Debates of March 16th, 1999

Criminal Code

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured and pleased to take part in this debate. I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Yukon for bringing about this very important matter and giving us in the Chamber an opportunity to discuss this issue.

The defence of provocation I would not go so far as to call an obscure section of the Criminal Code but it is one that does not receive broad application.

It is one that I did come across in my time as a crown prosecutor in Nova Scotia. It is a section that has a fair bit of confusion surrounding it. Much like the defence of self-defence, it is extremely difficult for jury members, in particular lay persons without legal training. I would even go so far as to say that many in the legal profession have a great deal of trouble interpreting sections such as this including provocation.

The motivation behind the hon. member for Yukon in bringing this matter forward is certainly laudable. I am also familiar with the very tragic case of Susan Klassen. I had the pleasure of meeting her sister when she attended a justice conference here in Ottawa last summer. Her motivation is beyond question. I note from her remarks that it is something she feels very passionately about, and rightly so.

However, as we progress in the law we must be aware that there is a true danger in taking single cases in isolation and using that as a motivation to entirely change the law. I am not suggesting that is entirely what is happening here, but there is always a danger in holding up one particular case as a means to entirely revamp or, in this proposed scenario, withdraw a section of the Criminal Code.

That is not to say that there is not often a great deal of need and in fact a legitimate desire to change a section of the Criminal Code to make it operate in a more efficient and just way for Canadians at large. However, to remove section 232 of the Criminal Code, I would suggest, would ignore the fact that there is a real element of human frailty encompassed in that particular section.

The Criminal Code is a document that is not immune to change. However, there are certain sections of the code that have been in place for some period of time. One would make the strong argument that they have been subject to considerable judicial interpretation and expression over a long period of time, which does have some weight when one considers the desire to remove that section completely from the code.

With respect to Motion No. 265, I would suggest that there is really a need for change, but perhaps not a need to go as far as this motion would suggest, which is to withdraw the entire section completely because of an unpopular or an unjust interpretation of that section.

All sections of the Criminal Code, however old, are written in such a way as to allow for judicial interpretation. Upon first glance, sections of the Criminal Code may seem to be outdated, yet when subjected to judicial interpretation they are brought up to speed in a number of ways which allow a judge to ensure that justice does prevail.

Detractors may argue that problems arise in judicial interpretation and that allows for decisions such as we saw in the B.C. court case involving Shaw. That particular case once again highlights the danger in taking one particular instance of a judicial interpretation and suggesting that we must then repeal an entire section of the Criminal Code.

I am a firm believer in change for our system. I am also confident that the judges of the supreme court will correct the ruling with respect to child pornography. With that said, the Criminal Code is a written reference by which Canadians conduct themselves. It is intended to provide guidelines for our society, for a safe and orderly environment and it is an embodiment of a moral standard that is to be upheld by those who choose to live or visit Canada.

It is true that the Criminal Code is not perfect. How could it be? It is made by man. Yet to allow the dissolution of an entire law simply to appease the demands of a special interest group would set a very dangerous precedent and would lead to constant band-aid solutions to very specific problems.

The oversimplification of any law would limit judicial interpretation of the code when dealing with future cases.

Being quick to enact a change each time a particular case emerges through the courts and is handed down, I suggest, would be very dangerous and would lead to an eventual dismantling of our Criminal Code or such disarray or uncertainty amongst the judiciary, law enforcement agents, lawyers and, most importantly, the general public that this type of confusion would further undermine an already very sceptical and cynical public.

The Department of Justice has been asked for commentary on this particular section, among others, such as self-defence and the defence of property, but in particular the defence of provocation. This is an extremely useful exercise.

It is important to say at the outset that provocation is not a complete defence, as has been mentioned. It mitigates, it brings a murder charge into a manslaughter situation and denotes a lesser degree of culpability.

Concern over the issue of the defence of provocation stems from societal progress. In the early 1990s critics felt that this section of the Criminal Code promoted outdated values and was used to defeat modern egalitarian principles. However, it affords a degree of protection that is legitimate, perhaps limited at times, and as a blanket statement it does not lower or lessen the level of accountability in all cases.

Currently the Criminal Code allows for the defence of provocation. However, in recent years the nature, the use and the existence of this law has become more narrowly defined. The objective and the subjective tests that are incorporated into this section provide some degree of protection.

