House of Commons Hansard #114 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was criminal.
John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON
Finally, the last petition I present today concerns the topic of compensation to homemakers, the parents who stay at home to raise their children.
Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions all on the same topic.
The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that decriminalizing assisted suicide or legalizing euthanasia could lead to a reduction of patient-physician trust and respect, the degrading of the value of human life and the erosion of moral and ethical values and that palliative care is active and compassionate care which can relieve the pain and suffering of terminally ill persons and families without the danger of suicide.
Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada which forbid the counsel and procuring, aiding or
abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced vigorously. They also pray that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
I concur with and support these petitioners.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions, both having to do with the same topic.
The names were collected in my riding by a branch of the Ukrainian Catholic Women's League. They petition Parliament to continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada. They call for the vigorous enforcement of the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada. They ask that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present six petitions to the House today.
In two petitions the petitioners are asking that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, in two petitions the petitioners are praying and asking Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I present two petitions where the petitioners are praying that Parliament will ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament will make no changes in law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from members of my constituency wherein they say the majority of Canadians respect the sanctity of human life and human life at the preborn state is not protected in Canadian society. They pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions signed by persons from Langley, Aldergrove and Matsqui, British Columbia in my riding. They ask that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners ask that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC
Mr. Speaker, these petitioners ask that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present a petition from constituents in Clinton, Cache Creek, and 100 Mile House, British Columbia.
My constituents call upon the government not to amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality. They also call upon the government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of discrimination.
I concur with these petitioners.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to present to the House five petitions. The first contains the names of 1,716 constituents of Stormont-Dundas who call upon Parliament to act to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by human beings to unborn human beings.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, the second petition signed by 95 residents of my riding calls upon Parliament to review and revise our laws concerning young offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish young offenders by releasing their names and lowering the age limit to allow prosecution to meet the severity of the crime.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, the third petition signed by 1,684 residents of my riding prays that Parliament requests Red Cross Canada review its policy of directed blood donation and take the steps necessary to allow individuals to dictate the use of their blood to family members as they see fit.
This petition drive was launched by Mrs. Natalie Jodoin of Cornwall when she discovered that she could not donate blood at a local hospital and direct that it be used for her daughter should the need arise during minor surgery.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition signed by 46 residents of Stormont-Dundas prays that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate in any way societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, finally the last petition is signed by 458 residents of Stormont-Dundas who pray that Parliament ensures that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall all the questions be allowed to stand?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed As Orders For ReturnsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall the notice of motion be allowed to stand?
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Ovid Jackson Liberal Bruce—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry.
This all started with the election one year ago when Canadians felt it was important to set in place a team of people with certain ideas as presented in the red book, that would reorganize and transform the government and the way business is done in Canada.
It is not a coincidence that we have the team of players which is heading the departments today. We are the original reformers. Our friends on the opposite side call themselves the Reform Party, but the Liberal Party is the party of reform. It is our party that looks at all the resources; people, mineral, and other resources and asks: How can we do the best for our people? How can we reorganize things in a way that Canadians will enjoy the lifestyles they have had in the past and will continue to have in the future?
We started with general projects. We brought in the infrastructure program. Why did we bring in the infrastructure program? Because all the G-7 countries, those countries that are doing well put infrastructure in. I know because I was a mayor and I travelled the world. I travelled to Germany and the United States to beef up my riding of Bruce-Grey, having been the mayor of the city of Owen Sound for four terms.
My friends opposite can check my record. They can go to the library and see that I had a strategic plan and I executed it. I called it building blocks, putting in a hospital, a regional mall, a sewer treatment plant, an arena, or what have you. These are building blocks.
This government has reorganized itself in a way to give better government by streamlining the departments. Starting on this exercise is so important for us as a government because we are into an era not unlike what happened during the industrial revolution.
During that time there was a lot of confrontation. I remember quite vividly watching a movie in which a gentleman brought in a steam jenny to replace jobs. His place was stoned. They called him a sorcerer. People started breaking his windows and all that because he had brought in a piece of steam equipment that would replace their jobs.
We have now moved into the technology era. The Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development and the Minister of Industry in integration programs with the Minister of Finance are reorganizing the debt. We are even working with the Department of Health. We realize that health and the economy are interchangeable.
We cannot do much without involving young people. We know the birth rate is high if mothers have good nutrition. Young people born into the world need the correct tools, the proper nutrition and fostering. People are the main resource. It starts with a person being able to dream or a person being able to think. It spins off to small businesses. I taught some young people in school who have done quite well. One young man just went to Japan. I have a lot of faith in them, but as adults we have to give them opportunity.
Within the next couple of days we will be giving opportunities to youth. Young people will be allowed to get out there and experiment with various jobs so they can be focused. We are not crowding them out as happened in the past. I have been with these young people and I understand what happens.
