Debates of May 4th, 2000

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am no different from other members of parliament. I am sure everyone in the House who is willing to admit it has heard stories and knows of some cases firsthand, as I do, of individuals who quote two prices to do something, for example to fix the roof. There is a price if they are paid cash and a price if they have to issue a tax receipt.

Yes, I think that is deplorable. It is really wrong for an individual to avoid the tax system. What he or she should do is help to elect a Canadian Alliance government to fix the tax system. Until that happens, people should really comply.

At any rate the problem is huge. I remember way back in 1993 when the Liberals were first elected and the Conservatives had been in power. Even then, because of the GST, it was stated that probably all of the deficit, which was estimated to be around $40 billion but it turned out to be larger, but $40 billion a year of government revenue was lost because of the underground economy. We never know exactly how much it is because the people who do not comply are the ones that are not tracked.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a few points on the record in the five minutes that remain.

It is interesting to look across the way. It is almost a state of denial. Look at where 40 years of successive tax and spend governments have put us. I will show myself as being a little long in the tooth, but I remember in the 1950s when we went to the United States and put a dollar on the table, we got $1.12 back or $1.09. The Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar but today it is below 67 cents. That did not happen by osmosis; it happened through government policies.

We consistently get the denial from across the way “Well, we always look at our pals in the United States. It is the United States that we always look to”. In some ways we do, because the Americans have the luxury of an economy that is going far faster, in multiples of what ours is doing.

If we have to make a comparison, we do not have to go down to the United States. We just have to compare my home province of British Columbia with its next door neighbour Alberta to see what different taxation policies can do. We not only have the Liberal government to contend with but we also have the provincial NDP government and British Columbia has been put on its knees with the cumulative effect of the two. Compare that to Alberta which basically has no sales tax and has a very envious record. Again, that is through public policy, policies of successive governments that have gone in the direction of building the economy, not knocking it down.

It is not just a simplistic answer. We have interprovincial trade barriers, for example. We have talked about it. It is a huge cauldron. In Ontario and Quebec it is a one-way street with workers going across one way but it is not reciprocal the other way. That is a simple example of the trade barriers in one province not being the same in others. It goes right across the country.

What about our debt? I started out by saying our dollar was $1.12 compared to a U.S. dollar 50 years ago, and it is now down to 67 cents. Back in those days we had a very tiny debt. The reason our dollar is down on its knees is the huge burden. The world markets are looking at Canada and saying that with this huge debt we have hanging over us, they do not have faith in our economy and they do not have faith in our dollar.

Canadians would like the government to address that. For example, the U.S. plans to pay off its debt in about 13 years. Australia plans to do it in about three years. With the forecasting from the finance minister, in Canada it is something like 190 years at the present rate. There is no political will to move forward to attack that debt so that we can bring the economy forward.

It is the cumulative effect of taxes, of debt and of legislation that does not favour business. In fact, it penalizes business. It penalizes. It is as if it is a crime in this country to make a buck. This is with tongue in cheek but basically with the Liberal policy, the simple tax form in part A asks how much money we made and part B says to send it in. That is about where this government has been going.

Canadians are on their knees. They are taxed not only federally, but in some cases we have a provincial regime that does not work, and the municipalities as well. This country needs to get its tax burden across the board under control. All levels of government have to do that.

We have seen other countries that we have to compete with. I mentioned earlier in a question Japan, Taiwan and now China. These are countries that started off at the low end but through the years and with progressive government policies that favour industry and productivity have moved forward. These are the economies we as Canadians have to deal with.

I am running out of time, so I will wind up. On the tax issue, if there is just one message I wish the government would really listen to, it is that we need to lower taxes at all levels.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I have to interrupt the hon. member at this time. The next time the bill is brought before the House, the hon. member will have about 14 minutes remaining.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Office Of The Correctional Investigator

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to Part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that the Office of the Correctional Investigator would report directly to Parliament and that its recommendations would be binding rather than simple recommendations.

Madam Speaker, Motion M-228, which I am putting before the House today, deals with Part III of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which deals with the correctional investigator.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act is now being reviewed by a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. While the conditional release procedure seems to capture the interest of the general public and of members of the House, the same is not true of Part III of the act, which deals with the correctional investigator. In my opinion, this is a very important part of the act.

The subcommittee reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will propose certain improvements to the Office of the Correctional Investigator. These improvements are acceptable, but I believe they are not sufficient to give the correctional investigator the powers he should have, given the importance of his functions.

That is why I have decided to draw the government's attention to that part of the act. I call upon the government to give more powers to the Office of the Correctional Investigator and to introduce the necessary amendments. Allow me to explain why the government should seriously consider my motion and the proposals it contains.

