House of Commons Hansard #94 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was world.
Canadian Security Intelligence ServiceOral Question Period
September 21st, 1994 / 2:40 p.m.
Windsor West Ontario
Liberal
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is my objective to make as much as possible of the report public. Once I receive the report I will review it. I will seek such legal advice as I need to make up my mind on how much I can make public.
It is my objective, as I said, to make as much as possible of the report public. If I can make the whole thing public I will certainly do so.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year SIRC tried to convince the justice committee that the fact that Canada was a world leader in the petroleum industry was a national secret.
Will the minister assure the House that he will provide a broader interpretation of what national security is?
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I think the CSIS act adopted by the House provides a definition. It is a very broad definition.
I appreciate the hon. member's question. I look forward to receiving the SIRC report so that after receiving advice on my legal position I can proceed as quickly as possible to make as much of that report public as possible to help reassure the public about this important subject.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister said at a press conference on September 12 that the inspection carried out by the Food and Drug Administration resulted from a change in the American regulations.
How can the minister reconcile her statement with that made by Red Cross spokespersons who were saying exactly the opposite, namely that there had been no change in the American regulations.
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that there has in fact been a change in the FDA policy. They have decided to require Canadian blood collection centres to have a licence. There was already a request for this licence in their system. The FDA had not required Canadian centres to have this licence for several years.
So, they suddenly changed their mind and now require us to licence these centres in order to meet the US regulations.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whom we should believe. In response to a question I asked at a press conference, she told us that the American regulations have been changed. Then the Red Cross looks into it and says that there has been no change. I am trying to sort this out. I never get a straight answer.
I ask her the same question again: Was there, yes or no, any change in the American regulations? And I expect a clear answer.
Diane Marleau LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, there was a change in the policies of the FDA. Red Cross centres are now required to have a licence. That is all.
Rex Crawford Liberal Kent, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. On behalf of thousands of honest law-abiding gun owners in Canada and being one myself as a former president of the Dover Rod and Gun Club and with many legitimate target shooting clubs wondering about their future, will the minister clearly state the government's position on the banning of handguns?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the regulation of handguns is just one aspect of a comprehensive package this government is preparing in response to the Prime Minister's request last May.
I can tell the hon. member we are going to have to deal with handguns. A poll taken less than a year ago showed that 71 per cent of Canadians and a clear majority of firearms owners were in favour of an absolute ban on handguns. I am not suggesting the answer is that simple and no final decision has been made.
I spent the last three months speaking with dozens of pistol clubs, shooting clubs and handgun associations, among others. I am very sensitive to the interests they claim.
A study released yesterday by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force gave further reason to believe this subject needs attention. We already knew that 3,800 firearms are lost or stolen each year, about half of which are handguns. The study released yesterday demonstrated that about 30 per cent of the firearms
used in the commission of crimes in Toronto were originally legally registered handguns.
We will be turning our attention to this subject. We will do our best to find a solution that respects the legitimate interests of Canadians and at the same time enhances public safety.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In 1981 Mr. Dudley Vincent Forbes was ordered deported to Jamaica for overstaying his visa. Four years later he was actually deported and the following year he returned. He was deported again and again he returned. Last Saturday Mr. Forbes allegedly walked into a Toronto establishment and opened fire on a crowd killing two and wounding several more.
After having been deported twice Forbes was recently granted permanent resident status. My question is why?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, this case is before the police. This individual came to Canada in 1981. He was asked to leave after overstaying and returned in 1986.
If the hon. member is questioning whether people who are deported should not be permitted to return and go through due process then why is it that his party is refusing to adopt Bill C-44? Those amendments would allow the individual to be turned around at the border without legal process. Why is his party saying no to that?
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, this minister's record is not before the police; it is open for the public to look at. Bill C-44 would not have stopped Forbes from entering this country. We will not support the half measures the government proposes.
Will this minister agree today to put the protection of Canadian health and safety ahead of all other concerns in immigration, ahead of procedure, ahead of his friends in the immigration industry, ahead of his own personal ambitions?
ImmigrationOral Question Period
The Speaker
My colleagues, we should not in any way impugn motives. That part of the question is out of order. I will allow the first part of the question to stand, if the minister would like to answer it.
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party does not like to deal with the facts, but it should get around to doing that.
The facts are that this individual came to Canada and left some 15 years ago. The police are looking for this individual. Charges are pending. The person is at large. There are deportations on the books of individuals who are convicted of crimes that we believe are due to deportation. Fifteen years after this individual has entered Canada, is charged by the police-not convicted, charged-and is at large, what does that member expect me as minister of immigration to do?
