Shaughnessy Cohen

[Petitions, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition requesting that the laws of Canada be amended to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.

[Infrastructure Program, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

The government is working hard to create thousands of jobs throughout the country. The crown jewel of those initiatives is the Canada infrastructure program.

Could the minister tell the House the status of the many infrastructure project applications that have been received?

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening on this important debate. I thank the last speaker, my friend opposite, for his comments as well. It is significant that our leadership has allowed us this opportunity.

Only this afternoon I participated in a panel discussion with three other members of Parliament. The discussion was on reforms to Parliament and the nature of Parliament itself. There is much criticism of the quality of debate and the usefulness of this kind of debate. I came back here to find that members of Parliament from all parties were co-operating and participating in assisting the leadership of our government in making what is a difficult and in many ways terrible decision.

Like many Canadians I am not very knowledgeable in this area. My interests primarily are at home, as you often hear me say, right there in Windsor. Quite frankly this question, while it is not one I am particularly well versed on, is one I felt prompted to speak to tonight because of calls and reactions from my constituents and because of my strong personal reaction to some of these calls.

Like many Canadians I find the ethnic fighting in Bosnia and the massacre of innocents who cared nothing for power or politics or the stakes of the game to be abhorrent. Like many Canadians I want it to stop. We have an obligation to be part of the solution. I truly trust our leadership to take the right steps to accomplish this.

However I also worry about our troops there. Only two weeks ago Ryan Hendy, a grade 13 student at St. Anne's High School in Tecumseh, Ontario in my riding, an 18 year old lad who is a friend of mine and whose parents are friends of mine, came to me. He is a member of the Essex-Kent Scottish Reserves. He told me he had been asked to go to the former Yugoslavia. His youth and his patriotism moved me to think a little more about our troops there.

Canadians in Windsor-St. Clair and everywhere in this country have taken pride in their armed forces, pride in those young people stationed in Bosnia and elsewhere in the Balkans during this conflict. Canadians watched in fear as our young military men were held as hostages last week and breathed a sigh of relief when they were released.

These anxieties are not distant. All of us in this House know we have constituents who are somehow connected with people in Bosnia. Many of us have friends or even family who are connected there. We have constituents whose children are serving there with the Canadian forces. We have constituents who are members of the forces serving there. We have constituents of Bosnian, Serb, Croatian and Muslim descent who have relatives still living in that country.

Madam Speaker, one of your own constituents sent us a letter today. Marina Gavanski Zissis is her name. She is a Canadian of Serbian descent. She warns us of the danger of these air strikes. Her greatest concern is for the Canadians on the ground. I quote from her letter: "But much more important is the safety of the Canadians already in Bosnia".

To my mind Mrs. Zissis makes a great point. We cannot ever forget the safety of these people and the situation in which they might be placed by remaining on the ground during an air strike. The American forces will be undertaking this air strike. In my opinion, for what it is worth, they do not have a good record when it comes to casualties by friendly fire.

We must consider these figures: 15 to 20 per cent of U.S. casualties in the Vietnam war fell from friendly fire and 16 per cent of U.S. casualties in the recent gulf war fell from friendly fire. On April 14, 1994, two U.S. helicopters were shot down by American jets, killing 26 military and civilian personnel.

This time it will be our troops and innocent Bosnian civilians on the ground. It is not a textbook battleground. It is not a desert where we can see the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other. The fighting is taking place in and around urban enclaves containing thousands of civilians and our Canadian troops.

I am not a military expert. I am not even very knowledgeable about these matters, but I am a very concerned citizen and member of the House. I know we must stand with our allies. I know if we and our allies walk away we leave thousands of innocent people to a slaughter.

I have faith in our leadership. I have faith in the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister. I am satisfied that they will guide us well and ably in this decision, but I remind them to remember that it is our people on the ground and to take care of them too.

[Witness Protection Act, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak as well on Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.

As we have already learned law enforcement agencies provide protection to their sources and to witnesses where there is a threat of retribution as a result of either the source informing on the criminal activity or a witness providing crucial testimony in a criminal proceeding. Generally witness protection requirements arise out of cases involving the most serious charges and by that I mean charges which upon conviction attract the heaviest penalties. Probably we are most familiar in this area with charges such as trafficking in large quantities of drugs, murder, armed robbery, and other conspiratorial crimes involving elements of organized crime.

It is obvious that the more serious the offence and the stiffer the penalty upon conviction, the greater risk to an informant or witness. As the threat becomes more serious to the witness of course, the more comprehensive must be the protection of that witness.

Witness protection programs are a valuable tool in law enforcement and in some areas an invaluable tool. They have been developed in varying degrees across the country by different police forces and services. The types of services available under a witness protection plan also vary according to the individual case. They vary as well according to the resources that an individual police department may have.

Examples of these services which are currently available in Canada include psychological counselling, escorts to and from the court house or the prosecutor's office, guarding a witness' residence at crucial times or on a full time basis if need be during a trial, documents in a witness' name, housing upon relocating a witness to a new location, transportation of the witness' private property to a new home, payment of basic living expenses to a witness for a period of time or assistance in obtaining employment.

