an important tool for law enforcement in the community but there are financial limitations facing our justice system.
Regardless of how the federal government proceeds with the new youth crime legislation, if it does not assume a fair share of the cost, it cannot realistically hope that the existing or any new legislation will meet the intended ends.
The Minister of Justice admitted in October that substantial extra funding is needed to successfully reinforce Canada's youth justice system. And as the minister made that promise in January to introduce new young offenders legislation, as she had on previous occasions, once again one is left to wonder when it will be coming and why in the budget this very week we do not see an indication of a government commitment to this new proposed piece of legislation.
The minister's promises in the past have proven suspect on this particular issue, so Motion No. 508 in its simplest terms is an important opportunity for this House to express its collective favour in terms of putting fair funding and fair dollars on the table when addressing the issue of youth crime.
While proposed legislative solutions vary among parties and members of this House, I hope there can be some non-partisan approach taken to this issue. The government itself has a responsibility to assume its fair share of the programs and the services that are being currently administered by the provinces to assist in the execution of federal youth crime legislation.
As most members will recall, the Young Offenders Act is relatively young legislation, having come into effect in 1984, and while the statute falls under federal jurisdiction most of the consequent services and programs for young offenders are provided by provincial and territorial governments.
The original commitment of the federal government was to share the risk of implementation of the Young Offenders Act. This included the financial risk. The federal government therefore undertook to contribute an amount approximately 50% of provincial spending on young offenders programs and services.
It should be noted that a disparity among the provinces was created by these cost sharing agreements. Prior to the Young Offenders Act the cost sharing agreement fell under the Canada assistance plan and was based on child welfare related objectives and essentially restricted to custody costs, the previous legislation being the juvenile delinquents act.
Under the original Young Offenders Act cost sharing agreements, custody costs continued to be included and the list of programs covered by the 50:50 agreement expanded to include post adjudication, detention, alternative measures, which is a more recent initiative, and bail supervision programs.
Other items such as probation and predisposition reports have been added similarly to the list of cost shareable programs and the services that were intended under this agreement.
It was the nature of that agreement whereby the federal government's contribution was determined by how much the provinces and territories would spend on federal youth offender services.
This caused a disparity which I referred to. Nearly 75% of the federal dollars in the mid to late 1980s was directed to custody and custodial programming. This resulted in less federal support for provinces with lower custody rates.
Because different provinces and territories obviously have different priorities, the federal government should not financially punish those jurisdictions for focusing on non-custodial programs which is what I see as implicit in the budget.
I must stress, however, that in negotiating a new funding arrangement the federal government should likewise not punish provinces that favour custody in their approach to enforcement of the Young Offenders Act or the equivalent youth crime legislation whenever that may come.
Equity and a level standard approach is what is desirable in the final analysis. I should note that I specifically left out any reference to funding formula mechanisms, the reason being that I do not want this debate to become bogged down in custodial arrangements versus alternative measures. That debate would be for another time.
This motion deals with global funding which, regardless of the funding formula, heavily penalizes the provinces and territories. When the original cost sharing agreement expired in 1989 the federal government of the day, facing serious fiscal problems, froze its future share of the cost sharing program at the funding level.
That, I will admit, was a Progressive Conservative government but the funding was frozen at the levels which existed at that time and the amount that was set aside at that time was $156 million.
Although admittedly a Conservative government along with the actual funding cuts in subsequent years, and I refer specifically to 1996-97 when 3.9% of that original cost sharing was cut and 3.5% in 1998-99, the overall federal share of eligible provincial costs on young offenders programs fell an average of approximately 30%. In actual dollars that translated into a little less than $145 million.
Although the federal government froze and then cut its financial contributions, the nature of the funding formula remained intact, resulting in a persisting disparity between the provinces.
Regardless of the disparity the fact remains that all provincial and territorial jurisdictions have suffered at the hands of the federal government's decision. This is another example of federal downloading that needs to be corrected before any realistic overhaul of the Young Offenders Act can happen. The provinces and territories are rightfully upset by the abandonment of the federal government. They are funding the majority of the costs and on a national overall average they are funding 70% of the young offenders programs which are constitutionally a federal responsibility.
