Debates of May 14th, 1999

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Criminal Records Act

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, for the Solicitor General of Canada]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely honoured to rise to speak to the merits of Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act.

This is an extremely important bill, dealing as it does with improving the safety of our children and other vulnerable people. This is an objective shared by all parties, as was amply demonstrated during debate and in committee.

I would like to begin by complimenting my colleagues sitting opposite on the spirit of co-operation that clearly demonstrates the extent and depth of our shared commitment. With the co-operation and advice of the other parties, this bill, as amended, is even stronger than it was when first tabled.

In particular, I am pleased to acknowledge the initiative taken by my hon. friend from Calgary Centre to introduce his own private member's bill on this same matter.

With his co-operation we have been able to ensure that the principles of his Bill C-284 are captured within Bill C-69 so that we can proceed expeditiously with this single proposal.

The central objective of the bill will be achieved by a process that it is outlined in clause 6. It will allow a flag to be placed in the criminal records system when a sex offender is granted a pardon and that record is sealed. This will help ensure that such records are identified and can be disclosed by the solicitor general for screening purposes.

As hon. members will know, the Criminal Records Act establishes a system to offer pardons to former offenders who have demonstrated a return to a law-abiding life.

It is designed to both recognize that return to good conduct and to encourage continued positive adjustment by removing the stigma and barriers to normal social participation created by a criminal record. Under that act, offenders can have their records sealed by obtaining a pardon from the National Parole Board.

I should point out that this does not expunge the conviction nor does it erase the record. The conviction is a matter of historical fact and the criminal record can be unsealed on the authority of the solicitor general if that is required in the interests of the administration of justice or national security.

Pardons are granted only when it has been demonstrated that crime free conduct has been resumed. In the case of summary conviction offences, this requires a three-year crime free period after completion of any and all sentences. In the case of more serious indictable offences, the waiting period is five years. Before a pardon is received, police are consulted in every community where pardon applicants have lived during the past five years.

The rate of success in obtaining pardons by applicants is quite high, well over 90%, but this does not reflect any lack of diligence in considering pardon applications. Rather, it indicates that the vast majority of applicants qualify for a pardon, whereas those who would obviously not qualify are deterred from applying when they see the thoroughness of the application information they must provide, including fingerprints.

The vast majority of pardon recipients are law abiding at the time of being pardoned. In fact, most pardon requests arise precisely because the applicants have returned to a stable law-abiding life.

As most hon. members will know from the inquiries they receive from their constituents, the most common reason for seeking a pardon is for purposes of employment and travel outside of the country. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the vast majority of pardon recipients remain law abiding.

During the past 28 years, nearly a quarter of a million pardons have been granted and of these, just over 6,000 have been revoked for a new offence. This is a “success rate” of over 97%.

Now, I hasten to note that Bill C-69 deals primarily with sex offenders, a small segment of the larger pardon group.

The solicitor general's department has recently estimated that, during the past 28 years, 4,200 sex offenders have received pardons and, of these, 114 or 2.6% have had their pardon revoked for commission of another sex offence.

Thus, these estimates demonstrate that, thankfully, only a very small number of pardoned sex offenders continue to pose a risk to society and to children in particular.

No matter how small the number, we are determined to reduce that risk to the lowest level possible. And that is why Bill C-69 is so crucial.

This is not a new found concern of the government. Bill C-69 is founded on measures that have been taken since the beginning of our mandate.

In 1993, extensive consultations were conducted in every region of this country with child-caring organizations of many descriptions: school and child welfare officials, voluntary organizations such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brother and Big Sister agencies, Volunteer Canada, etc.

Police were also included in all of these consultations as were victims organizations. It was clear in those consultations that a check of criminal records constitutes only one part of a comprehensive screening process, but an important and essential part.

Based on that consensus, the national screening system was launched in 1994. That system is a collaborative effort involving child-caring agencies, the police community, the Canadian Police Information Centre, or CPIC, and the departments of the solicitor general, health and justice.

Volunteer Canada in particular has been an important partner in training and informing the voluntary community about sound screening practices Only recently, I was proud to participate in the launch of a public information campaign by Volunteer Canada.

With the motto “You Have A Responsibility to Question”, it will encourage parents to insist that organizations to which they entrust their children have effective screening practices. The national screening system provides access to criminal records of applicants for positions of trust with children and vulnerable persons.

With the consent of the applicant—I repeat, because this is important, with the consent of the applicant—local police check the CPIC records system for a criminal record. They then provide the results of that search to the screening agency, usually through the applicant him or herself, for review as to its relevance to the position in question.

The national screening system has been working well and its use by the voluntary sector and other bona fide organizations is constantly expanding. There have been over 700,000 searches conducted to date.

Bill C-69 further refines the national screening system by correcting a weakness that has been identified in its use. That is the fact that a pardoned record of a sex offender could be overlooked during a routine screening check of the CPIC system.

As it stands today, the solicitor general has the authority to unseal and disclose a pardoned record for purposes consistent with the administration of justice, including screening. However, he cannot use that authority if such records are not requested—and they cannot be requested if their existence is unknown.

Because such records are removed from the CPIC system and kept separately in a sealed database, they do not show up when a routine query of CPIC is made.

This is exactly what is intended by the Criminal Records Act. For most purposes these records should be invisible. However, when persons are applying for a position of trust and their record suggests there would be an increased level of risk to a specific vulnerable category of person, an exception is warranted.

There was unanimous agreement on this point among the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of justice and solicitors general when they met in October 1998. A working group of senior officials examining ways to better protect children submitted 10 recommendations to their ministers. All 10 were adopted and are being implemented at this time.

One proposal was that the records of pardoned sex offenders be made available for consideration during screening of persons for positions of trust.

The federal Solicitor General, with the support of the Minister of Justice, undertook at that meeting to determine how best to do so, in consultation with provincial partners. Consequently, Bill C-69 provides that when a criminal record that includes a sex offence is pardoned and removed from CPIC, a notation or flag will be left in its place. After that, when a screening check is conducted, that notation will direct the police officer doing the search to submit fingerprints to CPIC headquarters with a request for that record. It will then be brought forward to the Solicitor General to consider its unsealing.

Some will say that this measure runs counter to the fundamental intent of the Criminal Records Act. Admittedly there is some basis for that position, but it is the government's view that this is a narrow and limited exception that is warranted.

Ministers of justice from all jurisdictions have supported this principle, as have all parties in this place.

Not taking this step would risk incurring the potential consequences of the pardon helping a predatory sex offender work his way into a position of trust with vulnerable people. I say it is a narrow exception. Only sex offences on a list that will be placed in regulations will cause a flag to be placed on CPIC.

This flag will only become visible during a screening search that will be indicated by the entry code on the computer terminal.

Unauthorized use of that code will be prohibited by the act and by CPIC policy. Moreover, there will be other safeguards built into the system.

Consent of the applicant will always be required and he will retain the option of abandoning the application if he wishes not to disclose his record to the screening agency.

Fingerprints will accompany the request to unseal a pardoned record to ensure the accurate identification of the applicant. And finally, the Solicitor General will have to agree that disclosure of the record is warranted.

These safeguards will protect the rights of pardoned ex-offenders. They will protect them from having their pardoned records arbitrarily disclosed while ensuring that bona fide agencies will have access to the full record of applicants who have committed sex offences.

This will not automatically deny them placement in such positions, but it will allow agencies to fully consider what role in their organization would be appropriate for such persons.

Ensuring that police will play a central role in screening will provide considerable assurance that the system will not be abused by persons who are trying to evade detection.

Before concluding, I should mention that flagging pardoned records on CPIC is not the only provision in Bill C-69. The bill will also clarify and strengthen the pardon system is other ways as well.

For example, it will provide that pardons will be automatically revoked upon conviction for a so-called hybrid offence—one that can be prosecuted by indictment or a summary offence.

At present, automatic revocation applies only to indictable offences.

In addition, a waiting period of at least one year will be required before an applicant who has been denied a pardon can apply again.

Appeals to the board in cases of denial or revocation of a pardon will now normally be in writing only, and the act will specify more clearly that the effect of the pardon is to seal the record, not expunge the fact of conviction.

Regulations to the act will also specify the sex offences that will be flagged on CPIC and the wording that must be used in the consent form that applicants sign.

Regulations will also set out the factors that are considered by the Solicitor General in making his decision whether or not to unseal a record.

These are important changes. They are changes that are based on experience with earlier and effective measures already instituted by this government. They respond to the unanimous recommendation of provincial and territorial colleagues. They are consistent, I believe, with the shared concern of all hon. members to do all that is possible to protect our children and vulnerable adults from predatory sexual offenders who would conspire to harm them.

We on this side of the House welcome the interest and support of the other parties for this important legislation. In view of the clear interest of all parties, I am confident we can proceed expeditiously with this legislation. Naturally, I invite all my colleagues in this House to support the bill. I will conclude, however, by again complimenting them all, particularly the hon. member for Calgary Centre, for the superb contribution and excellent co-operation that has led the Standing Committee on Justice to stand unanimously behind this bill.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent speech. He has covered many of the key points on the bill. I do not think it would serve the House for me to repeat them at any great length. He has articulated the purpose of the bill very well.

I will just touch on a couple of the points that have brought us to the decision the House will make today on Bill C-69. These points have to do with the human interest part of the bill. It speaks well to the process we have and that it can still work.

The hon. member articulated the purpose of the bill. It is to allow access to pardons. If a person, who has committed sexual offences, particularly against children, applies for a position of caring for children, there would be an opportunity for organizations to get access to the pardon records.

Bill C-69 is a bill for which, not surprisingly, there is broad support in the House. It relates very specifically to a bill that I brought forward to the House, Bill C-284, which effectively did the same thing and which passed second reading in the House.

We have the information in the CPIC system today of those who have been pardoned for sexual offences, as the hon. member mentioned. The bill will now allow those pardon records to be flagged so that those who want access to that information in order to assess someone who is applying for a job of caring for children can now have access even past the pardon.

It is a good bill. It is very consistent with Bill C-284, which I brought forward.

My bill, Bill C-284, passed second reading in the House. At about the time that we were in the justice committee looking at Bill C-284 the government brought Bill C-69 forward. Bill C-69 effectively did the same thing as my bill. It was broader in some areas and included more types of sex offences, which was good. However, it was not as strong in our estimation in some other areas.

Collectively, we worked together to bring both bills to that committee at the same time so that committee members could examine the different aspects of both bills and come up with a stronger option at the end of the day.

There are some things I would like to see in Bill C-69 that are not there, but the majority of issues I was concerned about have been addressed.

How did we get here? I think there is a human interest story the House should be aware of. Six years ago a lady in Vancouver named Gertie Pool started a petition to allow for greater access to information to protect children from sexual predators which quickly received 25,000 names and was brought forward to the House.

The Reform Party member for Fraser Valley put forward a private member's bill in the 35th parliament that was basically on the same theme as Bill C-69 and Bill C-284. That bill was never drawn or deemed votable but it was in the House.

In the 36th parliament, I took the member's bill, modified it slightly and put it back into the mix. Interestingly enough, my private member's bill was drawn. I appeared before the committee to see if it would be deemed votable and we had some witness testimony that helped the decision. In the wisdom of the committee, they said, “Yes, let us bring this before the House and make it votable”.

We debated the bill in the House. Even though there were a number of members on the government side who thought maybe we did not need Bill C-284, it passed second reading and that got it to committee.

From a concerned citizen's petition we have a private member's bill that has passed second reading. The government was also somewhat concerned about the issue. It had been doing some studies in Correctional Service Canada and was working on Bill C-69.

This all came together in the justice committee. Once we were in committee we put forward some amendments to make it a more automatic disclosure so that there would be less discretion on whether or not the information would be disclosed to the hiring institution.

I give thanks to the many witnesses that came before the committee such as the police association and the chiefs of police association. Julian Fantino also came forward, as well as many victims groups. These witnesses brought home the tragedy of a sexual offence, particularly against children, being a life sentence to the victims, something they never fully get over.

Many groups from the YMCA, boys groups, boy scouts and all kinds of children's organizations signed on. They told us they were behind us in this regard and wanted us to get it through the House of Commons. Many of them sacrificed time and effort to support the bill. They are one of the reasons we are able to support an amended version of Bill C-69 which combines the strength of both bills.