Moreover, the successful use of the defence of provocation in a number of well publicized cases raises public concern. However, there is no suggestion here that this law condones violence in any way, shape or form. In a legal sense it takes into consideration the deprivation of a person's reason and ability to respond rationally and proportionately to a very stressful situation. Where they might have acted otherwise, the defence of provocation does particularize and individualize the law.

I do not believe for a moment that the law condones violence. In fact the law protects those who find themselves in this condition of mental anguish or distress. This condition could stem from an extreme situation, such as mental, physical or emotional abuse. Therefore, persons who found themselves reaching that point of distress should not be deprived of the ability to raise this issue at trial, not for the purposes of completely removing responsibility for their actions, but for the purposes of putting a particular scenario into a particular circumstantial scenario before the trier of fact and the jury.

The Criminal Code can protect persons if it remains in its current form where non-partisan judges are left to interpret the code and hand down a decision that will address the needs and concerns of modern society. Specific interpretations or specific factors, such as age, race, sex or religion, are taken into account when a judge is faced with weighing the applicability of provocation. A taunt or the provocative action or remark is also taken into consideration, so it is very much an individualized and tailored piece of legislation.

Issues of self-defence and defence of property have also been singled out for change.

Again, I commend the member because this is a very timely intervention. It is fair to say that it is an extremely complicated and confusing section of the Criminal Code that requires greater study and greater definition under the current provisions.

The Department of Justice has expressed a desire to look at these proposed changes. As was previously mentioned, it has already made certain recommendations as they pertain to the defence of provocation.

With respect to dealing with this particular motion, the Department of Justice has expressed that willingness. As we have seen with other cases, and particularly situations involving changes to the Criminal Code, this government does not exactly have a great record to stand on in terms of its timeliness of response, but hope burns eternal in this regard. One would hope that the non-partisan level of debate that we have heard here will also prevail when it comes time to look at this situation at the committee.

Issues dealing with the legality involved in the interaction between men and women are in a constant state of flux in today's society. Working toward creating a level playing field is a constant challenge to our legal drafters, as well as those who are left to interpret these laws. We cannot either change the law as frequently as society changes or react in a very shortsighted way when occasion occurs.

I commend the hon. member again for taking the initiative to bring this matter forward. The Progressive Conservative Party is not opposed to looking at this matter further at the justice committee or perhaps even looking at making specific amendments to the bill that has been brought forward.

The wording is what troubles me. I am afraid that it would be perhaps pre-emptive and an overreaction to simply remove this from the Criminal Code at this time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of Motion No. 265 I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and to lend my support to the motion.

Briefly, I would like to comment on the tone and the content of the debate in the House of Commons today. I would compliment all of the speakers for taking this issue in a very serious and respectful way.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice started her remarks by saying that this is an issue that the government is taking seriously and one in which it is interested. She herself has been seized of the issue for a good number of years, as has the current Minister of Justice.

The member for Yukon is to be doubly complimented for bringing this very timely issue forward now. From the debate we have heard in the House, there is a great level of interest. This is not something that came out of the blue or that stemmed out of one isolated incident in Yukon, although that is where the hon. member for Yukon started her remarks, speaking very passionately about the tragic death of a woman at the hands of her husband. We heard some of the detail. I am glad that we were spared some of the gruesome detail.

Too often in the House of Commons when we are dealing with tragic issues members fall into the sensationalism of the horrible deaths and other things which people went through. Surely the merits of the case can survive without dwelling on the gruesome and the gory.

The member from the Reform Party disappointed me, frankly. I was very surprised to hear the attitude of Reform members toward this motion. He prefaced his remarks by saying that gender should not be taken into consideration in this issue. He gave some statistics which indicated that in the tragic situation where a man killed a woman, 60% of the applications for taking this into consideration were rejected. Only 40% succeeded.

However, if it was the case of a woman killing a man and the lawyer for the defence wanted to use the defence of provocation, the numbers were reversed. The inverse was true. Forty per cent of the cases were rejected and 60% were accepted.

The member somehow used this as rationale or justification, suggesting that there is an imbalance and that women are treated more favourably in the application of the provocation rule than are men. I would like to take a moment to point out that it is the member from the Reform Party who fails to see the historic imbalance in the power relationship between men and women and who fails to recognize how such figures might come about, even given the fair application of the provocation rule.

