Debates of Dec. 6th, 1994

Unemployment Insurance Act

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that for the adjournment debate I will give some background to put things in context. On September 20, 1994, I questioned the Solicitor General of Canada regarding everything that had gone on in the Bristow and McInnis affairs, the infiltrations of political parties and unions, the investigations of the Canadian Jewish Congress in Toronto and Montreal. The questions were very clear.

In particular, we asked the government to establish a royal commission of inquiry to shed light on the whole matter. I also asked who controlled the monster that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service seemed to have become, since no one seemed able to control it anymore or to identify those really responsible, the people committing public funds, taking action. There does not seem to be anyone responsible for it in Parliament.

We rarely obtain any answers to this question, as you well know, and so we turned to SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Since September 20, there have been discussions in the sub-committee, witnesses have been called, the CSIS inspector is conducting an investigation, the Sub-committee on National Security has heard witnesses, and so on. And now, on December 9, we are told, SIRC will be submitting its report to the Solicitor General of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you know that we have our reservations about SIRC, stacked as it is with political appointees, the majority being Conservatives who are looking into activities that were conducted in the 1990s by Conservatives. One cannot be judge and jury at the same time. Our reservations notwithstanding, we are looking forward to reading SIRC's report very attentively.

What I am asking the Solicitor General of Canada this evening is that he submit the complete text of this report to the Sub-committee on National Security, with no deletions, in its entirety, so that we ourselves, given our solid representation on the sub-committee, may judge whether the work has been done properly, whether SIRC has carried out its mandate, which is to reassure us that it has looked into what was done in the cases I mentioned earlier, with respect to Bristow and anything to do with infiltration activities by CSIS.

What I am requesting, and I hope that we are going to obtain it, is an unaltered copy so that our representative on the Sub-committee on National Security can question people and obtain satisfaction in this matter.

I think that it is extremely important, given that we have not been able to have a royal commission of inquiry established, that we at least be able to examine this report in its entirety.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, in 1984, when the CSIS Act

became law, Parliament achieved two very important objectives. First, it created a civilian security intelligence agency, accountable through the Solicitor General to Parliament, and ultimately, to the Canadian people.

Second, in support of an additional measure of control and accountability for the activities of this agency, Parliament created an external review body-the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC.

SIRC has the legislative mandate to perform two kinds of functions. The first is to act as an administrative tribunal to hear complaints against the security service. The second, relevant to the issue before us, is to review the performance and activities of the Service.

Section 38 of the CSIS Act authorizes SIRC to review how CSIS performs all its duties and functions. More specifically, under section 54, SIRC can investigate any matter relating to CSIS's activities and then provide the Solicitor General with a special report of this investigation.

SIRC is entitled to obtain any information, including documents, reports and explanations from CSIS and the Inspector General to carry out its responsibilities. Clearly, SIRC has the authority and enabling powers to properly fulfil its mandate.

In conclusion, it would be in no one's interest, and certainly not the Canadian public's, to establish another review body to do what SIRC is already authorized to do.

Therefore, I would suggest that we put this suggestion of a royal commission to rest and await the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the question posed to the Minister for International Trade was prompted by concerns expressed from a number of agricultural organizations that Bill C-57, an act to implement the World Trade Organization, was deficient and needed to be amended.

My question focused on one area of concern, namely the issue of tariff levels and supplemental quotas on supply managed commodities. However, there are concerns in other areas as well: clauses referring to the Western Grain Transportation Act and comparisons to the United States implementation legislation.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that the U.S. implementing legislation has more teeth in it and retains a greater degree of political control.

On November 28 the minister responded to my question concerning the issues of tariff levels and supplemental quotas on supply managed commodities by stating that amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, et cetera, would be introduced "if necessary".

The minister did not respond to my satisfaction or to the industry's satisfaction by either stating that there was no cause for concern or that given these concerns legislation to amend the act would be forthcoming.

According to a paper prepared for the standing committee on agriculture by the research branch of the Library of Parliament on Bill C-57, the issue of supplemental quotas was outlined as follows, and I quote: "Even though this clause 109 of C-57 may appear necessary to allow additional imports in the case of emergencies, it is not clear what the tariff would be on those supplemental imports".

The research document continued further by stating that: "It has been mentioned that artificial shortages can be created that would necessitate supplemental imports that could displace domestic products permanently. So far officials have not been able to give an appropriate answer on the level of the tariffs affecting the supplemental imports".

In testimony before the international trade committee, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture echoed those concerns as well.

This point must be addressed. As I said in previous debates, a situation could occur in which a processor shorted the demand. For example, in hatcheries the hatcheries control the purchase of the breeder birds so it is not difficult for them to plan to be short and need supplementals.

As a result of shorting needs, they demand supplementals. The manufacturer would apply for same and would be granted tariff free supplemental import permits and that would go a long way to breaking the supply management system.

The question remains why has the minister not introduced the appropriate amendments to the Customs Tariffs Act to address the concerns expressed. My grave concern as well is that if these amendments are not encompassed in legislation and are just encompassed in regulation it becomes very easy for some minister down the road who does not support supply management to the extent that this government does to allow that little weakening in terms of the legislation to see the supply management system destroyed over time.

The only other point I want to make and question the minister on is that Bill C-57 contains no provisions to ensure that exporters of grain have any warning with respect to when the cap on volume or the cap on expenditures under the WGTA and the new requirements of the GATT will be reached. This result could be that commitments and sales made by the Canadian Wheat

Board at a set price could well be negatively impacted if the caps are attained prior to the movement of grain involved.