I commend my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie. He has been instrumental in working with the committee, with the solicitor general and with me. He has been true to his word throughout the process. He has been a key factor in bringing it all together and implementing a very important bill, which I believe is one of the first bills of the new solicitor general.

This very important bill allows children's organizations and those concerned about the care of children to do a thorough check of the information. The information is in the CPIC system. The flagging which he detailed in his speech is all that is needed. We can now use the information we already have to do a more thorough check to protect our children.

I am glad we have been able to demonstrate in the House through the bill and through the process that we can bypass partisan issues. We are not entirely agreed on how exactly to do it, but substantively, for the most part, there is agreement. It is better that we get 80% rather than nothing. Both sides of the House saw that. At the end of the day we have proven that the process can work, that we can serve the needs of Canadians and that we can better protect children.

In addition to the good work the bill will do, for me and for many members of the committee one of the most rewarding aspects of the whole process is that with persistence, perseverance and an honest concern on the part of citizens, witnesses and members of the House we can put forward legislation that serves the people and better protects our children, the most vulnerable members of society.

We can actually implement laws which will enable us to do that. A very encouraging note for me as a two year member of the House is that there is a way for all of us to impact on the process if we really care about putting Canadians first and putting some of our partisan positions aside.

I thank the House and the member for the earnest and diligent effort that all have applied in this regard. I encourage the House to send the bill on today to the Senate and hopefully soon for royal assent so people have access to this new tool to better protect Canadian children.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part today in this debate at the third reading stage of Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence.

Before speaking to the bill, I would like, on behalf of my colleague from Charlesbourg, to acknowledge the excellent work done by the Standing Committee on Justice in its study of Bill C-69. I am pleased to lend my voice to the member for Charlesbourg to recognize the exceptional spirit of co-operation shown by all members of this committee, who set aside any partisanship to do a thorough study of this bill. This kind of spirit should always be present in committee work.

Bill C-69 amends the Criminal Records Act and one provision of the Criminal Code. To better understand the meaning of these amendments, one must take a quick look at the current Criminal Records Act, which dates back to 1985.

This act allows those who are convicted of a criminal offence to be granted a pardon after serving their sentence. Such pardon may be granted after a specified period, provided there are no other convictions during that period.

The period is three years for a summary offence and five years for an indictable offence. After having repaid his or her debt to society, a person may apply for a pardon to the National Parole Board.

Pardon eases the rehabilitation of an individual who has served his sentence by removing the negative aspects of sentencing in the case of such things as jobs and travel abroad. The records of pardoned individuals are therefore kept separately from other criminal records and may not be disclosed.

I should also mention that a pardon may be revoked automatically if an individual is convicted on summary conviction or by the parole board if the individual is found guilty of an offence punishable either on indictment or on summary conviction or if the board deems the behaviour of an individual is such that he no longer deserves to be pardoned.

The three main changes proposed by Bill C-69 are the following. The first is the imposition of a waiting period prior to re-application for a pardon following a denial. In the existing legislation, an individual whose pardon application has been denied may re-apply immediately.

Under the second, the pardon will be automatically revoked on sentencing for a hybrid offence, that is, an offence punishable either on indictment or on summary conviction.

Third, and this is the biggest change to the bill, a provision provides for notations in the records of individuals found guilty of sexual crimes and pardoned. This provision will permit disclosure of the records of these individuals when they apply for a job in which they will be in close contact with children or vulnerable groups.

Clause 6.3 of the bill permits the disclosure under certain circumstances of the record of an individual who has been pardoned. This provision is a measure of protection against repeat offences by pardoned sexual offenders. The aim is to prevent a pardoned sexual offender from becoming a playground supervisor or holding some other position putting him in contact with children or other vulnerable groups, such as people with mental handicaps.

The RCMP will therefore be able to separately identify the records of persons who have been pardoned and who have been sentenced for a sexual offence.

Consequently, an agency like Big Brothers, for instance, could ask the RCMP to disclose the record of a convicted sexual offender. Of course, the offender must consent to the content of his record being disclosed.

If the record shows that the individual has previously been convicted of a sexual offence, the solicitor general must break the seal and release the information to the police who would then inform the agency.

This provision is an exception to the pardon principle, which can be justified by the fact that our society wants children to be protected against sexual predators, even those who have been pardoned.

It is important to recognize however that the current legislation meets its objectives. In fact, the recidivism rate of pardoned offenders is about 2%. Since 1971, almost 250,000 pardon applications have been granted and less than 2.4% of pardons have been revoked by the National Parole Board.

During the same period, covering almost 30 years, some 12,000 pardons were granted to sexual offenders and about 700 pardons were revoked because of a subsequent sexual offence.

Even if the current recidivism rate is very low, at about 5.8%, we hope that Bill C-69 will help to reduce it and even provide an incentive to promote and facilitate the pardon process. This is why the Bloc Quebecois will be supporting Bill C-69.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add our contribution to this debate.

Our critic in this area has already spoke to the fact that the NDP caucus finds a lot of merit in Bill C-69. We understand that the bill finds its origins in a legitimate public concern about the legitimate social issue of whether our interest comes from the fact that one is a parent and has concern about these issues, whether one works for an NGO or is one of the employers who may be concerned about a certain type of individual to be hired or the qualities the individual may possess. We are very glad to see the bill introduced because it finally starts to address legitimate concerns.

The amendments to the Criminal Records Act which we understand Bill C-69 to introduce would flag the criminal records of hardened sex offenders seeking positions of trust. That is the operative word. There has to be some burden of proof that the person is making application for a position of trust.

Bill C-69 would make them available for screening purposes by placing a flag on the records of convicted sex offenders so that police could be alerted. The sealed pardoned record would exist so they could then request the solicitor general's authorization to unseal the permanent record. Even if the individual has been pardoned and the criminal record has been sealed, the bill would give access to that information if it were deemed necessary.

In answer to these concerns Bill C-69 would develop a schedule of offences to be flagged. It does not mean that all pardoned offenders would have their records flagged. It would be a schedule of the types of things the community needs to know about and that should be flagged. It would also place a definition on children and vulnerable groups so that we would know what groups would be making application for the unsealing of closed records.

It is valuable to specify in the regulations factors to be considered by the solicitor general when looking at an unsealed pardoned record that should be reviewed, itemized and clarified.

Bill C-69 automatically revokes pardons for new convictions of indictable or hybrid offences. Someone may have been pardoned or there may be a pardon on record for a past offence but new offences obviously would have to be reviewed and revisited.

The NDP supports the overall intent of the legislation to ensure that the criminal records of pardoned sex offenders seeking positions of trust are available to law enforcement officers for screening purposes.

The one thing we have to be careful about in this type of legislation is that the rights of the individual still must be protected. The test of legislation of this kind is if it meets that challenge and we can be comfortable that the rights of the individual are not being trampled because that would not be to anyone's benefit.

Bill C-69 strikes a sufficient balance between the rights of the individual and the safety concerns of the community. That is the ultimate test and that is the thing we have to be worried about.

By giving law enforcement agencies the authority to access all records relating to the previous criminal conduct of an individual we may be able to prevent future tragedies. This is something that all members of the House, and I am pleased to see all speakers so far, are firmly committed to.

The NDP has always recognized that the true measure of our community and our culture is how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. Nobody would argue that children placed in a position of trust are easily those who are the most vulnerable. We believe that legislation like this takes us one more step down the road of making sure that our society can provide a safe and nurturing place for those people who are most vulnerable.

We have always maintained that history will judge us not by the illustrious buildings in our capital cities nor the might of our armies. We will be judged by what measures we have taken in this very privileged time to make sure we all enjoy the benefits not only of the redistribution of wealth but also of having some measure of safety and security no matter where we and our children are.

We are glad to vote in favour of Bill C-69. We are very pleased this measure came forward. It is the right thing to do and a very timely thing to do. We compliment the movers of the amendments. I give my assurance that the NDP caucus will vote in favour of Bill C-69.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to take part in this debate. I can assure the hon. member who just spoke that it will be unanimous in terms of our support. The Conservative Party as well is very much in favour of this bill as we were of that of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. His Bill C-284 was the impetus to the government's adoption of this particular notion.

As outlined by previous speakers who referred to Bill C-69, this particular act that is to be amended will now incorporate and permit law enforcement agencies, and by virtue of their co-operation, agencies such as Big Brothers, Scouts Canada, kindergartens and those who seek to have persons in positions of trust in their employ, to inquire through the police and through the solicitor general's department about the appearance on a person's record of a prior sexual assault conviction. Prior to this amendment there was no ability to do so with any certainty.

As has been mentioned a balance always has to be struck when one is attempting to disclose information that was deemed to have been pardoned. This country's pardon system has often been questioned. This bill and the amendment to this type of information is very positive.

Along those lines, May 3 to May 7 was sexual awareness week. The city of Lethbridge promoted this week by bringing to the attention of Canadians the issue of sexual assault. It made this comment in its literature: “It is not an issue of sex; it is an issue of power and control”. That is very true when it comes to the disclosure of information to protect those in our society who are most vulnerable. I am talking here about children who are very vulnerable when exposed potentially to individuals who have been convicted of sexual assaults.

This bill, which will amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts as a consequence, will provide the necessary protection. It allows access to records of pardoned individuals which was previously unavailable. It will work in conjunction with another bill which is currently before the House of Commons, Bill C-79. That bill is aimed specifically at bringing victims more into the picture with respect to our criminal justice system. It is intended to allow access in particular by the police and agencies to this vital information which concerns sex offenders who had received a pardon previously.

The safeguards to protect the individual's rights exist within the legislation. The solicitor general has a degree of discretion where, as referred to, police officers are now mandated to make the disclosure when the request has occurred and the proper vetting has also occurred. There are safeguards and scrutiny will take place before the information will be disclosed.

We are all aware of high profile individual cases that have become very public, one of which rocked our national sport of hockey. I am referring to the Toronto Maple Leafs scandal involving an usher, John Roby whose case is now coming to a close. Mr. Roby was facing 35 charges of molesting children and showed very little remorse throughout the trial.

This type of predatory violence is something we must do everything possible about in this House and certainly in our law enforcement. We must do everything within our means to ensure the proper information is disseminated to society so people will know and can identify those persons who are preying on our most vulnerable the children.

Prior access to criminal records may not have helped in that case. This is a situation where this is not retroactive for cases that have already been heard. But in similar future situations where there is a high rate of recidivism, which is the case when it comes to sexual assault complainants, they need to know that individuals have in the past engaged in this type of despicable behaviour. These records will be flagged.

Individuals who have engaged in that activity and who have been for whatever reason granted a pardon will have their records flagged. Agencies will be permitted to gain access to that information and then make informed decisions as to whether they would put a person with that type of record in a position of working in close contact with children.

Another tragic case which has garnered much public attention is the case of Alison Parrot, an 11 year old who was raped and murdered by Francis Carl Roy in 1989. Alison's mother tried to seek justice in the death of her daughter yet there was a further tragedy. Mr. Roy should not have been on the streets. He had two prior convictions for the rapes of teenage girls and had assaulted another woman only days before Alison Parrot was raped and murdered. The judge decided to protect Mr. Roy's right to presumption of innocence and agreed to the defence motion not to disclose to the jury the prior convictions in the other cases.

This will be an issue for another day, but I suggest again that when it comes to the protection of children, information is power. It is power in the hands of those who need it most, mainly the police and agencies that oversee children through their education or caregiving.

Bill C-69 will set up a sex offender registry which will be accessed over the Canadian Police Information Centre, the CPIC system. That information will be quickly available to police officers who can then pass it on to those who make the inquiries. This again is important. Speed of access is very important. When a person applies for a job or volunteers for an organization, the information needed for the decision to hire or not to hire is required in a very expeditious way.

Another measure that would enable people to notify these agencies like CPIC is by making direct inquiries through the solicitor general's department. Again this is a welcome change.

If we continue to enact legislation such as Bill C-69, we may some day reach a point where the Canadian public will again begin to believe in our justice system and have greater faith in the ability of our law enforcement agencies to protect them from sexual predators.

There is always talk in situations such as this one of the charter of rights and the individual's rights to be protected. We know that a pardon is an extraordinary remedy when a person has already been convicted and has gone through the proper legal channels. However there are some instances, and obviously the protection of children is one, that outweigh that individual's rights to keep this information private.

