Debates of Nov. 7th, 1996

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East on Monday, October 28, 1966 concerning the status of the hon. member for Wild Rose as a substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley East for raising this matter and the chief government whip for his contribution to the discussion.

This matter was first brought to my attention on Tuesday, October 22, 1996 by the hon. member for Wild Rose. At that time he described to the Chair how he had been selected as a substitute from the Reform Party's list of associate members for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and in that capacity attended the meeting of the committee on Monday, October 21, 1996. The hon. member claimed that he had attempted to give notice of a motion but was ruled out of order by the chair on the basis that he was not a regular member of the committee. The member indicated that he had sought a resolution to this matter within the committee and had not been successful.

The matter was raised a second time, on October 28, by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. In his presentation, he argued that, as a duly selected substitute pursuant to Standing Order 114, the member for Wild Rose should have been permitted to give notice of his motion notwithstanding the committee's internal rule requiring 48-hour notice for consideration of new business.

Having examined the arguments put forward, I find it appropriate in this instance to offer some clarification.

The Standing Orders provide a mechanism whereby members who are associate members of a committee can become substitutes for regular members of the committee at a particular meeting. I have looked carefully at the wording of the relevant Standing Orders and in the case before us, it is clear that the requirements were met and the member for Wild Rose was acting as a bona fide substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the meeting on October 28, 1996.

There is no doubt in the Chair's mind that substitute members should be considered on an equal footing with permanent members for the period of substitution. This status must remain unaffected by any internal rules adopted by a committee for its own convenience, otherwise committees risk having two classes of members at the committee table.

In my ruling on June 20, 1994 at page 5,583 of the Debates , to which the hon. member for Fraser Valley East also made reference, I pointed out that:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

Committees have found it efficient to establish their own internal procedures such as the 48-hour notice requirement concerning new items of business that was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at its organization meeting on March 12, 1996. I would encourage members involved in committee work to bear in mind that such internal rules and procedures should not be crafted in such a way as to diminish the role of substitute members whose ability to fully function in the committee is a status conferred on them by the House.

There have been difficulties with the understanding of rules and practices regarding substitute members of committees and this is why I found this a suitable opportunity to give my views on the matter.

In the past I have referred to the longstanding practice of the House that the Speaker will not intervene in procedural matters arising in committee. Bearing in mind what I have said, I trust that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the hon. member for Fraser Valley East can reach some accommodation in this particular matter. I hope that my statement

today will be of assistance to members and everyone concerned with the work of committees.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

Competition Act

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to amend the Competition Act and another act in consequence.

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

Act To Change The Names Of Certain Electoral Districts

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, an act to change the names of certain electoral districts.

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

Committees Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my capacity of Joint Chairman of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct. Instead of a report, the committee asked me to present a motion today. I move:

That, in relation to the Orders of Reference adopted by the Senate on March 21, 1996 and on June 19, 1996, and by the House of Commons on March 12, 1996 and June 19, 1996, the reporting date of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct be extended to Friday, December 13, 1996;

That, if the House is not sitting when the final report of the committee is completed, the report be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons and shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to the House of Commons; and

That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for these purposes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands have the consent of the House for the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just received the request from the member for Kingston and the Islands regarding this motion. While unanimous consent has been denied at this point, it is so consultations with colleagues can take place. I would ask if you could seek unanimous consent to waive the usual 48 hour notice and have this motion stand under motions for tomorrow in order for me to have time to consult with my colleagues and grant the approval that the member seeks for the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We are reverting to motions, I take it, if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to do as he has proposed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Petitions

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and pleasure to present two petitions to the House today. The first is signed by a number of my constituents and also other Canadians in the region of southwestern Ontario.

The petitioners call on Parliament to enact legislation to define marriage as the voluntary union between one man and one woman.

I am happy to present that petition.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by several hundred people in southwestern Ontario, including my own constituents of London-Middlesex. I want to put this on the record on behalf of these Canadians, although the government has acted on this matter.

The petitioners call on the government not to tax books. I am happy to present that petition.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from November 1, 1996 consideration of the motion for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his Speech at the opening of the session.