It is no wonder that a level of animosity then emerges from these provincial-federal talks, in particular in the area of justice.
Meanwhile the federal government only covers 16% of the cost of provincially mandated programs such as health care, post-secondary education and social assistance. Is it any wonder that provinces are now clamouring that the share of the young offenders programs, which they assert is a federal responsibility, be allocated on a similar scale?
Simply put, the provinces are encouraging the federal government to revert to at least a 50:50 basis with future federal funding arrangements reflecting a reverse share of the federal-provincial funding for health care and social programs instead of a 30% share which they are currently carrying.
What this would demand is dollars. By my calculations the federal government is covering 30% of the costs which are set at approximately $144 million this fiscal year, and an 84% share would come to around $400 million annually. But we know, as a result of the budget, that this will not happen.
An honourable and reasonable compromise to this would be for the federal government to commit to returning to the 50% share that it once assumed. We are not suggesting that this would happen overnight. In actual spending this would amount to roughly $240 million. The wording of Motion No. 508 is such that it would allow the federal government to phase in its increase in spending. The details and timeframe would be negotiated through a new cost sharing arrangement between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
Sadly, if one believes recent articles in the Post , the minister has ruled out any return to the level of funding that was provided in the past.
I am left to believe that the federal government will not resume a 50% share of the federal Young Offenders Act or whatever form it takes any time soon. Hopefully the Liberal member designated to speak, the parliamentary secretary, will clarify this assertion by the minister that there is no intention on the part of this government to return to its rightful share. There appears to be no logical reason why the federal government would not assume its fair portion. After all, the federal government's credibility, and especially that of the minister, appears to be extremely suspect by the majority of Canadians and by the majority of provincial and territorial governments on this issue.
Beyond the youth crime issue itself there is a litany of other issues where the federal Liberal government has disappointed its provincial and territorial counterparts.
Four provinces and two territories representing almost 55% of Canada's population have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the Liberal government's Firearms Act. This does not bode well for the confidence that these provinces hold in their federal counterpart.
I am sure the province of Nova Scotia will be adding its name to that list of those challenging the act when it elects a Conservative government. It is a very questionable set of priorities when it comes down to an issue as fundamental as the Young Offenders Act and the federal government's abdication of its responsibility.
Another example of this abdication comes from the call of at least four provinces for the establishment of a national sex offender registry. Once more we have seen the federal government being very slow to act let alone react to calls for such a registry. It is something I have followed closely. Colleagues on this side of the House have tried to get the attention of the federal government on a number of justice issues only to be rebuffed with the response that the government has its own agenda which it is committed to following.
It is therefore equally important in timing when one looks at the crisis facing our current law enforcement community, in particular the RCMP, with respect to the funding costs it has undergone since the Liberals were elected in 1994. RCMP Commissioner Phil Murray has admitted the force cannot continue to function with its current funding and that an underfunding of the RCMP affects provincial and municipal governments. This again represents a form of downloading. The CPIC system has been described as rusting out. This is the CPIC system which would now also carry the additional burden of gun registry and DNA databank legislation. It is like putting more and more weight on a tired old mule, and that is going to collapse. When the RCMP problems were particularly acute in British Columbia, that province's attorney general mused about the establishment of a new provincial police force in British Columbia.
Then there is the issue of replacement legislation for the Young Offenders Act. I have spoken to the delay and to the continual promise that this is coming. These promises and the broken promises are not new to this government. Many of the recommendations put forward by the opposition in committee were not adopted by the current government.
In December 1997 the federal Minister of Justice met with her provincial and territorial counterparts at the annual meeting. She promised at that time there would be new young offender legislation coming at their next meeting. That meeting has come and gone. She showed up with empty hands. The legislation was not there and it is still not before the Canadian people. When the federal Minister of Justice met with her counterparts at the end of October 1998 she showed up with empty hands.
