Debates of April 4th, 2000

Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members present this evening will be voting in favour of the motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are strongly opposed to this motion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP vote yes to this motion.

[André Harvey, Independent, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote in favour of this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Portage—Lisgar constituents vote yes to this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 1261

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Amendments read the second time and concurred in)

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail contractors), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Post Corporation Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to order made Friday, March 31, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-238 under Private Members' Business.

I would remind hon. members that the division will be taken row by row, starting with the sponsor.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was not sure, as the clerk was counting the votes, whether he recognized my vote in support of this motion. I would ask that the record be checked.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you counted me in favour or not, but I am in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 1262

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-222, an act to establish the office of First Nations Ombudsman to investigate complaints relating to administrative and communications problems between members of First Nations communities and their First Nation and between First Nations, allegations of improper financial administration and allegations of electoral irregularities, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations Ombudsman Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-222 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 1263

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I declare the motion lost.

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 1999, I asked a question about transfers to the provinces. My question read as follows:

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 8, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick unanimously passed a motion calling for re-establishment of social transfers to the 1994-95 level.

Is the Minister of Finance prepared to listen to his Liberal cousins in New Brunswick and to restore transfer payments to their 1994-95 level in order to ensure that the people of New Brunswick may benefit from better social programs?

The Minister of Finance responded as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that, including the tax points, or in other words all transfers together, we are already where we were five years ago.

The reason I referred to “his Liberal cousins in New Brunswick” was because a motion in the New Brunswick legislative assembly was passed unanimously.

The Liberal Party of New Brunswick was even in agreement with the Progressive Conservative Party in saying that the transfers to the province of New Brunswick were—and we know this, for it is the same everywhere in the country—not as high as those received in 1994-95, because of the cuts.

As we know, according to the figures available, the federal government is paying only 15% of health costs. Up until 1969, the federal government paid 50%, as compared to a mere 15% today.

I hear our Liberal friends across the floor saying “No, no, not true”. If it is not true, the Liberals of New Brunswick are telling untruths, because the provincial Liberals of New Brunswick voted along with the Progressive Conservatives members in order to tell their cousins in the federal government “We want the same transfers as in 1994-95”. So which ones are telling the truth? The provincial Liberals or their federal Liberal cousins? This is a question that must be raised.

The one thing we do know is that, in the health field, people are suffering. Hospitals have been closed and patients are being forced to go to the United States for treatment. This we know, and we know what suffering it is causing. Every day, the Minister of Health gets up in the House to tell us “New methods have to be found”. Might this new method be to go the American way? That is the question that must be asked. Answers must be found and they must be found fast, because we are paying the Americans millions and millions of dollars to look after Canadians.

As we know, this is going on in every province. People are forced to go to the United States for treatment. I is sad to say but, here in Canada, animals are treated better than people in the health system. A dog or a cat would not be allowed to be mistreated the way the sick are in the health care system of this, of which we are supposed to be so proud.

This country should be able to look after our health care programs so that the provinces are not paying up to 85% of costs. I am talking about costs, not just the tax points the Liberals keep coming back to, but real day-to-day costs. The government should look at the bill and pay half.

Tomorrow, I am sure that we could have better health care in Canada, and our friends and families would not have to go to the United States for treatment.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the New Brunswick provincial Liberal Party, but perhaps the day they voted there was a full moon because it is a well-known fact that the federal contributions are more like 32% or 33% and that the federal contributions were never 50%.

The federal government restored social transfers to their 1994-95 level.

Total CHST cash and tax transfers will reach an all-time high of close to $31 billion in 2000 and 2001, and it will continue to grow. This is up $900 million from the previous peak in 1995-96 and up $1.8 billion since the government took office in 1993-94.

Thanks to the solid performance of the Canadian economy, the other major transfer payments to the provinces also increased substantially. Equalization payments to the less prosperous provinces are up $500 million this year from the forecasts in the 1999 budget.