Speech From The Throne

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Bourassa.

I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the speech from the throne pronounced by the governor general last February, on behalf of the government. How time flies: it has already been eight months since the speech was pronounced.

Nevertheless, today's debate is useful in that with the passing of time, we have a better picture of how the government has acted on its commitments.

As we read the speech from the throne, we notice, for instance, that the government officially set the scene for its post-referendum strategy in dealing with the Quebec government. This strategy, known by everyone as plan B, basically consists in a hardening of the government's position on the freedom of Quebecers to decide on their political future.

In this respect, the governor general said the following, and I quote: "But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".

Considering last year's quasi-victory of the sovereignists in the referendum on October 30 and the way every part of English Canada criticized the role played by the government during the referendum, the latter felt it would be politically more effective to take a hard line. But in fact, the government's strategy of resorting to plan B merely confirms the chronic inability of Canadian federalism to renew itself and to find durable solutions for dealing with Quebec's traditional demands.

A few days before the referendum, when the polls were leaning increasingly to the yes side, the Prime Minister had the fright of his life. He then shook himself out of his legendary torpor in Verdun and went so far as to promise to entrench the distinct identity of Quebec in the Constitution and to give Quebec a veto.

In an article entitled "The Secret Summit", published in the October 21 issue of Macleans and excerpted from the forthcoming book Double Vision by two journalists, we read that a few days after the referendum, the Prime Minister had become obsessed by the promise he had made in Verdun to have Quebec recognized as a distinct society.

In an attempt to trap Jacques Parizeau's successor, Lucien Bouchard, the Prime Minister developed an ultimately unsuccessful scenario that would allow him to enshrine the distinct society concept in the Constitution. He needed the support of 7 provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. In this regard, according to the article in Maclean's , the Prime Minister could count on the support of the premiers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but not of course, that of the then premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells.

Knowing that the Prime Minister could not count either on the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia, he had to get Ontario's Mike Harris on side. Maclean's also tells us that, three days after the referendum, the Prime Minister had a secret meeting with Mike Harris so he could explain to him his plan for entrenching the notion of distinct society in the Constitution.

Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Mike Harris refused to support his post-referendum strategy. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister's main concern was to save the little credibility he had left in Quebec and force our hand so we would accept a meaningless concept.

If the Prime Minister's strategy had worked, that is to say, if Mike Harris had decided to support him, the blame would, of course, have been laid at Lucien Bouchard's door.

When his strategy failed, the Prime Minister tried to save face with regard to his last-minute referendum commitments in Verdun by passing, in December 1995, a simple parliamentary resolution stating-it was more like wishful thinking-that Quebec is a distinct society, and a bill giving Quebec and Canada's four other regions the right of veto with the effect of further reducing the likelihood that the Constitution will ever be amended.

Since then, the Prime Minister has repeated at every opportunity that he would like to enshrine these two measures in the Constitution, but is prevented from doing so by Quebec's sovereignist

government. We have since come to realize that the argument raised by the Prime Minister is nothing but a smoke screen.

In fact, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister, exasperated by all this, said on the French-language all-news channel that he had done enough in this area and now wanted to focus his efforts on economic issues.

After inflaming the situation, the Prime Minister would rather bury the whole constitutional issue, knowing full well that any amendment to the Constitution that would deal specifically with Quebec would not received the necessary support from the other provinces.

Consequently, this week, the Minister of Justice told us he was contemplating asking that the Supreme Court to define what would be involved if Quebec were considered a distinct society, if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot achieve a consensus on this issue in the next few months.

It is as though this government cannot make a move without seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court. In September, the matter of the legality of Quebec's sovereignty was referred to the Supreme Court. Now, they are considering asking the Supreme Court to define the concept of distinct society.

This going to the Supreme Court all the time to settle what are essentially political issues is cause for concern. By constantly referring matters to the Supreme Court, the government is simply shirking its responsibilities.

Need I remind the House that Confederation as we know it was a compromise between two founding peoples, the French speaking one being found mainly in Quebec. These two peoples entered into a confederal agreement where the various political entities, that is to say the provinces, have delegated certain powers to the central government.