In Canada, depending upon the capabilities of the individual police force, these services have provided some degree of protection to informants and witnesses but again administered individually through different police services.

Of all of these programs however the most comprehensive is the RCMP source witness protection program. It was originally established in the early 1980s for the RCMP to use, but now it is increasingly used by other police forces and services across the country.

The need for RCMP assistance would arise primarily when an informant or witness must be relocated to another province and where that police force needs to obtain some form of federal assistance, such as federal documentation in a new name for the witness or source. The RCMP has offices in every province and every territory. They have an extensive witness protection capability. It is easy to see why other agencies seek the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

There is no other department and no other agency in Canada that can facilitate and co-ordinate the various aspects of assistance and protection that are involved in a witness protection relocation.

These considerations of witness protection are not just going on in Canada. In fact, world wide there is a growing interest in the criminal justice community in the enhancement of witness protection services and the creation of national witness protection programs. This is in part most likely a result of the global growth in organized criminal activity and increased reliance on the use of informants to obtain convictions.

Here in Canada we too are examining existing witness protection services in light of increased organized crime and shrinking law enforcement budgets. To that end in 1992 a survey was undertaken of all police forces in Canada. This survey had a twofold aim. First, the government wanted to obtain information on police witness protection capabilities in general. Second, the government wanted to know to what extent provincial and municipal police services seek and obtain assistance from the mounted police source witness protection program.

Questionnaires were sent to 393 police services across the country and responses were received from 284. Only data for three years prior to 1992 was requested.

The great majority of police services, in fact 88 per cent of them, said that they had not used the RCMP witness protection program over the three years preceding the date of the survey. They had not done so primarily because they just did not have cases in which protection was necessary. This comes as no great surprise to the government because most cases involving witness protection occur in large urban areas.

The survey also shows that a very small number of provinces either have or are considering developing a standardized provincial witness program within their province.

We have to bear in mind that regardless of individual provincial programs, there will always be a need for an agency such as the RCMP to arrange out of province relocations. For example, should Nova Scotia wish to relocate a witness to British Columbia, it is probable that the provincial program would not have the reach and would not be able to provide for witnesses' various needs in British Columbia. As it stands, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police source witness protection program can and does accommodate relocated witnesses from one end of the country to the other.

The survey also revealed that 15 police services can provide some degree of witness protection. Again, this protection does

not include out of province relocation and is limited according to the availability of personnel and other resources.

Twenty-three police forces indicated that they had used the RCMP program in the past three years, primarily to facilitate name change and relocation. Of these, over 50 per cent were satisfied with existing witness protection arrangements including their own arrangements and those within the RCMP program.

The greatest concern of those expressing dissatisfaction with existing witness protection arrangements was lack of resources, in particular personnel. Another concern was the need for standardized witness protection procedures that are clearly understood by all local police services.

Finally, the survey pointed out that mainly due to a lack of resources, witness protection is not equally available to all police services.

Based on this preliminary survey it is clear that an effective witness protection program is a crucial part of the law enforcement community's response to growing incidents of organized crime and other types of serious crime. Further, this is a matter that requires close attention to the various needs of the general police community who are the potential users of this service and we have to pay special attention to their financial capabilities.

I believe that particularly in these times there is a requirement on the part of the government to further only the most cost-efficient and effective programs in co-operation with all the relevant players. I would submit that there is yet some work to be done before the government proceeds with legislation on this issue. I am thinking here of further consultations with the relevant players to define the parameters of an effective witness protection program.

Once these issues have been explored and decided on, the government will be in a much better position to bring forward legislation on witness protection services.

[Tobacco Products, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Young women are smoking at a much higher rate than are males of the same age. This is especially disturbing in light of the news that U.S. tobacco companies are adding some 600 chemicals to their cigarettes, 13 of which have been proven hazardous to human health.

What steps is the minister taking to ensure that Canadian cigarette manufacturers make the public aware of all such additives in their products?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this debate to speak to the government's proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program and in particular those changes that address the problems of low income Canadians and their dependants.

These changes to unemployment insurance are the first step toward a reform of our social security programs. They are the first step toward making these programs more responsive to the needs of Canadians as this country enters the 21st century.

The government is not taking this step unilaterally. The Minister of Finance engaged in extensive discussions with Canadians before bringing down the 1994 budget. The Minister of Human Resources Development has consulted and will continue to consult with business, labour and Canadians from every walk of life about social security reform.

This government knows that the life of every Canadian will be affected for many years to come by the results of this reform. That is why we are taking steps to ensure that Canadians will receive maximum benefits from these changes.

We have also taken special measures in our proposed changes to the unemployment insurance plan to protect those Canadians who are most vulnerable, those with low incomes who support children, aged parents or other dependants.