Total transfers will reach an estimated $39.4 billion this year and will continue to grow over the next four years. The increase in total transfers means that provincial governments can strengthen social programs that are important to Canadians.

What does it mean for New Brunswick? In 2000 and 2001, transfers to New Brunswick will exceed $1.7 billion, will account for about 37% of New Brunswick's estimated revenues and they are expected to total about $2,348 per person, about 78% above the national average.

Over the next five years, New Brunswick will receive over $9 billion in transfers.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 13 last year I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. My question related to a young law student at the University of New Brunswick, Robbie Peterson.

Robbie Peterson was brutally attacked in the early hours of the morning the previous month on a downtown street at a major intersection. He was attacked for one reason—because he was gay. Similar gay bashings occur across this land.

I called on the Minister of Justice to recognize that this is a serious problem and specifically to bring forward an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada to outlaw hate propaganda which promotes violence and hatred based on sexual orientation.

The Minister of Justice recently tabled an omnibus bill in the House amending a number of statutes, including the criminal code, but unfortunately she did not include that important amendment to expand the sections of the criminal code on hate propaganda to include sexual orientation.

Under the current provisions of the criminal code, those who incite hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace can be subject to criminal sanction. Identifiable groups include those distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

That law has not changed since it was brought into force in 1966 and the silence of the code on this important issue sends a very destructive message. I believe that the silence of the code is unconstitutional.

Section 15 of the charter requires that the equal benefit of the law, including the criminal code provisions on hate propaganda, be extended to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.

What does it mean for the criminal code to be silent on this important issue? It means, for example, when a hatemonger like the Reverend Fred Phelps wants to come to Canada to burn the Canadian flag and to promote hatred and violence directed at gay and lesbian people, the police in Ottawa cannot stop that man from crossing our border. In fact, it was Sergeant Callaghan of the Ottawa Police Force who said and I quote “If this was done against a Catholic or a Jew or a black person, charges could be laid. If we had that legislation, we would not have to put up with this nonsense on Monday. We could have told him `If you show up and you start spreading this hate, we will arrest you'.”.

I plead with the government to give our law enforcement officers in Canada the power to take that important action. It is important because if we say it is all right to promote violence and hatred based on sexual orientation, that is a licence to the thugs in our country. It is a license to the thugs who get involved in gay bashing. It also sends out a negative message in terms of self-esteem for young gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I want to note that a gifted artist in Peterborough, Spencer Harrison, has pointed out that under the current provisions of the criminal code and the denial of equality, this leads to hatred and to violence. He has put together a project called The Queer Project that documents the impact of this hatred.

I call on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to do the right thing, to join with provincial and territorial attorneys general to listen to the premier of Ontario, the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, Howard Hampton, to amend the criminal code provisions on hate propaganda to include sexual orientation.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government takes the issue of hate crimes and hate propaganda very seriously and has been working actively to address this issue. There are a number of measures already in place at the federal and provincial levels to ensure that Canadians are protected from discrimination and crimes based on hate.

In 1995 the government enacted legislation in the form of Bill C-41 on sentencing reform which made it clear that hate motivation is an aggravating circumstance to be factored in at the time of sentencing. Paragraph 718.2(a)(i) of the criminal code provides that evidence that an offence was motivated by hate, bias or prejudice based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar ground shall be considered an aggravating factor in the sentencing of an offender.

In other words, if there is evidence that an assault, damage to property, threatening, harassment or any other criminal offence was motivated by hate, bias or prejudice, it is an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing and it should result in a more severe sanction. In addition, in 1996 the government brought forward legislation, Bill S-5, which resulted in amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act and added sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination.

My hon. colleague will also be happy to know that as part of our ongoing discussions at the federal-provincial—territorial level, the minister and her colleagues have been discussing Canada's hate crime laws and recommendations to improve them. Given the nature of the criminal law in this country with federal responsibility for the enactment of the law and provincial responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system, there is a collaborative process in the development and implementation of criminal law.

Federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for justice have approved for consideration, subject to an in-depth charter review, a number of recommendations which would further ensure that hate crimes are dealt with firmly. Many have suggested an expansion of the criminal code definition of identifiable group used for purposes of the hate propaganda offence provisions to include sexual orientation.

It is important to remember, however, that changes to the criminal code are only a part of a much broader strategy which must be taken to combat hate motivated activities in this country. This approach recognizes the importance of public awareness and education on the values of tolerance and respect which are fundamental to Canadian human rights and Canadian citizenship.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on March 17 I posed two questions to the minister of agriculture and I am very pleased to see the parliamentary secretary to the minister in the House tonight.

As usual, the two questions I posed were very valid questions. They were very succinct questions. They were very simple questions. I expected an answer from the minister of agriculture but as usual, there was a lot of doublespeak, there was a lot of beating around the bush and in fact no answers to those very simple questions.

The first question was rather interesting because at that time there were a number of supporters who were in town supporting this particular party. A number of people in that particular group of people wanted to reinstate what was known as the GRIP program, the gross revenue insurance program. Lo and behold, when they went to this huge gathering, all of the people in that gathering supported the fact that the government should reinstate the GRIP program.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, the GRIP program was a farm support program put into place prior to 1993 when this government took power and when it got into power in 1995 it in its short term mind decided to get rid of the GRIP program for in fact short term gain but for long term pain.

Here we have a wonderful group of individuals who support the government saying unanimously, “Bring us back the GRIP program”. So I asked the minister a very simple question: “Will you support that particular comment and resolution and will you in fact bring back the GRIP program”. There was no answer.

From there I then went on to very simply say that if the minister does not want to support the GRIP, then let's identify and let's analyze the program that was put in its place and that is the AIDA program. We recognize by the vote itself that AIDA was not being supported by the people who it was meant for, the farmers of western Canada. So we looked at whether there were some advantages to this AIDA program over the GRIP and we looked at the administration costs.

Lo and behold, the administration costs of the AIDA program to deliver some $500 million in 1998 came to a grand total of $35 million, about seven times what the administration costs were to administer not only GRIP but the NISA. NISA and GRIP were less than 2% of all of the program dollars delivered under those programs.

We now have here a program that the government's own supporters say is not good, that it is costing huge dollars that could be going to agriculture and to the farmers themselves and now going to bureaucrats to administer the program, so we ask ourselves, why would the minister of agriculture not want to answer those two simple questions. Why not reinstitute GRIP, a program that is being accepted by all those who wish to have it back, and in fact the government could save money by putting the GRIP program back and not having to spend those exorbitant sums on bureaucrats in the department to administer and deliver the AIDA program.

I would like the parliamentary secretary if he can to perhaps just stick to the subject, not talk about previous deficits, not talk about previous policies or previous parties and governments, just stick to the questions and the issues that are before him today.

Why not reinstate GRIP and please talk to the administration costs of that program.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his St. Patrick's Day question and for his interest in our policy convention.

He did not want me to mention the platform of his party in the previous election so I will not belabour him in that regard, but I am glad he is watching what we are doing in our policy conventions. I hope his party adopts some of our programs.

The Government of Canada is willing to consider various options for farm safety nets. The national safety nets advisory committee has been asked to look at a variety of proposals submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food over the past few months.

A few of these proposals share some similarities to the former GRIP program. All of these proposals will be reviewed by the committee and will be measured against criteria the committee has established for an income disaster program. The criteria it has established is split between essential and preferred criteria.

The first element is that any new disaster program be whole farm, that is, applicable to all farm production. As well, the committee is looking for proposals which will complement current safety net programs. As safety net programs are cost shared with provincial governments, any new programs must also meet their key principle, which is that safety net programs are equitable, fair and generally available, and that these programs do not put producers at risk for trade actions or countervail threats. All of the programs which have been submitted, including those based on the former GRIP program, will be measured against this criteria.

The national safety nets advisory committee will prepare a report for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food after it has met with the organizations or individuals who submitted each proposal.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

(The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.)