How will this issue be addressed and what would be the impact on the marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board, its ability to market at top dollar and access supplies? I raise those questions to the minister out of a deeply felt concern.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the government has stated that the new tariff rate quota regime for agricultural products will include provisions for supplementary imports for various purposes. All stakeholders in the supply managed areas have agreed such access is necessary. However, legimitate questions have been raised as to the terms on which access for the specific purpose of preventing a market shortage should be allowed.

On the one hand, it is said that processors are increasingly able to control the level of production, especially in the poultry sectors, and so can artificially create a market shortage if they know they have guaranteed access to supplementary imports in such cases. Since this would reduce returns to primary producers, some argue there should be a higher duty on such supplemental imports than the one provided for within the tariff rate quota, so as to discourage such behaviour.

On the other hand, poultry and egg processors argue that they must guarantee price and supply to their costumers if they are not to lose contracts. They point out that their industries-including producers-face competition from other food products, and irregularities of price or supply will cost everyone market share.

There are also many misunderstandings about what is involved in the supplementary access scheme envisaged in Bill C-57. Perhaps I can dispel some of them.

First, current and prospective provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act enable supplementary imports but do not impose them. The government has no intention of letting in additional quantities at duty rates below the "high" MFN rate where this would be against the Canadian interest.

Second, imports for market shortages are not "within access commitment" under the proposed legislation, and will not result in permanent increases in market access. On the contrary, such imports are and will be let in at the discretion of the government.

Third, nothing in Bill C-57 prevents the government from examining the issue and introducing new rules.

In fact, Bill C-57 basically rolls the current system of supplementary access over in order to furnish an immediate means of allowing supplementary imports for a variety of reasons, including enhancing export competitiveness.

Finally, the situation calls for careful analysis and broad consultation. Should the government determine that additional duties on supplementary imports of supply managed products are advisable, we will take all appropriate measures to institute such a system, including legislation, if necessary. However, changing Bill C-57 to effect this would short-circuit the consultative process, and is not in the government's plans.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to elaborate on a previous question that I put to the Minister of Justice on December 1, 1994 in the context of this day being recognized as a national day of remembrance and action to end violence against women. I asked what measures are being implemented to ensure that women are protected from violence.

On this day of solemn commemoration we are invited to recognize the many women who have died as victims of violence and abuse and we are reminded that thousands of others live every day in danger and in fear. For this day to take on its full significance I would like to see this House act even more comprehensively.

Until recently the issue of violence against women was hidden within the private sphere and as such was generally ignored or trivialized. Fortunately we are coming to realize that violence against women is in clear violation of human rights. It robs women of their self-esteem, dignity and in some cases their life.

Since Statistics Canada conducted its first national survey on violence against women in 1993, which is the first one of its kind worldwide, the gravity of the situation has been brought to light. According to the survey, as many as 51 per cent of Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. Almost 45 per cent of all women experience violence by men known to them, their dates, boyfriends, marital partners, friends, family or neighbours. Whereas a woman is shot every six days in Canada, firearms are the weapon of choice for spousal homicides. During the period between 1974 and 1992, 42 per cent of the women killed by their spouses were shot.

As shattering as these statistics are they only account for part of the problem since Statistics Canada defines violence as experience of physical or sexual assault. It does not touch upon the other dimensions of violence to which many women are subject.

Three other areas were identified in the 1993 report, Changing the Landscape, Ending Violence, Achieving Equality . They are psychological violence which encompasses various tactics to undermine a woman's self-confidence; financial violence, whereby a woman's access to employment or investment opportunities are denied by her partner or family members; and

piritual abuse in which the cultural or religious beliefs are destroyed through ridicule or punishment.

A wide range of indicators give evidence that this societal ill is pervasive and systemic. As a result, women from all walks of life are targets of various acts of violence.

Not only are the causes and the forms of violence against women extremely insidious, but so too are their effects. Such violence scars not only women but also the children and the men around them. It marks the body, but it also deeply wounds the mind and the spirit of those affected. As a result of having been abused a woman's physical and/or mental health can be at stake. Her chance of advancement in her working life may be jeopardized and her interpersonal skills generally deteriorate.

As well as having these devastating effects on the women concerned, such violence is proven to seriously destabilize the children who witness it. Boys who are brought up in an abusive household are more likely to become violent fathers and girls are more likely to become victims at the hands of their future partners.

Canada has played a leadership role internationally in initiating the UN declaration on the elimination of violence against women, recognizing the urgent need for the universal application to women of the rights and principles with regard to equality, security, integrity and dignity of all persons.

The red book called for a justice system that will work to ensure safe homes, safe streets. While other ministries of this government will play important roles, I ask the Minister of Justice today, how does he intend to address this very important issue of ending violence against women?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the sad anniversary of the murder of 14 young women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal.

The government recognizes the devastating effects of violence against women and is striving to improve its response to help victims and to stop the offenders. As examples of the work being done in the Department of Justice to address the issue of violence against women let me mention the following.

The new firearms initiatives will provide a clear and effective response to try and prevent women from being killed by guns. Bill C-42 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code which would allow police and others to apply for a peace bond on behalf of a person at risk. Bill C-41 proposes sentencing reforms and would make abuse of a position of trust or authority in the commission of an offence an aggravating factor in sentencing. Dealing with violence against women remains one of the government's highest priorities in the justice area.

At the end of the week consultations will take place with women's groups on how to respond to the Supreme Court's decision to allow defence of extreme drunkenness, where a man had sexually assaulted a woman while intoxicated. The Minister of Justice has already indicated his intention to respond to the problems arising from the Daviault decision and is looking at a criminal intoxication proposal.

Dealing with violence against women remains one of the government's highest priorities in the justice area.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. Good evening to all.

(The House adjourned at 7.22 p.m.)