This solemn agreement between the two peoples has always been perceived, at least in Quebec, as something that cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. This agreement was breached at the time of the patriation of the Constitution by the federal government in 1982.

On May 15, 1980, before the Quebec referendum on sovereignty-association, the Prime Minister of the day, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had made it clear that voting no in the referendum would be interpreted as voting yes to renewing Canadian federalism.

Instead, two years later, the Constitution was patriated and a charter of rights incorporated in the Constitution, all without the consent of Quebec. The principle whereby all Canadians from coast to coast are equal, a right guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, precludes the specific recognition of Quebec as a society in the Constitution. Similarly, the principle of multiculturalism has been entrenched in the Constitution, while Canada's duality and Quebec's distinctiveness were not. The 1982 constitutional changes, which were implemented despite Quebec's persistent opposition, reflect the contempt in which the government of the day held Quebec.

It is obvious from the constitutional debates over the past three decades, and more recently, the failure of Meech and Charlottetown, that there is no hope of the renewal of federalism being in line with the best interests of Quebec. The five conditions set out in the Meech Lake accord, the least ever requested by a Quebec government, were already enough to make English Canada shudder, and there is every indication that Ottawa-Quebec City relations are going nowhere.

Whether we like it or not, Quebec is still in a catch 22 situation in the federation. Will we realize once and for all that it would be a sheer waste of time, energy and public funds to go down the road of constitutional negotiations again, when these are doomed to fail?

Under the circumstances, it is in the interests of the peoples of Quebec and Canada that all these issues be resolved once and for all. The only solution that will allow our two peoples to thrive is for Quebec to achieve independence. As equal and sovereign partners, they will be able to move on and develop side by side in the best interests of both.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the throne speech by raising, among other issues, Canada's relations with Latin America and the upcoming visit of the Chilean president.

Before dealing with the main topic, I want to say that I am very sensitive to and concerned by the tragic situation and the humanitarian disaster taking place in Africa's great lakes region. The international community must immediately take action to help the more than one million refugees in Zaire.

A summit was held in Nairobi two days ago, and eight countries asked for a neutral multinational force to be sent to the region to establish temporary humanitarian corridors and safe havens for refugees. Unfortunately, Rwanda has so far opposed the idea. I urge the federal government to do its utmost to ensure that this humanitarian assistance is sent as soon as possible, and I wish the best of luck to the mission headed by Raymond Chrétien.

In the speech from the throne, we are told that Canada will do everything possible to extend the scope of NAFTA, the North American treaty that includes Canada, the United States and Mexico. We are also told that Canada is committed to establishing priority relations with Latin America.

However, efforts to extend NAFTA have so far failed. The heads of state of our continent met in Miami, in December 1994. They decided to invite Chile to join NAFTA. This was two years ago, and no new country has acceded to the treaty.

This past January, Canada and Chile decided to began negotiations on an interim bilateral agreement, to make it easier for Chile to join NAFTA. I expected these negotiations to be very quickly brought to a successful conclusion, but it is still not the case. Chilean president Eduardo Frei was supposed to visit Canada from October 1st to 4th, but the visit was postponed to November 17, 18 and 19, because of the failure to reach an agreement during these negotiations.

As you know, I come from Chile and I attach a great deal of importance to the visit of the Chilean president in the coming days. The president will come to Ottawa and Toronto. I must express my great regret, in this House, that he and his delegation will not be going to Quebec, in spite of the invitation sent by the Quebec premier and his government. I hope the federal government has nothing to do with this decision. At times, I have personally noticed federal interference in Quebec's relations with other countries.

I am pleased that Chile returned to democracy in 1990, after 17 years of dictatorship and systematic violations of human rights. I myself came to Quebec in 1974 because of the hard line dictatorship that had ruled in Chile for 17 years. Today, Chile is a country with a very high rate of growth and has resumed its place within the international community.

Santiago is the headquarters for ECLAC, the prestigious economic commission for Latin America. It has an annual growth of approximately 7 per cent and a population of 14 million. It is the site for an increasing number of international meetings. In the coming days, 21 countries will be meeting in Santiago for the Ibero-American Summit, which includes not just Latin American countries but also Spain and Portugal. This summit will look at economic problems, as well as social and political problems, and the issue of democracy and human rights.

