Debates of March 22nd, 1996

Correctional Services

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, there were 14,016 adults in federal penitentiaries as of March 5, 1996. There is a prison overpopulation of 1,553 inmates in Canada.

The number of prisoners increases annually by 6 per cent. Before long, the Solicitor General will have no choice but to build new prisons or renovate existing ones in order to absorb this population increase.

Overpopulation in prisons threatens the lives of correctional officers and leads to conflicts between inmates. I call on the minister to put his intention to work with the provinces into effect to reduce the costs of inmate imprisonment and of prison overpopulation by signing an agreement with the Government of Quebec to use the facilities offered by the new provincial prison in Rivière-du-Loup.

Employment Equity

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on April 18 of this year my wife and I, along with our new daughter-in-law, will be attending a graduation ceremony for my son. This

graduation is from his training in the United States army in Fort Leonardwood, Missouri.

Unfortunately, regardless of his work in cadets and militia in this country, he was unable to fulfil his dream of being a soldier in the Canadian army simply because he is a white male. He therefore did not qualify according to the regulations brought about by this government and its employment equity quota system. As a result, this country will lose two citizens to the United States where he was able to enlist immediately.

Equality for all is obviously a meaningless term to this Liberal government. In its efforts to fight discrimination it has managed to create more. Canadians are a tolerant people but because of the ignorance of this Liberal government and its failure to hear the cries of the people, legislated discrimination will continue.

Let us all work for equality by replacing the government in power as soon as possible.

Nisga'A Land Claims

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Cape Breton—The Sydneys, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today in the Nisga'a village of New Aiyansh the Government of Canada, the province of British Columbia and the Nisga'a Tribal Council sign the first agreement in principle negotiated in British Columbia. This is truly an historic occasion and one which all members should celebrate.

The Nisga'a agreement in principle lays a solid foundation for achieving the certainty that the users of land and resources need and marks an historic step in the process of building a new relationship between the Nisga'a and other aboriginal peoples and B.C.

Negotiated settlements are by far the best way to resolve outstanding aboriginal issues. This agreement is reasonable and complies with the government's directive that unresolved claims like those of the Nisga'a should be addressed in a manner that is fair and equitable to everyone in British Columbia.

A full reading of the agreement clearly demonstrates the balance which has been struck between varying interests and objectives. There will be refinements-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

Health

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the minister of agriculture and the federal department of agriculture for their leadership in protecting Canadians from the mad cow disease. I recall the criticism of the opposition parties in 1994 that thought Ottawa was being far too tough on the ban of importation of cattle from Great Britain. The government stood firm and took the necessary precautions and today Canadians can be thankful for that leadership.

This is a good example of the benefits of having a federal department of agriculture that can withstand local criticism and protect the long term well-being of the cattle industry and the public health of Canadians. It is also an example of good government that restores the faith of Canadians in federal institutions.

Voluntary Intoxication

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada brought down a landmark decision concerning voluntary intoxication in murder trials, in connection with the McMaster, Robinson and Lemky cases. The judges of the highest court have decided that, in future, an accused may more easily use a state of intoxication to reduce murder charges.

Does the Minister of Justice not agree that making it easier for an accused to plead voluntary intoxication is deplorable?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, no. When read properly, I suggest the judgments that were released yesterday simply confirm the practice in most Canadian courts already. It clarifies the instructions to be given to a jury in cases where the defence of intoxication is raised and makes technical adjustments to the way the law is put to juries in such cases.

What is most important of all is that there are some crimes in the Criminal Code that by their very definition require the formation of specific intent. That is just the state of the law. If one is incapable of forming that intent, it is clear that one cannot be convicted of that crime.

However, it is also true that by reason of the statute that was passed by the House of Commons last year with the support of parties opposite, we made it clear that if you intoxicate yourself voluntarily and then commit a crime of violence toward another you cannot escape criminal liability.

That is the effect of Bill C-72 and the state of the law in Canada today.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Justice not agree that the Supreme Court has quite simply made murder more commonplace, by making it possible from now on for murderers who were intoxicated to get out of

prison earlier, because being found guilty of involuntary homicide will make them eligible for release after serving only one third of their sentences?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, once again I cannot agree with the suggestion made by the hon. member.

The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday did not change the law with respect to liability for murder. It simply clarified the technical instructions that judges must give to juries in cases where the defence of intoxication is raised.

In manslaughter the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. It is open to the court in the facts of any given case, and the circumstances can vary widely, to determine the appropriate sentence. Sometimes that will not involve incarceration as in the recent case in Hamilton where a woman took the life of her terminally ill husband. In those circumstances the court felt that in that manslaughter case, incarceration was not appropriate.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of his mandate, the Minister of Justice has done no more than pass legislation piecemeal. Here are a few examples of this: Daviault, DNA, genital mutilation.

When will the Minister of Justice shoulder his responsibilities and propose the appropriate measures?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, at the foundation of the hon. member's question is an interpretation of these judgments that I do not share. So we start from different points of departure.

