Debates of May 17th, 1996

Impaired Driving

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are crying out for justice concerning drunk drivers who kill, and the Liberal government knows it.

Over and over we see slap on the wrist sentencing given to people who choose to drink and drive and as a result of their choices kill people on our highways.

My private member's bill, if the government had the guts to support it, would ensure that anyone found guilty of impaired driving causing death would receive a minimum seven year sentence.

My bill is supported by number of Liberal MPs, but the Minister of Justice will not let them speak in favour of it. Why is the Liberal government denying its own members the opportunity to speak in support of this important bill as their constituents wish?.

How many more innocent Canadians have to die at the hands of drunk drivers before the government does something? How many more senseless deaths? How many more?

Filipino Canadian Community

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when bestowed upon its members community distinction is always a source of special pride to any ethnocultural group. The Filipino Canadian community claims this special pride, as two of its young women were recently honoured in Manitoba.

Last week Hygia dela Cruz received the Gerrie Hammond Memorial Award of Promise, the junior equivalent of the YWCA Women of Distinction Award. Last month Mary Joyce Cabigting received the Premier's Youth Volunteer Service Award. These awards assume greater meaning at a time when some Canadian youth have problems in society.

Both young women were honoured for their personal achievements and for their excellence in the service of others. They are role model citizens.

I am honoured to salute them. Please join me in wishing them continued success.

Capital Gains

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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

While the minister is busy complaining that there are not enough rich families and refuses to suspend the decision of Revenue Canada on taxing capital gains, the precedent set by this decision could mean the loss of several hundreds of millions of dollars in Canadian tax revenues, thus putting more pressure on taxpayers.

Is the minister of revenue in her job only to serve the very rich families in Canada, or is it her responsibility to defend the interests of all Quebecers and all Canadians, particularly the most disadvantaged?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, my mandate is to ensure the tax system is fair and equitable to all. The interesting result of the conversations in the House and in the popular press is there needs to be more information on how tax rulings work in our system, on how taxable Canadian property is interpreted and used. The best venue for that is a public domain like the finance committee.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday her colleague from Brome-Missiquoi said on television that people expected the government to act.

So when will the minister suspend the decision of Revenue Canada until we find a permanent solution to this thorny problem?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we are taking direct action. Our view, the best view, is to ensure Canadians have an opportunity to hear all aspects of this case, decisions on which were made in 1991 and 1985. We are taking direct and urgent action. We encourage the committees to carry on with their work.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister must understand that she ought to suspend the decision by Revenue Canada. Otherwise, by refusing to act quickly in this matter she becomes an accomplice in tax evasion worth several hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which all come out of the pockets of Canadians, because the rich will have taken their money elsewhere.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am not refusing to do anything. It is very important for the community to understand how tax rulings play a significant role in our tax system and the underpinning they provide to Canadian taxpayers. Our tax system is very complex. Very often individuals need an advance ruling from Revenue Canada. That forms the basis of a fair and equitable process.

These things will be discussed fully and openly in committee. I encourage the hon. member to ensure her members are part of that review.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, complexity is not a reason not to act. If she thinks it is, let her step aside for someone more competent, who can handle it.

Yesterday, the minister of revenue stated in this House, in connection with tax loopholes, that she was acting "in a very public way", with complete transparency. She also repeated for the gullible that she was serving and defending the public interest.

To what public interest was she referring, that of very rich Canadian families, or that of the many Quebecers and Canadians who are being crushed by a tax burden which is constantly increasing because of her government's inaction?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, my job is to ensure fairness and equity for all Canadians.

As the hon. member participates in these open reviews, and I understand he is a member of the finance committee, he will come to understand that this aspect of the law does have implications not only for rich Canadians but also for Canadians of more modest means.

I look forward to his response and the report. I encourage him to continue his participation.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general, who is responsible for monitoring government actions, has said that a Revenue Canada decision will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in the future.

Would acting in the public interest not mean suspending Revenue Canada's advance decision, revealing the other cases that may have come up since the decision, and putting in place a permanent solution to this problem?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member participates in the process where there is full co-operation and officials from my department and finance providing advice, outside witnesses perhaps coming to explain the position as well as chartered accountants who are Canadians and understand the system and perhaps individual Canadians, we will have clarity on this topic.

I continue to believe that having the discussion in an open forum where members of Parliament can listen to witnesses and experts and then provide advice to the government makes the most sense in this case.

Young Offenders Act

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, recently we have learned that a 13-year old girl in Toronto was abducted and raped by a so-called untouchable, an 11-year old who cannot be charged under the Young Offenders Act.

This 11-year old has a string of robberies under his belt but all the police could do was hand him over to his mother. What is more, this child criminal was well aware that he could not be charged and taunted police with the fact when he was picked up.