In March of 1977, Chile will also host the summit of heads of state and heads of government of the Americas, which will be attended by approximately 44 countries and in which the Prime Minister of Canada will participate. Chile also belongs to APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, which will be meeting in Manila in a few weeks and in which the Prime Minister of Canada, the President of Chile and other heads of state and heads of government will take part.

I am also glad to see that relations between Chile and Canada and Quebec are very good. They are at the highest level in all areas of the economy and trade. Last year, the Prime Minister of Canada visited Chile and other Latin American countries. Fortunately, Canada finally decided to join OAS, the Organization of American States, in 1990.

Quebec has very close ties with Latin America. We share many fraternal ties of friendship based on our common Latin heritage. Relations are intensifying.

Former Liberal minister, Charles Caccia, went to Chile. Bernard Landry also visited that country in late August and early September. The Canadian Chilean community, which numbers 35,000 throughout the country, with concentrations in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, is very pleased and satisfied with this visit, a first. No Chilean head of state or head of government has visited Canada for at least 50 years.

We were expecting this bilateral trade agreement to be signed. However, all signs so far are that it will not be, because negotiations have been more difficult than foreseen. There are still a few details to be worked out. I do not think these problems will be resolved in the next ten days.

However, a social security agreement will be signed during this visit between Chile and Canada, providing benefits in the form of disability pensions for the surviving spouses of individuals who have worked in both countries, Chileans who worked in Chile and who are now here, or Canadians who are now working in Chile. This is an agreement I have been pushing for since Chile's return to democracy. It is an agreement that also, in my view, meets the aspirations of the Chilean community in Canada. I hope that Canada will sign other such agreements with other countries, such as El Salvador and Guatemala, which have sent many of their nationals here.

But I also regret that, since the president is not coming to Quebec, the social security agreement between Quebec and Chile will not be signed this time, although there are 10,000 Chileans, 10,000 Quebecers of Chilean origin, living in that province who would like to see it signed as soon as possible.

Today the exchange of goods and services is being liberalized on this continent. Canadian investments in Latin America are increasing daily, eight billion dollars in Chile alone, primarily in the area of mines, forestry and communications.

There are still problems to be resolved, however. Many Latin American countries complain about how complicated it is to get a visitor's visa to come here. This is the case for Central America. The problem is greater there because Canada does not have ambassadorial representation in some Central American countries, such as Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

This is a problem, because people have to travel to apply for a visa. I hope that, some day, the Canadian government will be represented by ambassadors in some Latin American countries, because there is a principle of reciprocity in international law which ought to be respected. These are countries, Bolivia for example, which have embassies in Ottawa.

I have said that I was in favour of these efforts toward continental economic integration, but I do have a couple of reservations, because a process of integration should be able to benefit all of the population in the countries concerned, which is not the case at the present time. In Latin America, there is still extreme poverty in many countries, with immense differences between social classes. The great majority of people do not have essential services, sometimes lack housing, do not have access to education, face some very serious problems.

What I would like to see in meetings and discussions between Latin America and Canada is for us to also be able to address the problems of poverty, unemployment, underemployment, exclusion and human rights issues. During the Chilean president's visit, I hope that the agenda will include, not only economic questions, investment, exchange of goods and services, but also social, cultural and political questions of concern to the entire Chilean and Canadian population.

I would also like to see this Parliament make more effort to link Canadian and Latin American parliamentarians. Since I was elected to Parliament in 1993, I personally, with the support of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, have made every effort to intensify and strengthen parliamentary relations between Canada and Latin America. I have personally visited Chile and Argentina, Cuba and Central America. I have met many parliamentarians.

I think we have the resources, the capacity to do more. With Mexico, for instance, we have a parliamentary friendship group but we should have a recognized parliamentary association. We have other associations, especially with Europe, the United States and Japan. The parliamentary groups do not have the resources to do anything effective.