Other members have spoken today of what a complex issue we are dealing with. It is true that lay people like me, frankly, have a hard time even getting our minds around when this rule should be used and when it should not. I do not envy the judges or whoever makes the determination as to whether a particular case should qualify under the provocation rule or whether it should be self-defence or spousal abuse syndrome arguments.

I can see this really getting to be a quagmire of minutia when someone is trying to determine when this works. The fact that it works at all and works even once in a rare blue moon is clearly too many. The member for Yukon made very good points indicating that this was an arcane leftover in our judicial laws. We do not need such a reference any more. It hearkens to a darker time when this kind of thing could be contemplated.

I do not like the idea that we can justify the use of violence in any situation, frankly, because it tends to condone it. Is it okay to lash out in the schoolyard if Joey pushes you down? We spend a long time teaching our children that is not okay. There are other ways of conflict resolution other than striking out. A black eye in the schoolyard was sort of a common incident when I was growing up certainly, but now hopefully we have moved beyond that and have matured.

In the same light and by the same token, why then do we accept that any level of violence is acceptable if one is insulted or provoked mercilessly to the point where one could not stand it any more? Really one is saying “I can't take it any more” and lashes out. This law deals with lashing out in the ultimate way, murder, killing someone.

In one of the cases cited by the member for Yukon, the B.C. case involving a man named Burt Stone, he stabbed his wife 47 times, put her body in a toolbox and then went to Mexico for a month. For this he got a sentence of four years in jail. He was able to prove that his wife had provoked his violent behaviour by verbal insults delivered over a four hour road trip. He had to suffer nagging, abuse or insults for a four hour period and the result was he stabbed her 47 times and stuffed her into a toolbox. The defence of provocation was allowed in this incident.

That one incident alone would motivate me to rise up and speak against ever allowing the defence of provocation to be used. I do not need other incidents, although, as I say, the reason the member for Yukon originally rose on this issue was to deal with the Klassen murder in Yukon.

One member spoke of the folly of letting special interest groups drive our legislative agenda when it comes to justice issues, as if to say that we cannot be so loose with our changing of laws that if we get 50,000 signatures and lobby the government aggressively it will have no choice but to chuck that section of the code. No one is advocating that. I do not think we could accuse the member for Yukon of acting in a frivolous way or asking government to act in a way that is not prudent.

There is a great history of the lobbying and studying that has gone on about this issue. The member walked us through some of the review and study by groups and by the Department of Justice, knowing full well that this set of rules and laws should be changed. It was reviewed by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in 1989. We had the report of the federal-provincial working group on homicide in 1991, the report of the bar association in 1992, a House of Commons subcommittee on the recodification of the Criminal Code in 1993, and on and on it has been reviewed. It is only fitting and only proper that we now have it where it should be, being debated in the House of Commons.

A member mentioned special interest groups. He tried to imply that this was somehow the women's movement or something. I do not know if that is what he was getting at, but to even say that is to trivialize the issue and not to show respect for the member for Yukon who clearly is following through on a progressive movement that has been going on for over a decade to try to have this aspect of the code altered and changed.

One murder which results in a charge of manslaughter as a result of the use of the provocation defence is too much. I take issue with one member who said earlier that one does not get acquitted, that one is reduced from murder to manslaughter and manslaughter can have a penalty of life.

That member failed to point out that manslaughter can also have no minimum sentence whatsoever. The person could in fact walk with a probation, without serving any jail time. It is a huge advantage if the lawyer manages to successful argue the provocation defence.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government has misled Canadians about Cape Breton Island.

Since Liberals decided to close the door on my home two months ago they have spread convoluted and inaccurate information. Let us look at the facts and not at Liberal rhetoric. Just over $1 billion have gone into Devco and $5 billion has come out, which is a five to one return on the public's investment. No stockbroker would sneeze at that.

The men who worked hard and paid taxes will not receive benefits. Our tax dollars will go in and nothing will come out. It is Liberal financial planning.

For every job lost at Devco another three will disappear from the private sector. Picture the impact in towns where unemployment is already over 40%.

