John Finlay

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I say to my hon. friend that we must walk before we run. Rome was not built in a day. Everybody's budget has been decreased except two.

In last year's budget the only department that was not hit very hard was the environment ministry. For a very good reason this year it was the department of aboriginal affairs and northern development. More aboriginal people need more help.

I share my colleague's concern that we are not doing everything that needs to be done, or that can be done. That is exactly why we need the commissioner. The auditor general's function is to audit what has been done. The commissioner's function is to do something before it is done to see that the plans are going to work.

I have no magic wand. We cannot make everything work at once but we can at least try to get on with it if we all understand what the problem is and what the goal is.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

The first of many. I want to deal with this act in three main areas. The first has to do with the definition that appears in the act. This was only one of the definitions that were presented to the committee. We had a lot of discussion about this. I believe we have chosen wisely and I am glad that the definition that arises out of the Brundtland report is the one that is in this act.

Sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As my honoured colleague, the member for Davenport, has already pointed out, this definition is crucial. This definition goes beyond balancing the economy and the environment. Up to a few years ago, when I asked this kind of question from an environmental point of view to members of the previous government I was told with a wry grin that there are jobs and then there is the environment. Our future is here, and it includes both jobs and the environment, both industry and the environment, all industries and the environment. That is a basic understanding I hope all in the House will acknowledge.

Many people have seen industry and environment as antithetical and opposite. This definition goes well beyond that. Again, it is another case where many of our educational institutions, many of our businesses and industries, and many of our organizations in this country are somewhat ahead of the government. They are now teaching courses in waste management, in integrated resource management. Our ministries of the environment and industry have also stimulated the Canadian environmental industry, which is one of the fastest growing areas of our economy.

Let us return for a moment to this definition. It says "development that meets the needs of the present". This does not say the

wants of the present; it says the needs. That means we have to give it considerable thought. We have to reach some agreements and we have to do considerable research. The basic fact we have to understand is that we live on a finite planet. Our resources, our land, our air, our water, and our energy are all limited. Right now we have all the air, polluted or not, that we are going to have. We have all the water, pure or not, fresh or not, we are going to have. And we have all the land, eroded or not, we are going to have.

Considering that the extent of arable land on the planet is very tiny compared to the expanse of the oceans, the mountains, the deserts, and other parts of this fair earth that we cannot use, this is a basic tenet of all of our actions and it must become ingrained in the decisions we make in the House.

It states "without compromising the ability of future generations". Politicians are good compromisers. We have to be sometimes. However, compromise is not possible when we are dealing with some of the present problems of the environment. In order to achieve sustainable development we cannot compromise on the pressing need to improve our performance in protecting the environment, in establishing sustainable industrial processes, and in managing our waste. The "ability of future generations" requires us to look a little into the future. We need to recognize that some of the problems that appear before us now are not the only problems that future generations may face.

We know, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca pointed out, that the population of the earth is doubling now in decades, not centuries and not millennia. That is something we have to keep in mind, because future generations are going to have a much bigger problem than we have if we do not move toward helping to solve it. Our needs for energy will expand tremendously. Progressive climate change cannot be allowed to continue on and on, because the eventual result will be catastrophic.

The global transport of toxics through air and water, which already affects much of our Arctic area and the Inuit and others who live there, is going to continue unless we start to reduce it.

The time for compromise is gone. I think we have to get on with the job. Hopefully this bill will set us on the road to doing that as expeditiously as possible.

The last part of the definition states: "We must not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". Since it is impossible for us definitively to know what those needs will be, it would be best if we erred on the side of caution and care, increased our respect for the environment and increased our efforts to become a conserving rather than a wasting and wasteful society.

Again, as my colleague for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said, we create a lot of garbage. We are the best in the world at creating garbage. We are number one in garbage creation and waste. We would dearly like to become number one in the management of that and in getting rid of it.

I would like to spend a moment on a fact that has been brought up by several other members. We talked about a commissioner of sustainable development. On the committee we wanted a separate office. We wanted a real proactive position. We find that we have in this act a commissioner, yes, within the auditor general's department.

I think perhaps this is a place where our compromise was needed. Perhaps what we have in this act will in a number of ways accentuate the role of that commissioner. One of the things we heard in the committee from witness after witness was that the federal departments of this government were not particularly up to date or forward looking or in advance of those things that needed to be done to preserve the environment. In fact many industries and organizations told us that some of our departments did not obey the rules to nearly the same extent as the mining companies, the industries, and so on. We were shown quite clearly in the committee from the witnesses we saw and the trips we made, which were not many but were very effective, that this was so.

Hence, the bill puts the commissioner in there to see that government puts its own house in order by greening policies and operations across all departments. We talked about co-operation, and that is needed.

The commissioner will hold the government publicly accountable for its own environmental performance. The commissioner will promote sustainable development as an essential factor in making decisions at all levels of society and within all departments of government.