I suggest that there is a recognition of this by the government and the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary Centre and all participants of the justice committee. I would commend the witnesses who also came forward and spoke in favour of this legislative initiative.

Criminal records concerning a pardoned offence will only be released by the solicitor general or the RCMP after there is written notification given to the affected offender. There will also be an element of vetting as to the appropriateness of this decision.

Community rights in most instances should prevail. Statistics have shown that since 1994, 700 pardoned individuals have reoffended. This is somewhat disturbing, particularly when it again bears on the protection of children.

I believe in democracy. Therefore, I believe in rights for everyone, including former sexual offenders. I can understand the minister's dilemma: she must always try to ensure that the rights of all Canadians are protected.

With Bill C-69 the minister tried to come up with a bill that will protect all Canadians. In a democracy we must debate bills, to allow elected representatives to suggest possible changes. Normally, these changes will improve the legislation. However, a balance is necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, but he will be able to continue his speech after Oral Question Period.

Workplace Safety

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, safety in the workplace is a priority for Canadians and the Canadian government. Safety and productivity are also interdependent factors in the workplace. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to rise before the House and salute all workers of Canada and the people who are working to make Canadian workplaces safer.

The week of May 17 to 23 marks the annual North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. This special week gives us an opportunity to promote awareness of the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.

Injury on the job has a tremendous emotional, physical and financial toll on many Canadian workers and their families every year. It also results in diminished productivity and lost work time. An investment in occupational health and safety is an investment in the economic health of Canadian business and the well-being of workers.

Many special events have been planned in Canada, Mexico and the United States to bring attention to workplace safety issues during the week of May 17 to 23. I urge all my hon. colleagues in the House to become involved.

Penticton Airport

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the 4,000 people of Okanagan—Coquihalla who signed a petition demonstrating their concern over the future of the Penticton airport. Their voice was key to averting an economic disaster in the south Okanagan.

This week the Minister of Transport announced that the Penticton regional airport will remain open under the management of the Department of Transport. This is not a long term commitment.

The federal Liberals bungled the transfer of the airport to the city of Penticton from the beginning. They appointed a negotiator unacceptable to all parties, which forced the collapse of an agreement in principle. The Liberals made a delicate Indian lands claim the responsibility of a municipal government to negotiate, clearly a federal responsibility. At the last minute they changed safety regulations that would have added $450,000 per year to the operating costs of the airport.

The people of Okanagan—Coquihalla came to negotiate the transfer of the airport in good faith. The next time they expect the federal Liberals to do the same.

World Telecommunications Day

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Monday, May 17 is the day members of the International Telecommunications Union celebrate World Telecommunications Day.

The theme of this year's World Telecommunications Day is electronic commerce. This theme captures many of the most important challenges facing the ITU as we enter the 21st century.

E-commerce means that the nature of economic activity will change everywhere in the world, not just in the developed countries.

Access to information networks will become as important for investors as raw materials, energy and labour. In the information age, countries that do not have access to information networks will not grow, no matter how rich their natural endowments.

Access to electronic information services will be necessary for consumers and producers to buy and sell products at the most efficient prices. In the coming global competition for goods and services, protected markets will not prosper.

Canada is well positioned to take advantage of the e-commerce challenge. As the Prime Minister said last year, we want to make Canada the most connected nation in the world and a world leader in e-commerce by the year 2000. I know that as a nation we will rise to this challenge.

Canadian Tulip Festival

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the world's largest tulip festival is taking place from May 14 to May 24.

Fifty years ago, Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, who had spent the war years in Ottawa, gave 100,000 tulips to the nation's capital, to thank Canada for liberating her country during World War II.

The numerous events that mark the Canadian Tulip Festival are aimed at promoting culture and entertaining the numerous visitors from all regions of Canada and from abroad.

The festivities will take place on more than 13 sites in the national capital region and will include various public shows.

The Government of Canada is proud to be associated with this event. I hope that all my fellow citizens in the region, and all those who will visit the national capital region in the coming weeks, will enjoy this blossoming of colours and shapes.

Marnie Paikin

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate a great Canadian and a new member of the Order of Canada, Ms. Marnie Paikin.

Blessed with a quick mind and an incredible ability to analyze and synthesize vast quantities of information, Marnie has applied her smarts to numerous social causes and to many successful Canadian businesses.

Marnie has dedicated herself to improving the lives of people in her community. She has worked hard for health and cultural organizations, including the Hamilton Philharmonic Orchestra.

An avid sports fan, Marnie's love for the CFL, in particular the Hamilton Ti-Cats, is legendary. In the early 1980s I saw my first Blue Jays game with sports commentator extraordinaire, Marnie Paikin.

A former resident of Burlington and a true Hamilton booster, I know that I join Marnie's huge fan club, her many admiring neighbours and her wonderful family in being proud of her accomplishments and wishing her every continued success.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Chuck Cadman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for months now we have been demanding that the solicitor general restore funding to the RCMP so that they can do their job properly.

There have been stories of reduced drug operations, parked and damaged patrol cars, the grounding of aircraft and boats, and unacceptable responses to citizen complaints.

We have another one for the list. In Surrey we recently lost three of our nine school liaison officers; that is, one-third. According to the RCMP the officers were redeployed to other areas because of a staff shortage brought on by a lack of funding and a shortage of new recruits.

Three of our schools recently had bomb threats. A recent survey of students found that 44% were concerned with drugs, 41% complained of fighting and 31% found bullying to be a problem. Now we lose one-third of our liaison officers.

Maybe the solicitor general would like to explain to my constituents how his government can bankroll pornographic films while their children's safety is being put at risk through lack of funding.

Surrey now has 16 vacancies and that number is expected to rise to 23 by the end of the summer. We are tired of hearing about reviews and studies. We want the problem to be fixed.

International Museums Day

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues in the House to the fact that May 18 will mark International Museums Day. The day's theme of the pleasures of discovery underscores the fact that museums are sources of entertainment and discovery.

In Canada, in addition to drawing some 5.5 million visitors a year, our museums are major employers and important educators.

This is why our government is proud to have increased the museums assistance program's budget by $2 million this year and to sponsor Bill C-64, which will institute the indemnification program for travelling exhibitions.

In addition, this summer, Young Canada Works will provide jobs for 800 young people in Canada's heritage facilities.

I join with my colleagues in this House in inviting all Canadians to take advantage of the cultural activities organized across the country to celebrate museums.

Agrologists

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to salute my classmates and their spouses, who have come to Parliament Hill to celebrate 36 years of life in agronomy.

When we graduated in 1963 from Laval, our motto was to feed the world and save the planet. To this end, each of us worked in very different sectors. Some returned to the land, others chose basic or applied research, government affairs, teaching, international co-operation, industry, farm credit, agricultural extension, tobacco, food inspection, the environment, banking, the Canadian milk board and administrative tribunals—all spheres related to agriculture.

We were considered a remarkable group. Perhaps this view of us was well founded, because many of us have held influential positions in all areas of the agri-food sector. Some have already left us, and we miss them today.

To each of my classmates, I say welcome to the House and what a pleasure it is to have you here.

Stoney Creek Citizens Of The Year

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate this year's recipients of the Stoney Creek Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year Awards.

Anne Bono has been involved in a wide variety of volunteer tasks and is a native of Stoney Creek. Her contributions extend from 22 years as past president of the Stoney Creek Chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society to her work with the Catholic Women's League. She is a dedicated individual and continues to inspire us all to do more.

Graham Murray has been awarded Junior Citizen of the Year for his contributions to many causes. He is a committed volunteer and he is being recognized for his capacity to inspire and motivate his peers.

Finally, the winning Corporate Citizen of the Year is Fortino's in the Fiesta Mall. Fortino's is a leader in product and marketing innovations and has always been an active partner in community oriented fundraising, especially with the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

I extend my best wishes and congratulations to this year's recipients.

Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, Canada's 13th Prime Minister, who first took his seat in the House of Commons on this day in 1940.

The Chief, as he was known, served the constituents of my riding of Prince Albert for 39 years until his death in 1979. That strong association with Prince Albert, I have found, continues to this day.

John Diefenbaker is remembered for a number of accomplishments, including the appointment in 1957 of Ellen Fairclough as the first woman cabinet minister and the extension of the vote to all aboriginals in 1960. His most important contribution to Canada was the drafting of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which passed in 1958.

Diefenbaker was a leader who made Canadians feel good about themselves, beginning most of his public addresses with his distinctive “My fellow Canadians”.

It is fitting then that his riding should be represented now by a party that believes in the common sense of the common people and their right to be consulted on public policy matters.

Ecoaction Program

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Government of Canada allocated $2.75 million for the implementation of 116 projects, as part of the Ecoaction 2000 program.

The federal government feels that the best way to improve the environment and the health of our communities is to encourage local communities to identify the problems and to propose appropriate solutions for their environment.

This initiative is another example of how the Canadian government, in co-operation with local organizations, is always striving to improve our quality of life.

Shipbuilding Industry

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while in opposition the Prime Minister wrote the following to the Marine Workers Federation in 1990:

It is safe to say that most people recognize that something has to be done to create a much more competitive shipbuilding industry. The government should now, as they should have done long ago and indeed as they promised to do, take steps to alleviate the problem.

Almost nine years have passed since that letter was written and for six of those years he has been the Prime Minister.

Our shipbuilding industry is foundering on the shoals of government neglect and this Prime Minister refuses to act. The United States, Italy, France, Spain, Britain, Korea and China have shipbuilding strategies, but Canada does not.

We have the technology and we have the skilled workers. What we do not have is a federal government that is committed to the future of a Canadian shipbuilding industry. The Port of Halifax recently lost its bid for post-Panamax shipping business because of a lack of strong support and commitment by the federal government.

I call on the Liberal government to meet and work with the shipbuilding workers, unions and businesses to craft a strategy.

North Shore Highway Accident

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, in my riding of Manicouagan, a terrible automobile accident took the lives of four young students from the Cegep in Sept-Îles.

These young women, who were full of life and plans for the future, were on their way to write an exam. They leave behind them parents, brothers, sisters, relatives and friends who loved them and who are now facing a huge void.

The families and friends of Stéphanie, Marie-Ève, Julie and Fanny now realize how fragile life is, and they will live through difficult moments in the days and weeks to come. Only courage, time and solidarity can help them overcome this tragedy.

On behalf of my colleagues and all the residents of Manicouagan, it is with deep sadness that I offer my most sincere condolences to the families and friends of these four young women.

Fondation Paul-Gérin-Lajoie

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago, on May 31, 1964, the Quebec Department of Education was created, with Paul Gérin-Lajoie as its head.

The Fondation Paul-Gérin-Lajoie is using the occasion of this anniversary to launch a fundraising campaign aimed at collecting $2.3 million in donations from Canadian businesses.

The foundation's objective is to provide children here and in other countries with the means to build their individual and collective futures by acquiring a basic education.

The foundation's founder and president, Mr. Gérin-Lajoie, stresses the importance of access to education “When all children know how to read, write and count, they will have the key to their future”.

We wish the foundation well in its undertaking. Let us hope that they attain their objective and that access to education for all children becomes a reality.

Canada Millennium Partnership Program

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of this House the shameful way the federal government is handling the approval of project grants under the Canada Millennium Partnership Program.

Next year, the year 2000 AD, marks the 1000th anniversary of the arrival of the Vikings in Newfoundland. However, the Millennium Bureau of Canada has refused to fund an application from the Viking Millennium International Symposium. We could not find a project more millennium related than a 1000th anniversary, but still it was turned down.

Indeed, of the 301 projects approved under phase II of the program, only four were approved from Newfoundland, less than 1% of the total funding, even though Newfoundland comprises 2% of the population of Canada.

This simply is not good enough. I call upon the federal government to rectify the situation immediately.

International Day Of Families

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 15, is the International Day of Families, established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 to improve the institutional capability of nations to tackle serious family related problems.

I rise today to pay tribute to three non-profit organizations which are key support elements for the families of my riding of Ahuntsic.

The Union des familles d'Ahuntsic is a cultural and sports association, whose activities include a summer camp for disadvantaged children.