I urge all members to join with me in supporting this motion, in bringing it forward for debate and in placing a high priority on the federal government's assuming its official responsibility with respect to the funding of the legislation that is forthcoming for the current Young Offenders Act in its present form.

Government Orders
First Nations Land Management ActDon Boudria: Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at said stages.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, in Motion No. 508 the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is calling for this House to state that the federal government should increase its share of the financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
The Minister of Justice and this government cannot support the motion as it currently reads. As members know, new youth justice legislation will be introduced in the next few weeks. This is largely the result of extensive consultations which have been ongoing with our partners, the provinces and territories, over the past several years, despite what the hon. member said earlier. Part of this groundwork has included discussions of financial issues.
The minister is well aware that the provinces and the federal government share responsibility for ensuring an effective Canada-wide youth justice system.
She also wishes to note, as she has done on a number of occasions in the past, that additional funding will be necessary to implement the new legislation she is about to table, as well as to support the services and programs that will play a direct role in the achievement of several priorities on which the federal government and the provinces agree.
As for the use to which federal funding is put, I would remind the House that, in April 1997, following a thorough examination of the youth justice system, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs submitted certain recommendations regarding federal-provincial shared-cost arrangements with respect to services for young offenders.
The committee made it clear that it favoured an approach based on early intervention where prevention efforts, community and family based informal, non-criminal justice and non-custodial strategies are given primacy. The committee came to the conclusion that cost sharing arrangements should be adapted to reflect this new approach.
It is important to understand that while acknowledging the importance of adequate funding for youth justice services and programs, the committee did not recommend a return to an open ended 50:50 sharing of all provincial costs.
On the contrary, the committee specifically recommended that discussions with the provinces and territories be undertaken with the goal of shifting resources away from custodial institutions or incarceration and into community based services.
The fact that, in recent years, Canada as a whole continues to be among those nations with the highest number of young offenders in custody, continues to concern us. Although international comparisons are difficult, because of systemic differences, it appears that Canada incarcerates proportionally more young offenders than even the United States.
As well, the rates of incarceration vary considerably across the country, varying between 9% and 32% for 10,000 adolescents, according to provincial figures. The rates are generally higher where alternative sentencing is rare or non-existent. Finally, it is sad to note that the vast majority of youth in custody are there for non-violent offences, to which community approaches, which promote social values such as responsibility and accountability, would be a better response.
What makes the matter worse is that incarceration is extremely expensive. As more and more money is spent on custody, less and less can be dedicated to those alternatives that could eventually reduce overall budgets and provide for more meaningful consequences for the majority of offenders. A continuing deterioration of alternative programming could in turn create a vicious cycle by provoking an even greater reliance on custody, clearly the position of the Reform Party also.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: That is baloney and you know it.
Eleni Bakopanos: You wanted to incarcerate 11-year olds.
Clearly funds have to be used wisely in support of overall youth justice policy that will be reflected in the bill that the Minister of Justice is about to introduce. It would be unwise for the federal government to accept, for example, to reimburse the provinces for 50% of the current cost of custody when its stated policy is to ensure that incarceration is generally reserved for the most serious offenders. With 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services, the federal government would be left with no protection against further increases in the use and the cost of custody.
Moreover, this type of agreement would seriously restrict federal ability to actively promote the development of alternative programming or to support the ongoing operations of such programming where it already exists.
Certainly the federal government responsibility for the youth justice legislation implies a responsibility to see that its various components are properly implemented.
That is why on Tuesday of this week we were extremely pleased to find that almost $400 million has been allocated for fighting crime at home and abroad, with $206 million of that money being allocated to the new youth justice strategy of this government.
This funding will allow the government to move forward quickly, implementing a new approach of giving more money to the provinces.
We believe the federal funding should be used to achieve two broad purposes. First, it should be designed to support the implementation of the new federal legislation across the country. Second, it should be used to ensure that special attention is given to required services and programs that do not yet exist or are currently under funded.