As adults we have learned a lot of things over the last number of years. One thing we have not found out is that we have to transfer some authority to young people. We have to give them hope. We have to let them know that they can replace us and that given the correct climate they will.
In my riding of Bruce-Grey tourism is extremely important. It is a sector that brings in foreign revenues. It allows communities to achieve a higher standard of living than they would have without tourism. The roads and infrastructure we have put in place will allow people to come to my riding. It will allow them to stay in a hotel serviced by good sewers and water. A lot of these things have to be sustainable.
In addition a lot of members in our community such as the sportsman's association who work at restocking the lakes for the fishery. Everybody is trying to help. In that climate the fishery is enhanced. There is the natural beauty that the Lord has given Canada. We have a great fishery, clean air, pure water, and a sustainable environment. People can enjoy our beautiful sunsets and the cottage climate. Then on Labour Day they can go home, after they have deposited their dollars in our community. There is a spinoff effect of probably $4, $5, or $6 for every dollar spent in the community. It provides the communities with an elevated level of life; they have a theatre and other facilities that normally would not be available.
They are also helping our country because in some cases people bring in foreign exchanges. Foreigners know that in Canada there are many things available that they do not have at home. They can come here and enjoy them, be it bird watching, sunsets, skiing or snowmobiling in the Collingwood or Bruce-Grey area. All these activities are rather unique to our area. They will all foster opportunities. The industry department will provide small businesses with a climate in which to grow and prosper.
Quite recently we struck a committee. I say to the House and to small businesses that we are serious. The banks must respect them. The banks must afford to small business persons the same kinds of opportunities they have been giving to larger businesses.
I know in my heart and my soul, because I have studied the problem, that those small business people and the one to four people they employ are the people who will get us out of this recession. They will get people dreaming again. They will get people using their ideas and their ideals. Most of us have God given talents in certain areas that could help the country. As a government we have to prepare the climate for them to do those things.
We are now moving to a knowledge based new economy. It is going to radically change the way we compete in the open market. We have announced in our educational policies that as we reorganize the way we use UI or funding to universities we will make sure all our young people have a chance to go to school.
I have been told, because of the position we find ourselves in, that if young people want to enter the teaching profession their marks have to be in excess of 90 per cent. Lots of people who would be good teachers or would be good in whatever endeavour they wish to pursue are not getting those marks. If we empower them by putting money in their hands they are able to go to any university and have an opportunity like anybody else. Kids who are very resourceful, clever kids, come from an environment where there is a lot of money. There would not be a problem there, but I personally think it would be a much more imaginative way to approach funding for universities. Our young people are very important. We have to foster a climate where they have a chance, notwithstanding that they mature at different levels. In some cases their scores do not reflect their abilities. Some of us are late bloomers.
We are working on all these fronts in an integrated approach to make sure that we are coming up from the boot straps. We are going to give people hope again. We are going to make sure that they have the dignity of work. We are going to look at the climate of child care from the time a person is born. That is actually a second front in comparison to what has to happen now.
We have to kickstart the economy now with the infrastructure program. We have to get small businesses working, creating a climate of competitiveness, cutting our trade deficits between countries we are trading with and trying to export more. That is important for us. We have to bring our agriculture into a competitive position. By nature Canadians are very good at agriculture. That is our niche. That is what we do best. By putting money into research and development we can improve our wheat and the amount of milk our cattle produce. We can produce better strains of beef and products that are resistant to pests and various climatic conditions.
As we work in those areas that is the way we will get ourselves out of this recession, get Canadians working again and get our country working again.
The government is doing the right thing by reorganizing the department. The government is taking an integrated approach to the way we work with the economy. That includes looking after the debt because the debt is very important. We are not taking anybody else's policies. We are taking a balanced approach. We are not going to take $44 billion out of the economy because it will cause a recession; there is no question about that. We will work on a balanced approach of 3 per cent of GDP. In this integrated approach we will start to move one step at a time. That slow walk will pick up to a jog and then we will be up to speed.
I am pleased to be on this side of the House and I am glad we are reorganizing this department.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to identical provisions which appear in three bills recently tabled, namely clause 18 in Bill C-46, clause 17 in Bill C-52 and clause 8 in Bill C-53.
In Bill C-46, the provision reads as follows:
- (1) The Minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, fix fees that the Minister considers appropriate in respect of products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes or approvals and the use of facilities provided by the Minister, the Department or any board or agency of the Government of Canada for which the Minister has responsibility.
Once in effect, this clause will reduce Parliament's control over increases in government revenues. Although the process is not new, the enactment of such measures will result in greater powers of taxation.