La Parenterie du nord de Montréal is a community self-help association through which families help other families who have a family member suffering from mental illness.

La Maison Buissonnière offers socialization services for children and parent-child activities to a clientele of parents and children from birth to four years of age.

In celebrating the International Day of Families I look forward to the 15th annual National Family Week in my riding, which asks grades 4 and 5 students to submit a piece of their artwork for National Family Week.

I also call on everyone today to thank their families for their love and support.

Shared Parenting

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last week thousands of Canadians, myself included, were anticipating a favourable response from the justice minister to the report “For the Sake of the Children”. Despite five and a half years in this place, even I was holding out hope for the necessary change.

What a difference a week makes. Instead of bringing forward legislation or even an action plan, the minister announced another three year delay. She even went so far as to say that divorce reform must be accompanied by spousal abuse laws. What an insult to the millions of fathers whose marriages have failed for a variety of reasons, almost all of which have nothing to do with violence or abuse.

I am particularly frustrated with the minister because I have brought forward two private members' bills relating to these completely separate issues: Bill C-25 calling for shared parenting laws, and Bill C-494 calling for protection for abused spouses and their children whose lives are in danger.

If the justice minister really wants to do something about spousal abuse she should pledge her party's support to the quick passage of Bill C-494.

Gérald Larose

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CSN congress begins today and will choose a successor to the man who profoundly marked Quebec, Gérald Larose.

With 25 years of commitment and devotion to the cause of workers in Quebec, 16 of which were spent as the head of the CSN, he will remain an important figure in the history of the union movement in Quebec.

During his long career, he was a part of every struggle for social progress. Yesterday, in an interview in Le Devoir , he proposed a new way to look at the relations between society and government. We should pay attention to the words and ideas of this man of great experience.

An open and direct man, he always communicated with feeling the faults of a free market society and the need for a more equitable distribution of the collective wealth. He is also an ardent defender of the idea of a sovereign Quebec, which, for him represents as much the normal democratic and national course of the people of Quebec as social justice.

The Bloc Quebecois salutes this great man and wishes him good luck in his next undertaking.

Supreme Court Of Canada

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Justice Peter Cory will celebrate his retirement from Canada's supreme court. Speculation abounds that Louise Arbour is likely to be the Prime Minister's first choice to replace him.

Ms. Arbour is clearly an impressive candidate, but whether it be her or someone else, why is the Prime Minister afraid to bring someone of that calibre before parliament so that we can review that appointment before it becomes a fait accompli?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no announcement of any decision on the replacement for the very distinguished Mr. Justice Cory.

The system we have been using, involving a recommendation by the Prime Minister to cabinet and the decision by cabinet, has in the past led to an outstanding supreme court. I am sure that the application of this system in the future will lead to an outstanding replacement for Mr. Justice Cory.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just because a system has been around 130 years does not mean we cannot make improvements on it.

Canadians realize the importance of the role played by Canada's supreme court. It is a critical link in our democratic chain and yet choosing our next chief justice is left to two or three people hunkered down behind closed doors in the Prime Minister's office.

The Canadian public wants and deserves a better system, a system that consults the public by way of their elected officials here in our democratic institution, the House of Commons.

Why is the Prime Minister so adverse to the public scrutiny and accountability that a public review process would bring to the judicial appointment?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member undermines the premise of his question when he says that Mr. Justice Cory is the chief justice. He is a very distinguished member of the court but he is not the chief justice.

In any event, the accountability is there because when a decision is made by cabinet of a replacement for Mr. Justice Cory that decision is subject to the scrutiny of parliament through question period, through debates in the House and through parliamentary committees. The accountability is there and we are pleased to accept the responsibility and be accountable for the decision.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister fails to consult parliament on the most important judicial and symbolic appointments. He signs treaties and even commits Canada's troops to war without an actual vote in this democratic institution, the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister has a perfect opportunity to bring the judicial appointment process, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. He can do it now with a “made in Canada” review process.

Why does the Prime Minister not seize this opportunity to enhance the role of the supreme court and its accountability to the Canadian public by bringing that appointment process for review in the House of Commons?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he is calling for a “made in Canada” system but he seems to be calling for the American system. What we have seen in the press about the American system leads us to believe that what we are doing now and what we will continue to do has brought good results. It has not brought the court into any disrepute. In fact, we have a very strong court and we want to see that continue.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever we challenge the government it seems to come out with an anti-American comment.

Review of the appointments to the country's top court is an international phenomena. Countries like the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and others all have such systems. Besides this, provincial justice ministers, a retired supreme court justice and legal experts from across the country all believe the current system should be changed.

Why is the Prime Minister so afraid of parliament? What is it?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the last person to be afraid of parliament, especially when it comes to being afraid of the official opposition.

The Minister of Justice consults widely in making her recommendation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister brings the recommendation to cabinet, which makes a decision. That decision is a matter that is subject to the scrutiny of parliament.

We are accountable to parliament and through parliament to the Canadian public. We will continue to be accountable for a system that has led to one of the most outstanding supreme courts in the world. We want to keep it that way.

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the government fails to realize is that in Canada parliament is losing its supremacy. Courts have been undoing the work of parliament for far too long.

We are elected here by the will of Canadians and we are held accountable at least every five years. However, judges, particularly supreme court judges today, have extraordinary legislative powers but no accountability.

Why will the Prime Minister not send a clear, positive message to the courts and Canadians by having the supreme court nominees at least appear before parliament before they are appointed to the bench?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, judges do not have legislative roles like the House of Commons and like the other place.

The hon. member is wrong in suggesting that parliament played a role in the past in appointing judges. It has never played any such role.

The hon. member is again giving me the opportunity to say we have an outstanding supreme court and this outstanding supreme court has come into place because of the system we are using now. He wants to change a system which has given us an outstanding supreme court.

I say that Canadians want to have our court continue as a high quality body. We will continue with the system that has led to its greatness.

Minister Of Human Resources Development

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is having a very hard time defending himself against the information commissioner's accusations.

In his letter of April 23, the commissioner wrote that “the minister's office put its interests ahead of those of the applicant and defied the legislation throughout this period. This is completely unacceptable”.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that such behaviour will not go unchecked and that he intends to relieve the minister of his duties if the minister does not have the decency to resign?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the information in question is already in the hands of the person who requested it. The minister has said he is in the process of reviewing his department's procedures and instituting improvements.

I therefore think that the minister acted in a completely appropriate manner, and I wonder why the hon. member continues to raise these pointless questions.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, by refusing to discipline the Minister of Human Resources Development, who contravened the Access to Information Act, the Prime Minister is setting an important precedent that may, to all intents and purposes, make this legislation ineffective.

What message is the Prime Minister sending to other ministers and senior officials who might receive politically embarrassing requests from journalists under the Access to Information Act? Are they not being told to do as they please, because there is no penalty for defying the law?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister released the information. It is already in the hands of the applicant for his use.

I can assure the House that the government and all ministers consider the Access to Information Act to be a very important piece of legislation and that, if its enforcement in a particular department needs to be tightened up, it will be.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner is not just any public servant at the service of the Prime Minister. He is accountable to this parliament and his job is to ensure that the Access to Information Act is complied with. The commissioner is now accusing the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development of having defied the act for political protection.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the purpose of an information commissioner is, if ministers can ignore him, defy the act and not only get away with it, but even be congratulated for it?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we believe the commissioner is a very important officer of parliament. This is why the minister already said that he took the information commissioner's comments very seriously. The minister has already taken measures to improve the provision of replies by his department.

As I just said, we are not keeping the information secret. It is already public knowledge.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, four months later in the maritimes.

In the family trust scandal, the Liberals blamed the auditor general. In the Somalia scandal, they blamed Mr. Justice Létourneau. In the tainted blood scandal, they blamed Mr. Justice Krever.

Are we to understand that, in this new scandal about the withholding of information by the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Liberals are blaming the information commissioner for making a tempest in a teapot?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a scandal, it has to do with the questions put by Bloc Quebecois members, who are using oral question period to ask useless questions on a case that is already closed.

First, the information is public and, second, measures have already been taken to make the necessary improvements.

Immigration

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the trade minister originally opposed the head tax as not Liberal. The heritage minister opposed it. The revenue minister says that he still opposes it. In fact the only person who seems to love the head tax is the finance minister, its creator.

When will the finance minister finally get the message that Canadians do not want refugee families treated as revenue sources?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using the wrong terminology. There is no head tax. There is a right of landing fee which is applied to help people applying for permanent residence to deal with the costs of the applications.

The question is totally premature because we are dealing with refugees entering under minister's permits. There is no fee or tax of any kind applied to those permits. If these people later on want to apply to stay permanently there is a fee in place, there is a loan program applicable to that fee.

This is a matter we can look into when the time comes. Right now it is purely speculative and hypothetical.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the time already came for the refugees who paid it last year, the year before and the year before. Last year alone the finance minister extracted $11 million from refugee families with his head tax.

The finance minister also gave $11 million extra dollars to the Senate. In fact, he could eliminate the head tax altogether if he would just say no to the Senate.

Which one really needs a break: refugee families who have lost everything, or the finance minister's friends in the Senate?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member as usual has her facts wrong. Refugees do not pay the right of landing fee. They enter under minister's permits for which no fees or taxes are payable. If later on they apply for permanent residence other considerations apply.

When it comes to the Kosovar refugees, many of them at this stage say they want to go back to their home countries. If they later decide they want to stay permanently, other considerations arise and they can be examined at that time.

Airbus

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the RCMP has abandoned the criminal investigation into Bre-X Minerals Ltd., perhaps it will reconsider the wisdom of its politically motivated airbus fiasco.

Bre-X is the biggest alleged market fraud in Canadian history, yet the RCMP gives up because Bre-X board members refuse to talk and it is costing millions.

With the encouragement of the Liberal government, the RCMP continues to waste taxpayers' dollars on the airbus investigation that today has found no evidence, not a shred.

When will the solicitor general take responsibility for the RCMP, put an end to this continuous embarrassment and focus on solving real crime, not settling Liberal vendettas?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by correcting my colleague's introduction. To the best of my knowledge, the RCMP investigation into Bre-X has not been interrupted or abandoned.

As for the charges in the Bre-X affair, they are not the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada or the Minister of Justice of Canada, but rather of the Attorney General of Alberta.

Furthermore, I would remind my colleague that the Solicitor General of Canada does not interfere in operational matters of the RCMP.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked the RCMP was under the ministry of the solicitor general. Canadians are tired of excuses and want action. It is a fact that the RCMP is suffering from a severe lack of funding due to Liberal budget cuts, yet as Bre-X gets swept under the rug the partisan obsession against Brian Mulroney continues to cost millions.

The National Post described it perfectly. It said that the government was intent on finding something to do with someone about a crime yet to be established in order to prove that it was not entirely wrong headed in its pursuit of Airbus rumours in the first place.

Letting this case fester and bumble on is not an option. The solicitor general should tell Canadians when he will put an end to this futile investigation.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague would like to see the solicitor general decide when the RCMP needs to carry out an investigation, and when it does not. I am sorry, but that is not the role of the solicitor general.

As for the funding to which my colleague refers, I would like to quote someone whom I will identify in a few seconds “We have continued to fulfill the mandates entrusted to us. We may have sometimes been a bit on the slow side, but no investigation has ever been stopped for lack of funds”.

These are the words of Pierre Lange, Deputy Commissioner for Quebec region, whom I congratulate on his excellent work to date.

National Defence

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence confirmed yesterday that the government was planning to expropriate British Columbia property in Nanoose Bay. This has never been done before in the history of Canada.

The government is resorting to threats rather than negotiation. It would not dare consider it in any other province. It would not even mention the word expropriate. This is an absolute insult to every British Columbian.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs why the the double standard for British Columbia.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard for British Columbia. We are dealing with a Canadian military base which has existed since 1965.

The last time I looked, National Defence was a totally federal responsibility under our Constitution in British Columbia and in every other part of Canada. The base is needed for the purposes of the Canadian navy and its allies. More will be said about this matter later today when an announcement is made by other ministers.

Apec Summit

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the student clamp down at the 1997 APEC summit pleased now deposed Indonesian dictator Suharto so much that his ambassador wrote to the Prime Minister thanking him for his personal efforts in ensuring his safety. I guess a little pepper-spray goes a long way in diplomatic circles.