We also have to ensure that federal funding is equitably allocated to the individual provinces and territories. Obviously and open ended 50:50 cost sharing of all youth justice services and programs would offer no particular support in the achievements of the above purposes. It could actually have a detrimental effect in encouraging an inconsistent partial implementation of the legislation across the country.
While the provinces are responsible for administering justice and can legitimately choose various means to enforce the law in a way that suits their individual priorities and specificity, the federal government must ensure that the law is applied in compliance with its principles.
As members will see when the new legislation is introduced, it will provide maximum flexibility to the provinces, so that they can administer the youth justice system in a way that is best for them individually.
I should point out that the provinces themselves made that request, during our consultations. We listened to them and we will follow up on their request.
Also, it is perfectly legitimate for the federal government to plan its funding so as to give priority to those general services and programs that are critical to achieving the main objectives of the law.
While it can be expected that some provinces may question specific aspects of the proposed legislation, it would be a mistake to underestimate the existing degree of support for the new approach it reflects. Similarly, where there might be some differences of views with certain provinces in terms of defining specific priorities for funding, it would be erroneous to think that this is a case where the federal government is imposing its views on the provinces.
Provincial views have contributed significantly to the shaping of the new legislation and will continue to be the key in the implementation of it. Past discussions and continuing discussions have also demonstrated there is considerable consensus on the need to promote more alternative ways of dealing with young offenders.
We should be able to build on the basis of a consensus that federal funding should first and foremost support the development and maintenance of programs that provide significant alternatives to the reliance on courts and incarceration. As for the provinces and territories, they will continue to be responsible for determining how these programs should be developed and implemented.
Financial arrangements will be part of what we hope will be over the next several years a flexible implementation phase of the youth justice renewal strategy, undertaken in close partnership with the provinces and territories as a reflection of our shared responsibilities and commitments to youth justice.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 508 as presented by the member from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. We appear to be united on this issue. Maybe there is some hope for my hon. colleague yet.
The motion says that, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
This motion is essentially calling for the federal government to fulfil its original commitment to maintain its 50% share of the costs of enforcing the Young Offenders Act.
It is my understanding that as little as a decade ago the federal government managed to keep up to the commitment of providing half the cost of this legislation. This was a promise made when the Young Offenders Act was brought into force in 1985. It is also my understanding that the federal government has been slowly chipping away at this commitment to the extent that it now provides something close to 30% of the bill.
I realize that in the recent budget the government appears to have committed itself to providing some $200 million in what it calls new funds toward youth justice. Let us remember, however, that in spite of months and months of promises we have not yet seen this government's new youth legislation and justice initiatives.
There is little doubt that there will be additional costs involved. There is little doubt the provinces will be required to commit additional funds toward the new legislation should it ever come into being. I anticipate that the newly committed funds will in no way approach the federal government's original commitment.
The failure of this government to maintain the 50:50 split no doubt came into discussion when the Minister of Justice was negotiating with provincial justice ministers over co-operation toward new youth justice initiatives. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice was threatened with complete provincial withdrawal from the funding of youth justice because of the continuing shortfall of funding on behalf of her government. She would certainly not want to have a recurrence of the Bill C-68 situation land in her lap where some of the provinces have withdrawn from firearms control financing and have left it up to the federal government to operate. Our provinces can only be pushed and downloaded on so far.
Speaking of being pushed too far, I will take a moment to mention this government's actions with conditional sentencing and its impact on the provinces. The federal government's bill became too high in the area of corrections. So what did it do? It brought in conditional sentencing to permit criminal offenders to serve their time at home. Now violent and even repeat offenders are able to escape from serving any time in our institutions. This freed up beds and kept the costs from escalating for our corrections systems, but it did not necessarily reduce the costs to the provinces that have to continue to monitor, police and enforce the conditions placed on offenders serving their time at home. Costs were downloaded to the provinces. I would think the provinces would want to make sure the federal government does not burn them in the same way with its new youth justice strategy.