This economic vandalism is all the more upsetting when looking at the reality of Cape Breton coal. The government has tried to say that $1 billion was wasted on Devco. It conjures up images of lazy workers and inefficient operations. What it does not say is that most of the money spent on Devco went on cleaning up sites the government inherited from the private mining companies which ran Cape Breton like a private empire for 200 years. When they bailed out they left the taxpayers the bill.

It has nothing to do with inefficient workers but everything to do with a government that did not have the spine to stand up to foreign companies and the big banks that backed them.

The truth is that Devco's coal mining operations, stripped of the clean-up costs and the numberless failed economic development schemes hatched by the government, actually made money. That is right. Do we hear about that from the government's spin doctors? Do we hear how Devco miners are known to be the best in the world or how Devco's employees have provided power for Nova Scotia and cash for their communities? No, of course not.

All we hear are more derogatory stereotypes, more contempt. Now, to add insult to injury, the government has announced its latest plan to revitalize our economy. There is $40 million for the social research and demonstration corporation, $40 million for a corporation based in Ottawa hiring Ontarians to study Cape Bretoners. What an insult.

I want to be on the record opposing yet another Liberal patronage gift. I want to be on the record condemning money for Cape Breton being spent in Ottawa. Just as the books were fudged with Devco and whole communities demeaned by slander and innuendo from the government, so now we see the future: more money for friends of the government, more money for Ontario.

I hope the government will have the courage to admit the obvious truth, that it thinks of Atlantic Canada as nothing more than a convenient way to channel money from the taxpayers to its friends. The government should stop studying Cape Bretoners and start listening to us. We want honesty. We want accountability and we want to control our own destiny.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before in the House, meetings have already been held between Devco's management and union representatives to review the human resources package and they continue to meet.

I am pleased to say that co-operation between management and the union is strong at the present time. Before the roof fall at Phalen colliery, production was very good. Since the roof fall, unions and management have been working together to clean up the coal face and assess the damage. To this end, both the unions and management have hired independent experts to assess 8 east wall with Devco management agreeing to pay half of the union's independent expert.

To reiterate, the criteria to determine eligibility for the early retirement incentive program have not been pulled out of a hat. They are the criteria that were negotiated between Devco and its unions through a joint planning committee in 1996. They are the criteria that Devco's collective agreements indicate shall apply to the early retirement incentive program for any further workforce reductions. The $111 million in funding that has been approved by the government for workforce adjustment measures includes $60 million for an early retirement incentive program, $46 million for severance packages and $5 million for training for employees who receive severance packages.

I want to make it clear that the early retirement incentive program has absolutely no relationship to the pension benefits that Devco's employees have earned through participation in one of the corporation's pension plans. Workers will continue to be eligible for any earned pension benefits.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question I first asked prior to the federal budget regarding funding for the RCMP.

The RCMP cadet training academy, better known as the depot, is located in my riding of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. We are also home to F Division of the RCMP which serves as our provincial police force. Its head office is in my riding. Regina is very proud to be associated with the RCMP and many of the workers there are constituents of mine.

Over the past six months a number of them have approached me concerned about the future of the depot and the future of the force. NDP caucus colleagues from rural, northern and remote communities have also been raising concerns about a shortage of RCMP constables in their districts.

Last October training was suspended at the depot. RCMP budgets across the country were frozen, $10 million was redirected to B.C. and a $1 million study of management problems was ordered by the Treasury Board.

In a former life I worked as a management consultant advising businesses on various aspects of their operations. It is not a bad idea for an organization facing or coping with significant change and outside pressure to step back and analyse what it is doing and how it could be done better. Evaluation, auditing and medium to long term planning are vital for an organization that spends $1.1 billion annually with such a critically important mandate as the RCMP.

The RCMP staffing shortage is an urgent problem, one that is already documented and that management and the Liberal government need to fix now. We do not need to wait for an organizational audit to see that. I am told that fully one half of the 16,000 member force will be eligible for retirement in seven years. We already have a shortage of 400 constables in western Canada. Why have we not been spending every single day training their replacements?

The depot knows there is a problem. Chief Superintendent Harper Boucher said just last week in the newspaper: “Right now, right across the country, there's a demand for new members, so we're not meeting that need”.

Last week it was announced that the depot could resume training using shorter length courses starting in April. That is a start but it will not begin to fill the backlog if half the force is retired by 2006. I see the government has restored about a quarter of the funds it cut to the RCMP's budget. They had better invest some of it in training new constables as soon as possible.