Our departments must lead. After all, the Government of Canada spends more of the people's money than anyone else. It owns more of the land or is at least responsible for more of it. It employs more people. Hence it has to be in the forefront if we are going to meet the definition of sustainable development in this act.

The commissioner will have to monitor and report annually to Parliament. He or she must know what the departments are planning. He must assist them in their planning and he must respond to the public and petitions from the public on environmental matters.

Although under the old CEPA, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, there were only one or two requests from the public for some study or action to do with the environment, we would hope that the commissioner's office will focus the public's attention and provide a place where their concerns can be swiftly dealt with.

A number of members have questioned making the commissioner part of the auditor general's office. My colleague from Simcoe Centre has pointed out that the committee's report asked for a separate office. However, I think the reasons provided by the Minister of the Environment are worth repeating. The auditor general already audits the environmental performance of federal departments, albeit after the fact. That is a function he fulfills.

The commissioner will strengthen the auditor general's environmental effectiveness and make sure that the environment has a higher profile in his audits. The commission will have some added credibility as part of an expert, respected and independent office that now operates at arm's length from the government. That was an important part of the commissioner's mandate.

Given the government's commitment to fiscal restraint and affordable services, it seems preferable to strengthen an existing organization rather than create a new separate office.

Finally, the commissioner will be funded from existing resources.

It has been a pleasure to speak with respect to the environment. I am committed to sustainable development and to the environment. I look forward to the first report from our commissioner, whoever that might be.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to join the debate since I was a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and one of our first orders of business about a year ago was to examine the question of a commissioner for sustainable development.

As earlier speakers have said, we listened to a great number of witnesses. I think we were pleased with our report. Now it is time to say that we are pleased with what the Minister of the Environment has presented and with the steps the government is going to take.

An act to amend the Auditor General Act in order to establish a commissioner of sustainable development will put the government firmly on the path to meeting one of our red book commitments-

[Intervenor Funding Act, June 21st, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, an act to provide for the funding for intervenors in hearings before certain boards and agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to present a private member's bill entitled an act to provide for funding for interveners in hearings before certain boards and agencies, which responds to concerns from constituents in my riding.

The bill establishes the principle that a proponent of a project that requires review and approval and that affects the public interest or the environment should assist with funding for interveners.

The bill will assist interveners with a record of responsible representation of a facet of the public interest to put their arguments respecting the project before the approving authority.

I look forward to the support of my colleagues when the bill comes forward.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Social Insurance Numbers Act, June 20th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-335, an act respecting the use of social insurance numbers.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act respecting social insurance numbers.

In introducing this bill, I would like members of the House to note the federal government has never placed controls on the use of the social insurance numbers by other levels of government or by the private sector. The private sector may currently deny a service to an individual who refuses to divulge his or her social insurance number.

This bill would require other levels of government and the private sector to state exactly why this information is needed and will give an individual an opportunity to refuse to divulge his or her social insurance number unless required by federal statute to do so.

The bill would also impose penalties on groups, individuals, agencies or businesses which divulge another person's social insurance number without that person's consent.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in light of everything I have heard in the House today, the member's question is obviously backward. We do trust the judges but we have heard nothing but how they do not do this or that, or they let people out too soon or do not give sufficient sentences for this, that and the other thing.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think people divide themselves into groups in a very natural way. They have been doing it for several thousand years. I do not think we will stop it.

The society I want to live in and the society I want my grandchildren to live in is one based on love and understanding and acceptance of people for who and what they are. I want people who extend their hate to crime to be punished severely.

I think all members of the House need to vote in favour of the bill. It is long overdue.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address the House on Bill C-41. I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister of Justice for bringing it to the House.

I should also congratulate all members of the justice committee who reviewed the bill with a great deal of public attention focused on them. I would also like to extend congratulations to my colleague from Brant who has made a significant contribution to the bill through an amendment providing restitution to the victims of domestic violence. This amendment will make a good bill a better bill.

My office has received many letters about this bill both for and against. Unfortunately the majority of letters are centred around two words found within one clause. Very few correspondents talk of the need for sentencing reform or the need to include a statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing.

We have heard very few voices acknowledging the broad acceptance the bill has received from the legal community. It is very easy to get caught up in the emotion of an argument. We have seen that several times tonight. To argue fact and common sense takes more skill than courage. I support this bill for many reasons but the best of all is that our justice system and Canada as a whole will be better for it.

Bill C-41 is very similar to Bill C-90 which was introduced during the last Parliament. Bill C-90 died on the Order Paper when then Prime Minister Campbell called the last federal election.

In fact, the entire issue of sentencing reform has been the topic of study for both Liberal and Conservative governments for many years. The bill before us can trace its beginnings to a white paper on sentencing that was published in 1984.

Perhaps what we should do is extend our apologies to our colleagues of the past, our proponents of sentencing reform for allowing it to wait this long.

The Liberal version of sentencing reform contains an important difference from the previous version. This difference which I will discuss in detail later was in the Liberal Party red book during the last federal election and Liberal candidates across the country, myself included, were prepared to defend this policy throughout the election.