I have been actively involved in youth justice issues for a number of years now. I have participated in various youth diversion programs. I have been actively involved with our crowns, our courts and our communities in my home province of British Columbia. There are significant demands for additional funding to properly operate a successful youth justice program. Indeed, virtually all aspects of the youth justice program are presently short of appropriate funding to properly do the job.
Youth diversion programs are by and large operating primarily on the good intentions of community volunteers. While these folks are extremely dedicated to the young people in their communities and do wonderful work, often a few dollars will do much to soothe many of their frustrations. It is difficult to have a young person repaint a neighbour's fence that has been covered by graffiti when there is not even enough money to buy the paint. It is difficult to arrange counselling sessions or group discussions when there is no money with which to rent a room. We cannot expect volunteers to continue to support programs from their own pockets indefinitely.
We are all aware of the shortfalls in funding for programs for young people placed under secure custody. They are often released back into the community with no education or treatment to modify their unacceptable and criminal actions. If society continues to show little interest in helping these young offenders they will have little interest in helping themselves. It all comes back to proper funding.
The statistics make it quite clear that young offenders often become adult offenders. If we spend effectively on our young offenders now, we will benefit in the long run because we should not have to investigate, charge, convict and sentence time and time again. If we properly treat the non-violent first time offender we will for the most part avoid escalation into more serious criminal activity.
The justice minister was recently quoted as complimenting Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta for their efforts in the use of community sentencing options instead of custody to sanction our troubled youth. All provinces should be encouraged to follow and expand on the present successful programs. To do so, however, additional funding will be necessary to set up and operate progressive options. How will the provinces be encouraged to do so unless the federal government makes significant moves toward fulfilling its end of the bargain?
As it has been said time and time again, it does little good for this government to talk the talk, it must walk the walk. It must re-establish its 50% commitment to youth justice and it must ensure it never again lets itself fail in its responsibility to our future generations.
I thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for putting this motion before the House.
Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, today the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is asking the government to increase the federal share of financial support for the provision of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of dividing the cost on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
One would think this is not a big thing to ask for. If the federal government wants to keep an eye on what is happening it terms of crime prevention, health care or education across the country, it should expect to pay its fair share. That is really what is being asked here.
This also means that many problems are created by government policies and regulations—provincial or federal. On the subject of crime prevention, many of the decisions taken are taken in such a way that it appears crime prevention was not the first thought.
The more invested in crime prevention, the lower the crime rate. Our young people who live in poverty cannot afford a post-secondary education and parents cannot send their children to daycare. These are things that lower the country's crime rate. We need governments that give priority to prevention.
We can talk about prevention as well in the context of halfway houses for battered women. Too many regions do not have such facilities for these women. They do not have the opportunity to stay in a safe location so they may make good decisions for themselves and their children. It is important to have such facilities, and that is what the majority of Canadians think.
We have to remember that. Often when youths commit crimes we want to throw them in jail and throw away the keys. That is not the solution. We have to look at the cause, why young offenders are in that situation. We need resources available to prevent children from being in that situation. Once they are we definitely need resources to help them out of those bad situations and put them in very good environments.
Unfortunately, with child poverty increasing on a daily basis, one goes with the other. If I look at just my area, in one week there were three bank robberies in small communities of 200 in one and 2,000 in the other. We have to look at that situation very seriously. The increase in poverty is certainly a big factor in crime. A woman in the Saint John area was badly beaten during a robbery.
If we look behind why all these things are happening we can track it to the individual not having resources available. I see it with teachers all the time who tell me that they do not have the resources to help the kids identified in our schools as needing help.
I was speaking with a friend who is a French teacher in Newfoundland. They have been told that in order to get a psychologist in their school they would have to let a regular teacher go. There are all kinds of situations in that school where children and their families need counselling. We have to look at the causes. When parents do not have a job or are the working poor it certainly does not help. We did not see any new funding going toward that.
There is really nothing in the budget to help in this regard. If the federal government wants to have input with the provinces, it has to pay its half. This applies to health care too. The government found itself in a very difficult situation at one point. It used to pay 50% of health care costs but this percentage has now dropped to 11%. The figure might rise to 12.5%.