For a PMO that has until now denied any involvement in the security forces at APEC, was getting a pat on the back from a deposed and disgraced dictator worth trampling on the rights of Canadians?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject the premise of the hon. member's question.

Representatives of the Prime Minister's Office have said that they will make themselves available to testify in this matter before the inquiry being carried out by a distinguished former supreme court judge.

The hearings are under way. Let us see what the hearings have to say and what the judge has to say. Then we will be in a position to deal with the matter in the House of Commons if such should be necessary.

Marijuana

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the clinical trials on marijuana for medicinal purposes, our information indicates that Department of Health officials are currently in discussion with the American company Monsanto to involve it in the supply of marijuana.

This company is known for its production of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and its involvement with the bovine growth hormone controversy.

Can the minister confirm that Monsanto is being considered in the department's work hypotheses in connection with the supply of marijuana.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, officials are currently working on preparing proposals for clinical trials. We will get started in a few weeks. I am awaiting the report and the results of their work.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several weeks after the minister's announcement regarding the master plan, we in the House are entitled to answers, if there is to be transparency.

My question is clear. Yes or no, have officials contacted Monsanto representatives and will the firm be included in the minister's plans?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear. No decision has yet been made on the source of the marijuana for medical purposes, and, as I said clearly, I am awaiting the results of the work by officials.

Taxation

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the taxaholic Liberal government is sitting on a huge surplus. Half of that surplus has been ripped right out of Canadians earning less than $20,000 a year. That is $6 billion a year.

The Liberal government's heartless tax appetite has become a major cause of poverty, killing productivity and driving down our standard of living.

How can the tax rich Liberal government continue taking $6 billion a year from the Canadian working poor?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party must be suffering from collective amnesia. In every one of our budgets we have cut taxes.

In the last two budgets we took 600,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. We had a tax cut of $16.5 billion over three years. That ain't peanuts.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is this minister who is suffering from amnesia because he seems to forget that the government has added 1.2 million taxpayers to the tax rolls, some of whom they took off in the last budget. More people are paying taxes. More low income people below the poverty who are struggling to make ends meet are paying taxes because of the government's reckless approach.

Why does he not follow the lead of the Mike Harris government which will take 600,000 low income taxpayers off the tax rolls? That is real tax relief.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party would have us pay for tax cuts with borrowed money and drive us into deficit. We just will not do it.

Labelling Regulations

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, progress in biotechnology allows for the growing production of genetically modified foods that find their way on the market and on our plates. Yesterday, Deputy Minister David Dodge recognized that the Department of Health was completely overwhelmed as regards the control of these foods.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister not think that one solution could be to regulate the labelling of these genetically engineered foods, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they eat?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the importance of analysing biotechnology and the results of advanced science such as biotechnology is that we use the most accurate and the best science available today.

Our regulatory framework is one of the best, if not the best in the world, in order to assure consumers that safety will be number one, safety to the environment, safety to animals and safety to humans, before any product is registered in Canada as a result of biotechnology.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that by not ensuring that genetically modified foods are properly labelled, he is failing to fulfill his duty to inform consumers and could undermine public confidence in the food inspection process?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize again that we use the best science available today based on the advice of scientists from around the world.

Science is reviewed by peer scientists and safety is number one. When safety is number one and safety is assured based on the best science today, consumers have nothing to fear.

The Environment

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Sydney tar ponds is one of the worst environmental disasters in Canadian history. Residents now have toxic sludge laced with arsenic and other poisons seeping into their basements.

The Liberal government continues to do studies and reports yet fails to take action. When will the government take action to negotiate a permanent solution for the people of Frederick Street and surrounding areas?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is unaware of the process that is under way.

There is a joint action group that is identifying the solution. It is a grassroots organization which Environment Canada is supporting with research.

We have jurisdictional issues with the provinces. We certainly support the provincial government's decision announced last night to move families. I would hope members opposite would support that initiative as well.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, try to tell the people who have toxic ooze coming into their basements that the process is working.

I have been asking questions for five years on this subject and getting very few answers. Five years, $70 million and we are no closer to a solution. There are the highest cancer rates in Canada and toxic goo oozing into basements.

When will the government permanently relocate the people of Frederick Street away from this toxic nightmare?

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member opposite has demonstrated his commitment to this issue and for that we thank him.

The health of residents remains the first priority of the government. We are very pleased the province has announced that it will relocate residents. We look forward to continuing to work with the local organization that is providing the solutions.

The Government of Canada is committed to helping. There will be resources to do just that when the solutions are in place.

The Conference Of Parliamentarians From The Americas

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the conference of parliamentarians from the Americas, or COPA, is an international association which was working very well, but the federal government decided to boycott it.

In addition to boycotting it, this government now wants to replace it with another association that would exclude parliamentarians from Quebec, American states, Mexico, and many other states in the Americas.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us why he is boycotting this international forum and wants to exclude Quebec once again?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. The Canadian government participated in the first conference, the only one so far, in Quebec City. We participated once. Afterwards, the Organization of American States announced that it would set up its own association of parliamentarians.

Since the purpose of COPA was to link parliamentarians to the organization of heads of state in the Americas, which will hold a conference in Quebec City, it is only normal that the government would want to be associated with its direct counterpart, the OAS. It is as simple as that.

National Child Benefit

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has highlighted the importance of ensuring government actions do what they are intended to do.

The social service ministers will be releasing a progress report for the national child benefit in Quebec today. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national child benefit does what it is supposed to do, namely help Canadian families with children?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the national child benefit goals are clear to all of us. They are to reduce and prevent child poverty, to promote attachment to the workforce, and to reduce overlap and duplication.

Today, as the questioner mentioned, the first report of the national child benefit will be tabled in Quebec City. The progress report begins to fulfil the commitment of ministers to report regularly to the Canadian public in an open and transparent way on this important initiative.

It is a concrete demonstration of the commitment of the Government of Canada to the social union framework principles. The progress report will be available to the public.

Grain Transportation

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is moving forward on the Estey report toward a commercially driven grain handling transportation system.

Apparently not all of his cabinet colleagues share this position. The Canadian Wheat Board has publicly stated that it is opposed to the direction outlined by Justice Estey directly contradicting the Minister of Transport.

Will the government please clarify who the wheat board minister supports, the Canadian Wheat Board or the transport minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the government is very pleased with Justice Estey's vision for a more efficient and reliable grain handling and transportation system, including appropriate safeguards where they are required.

The Minister of Transport appointed Mr. Arthur Kroeger, a very eminent individual, to consult with the stakeholders over the summer of this year on the details of how a more commercial system would work. The chairman will report back to the Minister of Transport by September 30, 1999.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Estey report has every thing to do with farmers' income. The Canadian Wheat Board is set up by federal legislation but it does not represent every farmer.

The Canadian Wheat Board minister is ultimately responsible to farmers for how it fulfils its mandate. The Canadian Wheat Board is obstructing this progress by not going along with improvements to this transportation system. Without the Canadian Wheat Board being on side, Arthur Kroeger has very little chance of success.

What is the agriculture minister going to do to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Wheat Board minister do not obstruct badly needed improvements?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is behind the times. The process that the transport minister put in place was announced two or three days ago. The wheat board has said that it is very willing and very much wants to be a part of that discussion on the Estey report with all others. The wheat board clearly said it wants to be and it will be at the table for those discussions.

Agriculture

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the damage from the farm income crisis just gets worse. In my home province there is a suicide watch on farmers. No wonder. They are faced with another wave of disasters: AIDA program qualifications; continued high production costs; low commodity prices; and the lack of a national vision on the whole farm and our food supply. If these issues continue to be unabated we will surely lose a generation of young farmers by mere discouragement.

Will the minister immediately call on this government to declare a royal commission on the state of the family farm in this country?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, we began to further address the challenges of putting in place a farm safety net program for Canadian farmers many months ago. Last fall as members know we added the AIDA program to that.

I am pleased to say that in the last few days applications from all of the provinces are coming in at a very good rate. I had a discussion with all of my provincial counterparts yesterday. They said that they are pleased with that, bar none, including the minister of agriculture from Saskatchewan and the minister of agriculture from Manitoba. They say that we will continue on course for 1998 and continue our other discussions—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue AIDA, I had a call this morning from a Saskatchewan farmer, Joe Linnell. He told me he had problems with his AIDA forms. He called the minister's office and his staff could not help him with the questions because they were too complicated. They referred him to a 1-800 line in Agriculture Canada which also could not help him.

In light of the fact that the staff could not help and Agriculture Canada could not help, would the minister be prepared to go out to the lobby, pick up a telephone and call Mr. Linnell now at the following number: 306-697-2913? Mr. Linnell is watching question period. He is waiting for his phone to ring. Will the minister go out now and telephone him immediately? There is time before noon.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not have enough money in my department for staff to personally help the farmers fill out their forms. I do know there are lots of qualified people out there. I would suggest that the farmer speak to his accountant. Every farmer has an accountant. The expertise is there. If they are enrolled in NISA, it is a very simple process to move the numbers over.

Health Care

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador is in crisis.

Does the Minister of Health realize that there is a crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador? If he does realize it, does he have one single idea of how to correct this situation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, there are tens of millions of reasons why Newfoundland is in a better position today than it was three months ago to deal with those health issues.

In the budget in mid-February we increased the transfers to the provinces over the coming five years by $11.5 billion. We did that on a per capita basis and Newfoundland will get its per capita share.

I know that throughout the country provincial ministers of health face real challenges in delivering quality services with an aging population and increased costs. All health ministers are working together now with additional money provided by our budget to help meet those needs on the ground.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good speech. We have heard it many times. Even if every single Newfoundlander agreed with every single word the minister said, the reality is that we have a crisis in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister has said many times that nurses are the heart of the health care system. In Newfoundland because we have a significant shortage of nurses, we also have a significant crisis in health care.

As we might say in Newfoundland, does the minister have even the foggiest idea of how to correct this situation?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is my full time job to come to grips with exactly that kind of issue.

Let us be clear. The provincial governments are responsible for delivering health services. The federal government transfers money to assist them to do that.

What I am telling the hon. member is that I have a very good idea of the challenges faced by Joan Marie Aylward. She is doing a tremendous job facing those difficulties in Newfoundland.

We have increased the transfers to the provinces very substantially over the coming five years with stable and higher levels of funding. We will be there to help and to work with provincial ministers, including in Newfoundland, but ultimately the province must deliver those services.

Persons With Disabilities

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Western Economic Diversification.

The government is committed to economic opportunities in western Canada. Can the secretary of state tell the House what the government is doing in western Canada to provide business and entrepreneurial opportunities for disabled Canadians?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, in western rural Canada through the community futures development corporations, the Government of Canada has provided $6.5 million in loans. This has resulted in 319 loans and roughly 650 jobs.

With respect to the urban areas, we are in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary and the cities of Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg with similar kinds of programs. We are looking to grow into other cities because these programs have worked. The Government of Canada is vitally interested in providing the correct tools so that disabled Canadians can be—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary East.

Immigration

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the right of landing fee is a discriminatory head tax which penalizes genuine refugees seeking protection in Canada. It is ludicrous to offer them financial assistance through resettlement on the one hand and then force them to go into debt in order to pay this head tax on the other. On October 7, 1997, I introduced a private member's bill calling for the elimination of the right of landing fee.

Canadians are compassionate and tolerant people. Why can this government not learn from its citizens, show a bit of compassion and eliminate this head tax for refugees?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that after 10 years of existence the Reform Party has finally discovered compassion.

This government has been and continues to be a government of compassion. We are certainly showing that by the way we are receiving along with all Canadians the refugees from Kosovo. We are opening our country to them. They are not paying any taxes to come into the country as refugees. If they do not want to return to their homes and they want to stay here, we have laws in place to deal with that. If there are changes required, I am sure the government will consider those changes.

Mirabel Airport

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Government of Quebec tabled a bill making Mirabel a tax free zone. In the meantime, the government opposite does nothing. But we know that the Minister of National Revenue has all kinds of spare time now that his department has been privatized and turned into an agency.