As a member of Parliament of Chilean origin, I welcome this visit by President Frei. I hope it will be a successful one. Meetings will take place here in Ottawa between the two governments. I previously noted visits by the Argentine President Carlos Menem, by President Zedillo of Mexico and Central American presidents. I hope the Canadian government will invite other heads of state and government leaders. We share the same continent. We have common problems, and we should have more extensive relations.

Here in Ottawa, I often met the ambassadors from Latin America. We speak the same language. Sometimes they do not have a very good understanding of the political, legal and constitutional structure of this country, because in Latin America, generally speaking, all states are centralized. For instance, they do not realize that if they want to conclude an agreement on social security, they also have to negotiate with Quebec, separately from Canada, because social security is a shared jurisdiction. The provinces in Canada have a great deal of autonomy. We have to make the effort, and whenever I have a chance, I try to explain the situation in Canada to them. I also explain the situation in Quebec.

I think the federal government has sent the wrong message to Latin America by saying that Canada is a united and homogeneous country. It has emphasized Canadian unity without ever informing the international community that Quebec has legitimate aspirations, that it wants to use democratic means to become a sovereign country, and that this is legitimate. The United Nations have recognized more than 25 countries during the past ten years. There is nothing anti-democratic about what Quebec and Quebecers are doing.

Again, I hope this visit by the Chilean president will help expand relations that are already very good between Canada and Chile, and between Chile and Quebec.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bourassa for his lesson. His presentation was very precise, and he did a very good job of explaining the new North American trade context as well as the importance of relations with Chile.

I would like to ask him a question in a different vein. According to the throne speech, which we are debating today, the Canada Labour Code was to be reviewed so as to meet the demands of Canadian workers and employers. This week, in my opinion, the Minister of Labour gave birth to a mouse when, in the document he tabled, he refused to include real antiscab regulations in the revised Canada Labour Code.

I know about the hon. member for Bourassa's past experience in the area of labour relations. I would like him to explain what was the impact in Quebec of this antiscab legislation that regularized labour relations and helped reduce the number of days lost to conflicts. Is there a way of making the federal government understand how relevant such a measure is by looking at Quebec's experience? I know there is similar legislation in British Columbia.

Are we then not justified in saying that the federal government's actions show it is not fulfilling the mandate it gave itself in the throne speech? In the final analysis, in this area as in many others, all it did was engage in wishful thinking. Could the hon. member

for Bourassa comment on this to try to convince the members opposite that the bill that was introduced in this House does not go far enough?

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup as it deals with an extremely important issue.

In the speech from the throne, the government promised a complete overhaul of the Canada Labour Code. It was long in coming, but just a few days ago, a bill was finally introduced. Unfortunately, it does not contain any real anti-strikebreaking provisions.

Parliament has been looking at this for many years. Across Canada, there are more than 700,000 workers under federal jurisdiction, subject to the Canada Labour Code, who are not protected by anti-strikebreaking provisions like workers in Quebec, British Columbia and, until just a few months ago, Ontario. The Conservative government of Ontario abolished this protection.

In Quebec, since the anti-strikebreaking legislation was introduced in 1977, labour disputes are no longer as violent and tend to get settled more quickly. Today, we enjoy unprecedented social peace in Quebec.

Having been involved in the labour movement for 19 years, I know this area pretty well. I even introduced a bill of my own containing very specific anti-strikebreaking provisions. I hope that, when the time comes, we can count on the support and co-operation of this government. While many Liberal members are quite sensitive to this issue, all the Minister of Labour actually told us is that anti-strikebreaking provisions may be included, but would apply only when an employer tries to break the union.

This would be extremely hard to prove. How can one tell that the employer intends to break the union? You cannot prove that. This provision will have no immediate, concrete impact on labour relations.

This is a most unfortunate shortcoming, which will hopefully be remedied through amendments to this bill, when it is considered at committee stage. I do hope the government will reconsider and include real anti-strikebreaking provisions in the Canada Labour Code.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for those watching the debates in the House of Commons this morning I would like to once again say that this morning we are engaging in debate and comment on the government's speech from the throne which was presented nearly a year ago but which comes up on the Order Paper from time to time.