It is important to note that, in 1991, some very controversial amendments to the Financial Administration Act considerably increased the power of the executive branch of government to impose fees and costs through legislation.
These amendments are found in Chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada, 1991. Although they are questionable in some respects, the clause contained in Bill C-46 is even worse. Indeed, that provision allows the minister, or an official authorized by the minister, to fix discretionary fees within the department.
Sections 19 and 19.1 of the Financial Administration Act already provide sufficient authority to the Executive without making it necessary for Parliament to once again increase its power to collect more money.
At the time, members opposite fought tooth and nail against those amendments. I guess times change.
Clause 18 in Bill C-46 allows the minister to impose fees or increase those already applicable, without having to resort to any legislative instrument that would have to be registered and published under the Statutory Instruments Act and that could be reviewed by a competent parliamentary authority such as the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. This is due to the fact that the clause allows the minister to set the costs but not to do so by order. The words "by order" were omitted from the bills now before the House. Those words are very important in the British parliamentary tradition, as they have always transferred to the executive power, that is, the Governor General in Council, the enforcement of all legislation.
I find this process unacceptable. If ministers can increase public revenue as they see fit, it would be logical for the relevant documents to appear at least in the Canada Gazette , which is accessible to all Canadians.
One of the main functions of this Parliament is to ensure fair and equitable taxation. Let us try to imagine what the Auditor General of Canada must do, in preparing his annual report, to find out if taxpayers really paid what they owe the government. The question would be: how much do they owe? The rule of law, a principle treasured by our constitutional monarchy, is being superseded today by the rule of the minister. An important point is the extent of the discretionary power that the minister gives himself in this clause.
This government's usual approach is to entrust its ministers with highly discretionary powers totally inconsistent with the most basic principles of sound fiscal management. Clause 10 of Bill C-22 concerning Pearson Airport, so strongly denounced by the Official Opposition, is a good current example.
The minister's authority is not limited to setting costs or charges appropriate in respect of goods or services.
Under Section 19(2) of the Financial Administration Act, the minister does not have to prescribe an amount up to the real costs in respect of a service provided. The use of these very subjective terms means that, from now on, the minister has the discretionary power to set costs above the real value and, secondly, that these discretionary decisions will not be subject to any kind of legal review.
I find it extraordinary that Parliament can delegate to a minister the power to decide by how much he will increase public revenue other than through taxes submitted and debated in the House of Commons.
Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have recognized the principle of domanial duality in administration. For those not familiar with this notion, it can be explained as follows: a truck used to move government household effects is government property, while a bridge is public property but useful to the general public. That is the distinction. That is what the courts call domanial duality.
The government could, for example, charge $20 an hour by ministerial order for the use of its truck without advertising or enacting regulations, but it could not charge a passport applicant for the full administrative cost of issuing the passport. The cost could vary depending on whether the application was sent to officials working in a run-down building in Montreal or in luxurious quarters in Toronto.
Finally, I am troubled by the description of the items for which the minister will be authorized to impose service charges and user fees.
This concept was picked up in the Financial Administration Act and was one of the main points of the Liberal opposition when it proposed amendments in 1991 concerning the power to charge fees for rights. You will see how the Liberals argued then.
I find it wrong for Parliament to say on one hand that a citizen has a legal right, or is entitled, to receive certain benefits and on the other that it authorizes the executive to charge a fee to have this right or benefit recognized. A right is a right; it is not something that an individual has to buy from the government.
I am trying to understand this new power to ask people to pay for regulatory processes. That is the term used in the clause in question: regulatory processes. This expression is so vague as to be meaningless.
What is a regulatory process? The clause itself rules out any recourse to the regulations. Or is "règlement" used in the French sense of reaching an agreement? By giving the word "règlement" this common meaning, agreement, the English version of the same clause would be meaningless, since it also uses the term "regulatory process". But what is it?
Also note the extended opportunity to collect funds through permits and licences and by other means.
In this context, it is clear that regulatory consent is similar to a licence or a permit. However, that is not the case with clause 18. The Financial Administration Act and this clause can lead to abuse.
It is plausible that a minister facing a deficit may increase his revenues by charging fees for every consent he gives; this will just lead to a new regulatory scheme to impose a basis for collecting new charges.
It is true that the power granted by clause 18 would be subject to the regulations that Treasury Board could make for this purpose.
Since it is not certain that Treasury Board will exercise this authority or, even if it did, that it would impose restrictions on the minister's discretionary authority, it is quite logical to think that the public's concerns are justified.
The citizen cares little whether what he is paying is called a tax, a charge or a fee: it is disguised taxation. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this new Liberal tactic of collecting public funds by all sorts of devious means is much more like highway robbery in the last century than the forthright collection of fair charges related to a particular expense. They are changing the maxim from "ignorance of the law is no excuse" to "guess right".