My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It would seem that the minister is studying the question, but what is he waiting for to take action and do something concrete to help Mirabel out of the mess his government has landed it in over the last 30 years?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we have had royal assent on the revenue agency bill. It will make sure we get rid of overlap and duplication. The members on the Bloc side bring up quite often their wish to get rid of overlap and duplication.

A recent poll showed that more Quebeckers would rather have Revenue Canada collect their taxes than Revenue Quebec. I think they should be working toward reducing overlap and duplication by signing on to the agency so they have a single window tax collection system that would reduce compliance costs and save Canadians millions of dollars.

Pensions

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all pensioners of the public service, the military and the RCMP, I want the government to clarify something. If working people have no right to the $30 billion surplus in their own pension, why does the pensions benefit act require a two-thirds majority vote by all plan members on the use of any surplus in any other pension plan in the federal sector? Why does the government not see fit to live up to the same standards it imposes on everybody else?

I want the government to tell pensioners once and for all how their retirement pension fund surplus became the government's latest cash cow.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has made it clear on a number of occasions here in the House and elsewhere that these pension plans are created by statute. They have their own particular characteristics. The steps proposed by the government are entirely consistent with the nature of those pension plans and entirely fair to the members.

Agriculture

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the federal deputy minister of agriculture was in Nova Scotia on Monday for a press conference with the premier to announce that Nova Scotia was finally joining the federal farm aid deal.

Everybody was led to believe that Nova Scotia was receiving $7.5 million in new federal dollars for farmers. The provincial minister said it was this guarantee of $7.5 million which eventually convinced him to sign Nova Scotia on to the federal deal.

Why did the minister of agriculture lead Nova Scotia farmers to believe that they would receive $7.5 million in federal aid when in fact the actual figure is $3 million less?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has his numbers wrong.

We treated Nova Scotia exactly the same way as we have treated other provinces. We are giving Nova Scotia credit for provincial programs that it has had and has already carried out in 1998 and will in 1999. We estimate and Nova Scotia estimates it will be in the area of $3.5 million. It is also estimated that on top of that, there could be a further $3 million, $3.5 million or $4 million going to farmers in the province of Nova Scotia when their applications come in. In Nova Scotia as in every other province, the numbers being used are estimates of the total call on the AIDA program.

Women Entrepreneurs

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, small businesses led by women are increasing in importance in the Canadian economy, however, they still face barriers to accessing international markets.

Can the Secretary of State for the Status of Women tell the House how the government is helping women in business access global markets and create more opportunities for all Canadians?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, women who have businesses created more jobs last year than the top 100 companies in Canada. Women are becoming assets to Canada's global competitiveness. Last year Canada led in encouraging the first ever APEC women's ministerial meeting. Next week in Toronto the first ever U.S.-Canada trade summit will be held. Policy issues with regard to this problem will be discussed.

I want to congratulate the Minister for International Trade for his outreach, his research and his initiatives in trade missions to assist women to achieve this agenda.

National Defence

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Department of National Defence is forced to beg, borrow or steal a boat to get our troops to Kosovo, the government is spending $1.7 million to put huge Canada signs on government buildings.

Access to information documents reveal the federal government's self-promotion campaign to place giant illuminated signs on buildings showing the government's impact on the community, as if high taxes and high unemployment are not enough.

Why can this government not get its priorities straight? Is plastering buildings with giant signs not the wrong way to go? Why not give overtaxed Canadians the tax relief they deserve?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are giving Canadians tax relief in this budget. We gave them tax relief in the last budget. We are going to continue to give them tax relief.

At the same time, we are responding to the desire of Canadians to have the name of their country proudly displayed. Why does the Reform Party oppose such an obvious step to promote our country?

Jacques Duchesneau

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, former Montreal chief of police Jacques Duchesneau said that the federal government was backing his bid to head up Interpol. The solicitor general, the RCMP and Interpol Canada would provide assistance and the government would pay for his travel.

Can the government tell us under what specific program it is covering the cost of Mr. Duchesneau's travel, and exactly how much money is involved?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is such an off the wall allegation that I have no idea what to say. If the member would agree, I will wait till the next sitting of the House to give him an answer.

Fisheries And Oceans

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that the first mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is to protect fish, fish stocks and fish habitat.

Why did the DFO and the FRCC not intervene on behalf of over 2,000 lobster fishermen in Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton to stop the exploratory licence for seismic oil and gas drilling in the heart of lobster spawning grounds between those two areas? Why did the DFO not do that?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore shares our interest in protecting fish habitat.

The fact is that the part of the sea in question will be subject to an environmental assessment under the direction of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. DFO was on the fisheries advisory committee and will be assessing it.

The member also should be informed that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board Fisheries Advisory Committee has requested a six month delay. That time should be used to good advantage by fishermen, DFO and others to ensure that the habitat is protected.

Sierra Leone

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to table, in both official languages, a report which presents the results of a fact-finding mission taken by the Special Envoy to Sierra Leone, the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

I commend his initiative and commitment in putting this report together and hope that all members will avail themselves of its important findings.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, 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 four petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to its order of reference of Tuesday, April 13, 1999, your committee has considered Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other acts relating to financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Your committee tables its report with amendments.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to the order of reference of March 1, 1999, on Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members, research staff and clerk of the committee as well as the interpreters, the witnesses and others who assisted the committee in its study of Bill C-63.

Petitions

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan—King—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition requesting that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision, as supported by Bill C-340, regarding the right of spouses, parents and grandparents to have access to or custody of children.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by many constituents on behalf of grandparents who want parliament to ask the government to amend the Divorce Act so that it will allow grandparents to have access to their grandchildren without having to go to court.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from citizens of Peterborough and the surrounding area who are concerned about drinking and driving. They point out that an average of 4.5 Canadians are killed and 125 Canadians are seriously injured every day as a result of alcohol related accidents.

The petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the Criminal Code to streamline the judicial process and to provide sanctions which better reflect the seriousness of the crime by introducing amendments that provide for tiered penalties for driving with a blood alcohol count above .08% and by introducing mandatory assessment and needed treatment for offenders who are sentenced for impaired driving.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another petition from citizens who are concerned about drinking and driving. The petitioners point out that 62% of fatally injured drinking drivers in Canada have a blood alcohol concentration that is over double the legal limit.

These petitioners pray that parliament immediately amend the Criminal Code to add mobile digital breath test units to the list of approved instruments under the Criminal Code and that police be authorized to use passive alcohol sensors in impaired driving enforcement.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to amend another act in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Records Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the House broke for question period the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough had 11 minutes remaining in his allotted time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before the question period break, what is needed in all cases involving justice where there is a balance to be reached between the individual and the right of society to be protected, a very delicate balance must be reached.

When it comes to the protection of children, who are least able to protect themselves, I would suggest that in most, if not all cases, we must tip that balance in favour of doing all that is possible to protect children.

I mentioned earlier the case that arose in Toronto at Maple Leaf Gardens. We are also aware from news reports of the case of Graham James who was the former head coach of the Swift Current Broncos. It was a much publicized case involving the position of trust that a coach would hold and his ability to act in a predatory way toward vulnerable young men, in this instance hockey players. We know as well that there are numerous instances when this occurs and a position of trust is abused.

This reinforces the importance of Bill C-69 and the ability of agencies, coaches, teachers, volunteers, counsellors and individuals involved in the delivery of services to children to access information that would disclose this type of background. One would be quick to acknowledge that it is a very sick and twisted background.

Does Bill C-69 go far enough? The names of convicted sex offenders in this case belong to the solicitor general and his records. The solicitor general would have the discretion as to whether that name and the record itself would be disclosed. The RCMP, due to recent amendments to this bill, do not have that discretion and I believe that is a good thing because there is an opportunity in some instances for individual police officers to be placed in a very uncomfortable position about whether they should in fact release this information. They need the support of their department, and in this case we are talking about the solicitor general's department.

Victims of crime, individuals who have been directly affected, including their families, are those who would be most in favour of this bill.

The police of course were very supportive of the efforts that were made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. They spoke very favourably of his efforts and were very receptive to the government's position that it took in incorporating those suggestions into the bill which is before the House.

With respect to citizens in communities, I have seen instances where citizens have taken steps of their own. They have posted notices around the neighbourhood when they were aware of an individual who had been engaged in this despicable exploitation of children and yet the agencies were not able to make public that person's past.

We hope that this bill will, in some way, remedy that situation in terms of disclosure, public knowledge and, ultimately, protection. Knowledge will protect people affected by sex offenders living in their community.

One concern that a person might have is about the bureaucracy that often surrounds the implementation of an exercise such as this. The solicitor general could gain possession of records only through a written request to the prison commissioner if the subject of the records had already given written consent.

For police investigating a sex crime, the same type of rule would apply. They would have to rely on the commissioner to make a notation; in other words, to flag a certain record that would allow the police to then access the information. Yet a police force or other authorized body may also request the commissioner to provide the minister with any record of the conviction of that applicant and the commissioner may then transmit the record to the minister.

With more work now being placed in the hands of the already overworked and underfunded police forces around the country there is some concern as to how they will handle this additional workload.

We have seen similar government bills, such as the youth criminal justice act, where greater responsibility and emphasis will be placed on the police in the exercise of their front line authority, but there will be no additional resources. This is something about which we have to be sensitive. Hopefully the government will also be sensitive to it when it is looking at next year's budgets and the money that will be allotted to the police.

It is not enough to give them the tools, legislative initiatives, changes to the Criminal Code and changes to the Criminal Records Act without giving them the accompanying funding that will allow them to use effectively these law enforcement tools.

Others who might request the information that is covered by Bill C-69 would be members of organizations, possibly for the well-being of children. Examples might include a parent who would like to find out about a child's hockey coach, a teacher or a kindergarten supervisor. Associations like the Pictou County Minor Hockey Association, the Antigonish Minor Hockey Association, Big Brothers or Big Sisters would be able to access information about employees or volunteers who were in or were attempting to enter those organizations. This is relevant, prevalent information that should be in their hands.

There has been discussion about the rights of the sex offenders themselves. I will be the first to acknowledge that there has to be some degree of respect for any person who has very damaging information such as this on their record, particularly when it is extremely dated.

Once again we are into the argument of balance. I would suggest that any indication this information would be withheld or kept completely private would certainly be outweighed by the need to protect the public and the need to protect children in this instance.

I support the bill fully. I know the bill hinges upon passage quickly through this place. This is a process with which you are intimately familiar, Mr. Speaker. It often takes a long time. Bills coming through the justice department and the solicitor general's departments are coming in some instances in a very slow and grinding fashion. We saw that particularly with the youth criminal justice act. However, with the unanimous support we have seen for the bill and the importance that has been place upon it, there is hope of its speedy passage through the House.

The protection of the community has to be given the highest order when it comes to bills of this nature. There is ample support not only in this place but around the country for having the bill firmly ensconced in our Criminal Code and in our criminal justice act.

It is with pride that I lend support to the government's initiative. Again much of the impetus and credit for the bill is to be bestowed upon the member for Calgary Centre. He worked very diligently in bringing the matter forward to this point. He was very active in the justice committee in having it brought to fruition and is to be commended for it.

Bill C-69 will certainly lead to a more stringent offender registry. I have serious concerns, and the Progressive Conservative Party repeatedly expresses its concerns, about the already overburdened Canadian Police Information Centre and the computer system that houses the information such as the DNA databank, the criminal registry, the DNA registry and the ill-founded gun registry that is set up to fail. All these current computer information systems are embodied in one system that is extremely strapped at this time.

The minister has announced a $150 million addition in funding for the computer system, but conservative estimates from the police indicate that it is simply insufficient. It is not half of what is actually needed to make the system operate efficiently.

Bill C-69 will receive the support of the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the hope of our party that those who prey upon children and have been caught and those whose names have been recorded in our criminal justice system will not now be able to point to a pardon as a means to protect themselves from having that information disclosed to those who need it most. Sadly, we will never be in a position to ensure that children are not vulnerable in certain instances, but the bill goes some distance to achieving that very laudable goal.