The speech from the throne was about 13 pages and dealt with a number of areas where the government made representations to

Canadian citizens that it would deal with those areas and how it would deal, what measures it would put into place.

I would like to use my time this morning to address the area of justice and public safety and how it was dealt with in the speech from the throne. I would also like to make some comments where I believe and we believe this country needs to be going in this important area.

The speech from the throne dealt with the area of justice with one short paragraph of 7 lines in a 13 page document. I hope that does not indicate to Canadians the emphasis, importance and priority this government places on public safety.

However, in those seven lines we find very little substance and no specifics at all. These seven lines deal with the non-violent character of our country, stating that because our country is non-violent citizens are secure. I guess the government has not been looking at some of the recent trends in crime. In fact, violent crime has tripled since 1962. Crimes against property have skyrocketed during the same period. Violent crimes, most disturbingly, by young offenders have increased 244 per cent from 1980 to 1993 alone.

Statistics Canada, which is an arm of the government itself, estimates that fully 90 per cent of sexual assaults are not reported, that 68 per cent of other assaults are not reported and 53 per cent of robberies are not reported.

When we talk to Canadians across the country as elected representatives it becomes increasingly clear that Canadians no longer feel secure in what the government is pleased to term the non-violent character of our country.

We do need to get serious and take a serious look at measures that can provide safe homes and safe streets for the citizens of this country.

The government is trying to find ways to keep people out of prison and out of contact with the justice system. I would suggest that whatever measures are being put in place are not effective. It talks about reforming criminal procedures to better serve the victims of crimes. That is a goal I think all Canadians would agree with. Unfortunately, the Liberal record does not square with that very laudable goal.

In fact, if we look at the major bills that have been introduced by this government we see some very disturbing trends that continue to emphasize the rights and considerations being given to criminals and law breakers instead of really looking at how victims can be given a greater standing and consideration in the justice system.

If we look at five of the major bills that have been put forward in the justice area by the justice minister, I think we need to very

quickly assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which government has kept promises to Canadians made in the throne speech.

First there was Bill C-41 which purported to deal with hate crimes and put more emphasis on what was in the mind of the perpetrator of a crime, the criminal, rather than the effect on the victim. We say that assault is equally wrong regardless of who was assaulted or for what reason. If someone beats a person up it hurts. They need to have redress. There needs to be protection. This emphasis on what was in the mind of the criminal surely is of no comfort or help to Canadians whose rights and safety have been breached.

We then have Bill C-45 which again continued to leave in place a provision of the Criminal Code which allows a cold blooded murderer to be let back out on the streets after serving only 15 years of his or her sentence. In fact, the sentence that is handed down for premeditated, cold blooded murder is life in prison. However, after only 15 years murderers can apply to have early parole and are very often successful when they do apply. Again we see that victims of crime, their families and friends come second to the extra considerations that are given to murderers.

Bill C-53 dealt with temporary passes from prison. It quadrupled the time that criminals could be absent from prison. One person described the bill as giving criminals an opportunity to apply for a two month vacation from prison for whatever reason, for example shopping trips. In some cases individuals who are out of custody have committed further crimes.

Bill C-55 is the government's centrepiece legislation to deal with violent offenders and to get tougher with them. Unfortunately there are many flaws in the bill which have been debated in the House at some length. Violent offenders will still be released back into society with only minimal supervision.

In addition, Bill C-55 includes a rather bizarre and very troubling provision. Citizens who have been neither charged nor convicted of any criminal offence can be monitored electronically. Once again we have a government that shies away from strong measures to protect society while it allows for more government intrusiveness into the lives of law-abiding citizens who have not been convicted of any law breaking activities.

We had the same problem with Bill C-68, the so-called gun control bill. It controls law-abiding citizens while it does little or nothing to stem the tide and the growing use of illegally obtained firearms.

In spite of the nice words in the seven lines of the throne speech about public safety, the government's record is dismal.

It is not right to criticize measures unless good alternatives can be proposed, which is why I am pleased to put before the House the Reform Party's measures to increase public safety, to ensure the safety of our families and communities in this country.