With reference to her suggestion that our approach has been piecemeal, in the case of Daviault the House at the initiative of the government took specific steps to deal with the decision that we thought resulted in a criminal law that was inappropriate. There should be responsibility for acts of violence committed when one induces one's own intoxication.

In other instances we have taken a very comprehensive approach, for example in Bill C-41 where we comprehensively reformed the whole structure of the sentencing process in the criminal law, and as in Bill C-68 where we entirely took a new and comprehensive approach toward the control of firearms.

Our approach has been responsible, it has been coherent and it has been effective.

Canadian Armed Forces

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

While the military police are investigating initiation rituals in poor taste at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick, we now also learn that two officer cadets are facing court martial and that eight others were apparently found guilty of harassment for their participation in other hazing incidents that took place at the same base last June. One cadet was apparently even tortured and beaten by his colleagues.

How can the minister explain that his directives against hazing are not always respected, and what excuse can the minister give the House this time?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that in these cases there are ongoing investigations. There has yet to be a resolution in one particular matter. It would be very wrong for me to comment in any way on the substance because I may prejudice the examination and the judicial process.

My parliamentary secretary really hit the nail on the head yesterday in answering a similar question from the official opposition. All manner of procedures can be put in place, all manner of regulations can be put in place, but people sometimes commit errors of judgment.

The issue here is to make sure that when errors of judgment occur, when offences occur, they be investigated thoroughly, promptly and that disciplinary action be taken where warranted.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand, in light of this other disgraceful incident that reflects poorly on the reputation and credibility of the Canadian Armed Forces, that the minister did not draw the obvious conclusions from the events in Petawawa, and that he was unable to get his defence staff-because that is what is now in question-to take the action necessary to avoid other unfortunate events of this sort?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have

learned a lot in recent years from earlier examples of where behaviour was unacceptable. Procedures have been put in place.

We do our best to ensure those procedures, those codes of conduct, are followed but when they are transgressed it is dealt with promptly and in the appropriate way.

Goods And Services Tax

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, how much do you think the government is willing to spend to try to hide its broken GST promise, $50 million a year, $200 million a year, $500 million a year?

The government is so desperate to whitewash its promise on the GST, perhaps to save the political career of the Deputy Prime Minister, it will pay the Atlantic provinces hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars if they agree to harmonize the GST.

Why is the government spending taxpayer dollars to harmonize the GST when it clearly promised to save taxpayer dollars and kill, scrap, abolish it?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I am really not very interested in the speculation in the press reports. We are interested, however, in negotiations with the provinces to harmonize the GST.

I know members across the way will be very disappointed when we are successful in harmonizing the GST because they will not have any questions to ask any more.

The report the hon. member refers to is pure speculation.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate part is that the Liberals used to be interested in scrapping it when they sat on this side of the House before they formed the government in 1993.

It is evident here that desperate men do desperate things.

The Deputy Prime Minister knows the voters of Etobicoke North and Newfoundland and Labrador will be thinking about the Liberal's broken promise when they go to the polls on Monday. They will not be fooled by talk of harmonization.

The government is so desperate that it willing to spend truckloads of taxpayer dollars to get the Atlantic on side. When the minister says the rest of the Canadian public will harmonize gleefully, he is dreaming. The government is so desperate that the Prime Minister might just pop up in Etobicoke North on Saturday right at the end of the campaign.

Instead of spending millions on harmonization, instead of engaging in PR exercises for the byelections, why does the Deputy Prime Minister not simply live up to her word and kill, scrap, abolish the GST?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to read page 22 of the red book again for the hon. member and so I will not do so.

I will, however, quote from a minority report of the Reform Party: "While the replacement goes part of the way in responding to concerns presented to the committee, many of the concerns will only be addressed by future negotiations with the provinces".

That is what we are doing. We are negotiating with the provinces and we will harmonize the GST. I know the Reform Party will be disappointed.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces will certainly talk about harmonization; their answer will be no. They want no part of harmonization. They made it very clear.

When the government talks about page 22 of the red book, that it will replace the GST, it is the same letters, the same meaning. GST perhaps means "give Sheila time". How much time does the Deputy Prime Minister need?

[The Speaker]

The hon. member should put her question.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these people know exactly what they campaigned on in the last election. It is on tape. We saw it on television last night. Unlike Richard Nixon's, these Liberal tapes cannot be erased. Over two years have passed and nothing has happened.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister lie awake at night knowing that she has broken promises?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

A lot of the time different emphasis is put on words. Although I am sure Hansard will show the words lie awake'', I caution hon. members to stay away from the wordlie'' as much as you can.

The term was "lie awake'. I accept that. If the honourable Deputy Prime Minister wishes to answer, fine. If not, we will proceed.

Summer Jobs For Students

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In a press release dated March 12, the minister announced that he would increase funding for summer jobs for students to $120

million. Curiously enough, the amounts allocated by the government add up to $105.65 million and not $120 million, a $14.35 million shortfall. How can the minister explain this shortfall in his release concerning summer jobs for students?