It is very difficult for the federal government to say to a province “I want you to provide these services in this way”, when it contributes only 5% or 6% of the funding.
I have a 13-year old son and a little girl who is three years old, but I have no idea what the future holds for Mathieu and Mélissa. I hope they will stay on the straight and narrow. That is all we can do, to hope, because our children have to make their own decisions.
It is certainly good for them that their mother has a job, and it was great that I could work or be on employment insurance when I was off work, because there was food on their plates and a roof over their heads. I was perfectly capable of supporting them as a seasonal worker because, in those days, we could still get benefits between jobs. Without this income, I cannot imagine how those years would have unfolded. There was also education, including the post-secondary education I had access to.
We must ensure that our young people today have access to education and that they do not end up $40,000 in debt after completing a four-year university degree.
That is often the case, and we are not helping our young people with decisions that makes life harder and harder for them, when they have no job prospects at graduation.
The New Democrats believe that the government needs to invest in families by providing access to child care, support for parents and labour policies that encourage employers to respect family obligations.
I must say that I was lucky. All the years I worked, I was with the public service, so I had benefits. If my son was sick, I was entitled to five days a year at least to look after him. I also had a drug plan, which also covered replacements for eyeglasses. That helps a lot.
The federal government must make a real commitment to provide funding to the provinces for more community policing and to increase support services for both the rehabilitation of youth and support for victims of youth crime.
The NDP fully supports the motion before the House and encourages the government to adopt it and take immediate action to address the chronic underfunding of our justice system.
I think this is important. We ought to support this motion because the future of our young people is at stake. They are the ones who will be running this country in the future. We must look after them today to ensure that they will be there in the future.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion M-508 moved by my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. The motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.
First, the debate on this motion is rather timely because it gives us an opportunity to refer to a item in the budget brought down with such fanfare by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday.
In fact, this budget, which has already distinguished itself with its many new examples of federal interference in provincial health jurisdiction, earmarks $343 million over three years for crime prevention, as part of the reform the Minister of Justice is preparing to introduce, a reform which serves no purpose, in the opinion of justice stakeholders in Quebec.
Members will therefore not be surprised to learn that there is no agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal Minister of Justice regarding the use of these funds.
The planned reform is repressive in nature and smacks of something the Reform Party would dream up. It will cost the provinces more, with the bill for Quebec alone forecast at $23 million.
It is important to note that, since 1984, the federal government has owed Quebec in the neighbourhood of $77 million for enforcing the Young Offenders Act. I will come back to these points a bit later.
As regards the Young Offenders Act, I must first point out, as our friends opposite acknowledged, that Quebec is an example for the rest of Canada. The present legislation effectively meets its objectives in Quebec. The proof is that we have the lowest rate of juvenile crime in Canada.
I am pleased to report here the remarks made in 1995 by the Minister of Justice in the previous parliament. In his opinion, Quebec is an exception to the terms of application of the Young Offenders Act in that it focuses on the rehabilitation of young people outside the judicial system, an example the rest of Canada might follow.
At the time, the federal minister recognized Quebec's uniqueness in this regard. Despite this recognition, legislative amendments aimed at increasing judicial interventions with young people are, unfortunately, still in fashion.
While youth crime is decreasing more sharply in Quebec, I must also add that, although it continues to be a source of considerable concern, crime among young people is also on the decrease in the rest of Canada. In 1997, the rate of youth crime decreased by 7%, confirming the trend we have seen since 1991.
So, rather than rush into a reform that will mean a more repressive approach to crime among the youth, the minister should review the entire question of financial compensation to the provinces for the application of the existing law.
When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984, 15 years ago already, the federal government was assuming 50% of the costs associated with implementing judicial and alternative measures. The federal government gradually withdrew, something which is becoming a habit. In 1996-97, its share of the funding was down to 36%.