We would first enact a victims bill of rights. We have provisions for such a bill which have already been put before the House. We have urged the government to enact those provisions. Victims, innocent citizens, law-abiding citizens of this country should get the top consideration. However, the Liberal government has quite a different philosophy on public safety.

In 1971 the Liberal solicitor general stood up in this very House and said: "We are going to put the rehabilitation of individuals ahead of the protection of society". That philosophy is continued in present Liberal bills. Victims are second and criminal rights and considerations are first. Canadians are tired of that. They want a whole shift. They want the justice system changed so that the protection of society, the protection of law-abiding innocent citizens, is number one. That is exactly what should be done.

We would repeal the universal firearms registry enacted by this government and replace it with meaningful laws to control guns and to fight the criminal use of firearms.

We would replace the Young Offenders Act. As we are all aware, in the past 20 to 25 years youth crime has shyrocketed. It is a very troubling aspect of our society. Young people themselves are the greatest victims of this increase in youth crime. Many young Canadians do not feel safe in our schools and communities. We can see examples of this over and over again. Something needs to be done about this. We need to deal with this issue seriously and the Reform Party is proposing measures to do that. We believe that young criminals must be held accountable for their actions in this society.

We would also reform the parole system and abolish the early release of first degree murderers. We would also pave the way for a national referendum on the return of capital punishment. Many citizens are concerned that there is not a strong enough signal being sent to law breakers in this country, particularly to cold blooded murderers, that we will not tolerate that kind of victimization of innocent members of our society.

We need to look at the specifics of how the past approaches to justice measures have been ineffective in protecting our society. In 1991 Brian Mulroney's Conservative government introduced new gun control measures. At that time the auditor general criticized those measures because they lacked the necessary background data or evaluation process to really show whether there would be any potential benefits for such legislation. In other words, when measures are put into place by governments, they should have some objective criteria to measure how effective those measures

are going to be in light of the cost and in light of the fact that we are dealing with the lives, property and freedoms of our citizens.

To compound what was already a flawed process, in 1995 this Liberal justice minister introduced Bill C-68. This bill put into place a universal firearms registry that included shotguns and rifles. Of course the registration of handguns has been in place for over 60 years.

The majority of the federal Tory senators who had put the 1991 measures into place supported Bill C-68. Their leader, the member for Sherbrooke, did not show up for the vote on this measure in the House of Commons.

We in the Reform Party were the only ones who actively opposed the registration of shotguns and rifles. We have done so consistently. It is very clear to us that this universal firearms registry will squander already scarce law enforcement resources, time and money. Our law enforcement officers will now spend incredibly more time shuffling paper instead of fighting real crime.

Our opposition to this registry should not be interpreted as being anti-gun control. Every citizen in this country and certainly myself and other members of my caucus believe we must control the criminal use of firearms which threaten the safety of our streets and of our citizens. We have a very tough zero tolerance policy for criminal offences involving firearms.

The waste of money and resources involved in a universal registry for law-abiding citizens is something we oppose. We believe in the long term it will only hurt our goal of public safety which is the goal of our citizens. We want to see that goal reached in effective ways, not in the ways this government has brought in.

The prison system as well needs to be looked at. We have some proposals to make it a more effective instrument of both rehabilitation and deterrence. In most Canadian prisons for example inmates are not required to work. They are also provided with taxpayer funded amenities which many of our citizens cannot hope to enjoy.

This week my colleague from Fraser Valley West mentioned an older couple in his riding. The wife is in dire need of dental treatment. They were unable to save the amount necessary for the wife to get that treatment. Yet criminals are given such treatment routinely at no cost to them. Something is wrong with that picture.

At some correctional facilities inmates even have access to golf courses, pool tables, cable television and extensive workout equipment. They qualify for free counselling, full medical and dental coverage, free university education and legal aid.

Many young people in our country are worried about whether they will be able to afford the necessary training and university education in order to have secure jobs and a good future. Tuition fees are rising and student loan burdens for graduates are growing. We therefore have to look at the priorities of a government which provides those kinds of free services to law breakers.

In Canada inmates even have the right to vote. These people have flouted the law. They have victimized law-abiding innocent people in our society. They still have all the rights and privileges of citizenship. They even have amenities and services which taxpaying law-abiding citizens cannot afford. Something needs to be done about this.