I commend all those involved in the production of the bill, those involved in the drafting, and particularly those who testified and had great input into the bill reaching this point. The PC Party will be supporting the bill. We look forward to its passage and seeing it become a legislative initiative.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Carriage By Air Act

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill S-23, an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act to give effect to a protocol to amend the convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air and to give effect to the convention, supplementary to the Warsaw convention, for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air performed by a person other than the contracting carrier, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and if it is out of order I am sure you will tell me. I was hoping that you would seek unanimous consent, and I expect you would find it, to deal with all stages of Bill C-64 at the report stage and third reading without debate. Would you seek unanimous consent to do that before we proceed with Bill S-23?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-64 at all stages now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will proceed then with the consideration of Bill S-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very pleased to rise today to bring to the attention of my hon. colleagues the short but very important Bill S-23 which was considered and passed by the Senate earlier in March.

My hon. colleagues will recall that parliament recently dealt with legislation pertaining to marine liability in the form of Bill S-4. With the introduction of Bill S-23, we are proposing to move in the area of air carrier liability.

Bill S-23 amends the Carriage by Air Act so that Canada can join other states in legally recognizing two major international instruments dealing with matters relating to air carrier liability such as Montreal Protocol No. 4 which relates to cargo and the Guadalajara convention which clarifies the coverage of the Warsaw convention.

These two documents update and modernize elements of the Warsaw convention, which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of the carrier, passengers and shippers in relation to international air transportation. They will be annexed to the legislation as schedules IV and V.

The Carriage by Air Act was first enacted in 1947 to give the federal government the authority to have Canada accede to the Warsaw convention, which had been signed in 1929.

The act was amended in 1963 to authorize the federal government to implement The Hague protocol, which amended and updated the Warsaw convention to take into account the evolution in the requirements of airline carriage in the 25 years following its signature.

What we are seeking with this bill is essentially the same as in 1963: additions to the Carriage by Air Act which will enhance and clarify air carrier liability coverage and simplify documentary requirements.

The unification of law relating to the international carriage by air, in particular the unification of law relating to liability, has been of vital importance for the harmonious management of international air transport. Without such unification, complex conflicts of laws would arise and the settlement of claims would be unpredictable, very costly, time consuming, and possibly uninsurable. Furthermore, conflicts of jurisdiction could arise which would further aggravate the settlement of liability claims.

This uniformity remains a significant contributor to the facilitation of international air transportation in that the conditions for the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo are to a large degree similar on international flights.

In this regard the Warsaw convention has been hailed and recognized as the one international private law conventions that has managed to unify the legal systems of some 140 states party to it.

However, on the international scene it has long been recognized that the 1929 Warsaw convention requires change to modernize it so as to provide a wider mandated protection for passengers, for carriers and for shippers. Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention were developed to do just that.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 amends the liability regime as it applies to cargo by providing stricter carrier liability and establishing unbreakable limits. It also simplifies the cargo documentation requirements and authorizes the electronic transmission of information. This transmission of cargo information, using means other than the traditional multicopy air waybill, can provide significant cost savings to carriers and to shippers.

It has become extremely important that Canada act quickly to accede to this protocol as it came into effect in June 1998 when the minimum number of 30 states had ratified it. More specifically, the protocol was ratified by the United States in late 1998 and came into effect in that country on March 4 of this year.

This means that until Canada has been able to deposit its own ratification documents and the protocol has come into effect in Canada, our carriers and our shippers will be at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis their U.S. counterparts.

The Guadalajara convention clarifies the relationship between passengers and shippers on the one hand and carriers on the other. The convention extends the rules of the Warsaw liability regime to the carrier actually performing the carriage when it is not the same as the carrier with which the passenger or shipper has contracted.

This sharing of the liability between contracting and operating carrier, when they are not the same, has become increasingly important as international carriers, such as both Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, joined together in global commercial alliances.

Extensive consultations were conducted by Transport Canada. It was determined that both Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara convention have the unanimous support of the Canadian aviation industry as well as all the aviation related organizations in Canada.

Notably, the airlines are very anxious for Canada to act quickly, particularly now that Montreal Protocol No. 4 is in force and applies in many countries.

In addition to industry consultations, 23 federal departments and agencies were consulted, including justice, finance, foreign affairs, national defence and the Canadian Transportation Agency. All departments expressed support for or raised absolutely no concerns regarding the adoption by Canada of these two very important instruments.

It is imperative, hon. members, that we ensure that Canadian carriers, travellers and shippers have the benefit of an international legal regime that better reflects the realities of today's aviation industry.

I believe we should move quickly to adopt this short but extremely important bill. To delay would be to increase the length of time our carriers will be at a competitive disadvantage.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party basically agrees with the bill. It is very technical. As the parliamentary secretary stated, the amendments will implement the Montreal Protocol No. 4 of 1975 and the Guadalajara supplementary convention, 1961.

The international agreements amend and supplement respectively the Warsaw convention of 1929 and the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air of 1955, which are part of Canada's Carriage by Air Act. The 1929 and 1955 agreements establish documentary requirements and liability regimes for international air transportation.

As I said initially, this is a fairly technical bill and, in some ways, a housekeeping bill. The Reform Party agrees with its implementation, but we strongly disagree with the method by which it arrived in the House. It came from the Senate.

All of us in the House account to our constituents. At the next election, they will tell us whether they agree or disagree with us. That is democracy. This is the House that the bill should have come from, not the Senate. The Senate is unaccountable and not representative. In our view, all bills should originate in the lower House and then go on to the Senate.

To summarize, we agree with the bill but we strongly disagree with the method and the route by which the bill has arrived in the House.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the name of my riding is quite long, but it truly represents the many sub-regions I have the honour to represent here, in Ottawa, since 1993.

I have 40 minutes to speak on this issue pursuant to parliamentary procedure, but since it is Friday afternoon, I know that many of my hon. colleagues are looking forward to heading back to their ridings.

I must point out that, even if parliament is not sitting next week, unlike what many people might suggest, members of parliament will not be on holiday. We will be in recess. I want to make a non-partisan comment. I believe that, next week, none of my 301 colleagues in this House will be on holiday. We all have work waiting for us at our riding offices, people to meet and companies to visit.

Unfortunately, some reporters are suggesting that members of parliament will take some time off. The people close to members of parliament know that, yes, we do take some time off sometimes, because we are human after all. But next week, from May 17 to 24, the 301 members of parliament will not be on holiday. We will be in recess and working in our respective ridings. I wanted to make this non-partisan comment because of the great respect I have for the House of Commons as a parliamentary institution.

The rules of procedure allow me to speak for 40 minutes, but I will not use all the time I am allowed, especially since, as my Reform colleague rightly pointed out earlier, Bill S-23 is mostly a technical bill aimed at implementing two international conventions. One can hardly be against this type of bill.

However, like the Reform member, I too want to deplore the fact that the government has chosen, once again, to let this bill be brought in through the other house, the name of which I cannot mention. Members know that the Senate cannot be mentioned by name in the House, and that is why I must refer to it as the other house.

The government has 155 elected members, which is a majority. Since it was elected to govern, it could very well have introduced this bill through the usual channel. What is disturbing to opposition members is that, if one reads Hansard from the years 1984 to 1993, it shows that the Liberals criticized the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney for using such a procedure. Now that they are in office, they are doing exactly the same thing.

That is why the members of the Bloc Quebecois had the opportunity to say during the campaigns leading to the 1993 and the June 2, 1997 elections—and we will have the opportunity to say it again during the next election campaign—that Liberals and Conservatives are all the same. When they sit in opposition, they criticize the government, and when they take office, they act in the exact same way as the government they criticized.

It is disturbing to see that the government has chosen to introduce this bill in a house made up of non-elected members.

I want to underline the terrific work being done by my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle and by the Liberal member from Sarnia—Lambton, who are campaigning to have the Senate abolished. Through their work, they want to ensure that the decisions are taken by democratically elected parliamentarians.

As far as we MPs are concerned, the people can replace us every four or five years. We are not appointed for partisan or political reasons or because we are government cronies.

We often hear about former ministers in the National Assembly who were appointed to the Senate by the current Prime Minister and who are receiving their pension from the National Assembly.

We could also mention Ross Fitzpatrick, the Liberal bagman from western Canada, who was appointed to the Senate by the current Prime Minister and who sits on the board of directors of Canadian Airlines and is lobbying for this company. We could come up with many more names like these.

We could talk about people who were appointed under the Mulroney government, like Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, the chief Conservative organizer in Quebec during the 1988 election campaign, who was appointed to the Senate at age 39.

My point here is simply to raise public awareness and make you realize, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are by now, given the way you seem to be hanging on to my every word, that we will be asking the government in the future to continue to use—

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sure it was not my colleague's intention to name the other place. Usually members do not name the other place in this House because both Houses are different from one another.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the point of order raised by the member who interrupted me, I will say that I have been talking about the other House since the beginning of my speech. I did not say the other place. I am being careful not to mention the Senate by name. I have been talking about the other House, but we will not get into this any further.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleague knows full well that he is not supposed to mention the Senate in the House. If he wants to say the other place that is fine, but he should not name it by name. The member knows that.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is aimed at giving effect, in Canadian law, to international treaties ratified by Canada. To do so, this bill amends the Carriage by Air Act to implement the Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara Supplementary Convention.

These two international agreements amend and supplement the Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, which establishes the documentary requirements and liability regime for international air transportation.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 simplifies cargo documentation, authorizes its transmission by electronic means, and amends the cargo liability regime. The Guadalajara Supplementary Convention extends the rules of the Warsaw Convention to carriage performed by a carrier other than the one with whom the passenger or shipper entered into a contract.

I agree, this topic is quite dry and technical.

I find it regrettable that the leader of the government is eating an apple in this House. We are not allowed to name the Senate, but what about eating apples in the House? The member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is eating an apple.

I would not want to show disrespect for this member. We can see he is looking after his health, and finds it important to eat apples. I would have preferred him not to do so here in this House, for a degree of decorum is required.

In conclusion, Montreal Protocol No. 4, which came into force in June of 1998, took effect in the United States last March 4. In other words, until Canada implements it, American carriers and shippers have an advantage over their Canadian competitors, because they can use the electronic transmission of air waybills for cargo, which is far less costly.

This means that countries applying these international conventions will have a certain advantage over those that do not. This is, therefore, a bill which is in the interests of Canada and Quebec, and one which represents a needed change as commercial exchanges continue to grow.

We would like to point out that these agreements were signed under the auspices of the Montreal based International Civil Aviation Organization.

For all these reasons our party supports this bill, and encourages the government to see that it is passed as quickly as possible, if this can be done.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Churchill River.

This bill is called Bill S-23. For people watching today, bills come here called C which means Commons. Some are called S which means they originated in the Senate rather than the House of Commons.

I object to having a bill originating in what we call the other place. The other place is not elected, it is not democratic and it is not accountable to the Canadian people.

I see the minister, who is the government House leader across the way, hanging on to the curtain in the back. I would like to know from him why more and more bills are originating in the other place. I can see him shaking his head but I cannot hear what he is saying. Now he is scurrying out the back door.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I do not wish to interrupt but it would certainly not be fair to suggest that the government House leader was scurrying out. He is making a very dignified exit.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

He did not scurry or crawl but he did make an exit. Maybe he will come back in again after he has a bowl of soup or something.

I want to raise this very serious question because this bill originated in the other place. In the last poll I have seen, the other place has the support of about 5% of the Canadian people. Five per cent of the Canadian people support the existing Senate, support the structure of the other place.

There is a great debate in the country as to whether or not it should be abolished or reformed. Of the remaining 95% of the Canadian people, they are roughly divided equally between reforming the other place and electing it in some way, and just abolishing it and getting rid of it. That is the debate.

It seems very strange that the government across the way would originate a bill in a place that is not elected, not accountable and has the support of 5% of the Canadian people. I do not know another democracy in the world that would legitimize the other place by originating a bill in the other place when it is not elected.

We are not talking about a board, or a commission or an agency. We are talking about a legislative body that can initiate legislation to change the laws of the country. I think that is a serious democratic issue in a modern-day parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I see you sitting in your chair looking pretty sad yourself when you start reflecting on the state of democracy in the country. I am also pretty sad to see the government doing this time and time again.

The Canadian people do not support that institution. Ninety-five per cent of Canadians are saying that they do not support the existing institution of the Senate. Yet the government time and time again will go there to initiate legislation. That is fundamentally wrong. I would like to see government members stand up and defend why they do this.