In addition to the federal government's withdrawal, its funding formula does not take into account the proportion of young Canadians who live in Quebec. While nearly 25% of Canada's young people between the ages of 12 and 17 live in Quebec, only 18.28% of the federal contribution in this respect goes to Quebec.
This has resulted in a $77.4 million shortfall for Quebec since 1989. The former justice minister and current health minister had promised to restore the balance.
Neither the former minister nor the current one ever delivered on this promise. The last federal budget can certainly raise doubts about this government's commitment to paying off its debts.
Quebec is still waiting for a concrete proposal from the minister for making up this shortfall, and chances are that we are going to wait a very long time.
As we know, Quebec is the province where the rehabilitation of young offenders is the most successful by far, and I might remind you that this success is achieved through less expensive and less cumbersome measures. What works in Quebec should work elsewhere.
Today's Motion M-508 provides us with an opportunity to criticize the new approach of the federal government, which clearly seems to have forgotten that the youth justice system must reflect the fact that youth are still in the process of developing and maturing.
Efforts must focus on what led up to the offence. The federal government's approach emphasizes the offence per se when, in our opinion, account must be taken of the youth's overall situation in terms of family, school and peers. In my opinion, Quebec's approach will pay off.
Not surprisingly, Quebec is unable to support the federal government's present approach. First of all, it does not put youth crime and adjustment problems in proper perspective. Another reason we are unable to support it is because it writes off the worst troublemakers, instead of trying to reintegrate them into society. We also reject it because it says that young people 14 and older—I heard my colleague mentioning her 13-year old son, who is only one year away from being 14—should receive adult sentences when they are involved in offences that, while they may be very serious, are not necessarily indicative of a high level of criminalization.
Another point is the unnecessary complexity of the legal procedure, which leaves the door wide open to preliminary sentencing by trial and jury. For all these reasons, it is an approach unlikely to help our youth prepare for a productive life that will benefit our society, and Quebec is unable to support it.
In closing, I wish to thank my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for having moved this motion.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Motion No. 508:
That—the government should increase the federal share of financial support for the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, with the eventual goal of dividing the costs on a 50/50 basis—
On the face of it, this motion has a great deal to commend itself. After all, what is wrong with more money for the Young Offenders Act? What is wrong with more money for the youth justice system, or indeed the justice system itself? What is wrong with more money for the police, for the courts, or for the prisons? Indeed, what is wrong with more money for everything?
Let us just keep going back to the old ways of tax and spend. Surely justice is as high a priority as any other priority. In fact it has to be very high on anybody's priority list.
When this government took over, we inherited a $42 billion deficit and we have since turned it around to a surplus. At the time we took over, all governments were spending in excess of 100% of the gross domestic product. Thankfully under the leadership of this Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, that situation has been reined in and we are now all living within our budgets.
Provincial governments have been brought to heel by fiscal realities and to varying degrees of success have recognized that. The most notable exception, I would say, is the fact that the Government of Ontario—which I would note in passing is a Progressive Conservative government, and how progressive is somewhat dubious at times—continues to finance its ways by increasing the debt. These tax cuts that are priorities in excess of all other priorities are financed by debt. At this point it has ratcheted up by a full $30 billion.
The cost of this motion is estimated to be something in the order of $100 million to $125 million. It is open ended. We can draw on it any time and once we start funding it, we cannot withdraw from the funding. It is like the Eveready bunny; it keeps on going and going.
As soon as this funding starts, the government makes a statement that this is a priority in excess of all other priorities. For instance, it speaks of a desire on the part of the provincial and federal governments to create community based institutions rather than custodial based institutions. That priority frankly would be defeated if this motion were to go forward.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you, I and all the rest of us have had pretty well as much as we can take on CHST debates. We get into cash, we get into tax points, we get into equalization and we are all numb. The numbers seem to go on and on.
It is a uniquely Canadian experience whereby those who receive money say absolutely nothing and those who do not receive money continue to bitch and whine into the next budget.