On July 7 this government made a very clear reorientation of how we remove individuals. We set up a joint task force made up of police, RCMP, provincial and federal immigration authorities.
The hon. member does not need to lecture this government about taking the appropriate action. However the member does need a lecture about how our judicial system works and that we cannot deport someone who is charged and at large.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The latest figures from the finance department show a significant reduction in UI benefits from April to July. However, these numbers also show a significant increase in social assistance costs-and that applies only to the federal government's share and does not include the increased costs in the provinces.
Given these figures, how can the Prime Minister take pleasure, as he did last Sunday at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City, in saying that a growing number of Canadian households no longer need to rely on unemployment insurance or social assistance?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there has been a significant decrease in the number of people who need UI benefits at this time and that the creation of 275,000 jobs allowed these people to return to the workforce. That is why I said that fewer people need to rely on unemployment insurance and social assistance, since many jobs have been created in the last 10 months.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the figures are higher, it is certainly not because there are fewer beneficiaries.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the reduction in UI benefits is due in very large part to the reforms, the exemptions voted not only by the former government but also by the current government, that this is a tragedy for individuals and that it simply means a heavier burden for the provinces?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, as far as the reduction is concerned, it is very clear. The figures are there. In Quebec alone, for example, the help wanted index is 10 per cent higher than in 1993. Since we were elected, Quebec's unemployment rate has fallen by more than 1 per cent. Again, in Quebec, 79,000 jobs were created, while 261,000 jobs were created in Canada. That is why the rates are down.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that Keith Legere is a reported pedophile just released from prison for the killing of a six-year old boy. His psychiatric assessment shows he is a pedophile with psychopathic tendencies. The protection of society has to be our number one priority yet there is no mechanism in our system to protect society against people like Keith Legere.
Will the minister take immediate steps to bring in legislation that will indefinitely incarcerate dangerous offenders?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, part XXIV of the Criminal Code calls for the indefinite incarceration of dangerous offenders. Part XXIV has been in place for decades. In the appropriate cases it permits the prosecuting attorney to bring to the attention of the court circumstances which would establish that the accused person is of sufficient danger to society that they should be locked up indefinitely. That happens weekly in the courts of the country.
The government has identified a gap in the system. It is that category of case in which no such application under part XXIV of the Criminal Code is brought. Such persons may be incarcerated for fixed periods but may arguably still be dangerous upon the expiration of those terms.
I am not speaking to the case of Legere but speaking generally when I say that for the past several months the Solicitor General, the Minister of Health and I have been working with our provincial counterparts toward the creation of a nationwide policy with changes to the provincial health acts, if necessary. This is to provide for the continued detention under the health regimes of persons who, upon the expiration of their criminal terms, may be dangerous to the public.
I will be happy to provide the hon. member with details of the state of those discussions. They continue and I remain optimistic as do my colleagues that we can make a significant improvement in the system in that way.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is good talk and I would like to see something really happen. However from what I have seen from the proposals and the talk I have heard their policies are going to be as useless as the immigration policies.
I will give another example. A convicted sexual predator, a pedophile named Galienne, will be released in October. Experts say he is not rehabilitated and will prey on young children again.
Washington State has successfully enacted legislation that locks up perverts indefinitely. Will the justice minister implement an immediate moratorium on the release of all dangerous offenders until such time as new effective legislation is in place?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern for the safety of the public, but I suggest that a different approach would be more effective and in the long run necessary as constitutional.
The hon. member may have noticed two weeks ago that an Ontario court upheld a ruling. It would keep in detention a person who had completed a prison term but who was taken into the Ontario health regime and held involuntarily for the protection of the public.
The person challenged that ruling and the ruling was upheld. I took that as very encouraging for the approach that the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Health and I want to pursue, which is working with the health systems to fill that gap.
There cannot be a moratorium because that would not be lawful. It would not be constitutional.
Allan Rock Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
What is safe and expedient is not always what is lawful. The rule of law must govern. I can assure the hon. member that we will pursue the approach I have described. We are confident it will result in an enhancement of public safety.
Dianne Brushett Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In 1985, UNESCO of the United Nations recognized the unsurpassed heritage value of the historic old port in Quebec City, placing it on the world list of heritage sites.
Will the government also recognize the heritage value of the old port of Quebec and monitor the encroachment of developers whose sole interests for prime real estate are for profit?