I would also like to mention the persisting worries of the depot's civilian workers who are being scapegoated for RCMP management's overspending in B.C. and Alberta divisions and headquarters.

They have been told that RCMP management wants to bring in alternate service delivery, ASD, which is a new word for privatization as a so-called cost saving measure. Everyone knows that in Saskatchewan privatization means fewer jobs, lower pay, reduced services and higher costs to taxpayers.

The civilian workers asked to meet with the solicitor general when he was scheduled to attend the graduation ceremonies last week. The solicitor general later cancelled his plans to attend and referred them to his deputy. The deputy then cancelled.

I hope the solicitor general and his deputy are not afraid to meet with those workers. They have important information for him about why privatizing those services will not save the money management claims. I have met with those workers. They provide a professional, loyal and dedicated service to the depot and the force.

Fundamental decisions such as privatizing civilian services at the depot should not be made until after the KPMG management audit has been completed and after the employees have had their input. The solicitor general should put the drive to privatize on pause and consider the impact on the workers, their families and on the city of Regina. I wrote to him and to the President of the Treasury Board over a month ago asking them to do so. I look forward, as do my constituents, to a reply which hopefully will be coming shortly. It has been over a month now.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has asked what the government is doing to ensure that the RCMP has the resources and qualified personnel necessary to carry out its policing mandate, given that training was suspended at the Regina depot in October 1998.

As is well known, the government takes its financial responsibilities towards Canadian taxpayers very seriously. In order to be able to implement the plans necessary to be able to operate within its 1998-99 budget, the RCMP imposed a temporary freeze on discretionary spending earlier in the current fiscal year. Another temporary measure consisted in suspending any new training activities at the Regina depot.

Before resuming its activities, the RCMP decided to carry out a detailed review with respect to the alternative service delivery of all programs provided by its training centre in this division. This review enabled the RCMP to identify whether internal resources or non-members were more qualified to deliver the services now being provided at the training centre.

I am pleased to say that the commissioner recently announced that training at the depot will resume effective April 6, 1999. The RCMP will implement a more efficient cadet training program. This modified approach will allow the RCMP to attain its program objectives more effectively, while ensuring the high quality of training for which the RCMP is known the world over.

I myself can testify to this reputation. Whether at Interpol headquarters in Lyon or in Bosnia, it was brought home to me that, far from being an idle claim, this reputation was very richly deserved.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan is doing double duty tonight so he has good reason to miss his dinner.

A long time ago, on November 17 to be exact, I asked the Minister of Transport about the nominating process for directors of the Halifax Port Authority. At the time I correctly predicted that the board would be purely Liberal and would include Merv Russell who is back in the saddle again as chairman.

The minister then and more recently invoked the principle that all advisory groups are represented. Of course there are board members from various walks of life. It would be pretty hard to avoid that. But they all share one common important qualification, which is that they have their common loyalty to the Liberal Party.

This problem is not just restricted to Halifax. In Vancouver, only two out of five stakeholder nominees were appointed as directors to the new port authority. I guess this conforms to the Liberal definition of devolution of power to the local level.

Looking ahead, the Prince Rupert Port Authority is scheduled to swing into action on about May 1. I fearlessly predict that one Rhoda Witherly, twice defeated Liberal candidate and current chair of the port corporation, will find a safe berth in that harbour. I will not even be surprised if her campaign manager, a Ms. Denton, makes it into the dock as well.

It is well known and clearly understood that in the Liberal lexicon privatization is a synonym for patronage and the creation of these port authorities is a form of privatization. Can the Liberals just occasionally loosen their grip and respect not only the letter but also the spirit of the marine act? It is not too much to ask.

There were some highly qualified candidates bypassed on the Halifax and Vancouver lists. There are some really outstanding people among those being sponsored for Prince Rupert.

I ask the parliamentary secretary, will the government change its longstanding policy and attach some importance to the business and technical qualifications of non-Liberal candidates to this and other boards?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the concerns that have been raised with respect to the port advisory committee process in Halifax. I might indicate that the process is also applicable in all other port authority compositions.