If there is a certainty in any of these debates, it is that all governments want certainty in their financing. With certainty they can plan and budget accordingly. Both levels of government do not want open-ended commitments to financing.
The Young Offenders Act speaks to charge, conviction and sentencing. In my view, that is the wrong priority. In my view, this is not the priority this government needs to signal at this time.
The changes to the young offenders legislation are in accordance with the recommendations of the justice committee on which the hon. member sits. I would recommend that the hon. member speak to those recommendations rather than to this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish-Guysborough will now have five minutes for his right of reply. I should advise the House that when the member speaks, he will close the debate.
Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak in response to my learned friends. I thank in particular the parliamentary secretary and the members for Scarborough East, Laval Centre, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, and Surrey North.
The last statement made by my hon. friend opposite spoke of open endedness. What is truly open ended is the justice minister's promise to table legislation. It has been open ended and we have not seen it yet.
This is not an open-ended motion. This is a motion that would suggest a 50:50 share. That is equitable. That is split down the middle. There is nothing open ended about it.
My learned friend from Laval Centre spoke of Quebec's success in dealing with youth crime and youth crime initiatives. I do commend her province for that. The member indicated that it is an example that other places, mainly Canada, can learn from. I agree with that. I think we can learn a lot from the different provinces and the approaches they have taken.
The point is that the funding and commitment made by the federal government in its initial commitment to youth justice are not being held up. The government is not holding up its end of the bargain.
In particular, there was a comment made by the parliamentary secretary with respect to the current funding and commitment from this government.
I was left with the impression that she was indicating that if the provincial government received more money from the federal government, somehow this would result in higher incarceration rates. That is absurd.
What is so absurd about it is that at the same time the parliamentary secretary speaks of youth justice initiatives such things as restorative justice and alternative dispute resolution need to be funded. More funding does not simply mean more incarceration. The provinces have to exercise that discretion, but that was the impression left.
We are talking about the federal government simply holding up its end of the bargain. One would expect that the government would at least feel a twinge of moral obligation to increase its share of the young offender programs. Morality and the Liberal government seem to be mutually exclusive on this point.
The underlying issue in Motion No. 508 as with any policy area affecting federal-provincial relations is the Liberal view of government. Federal Liberals profess to have an unparalleled understanding of what is best for the country as a whole. They have a very sanctimonious and arrogant view of what is best for the country and how best to spend the country's money.
When it comes to taxpayers money no one can tell anybody the Liberal government has a great track record. As we witnessed in the social union negotiations, the federal Liberals painted the provinces as somehow the enemy of health care and social spending. We have seen successive budgets. We have seen the education budget. We have seen the health care budget. One would hope that someday we might see a justice budget coming from the government.
Conditional sentences, child pornography inaction, gutting the organized crime budget of the RCMP and the doomed false hope Firearms Act are all questionable Liberal priority performances on justice issues. Such sweeping generalizations from the government toward the provinces, characterizing them as such, is very irresponsible. Provincial and territorial governments are not the inherent enemies of co-ordinated national policy efforts. They want all levels of government to work their best and in this case work their best to address the problems in our youth justice system.
In our federation the federal, provincial and territorial governments must work together as partners, not competitors. The provinces want to be included in the decisions. They want the federal government to simply hold up and pay in its amount. They want the federal government to honour its commitments. Above all, they would like just a little respect from the federal government.
Motion No. 508 allows the Liberals to reverse the reputation they have earned over the years in federal-provincial relations. It allows them to tangibly demonstrate they are committed not just to changing youth crime legislation but to ensuring the law will be adequate.
As I mentioned at the outset, laws are only as effective as the ability to enforce them. The Minister of Justice and the Liberal government can acquire much needed credibility in renewing their efforts and their commitment to the youth justice system by increasing the federal share of the young offenders program.
As this is my final word on the matter in a final desperate attempt to bring the matter forward, I would ask that there be unanimous consent given to make this matter a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the motion be votable?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.43 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 1, 1999, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 24(1) and 28(2).
(The House adjourned at 1.43 p.m.)