Under the current unemployment insurance rules, people who claim unemployment receive a benefit rate of 57 per cent no matter what their circumstances. Under our proposed changes there would be a two part benefit rate, 60 per cent for those with lower incomes who have dependants and 55 per cent for all others.

To qualify for the higher benefit rate a claimant must have insurable earnings of $390 per week or less and have dependants. This would entitle the claimant to $234 weekly in

unemployment insurance benefits. However, this government does not want rigid rules regarding eligibility to hurt those in need whose weekly incomes may be slightly more than $390.

Accordingly, we have also proposed that all claimants with insurable earnings between $390 and $425 receive the same weekly benefit of $234. All those with insurable earnings over $425 will receive 55 per cent of their earnings as benefits. We estimate that this will improve benefits for 15 per cent of unemployment insurance claimants or about 250,000 Canadians and their families.

The economic restructuring of our country owing to the forces of globalization and technology is creating a society increasingly divided between those who have well paying, secure, skilled jobs and those who are doing part time, low paid temporary work without the benefit or hope of advancement.

The segment of our population that has been hardest hit by this trend is women, in particular women with children. Women's roles in our society have undergone enormous changes since the social security system was first established.

Thirty years ago Canadians believed that most women would get married, have children and stay home to take care of their families. That was in the days when one wage earner could easily feed and care for a family and still put money aside for a holiday. Times have certainly changed. Today it takes two wage earners for most families to keep their heads above the poverty line.

Women now represent 45 per cent of the Canadian workforce. Unfortunately most of these women work for low wages. On average a Canadian woman working full time today earns just 72 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Those statistics say it all.

In 1990 about 5.4 million working Canadians received a total income of less than $10,000. Of these, 64 per cent were women. At the other end of this scale the picture is entirely different. In 1990, 3.3 million working Canadians received a total income of $40,000 or more. Of these, only 22 per cent were women.

Most working women in Canada have children. Many of these women are single parents bearing full responsibility for their children. The result is one of the most unacceptable facts of life in Canada: We still have 1.5 million children living in poverty. This is an unacceptable situation for one of the wealthiest nations on earth.

Our proposal to provide greater unemployment insurance assistance to those with low incomes and dependants will have an immediate impact on those Canadians most in need: the women and children of this country who are having trouble making ends meet.

Providing greater unemployment insurance assistance to low income Canadians with dependants is a signal to all Canadians that this government believes in equity and fairness. We want to make sure that if we have fewer unemployment insurance dollars that those dollars we do have will go to the people whose need is greater.

The proposals set out in the 1994 budget to change the unemployment insurance program are important first steps but they are only interim measures.

The reform of social security programs is essential if we are to meet head on the challenges of the 1990s and beyond. We can no longer use an outdated system to solve modern problems. It just is not working. We have too many people without jobs, too many families under stress, too many young people who have given up hope and too many Canadians who have lost their confidence in the future.

We cannot achieve change unless we shed the policies of the past that simply are not doing the job that they are supposed to do. We cannot achieve change if we try to cut and paste programs, patching something here and adding something there. We cannot achieve change unless we are willing to lay the system bare, putting every component under scrutiny.

This government believes we have to start with a clean slate and create a new framework for our social safety net. That is why this government is undertaking the most significant and wide ranging review of our social security programs in Canada's history.

[Winter Olympic Games, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the outstanding achievements of a constituent of the riding of Windsor-St. Clair.

Chris Lori is captain of both the two and four man Canadian bobsled teams and is representing Canada this weekend in Lillehammer in the four-man bobsled events. Chris has been a member of the national team since 1985 and was overall World Cup four-man champion in 1990. In the 1992 games in Albertville, France, he came within .04 seconds of a bronze medal in the four-man event.

The dedication of both Chris and his team mates, Sheridon Batiste, Chris Farstad, and rookie Glenroy Gilbert, will stand them in good stead this weekend as they face off against the best in the world.

On behalf of the people of Windsor-St. Clair I wish Chris, his team and all Canadian Olympians who will be competing in the final two days of the Olympics the best of luck. I congratulate them in advance for their outstanding achievements.

[Defence Policy, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, had the bells not been cut short I too would have voted with my party.

[Justice, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Over the past few months Canadians have seen several examples of judicial gag orders. These orders have either excluded the media and members of the public entirely from criminal trials or have allowed them to observe but not to report on the proceedings.

Could the minister advise us of any steps which he has planned to review this situation in order to preserve the very important public right to know what is going on in the criminal justice system?

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Calgary Northeast on his maiden speech.

I point out to him that this legislation was not undertaken without consultation with police forces. I would seek to correct what I think is simply an error in his address when he indicated that front line police officers were not consulted. It is indeed the purpose of the Canadian Police Association to represent front-line officers and not to represent chiefs of police. In fact those officers have been consulted through that association and support has been given.

I would also like to comment that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in place for the benefit and for the protection of all citizens of this country. The fact that the charter does not produce results with which members opposite may from time to time agree or disagree does not make it any less a valuable tool.