I wonder why opposition members who are so vehemently opposed to this now did not lobby their party to make an issue of it during the election campaign.

There are three specific areas of this bill that I would like to address. The first area deals with adding a statement of purpose and principles within the sentencing portion of the Criminal Code. Our role in regard to sentencing has been largely based on setting maximum penalties for offences rather than in dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.

It would seem that we have been putting the cart before the horse. When we create the sentencing procedure, it is right and just for us to put forward principles that represent Parliament's rationale behind sentencing. The statement of purpose and principles put forward in this bill describes the objectives of sentencing as: helping in the rehabilitation of offenders as law-abiding persons; separating offenders from society where necessary; providing restitution to individual victims or the community; promoting a sense of responsibility by offenders, including encouraging acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to victims or to the

community; denouncing unlawful conduct; and deterring the offender and other people from committing offences.

In the future when the government or a private member for that matter proposes a bill that involves a criminal sentence we will be able to compare it to the guiding principles that have been set out in Bill C-41. As well, criminal courts across Canada will have the same principles to follow rather than a patchwork of sentencing practices and principles that differ from province to province as is prevalent now.

The second section of the bill I want to discuss deals with changes to early parole or section 745 hearings. Currently the Criminal Code allows victim impact statements to be read only at sentencing hearings. The bill would allow the victim's impact statement to be read at section 745 hearings, ensuring that a victim has the opportunity to outline the harm done by the offender.

I should preface my remarks by saying that I was proud to support Bill C-226 proposed by the member for York South-Weston when it came to the House at second reading. It will be interesting to see the recommendations made by the justice committee when the bill comes back to the House in the near future.

I would prefer to see section 745 repealed. If this cannot be accomplished, the amendments within the bill are the next best alternative. Victims should have a say in how the crime has affected and changed their lives. Early parole, if it remains within our criminal justice system, should be a rarity given only to prisoners who show little likelihood of offending again and who have served adequate retribution for their crimes.

I do not want to see a Clifford Olsen walking the streets because of a 745 hearing. I think he would be even more unlikely to be released if the families of those killed were able to give evidence at the hearing. We often speak eloquently about the need to recognize victim's rights. This bill addresses that concern. All members should applaud the government for taking this necessary step.

The third issue I want to address relates to sentencing in crimes motivated by hate. I worry when hatred causes people to commit a crime. Far too often people commit crimes motivated by prejudice and hate. In our country we have seen hatemongers spreading their untruths at our schools, on our streets and in our workplaces. Less than two years ago, white supremacists marched on Parliament Hill to tell the world about the hate they felt for those who were different from them based on race, religion, physical handicap or sexual orientation.

After passage of this bill, a sentencing judge can use the aggravating circumstance of hate to decide what sentence should be handed down. This will only apply after a conviction has already been delivered. It will allow the sentencing judge to provide for a punishment that will make it very clear to groups that propagate hatred and to people who follow a philosophy of hate that their actions will not be tolerated in Canadian society. I applaud the government for including this section. If we can keep those who commit crimes motivated by hate in prison longer then we are all better for it.

Unfortunately discrimination has been a constant throughout Canadian history. We only need to reflect on the inhuman way our native people have been treated or the citizens of Japanese ancestry or origin during the second world war. Only 80 years ago, women in Canada did not have the democratic right to vote because they were not considered persons.

I took the time to look at the suffrage debate that took place in 1918. Members argued that it was against natural law for women to have the right to vote. In this very institution members of Parliament declared that women did not want the vote. Now we know that view was wrong. We all realize the important role women play in our society and the invaluable role they play within this House. For someone to say it was against natural law to allow them to vote seems ludicrous to us today.

There are people who believe it is against natural law to give a segment of our society protection in this bill. It is quite possible that there are members within the House who feel this group should be denied protection. Respectfully, I have to disagree. When it can be proven that a group in our society is facing discrimination the law should move to protect that group. Can any of us say there are no incidents of gay bashing in Canada?

I have heard the argument that one cannot identify someone's sexual orientation just by looking at them. I agree. Are we then to ask people to deny who they are? We could also say you cannot identify a person's religion just by looking at them. We have consistently seen religious groups persecuted throughout history. It would be humiliating and wrong to advise citizens to deny their differences in order to escape persecution. Instead the government should move to assure that all such groups-

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of Motion No. 158.

[Environment Week, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the theme for Environment Week this year is the automobile's impact on air quality. Car emissions are a major cause of smog and climate change. Smog and air pollution not only threaten a healthy environment but also the health of all Canadians.

Maintaining vehicles in good working order will reduce the impact of emissions. Therefore, Environment Canada is holding emission clinics across the country. The national capital region clinic is on June 7, 8 and 9 at Carlingwood mall.

This week gives Canadians an opportunity to find better ways to keep their environment healthy for present and future generations. According to this year's theme, instead of driving we should opt for walking, cycling, car pooling, and using public transportation.