The role of the port advisory committee was to develop a user nomination process in response to the requirement in the Canada Marine Act to consult with users on certain board appointments. This nomination process has been reflected in the letters patent. The purpose of this process was to solicit names for user representatives of Canada port authority boards and to forward nominations to the Minister of Transport for consideration.

Port advisory committee members will not be appointing directors to the Halifax Port Authority. The authority is an agent of the crown and the majority of directors are appointed by governor in council. In addition, the province and municipality each appoint a board member.

To ensure that the process was inclusive, port managers were asked to contact users and invite them to attend a nomination meeting. In addition, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper advising of the port advisory committee nomination meeting.

With respect to the composition of the port advisory committee, a broad cross-section of port users was represented, including members of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and the Halifax Shipping Association. The list provided by the port advisory committee was used by the minister in making his recommendations to the governor in council.

As with the provincial and municipal appointees to the Halifax Port Authority, each user representative will serve the board with a view to the needs of the Halifax Port Authority as a whole.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a report was published in January 1999 of the Toronto mayor's homelessness action task force, better known as the Golden report. It revealed that in Toronto alone about 3,000 individuals stay in shelters, about 37,000 people are on waiting lists for subsidized social housing and an additional 40,000 are spending more than half of their income on rent or are living in extremely precarious housing conditions. The situation in other Canadian cities is also serious and has been described by municipal leaders as a national disaster.

Some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services whether the government would be prepared to launch a housing program to meet the needs of the homeless. This issue requires urgent and special attention. There is a great need for federal and provincial funds for the construction of social housing units.

Since the Golden report was released, the picture has not improved. Homeless people in many Canadian cities are a reality. More people have died as a result of cold and exposure, including highly publicized deaths such as the one a short distance from Queen's Park in Toronto.

The government has announced some measures. For example, on December 18 the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announced $50 million in addition to the $50 million already committed to the residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, for the fiscal year ending this March. Only $11.6 million of this money is for the most needy homeless. This is not adequate to meet the need.

In 1996 a decision was made to transfer social housing to the provinces. In some provinces, for example in Saskatchewan, the arrangement has worked. In others, such as Ontario, the situation is bad because of the unwillingness of the Ontario government to build social housing.

It must be noted that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation can and has played a strong leadership role in the past. Examples are Woodgreen Red Door in Toronto, Metropole Hotel in Vancouver and the Interlodge centre in Montreal.

I urge the federal government tonight to inject new funds into a program for the construction of new social housing units in those provinces that are not taking such initiative themselves, particularly in providing for the homeless.

We all know that in addition to providing shelter, the construction of social housing stimulates the economy, creates jobs and maintains social stability.

Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if she can indicate to us whether the government will provide additional funds for the construction of social housing, in particular for the homeless.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member who has a very long history of deep concern for the less fortunate in society. As a stay at home mom many years ago I followed his career as minister of the environment and was always a big fan.

The minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation shares this member's concern, particularly about the homeless.

The government recognizes the importance of affordable, adequate and suitable housing in promoting the health and well-being of all Canadians. We are working to improve the economic climate in Canada to help promote housing, affordability and accessibility.

We also recognize the value of partnerships among governments, community organizations and the private sector in addressing the problems faced by the homeless.

Because of the complexity of this issue many players must be involved in finding a solution. However, there is currently a lack of understanding and consensus on the best methods to address the needs of Canada's homeless.

Governments and service agencies have asked for better documentation and information sharing on best practices for addressing homelessness. In response, CMHC has undertaken two initiatives. First, it has identified a range of best practices in addressing homelessness from across the country and is currently documenting and evaluating ten of the better ones. Selected projects include a variety of project types, population served and regions of the country.

Second, CMHC is investing in the most effective means of passing on information on these and other best practices to those who need it most.

CMHC undertook consultations with shelter agencies and stakeholders across the country in 1998. As a result the corporation is now planning a series of small focused regional round table discussions to take place in April 1999, followed by a national round table in June. These round tables organized in partnership with local networks for service organizations have the following goals: to bring together key people involved directly with the homeless population; to explore the transfer ability of successful approaches; to provide regional and national round tables for the exchange of information and experience among decision makers; to facilitate new links for the partnership opportunities in the development of solutions.

I am afraid I am out of time. I would be pleased to share the rest of that with the hon. member for Davenport.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.43 p.m.)