There is one minister in the House now who is listening very carefully to this debate. We have time this afternoon for him to get up and respond as to why they insist on doing this. The time has come for us to have a serious debate about electoral and parliamentary democracy and how to make this institution more meaningful.

I knew the government House leader many years ago. I remember in 1968 when I was first elected he was working in the House. The turnout in that election campaign was about 80% of the population. In the last election campaign it went down to about 67%. More and more people are giving up on the electoral system. They are losing confidence in the electoral system. More and more people are cynical of politicians and the political process.

One reason is that we have a legislative body that initiates legislation. It is not elected, not accountable and not democratic. We cannot get back at those people. If a Reform member from British Columbia or an NDP member from Regina does something people do not like, every three, four or five years the people can say no. I experienced that in 1993 when I lost the seat of Yorkton—Melville in Saskatchewan.

What can we do about a senator? There is nothing that can be done about someone in the other place, short of their being convicted for some serious criminal activity and being forced out by their colleagues. There was one who was living in Mexico for a long period of time. He had to resign under the pressure of public opinion. Short of that, there is no way of holding those people accountable and keeping their feet to the fire.

There are members in the other place who do not live in their home provinces and hardly ever go back to them. They do not go to meet their people. Some of them have even lived outside of the country. They draw a salary and expenses roughly equivalent to those of a member of parliament. They travel the world. People think they are like American senators so the red carpet is rolled out for them. That is the kind of institution we tolerate. We spend $50 million a year of taxpayers' money funding the other place.

Think of the homeless people under a bridge a few blocks from Parliament Hill who could use a few thousand dollars for public housing. Think of the money we could put into training and skills to put people to work. Think of the farmers we talked about in question period today who are now on a suicide watch because they do not have money to pay their bills. Yet we pay those people in the other place, who have no obligations whatsoever in terms of accountability, $50 million. And the government across the way initiates legislation in the other place.

I hope the government House leader will rise to his feet and explain to us how in the name of modern democracy he can tolerate such a situation. I can say that the Canadian people do not tolerate it. Only 5% of them support the other place, yet we have a government that ignores the wishes of 95% of the Canadian people. My oh my, once in power how they change their minds and how they change their hearts.

I hope the minister across the way will answer the questions on behalf of the people of this country.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the words of my hon. colleague.

I think that everyone in Canada, certainly everyone in this place, is well aware that our two parties share the same sentiment toward the inappropriateness of the present structure of the other place. Where we differ is that my hon. colleague's party chooses to support the abolishment of the senate, while the Reform Party of Canada supports a triple E senate. I wear the triple E pin very proudly. I still support the concept that we need an equal, effective and elected senate.

I agree with my hon. colleague that the vast majority of Canadians do not believe the Senate as it is presently structured serves any useful purpose. It is a patronage haven for the old parties. With the dictatorial system we have in the House and the way in which the present government operates by ramming through legislation with closure, I ask my colleague how would we have a check and balance without having an elected, effective and regional Senate?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the triple E idea is ever going to happen. We would need an amendment to the Constitution and the unanimous consent of all provinces along with the federal parliament in order to do that. I do not think we are ever going to get Quebec to agree to have the same number of senators as Prince Edward Island, let alone Ontario having the same number of senators as New Brunswick. If we did get that agreement the powers would be so weak and ineffective it would not matter if we had a Senate in the first place. It comes right down to the fact that this is never going to happen.

I do not think we need a second elected body in terms of bureaucracy and the many more politicians who would be funded. The amount involved would be greater than the $50 million we see today. This would invite gridlock between the two Houses.

In answer to the member's question, we need to bring accountability into the House of Commons. We need to bring the review process into the House of Commons by reforming and democratizing this place.

The powers of the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office have to be reduced. These questions were raised in the House today by the Reform Party and I certainly agree. The appointment of justices and the appointment of senior people in the government should have a parliamentary and democratic review as is done in most countries around the world.

Our parliamentary committees should be stronger and have more independence where legislation can be initiated. We should have fewer confidence votes in the House of Commons. All kinds of bills go through this place that should not be confidence bills. Parliamentarians should be able to vote their own line and express their own point of view. That should be done.

I also believe that we should have fixed election dates, fixed dates for budgets and fixed dates for throne speeches. This would again take power away from the government and away from the Prime Minister and the executive.

Why do I say that? I say it because we need big democracy in this country. There have only been two elections since 1921 where a majority of the people voted for a majority government and those were the governments of Mackenzie King in 1945 and John Diefenbaker in 1958. Every other time a majority has been elected by a minority of the people. This Liberal government has the support of 38% of the Canadian people, yet it has had a majority for five years. I think that is wrong without accountability built into this place.

We should be looking at modernizing our electoral system by bringing in a mix of proportional representation so the vote of the people is reflected by the composition of the House. We are now one of only two or three countries in the world without a mix of PR. We are not a modern electoral democracy and the minister across the way knows this.

Even Britain, the mother of parliaments, has a mix of PR in the Scottish assembly and the Welsh assembly. In the election after the next, it will be brought into the United Kingdom parliament itself. There is an election taking place now for the European parliament where every member from Great Britain is being elected through PR, through regional constituencies.

Those are things which we should be looking at. Every other country in the world has modernized its electoral system. We can do it in Canada as well.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-23 is an act to amend the Carriage by Air Act. There are opportunities to improve air transportation in this country and not only by this act. I will put forward a challenge on this in a very short while.

Air transportation in this country has evolved to become a major component of our way of life and the way we do our business. We will all be travelling back to our constituencies during the upcoming recess and a vast majority of us will depend upon air transportation to get us home.

Air is the only form of transportation to access communities in certain regions of this vast country of ours. Air transportation moves the basic necessities of life such as food and other cargo into isolated and remote areas. These isolated and remote areas depend upon good service from air carriers, but if these services are not available, then good sound legislation is of utmost importance.

The modernizing of our Carriage by Air Act is long overdue. The last update was in 1964, almost 40 years ago. There has been a lot of developments in the air transportation industry since then. There has hardly been any development on the issue of a passengers bill of rights.

In the old bills, and it was adopted in this one, only $35 could be assured for luggage and cargo loss. I had not realized this until I read the bill. A few years ago I had a carry on bag with sound equipment and photography equipment in it. Somebody walked off with it at the next stopover. When we arrived at our destination, my bag was missing. I had $1,300 of equipment missing and the offer made to me was $35. I could never figure out where the $35 came from. It comes from the Guadalajara convention of 1961.

There are international agreements that bind our nations, such as the 1988 Montreal protocol. All Canada is doing with Bill S-23 is modernizing and updating it to its international standards.

The challenge I want to place before the House and the government is that we have a Canadian passengers bill of rights.

We hear of recent developments on the news and in the media about the Americans. Our neighbours to the south are just as dependent on air transportation as we are, going between the east and west coasts. In the Swissair disaster, the victims' families were protected under the American passengers bill of rights.

We wonder what kind of protection we have as passengers, and what protection our families have, when looking at disasters that have hit our airports and airlines in recent years. Our situation forces us to use air transportation. Other situations loom before us in terms of a passengers bill of rights.

A snowstorm hit eastern Canada this past winter. Passengers were inconvenienced and left stranded in Canadian airports. Toronto was a prime example. Passengers were the last to know of any developments in the weather or decisions being made by the air carriers regarding the rescheduling of flights or arrangements for overnight accommodation. We saw pictures of passengers sleeping on benches in the airports. There were stories of lost cargo and luggage. This is a challenge for the government to look at a sound and safe passenger bill of rights.

A new territory was born on April 1. We hear stories that the entire territory does not have any highways to connect any of its communities unless it is winter travel by snow machine or dog team. They depend on air transportation.

The primary air transportation responsibility is highlighted in this bill. People switch from one airline to another. They may end up on six different airlines to reach their destination because of the huge explosion of other air transportation systems after deregulation of air transportation in the country.

We have to look at protection and who is responsible. It is highlighted in the bill that the primary air carrier will be responsible for passengers rights, whatever limited rights there are in the act. It does not matter whether passengers transfer flights. As long as the first air carrier on the ticket is listed, that is who is responsible for the passengers rights.

We support Bill S-23 and the updating of the Carriage by Air Act. It is an international standard act. I must repeat that we need a Canadian bill of rights for passengers, for our citizens and for visitors whom we wholeheartedly welcome into the country, as we just recently did with the Kosovar refugees. Tourists drive the economy of many regions of the country, especially during the spring and summer.

I wish everyone safe travel this weekend. I welcome and wish all passengers and refugees who have come to our country safe travel.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our transportation critic from Cumberland—Colchester I will take a few moments to speak to Bill S-23, which we will be supporting. Like the member who just spoke, I would like to see discussion on some other things, such as a Canadian bill of rights for passengers.

The region of Canada I come from is Newfoundland and Labrador. I would love to get a chance to discuss in the House the cost of airfare in this country, in particular the cost of regional airfare. The cost of airfare in Newfoundland is a significant prohibiter to travel. There are significant problems for the tourism industry. For many individuals who have to travel on crisis calls, the regional costs of airfare are absolutely shameful. Someday we may get a chance to discuss these issues in the House.

Today I will read a few notes on behalf of our critic which address Bill S-23. It is a bill regarding air transport that ratifies amendments to the Warsaw convention on international carriage by air. More specifically, Bill S-23 takes the form of amendments to the Carriage by Air Act by implementing Montreal Protocol No. 4 and the Guadalajara supplementary convention.

The Warsaw convention was signed in 1929. It assigns liability to the air carrier and provides for maximum liability in the event of death or injury of a passenger and loss of baggage or freight. In addition, the convention authorizes the passenger or shipper to enter into a contract in order to improve the terms of that liability.

Canada gave effect to the Warsaw convention in June 1947 by passing the Carriage by Air Act. This act has been amended from time to time to reflect new international agreements relating to the conduct of the international airline industry. The Montreal Protocol and the Guadalajara convention are the most recent of these new international agreements and parliament has been asked to ratify them through this piece of legislation which is now before the House of Commons.

Bill S-23 makes some housekeeping amendments to the Carriage by Air Act. Clarity is provided through definitions at the beginning of the act. The text, in keeping with modern legislative practice, has been rendered gender neutral, and a formula is provided for the establishment of international currency conversions. The Montreal Protocol and the Guadalajara convention are dealt with in schedules IV and V and are referred to accordingly in this act.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 amends the liability regime for cargo with stricter carrier liability and with maximum limits. It provides that a carrier is liable for damages to cargo to the limits of the liability but only after those damages have been established. As a result, the carrier cannot escape liability by taking all necessary precautions and cannot be assessed damages beyond the maximum limit even in the event of gross negligence.

This protocol, signed in 1975, only came into effect in 1998 when the requisite number of 30 states had deposited their instruments of ratification. This protocol came into effect in the United States in March of this year and thus puts U.S. carriers at a competitive advantage over Canadian carriers. It is therefore imperative that Canada ratify this protocol as soon as possible so that our air carriers can remain competitive in what is an increasingly competitive industry.

The Guadalajara convention in schedule V was first signed in 1961. It clarifies the relationship between passengers and shippers on the one hand and air carriers on the other. It is already widely in force and it clarifies the application of the Warsaw convention to situations where the contract of carriage was made by a carrier that did not actually perform some or all of the carriage by air. In short, it distinguishes between the contracting company and the carrier actually performing the carriage and sets out varying liabilities for each. This fills a gap that results from modern practice where one airline issues the ticket and another airline does all or part of the actual flight in question.

The Warsaw convention is thus made to apply to the contracting carrier throughout the journey and to the actual carrier during those parts of the journey that it actually carries. A claimant may sue either, but the aggregate of damages is limited to the amounts established by the Warsaw convention.

Bill S-23 enjoys the support of the Air Transport Association of Canada, a body representing all of the major airlines and many of the cargo operators, regional carriers and small airlines as well. The industry regards this legislation as long overdue and essential for the modernization and commercial viability of Canadian commercial aviation.

In conclusion, the PC Party supports the bill and urges its quick passage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be remiss if I did not try asking you again to seek unanimous consent, which I thought we had, to deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-64, without debate, to dispose of it. Will you seek unanimous consent to do that?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed as indicated by the parliamentary secretary?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find consent to call it 2.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The government House leader has moved that the Chair see the clock as being 2.30 p.m. Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 2.30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 1.07 p.m.)