With respect to the Young Offenders Act, youth account for more robberies than those in the next two older age groups. In 1991 youth were charged with a full 18,000 violent offences, twice as much as five years ago. In fact, violent crime by young offenders increased in all categories between 1986 and 1994. Homicide was up 36 per cent. Sexual assault was up 16 per cent. Aggravated assault was up 78 per cent. Robbery was up a whopping 131 per cent. We need to seriously address this problem.

The Reform Party would replace the ineffective Young Offenders Act with measures which would truly hold young people accountable for crime. It is a small minority of youth. Most of the youth are upstanding citizens working hard to build a future for themselves and to gain the skills necessary to have a strong future. They should not be put to shame by the small minority which flouts the law virtually without consequence.

The key to crime prevention is to strengthen families and communities rather than to rely exclusively on the judicial, parole and prison systems. When it comes to young offenders this means supporting the introduction of programs for the early detection and prevention of youth crime and the introduction of more effective rehabilitation measures and measures to support education and literacy, skills training, discipline and community service.

We would also shift the balance from the rights of the accused to the rights of the victim and law-abiding citizens. As I said, we would replace the Young Offenders Act. We would redefine young offenders as 10 to 15 years of age. We would also permit the publication of names of all convicted violent young offenders. Serious offenders 14 to 15 years of age or any offender over 16 would be tried in adult court.

A Reform government would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code which allows for the early release of first degree murderers. We would also ensure that violent offenders served their entire sentence, that repeat violent offenders would be declared dangerous offenders and that all parole would be tightly monitored and earned.

These are measures which Canadians are asking for. They are common sense measures. They are designed to send a clear signal to law breakers that we will not tolerate the violation of the rights of innocent citizens. I urge the government to replace the vague

seven line paragraph in the throne speech with some of these real effective measures which the Reform Party is proposing.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the Reform Party. A debate on the throne speech provides ample opportunity to find flaws in the way the government is following up on the concerns of Canadians.

The Reform member spoke at length about crime-related issues. However, two things must be considered when dealing with the issue of crime. It seems to me that the hon. member overlooked one of these aspects, and I am going to ask her, in a few minutes, to give me her thoughts and beliefs regarding this aspect.

The hon. member focused primarily on what happens once a crime has been committed, including the resulting problems for victims. However, she was silent on how to ensure that some crimes are not committed, and thus avoid having victims. As you know, for some time now and increasingly so, the federal government has been withdrawing its financial support to the provinces in the fields of education, health and welfare, with the result that some young people no longer have the support they need to start off on the right foot in life.

It goes without saying that, later on, if these young people turn to crime, and some may even commit sordid acts, there are going to be victims. These victims deserve our compassion, and so do their families and friends.

However, it would have been better to prevent the offender from turning to crime and thus avoid having victims. Until recently, the federal government assumed major responsibilities in terms of financial support to the provinces in the areas of education, health and welfare. By withdrawing its support, it has left the provinces in a tight situation and some are hard hit. Think of Ontario. And these provinces must now make major cuts, leaving segments of the population disadvantaged or in need of assistance. However, there will no longer be any help for these people.

We know that, in certain cases, not all, most of the poor are honest folk, but this does not help young people get off to a good start, and the statistics are there to prove it. In certain cases, unfortunately, these people are drawn into a life of crime. The federal government therefore has a role to play here when taxpayers' money is involved. We are talking about prevention. The federal government no longer assumes this role, or is doing so less and less, to the great detriment of the provinces.

Would not my hon. colleague from the Reform Party agree with me that this federal disinvestment also impacts on the crime rate,

and that the federal government should therefore not focus solely on resolving problems after the fact, but should take greater action before the fact, which would be much safer for the people of Canada?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague was actually listening to my speech, which was very pleasing to me. I appreciate that. I know how busy members are sometimes and we are not able to pay attention to every intervention, but I appreciate the fact that you did and you raise excellent points.

In my speech I did touch on the whole area of prevention. I agree with you that it is something we need to look at.