Will the government now listen to police officers and victims groups as well as members of my caucus and lower the minimum age under the Young Offenders Act to include 10 and 11-year olds?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the federal government has already enacted changes to the Young Offenders Act to stiffen up the penalties for the most serious crimes.

As the hon. member is also aware, the Minister of Justice has asked the justice committee to go across the country and gather input specifically looking at further changes to the Young Offenders Act. Very specifically, the minister has asked that the committee look at the age at which a young person could be made subject to the act. The committee will be reporting and we will be responding to that report.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the latest amendment to the Young Offenders Act, members of our caucus pressed the government to look into this very question and include that within Bill C-37 as an amendment so that society could be protected from the criminal acts committed by 10 and 11-year olds across the country.

After apprehending the 11-year old repeat offender responsible for this vicious rape, Toronto police detective Duncan Miller said:

"He is using the Young Offenders Act to protect himself from the law. He is fully aware of his rights". The 11-year old offender warned police that he could not be charged.

My question is for the justice minister's representative. Why will he not protect our children from these horrible acts? Why will he not unhandcuff our police forces and provide them with the legal means to protect our children from these horrible criminal acts? When will he stop providing the immunity to these violent young offenders?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the justice committee will be making recommendations on this very specific point.

No matter at what age the line is drawn, cases will always appear that would suggest the line should be drawn somewhere else. As all the evidence and studies indicate, there needs to be more action taken by the provinces, communities and individuals across the country to assist young people before they get into trouble with the criminal justice system. An ounce of prevention is certainly worth a pound of cure.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unacceptable that people can knowingly commit crimes of violence and not be held accountable by our justice system.

Federal justice officials maintain that treatment and community programs, not prison, is the best way to reform child criminals.

Let us take a look at this 11-year old rapist. He has a thick police file and is believed to be responsible for a string of auto thefts and robberies. One week before he raped the young girl he was caught trying to hold up a gas station with a toy gun. The only thing police could do was return him to his mother or place him with the Children's Aid Society.

I ask the government, where was the treatment or community programs the Liberal government likes to talk about? Why will it not simply change the system to hold children, and their parents if negligent, responsible for the crimes they commit?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, the justice committee is looking at the issue. The Minister of Justice has asked the committee to look at this very specific issue.

After listening to Canadians and stakeholders within the justice system from coast to coast, the committee will bring forward a report. When the government acts on the report we hope the hon. member will support our actions.

Referendums

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister said on several occasions that the next Quebec referendum, and the declaration of sovereignty, would have to comply with the Constitution. However, the Constitution is silent on the issue.

Does the Prime Minister intend to make a constitutional amendment to this effect?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very clear on these issues. Our plan is to promote reconciliation. We are trying to avoid another referendum.

Any discussion on what will happen if another referendum is held is purely academic. The government said in its speech from the throne that, 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.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have a peculiar notion of clarity.

It is getting increasingly bogged down in its clarity. Since the Prime Minister refuses to recognize a 50 per cent plus one vote in favour of sovereignty, how can the minister claim that the federalist status quo side won the 1995 referendum, given that it only got 50.4 per cent of the votes?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the acceptance of a 50 per cent plus one vote. A referendum is a consultation process and two have already been held in Quebec in the last 15 years. We accepted the results. The idea is definitely not to set a specific number. It is clear that the rights of 30 million citizens are at stake and that Canada will never be broken up by a 50 per cent plus one result.

Newfoundland

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

It seems that the sweetheart deals between Liberal governments did not end with the GST pay-off. Term 29 of Newfoundland's terms of union granted an annual payment of $8 million from the federal government. Now we hear that the Liberal government has changed the rules and will give a lump sum payment of $160 million, a windfall, to Mr. Brian Tobin.

Why is the federal government asking Newfoundlanders to pay a penalty tomorrow for saving Brian Tobin's career today?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the annual payment to Newfoundland is some $8 million a year. It is to be made in perpetuity as part of the original Constitution.

Newfoundland is facing some exceptional and difficult fiscal and economic challenges with the fishery and with the phase down of Hibernia. It has been requested that the payment be moved forward and we have agreed. It covers an advance of some $50 million this year and further payments later on. It is a fair and reasonable substitute for the $8 million statutory requirement.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, paying the money up front today means it will cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars more over 20 years than it would if Newfoundland were receiving $8 million a year. At the same time, today's sweetheart deal will deprive future Newfoundland governments of that $8 million in yearly income. In other words, Brian Tobin is clinging to his credibility by his money grabbing fingernails on this issue.

Why is the Government of Canada continuing to steal from Newfoundlanders and other Canadians today just to pull Brian Tobin's fat out of the fire?