First, I think it is important to remind the House that, as stated in section 3, the purpose of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is, and I quote:

—the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by ( a ) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and ( b ) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.

It is the responsibility of the Correctional Service of Canada to look after the custody of offenders and set up programs that contribute to their rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community. The correctional service must also prepare inmates for their release and supervise conditional and statutory releases, as well as the long term supervision of some offenders.

The commissioner of corrections has the control and management of the service and all matters connected with the service. The commissioner reports to the minister, in this case, the Solicitor General of Canada.

Under the act, the correctional investigator conducts investigations into the problems of offenders related to decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner or any person under the control and management of the commissioner that affect inmates.

I should be noted that the reasons for complaints are many. It could be a transfer or something to do with the special handling unit, access to rehabilitation programs, double bunking, health care and many others.

The main function of the correctional investigator is to conduct investigations and settle the complaints of each offender. The correctional investigator may conduct an investigation either on his own initiative or following a complaint by an inmate or a request by the minister. Unfounded or inappropriate decisions might compromise chances of success of rehabilitation and, in the longer term, they might also affect the public's security.

After having conducted an investigation, if the correctional investigator determines that there actually is a problem regarding one or more offenders, he must submit a report to the commissioner. The correctional investigator adds to his report a motivated opinion if he considers that the commissioner has contravened the law or an established guideline or rendered an unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or unduly discriminatory decision. He will also give a motivated opinion if the commissioner exercised his discretionary power for improper purposes, irrelevant reasons or no reason.

The correctional investigator must also include in his report the recommendations he deems appropriate and which are relevant to complaints from inmates. These recommendations ensure that systemic concerns within penitentiaries are dealt with properly.

For instance, the correctional investigator has jurisdiction over special detention units, grievance procedure, case preparation, access to rehabilitation programs, double bunking, as I mentioned, transfers, the use of force, injuries to inmates, and other matters.

As members can see, the investigator has important duties and he must deal with both sensitive and complicated matters. As mentioned in his departmental performance report for the period ending March 31, 1999, and I quote:

The Office aims to assure the Canadian public that the federal correctional system is managed efficiently, equitably and fairly.

Unfortunately, the recommendations or findings of the correctional investigator following an investigation are not binding on the commissioner of corrections. With the current legislation, when the commissioner of corrections does not take action within a reasonable time after the correctional investigator has presented his report, the latter may inform the solicitor general of the situation and provide him with the information originally provided to the commissioner.

Nothing in the act says that the minister must act on the advice of the correctional investigator. The investigator must submit annually a report of the activities of his office to the solicitor general, who introduces it in the two houses of parliament.

Clearly, the decision-making power of the correctional investigator is quite limited. Furthermore, the appointment process does not guarantee total independence or neutrality. Indeed, the correctional investigator is presently appointed by the governor in council. In other words, the minister is his boss.

Considering the importance of the correctional investigator's role, I believe that changes are in order and that the government must act. Therefore, I submit that, to start with, the government must amend the act to make the correctional investigator accountable to parliament.

That means that he would be appointed by parliament. In legal terms, the provision could read something like this: the incumbent shall be appointed by commission under the Great Seal after approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons.

Under this appointment process, the appointee shall report to parliament and, at the end of each year, submit an activity report. This report may include recommendations regarding the changes in legislation that are deemed desirable.

Once tabled, this activity report is referred to a committee designated or established by parliament pursuant to the act to monitor the enforcement of the act and its regulations. This designated committee also oversees the implementation of the reports tabled by the person responsible.

I believe that this change in the correctional investigator appointment process would really improve the role of the investigator, who would be accountable to parliament, which would give the function a more independent and impartial status than it currently has.

Some recommendations of the correctional investigator could be implemented at this level by the committee responsible for monitoring the enforcement of the act. The commissioner of official languages and the information commissioner are two examples of people who are accountable to parliament.

Because of his or her position, the correctional investigator can identify weaknesses in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and see how it impacts on the prisoners and their rehabilitation. Any improvement of the status of the correctional investigator is likely to improve the very complex system provided for in the act. For these reasons, this change in the appointment process of the correctional investigator is desirable.

While the government ought to do more, this, in my opinion, is the first change that should be made to this act. Genuine decision making power must be given to the correctional investigator by making his recommendations binding.

As we have seen, at present, the commissioner is not bound by the recommendations made to him by the correctional investigator after a prisoner's complaint has been investigated. The only recourse, as the case may be, that the correctional investigator has to ensure his conclusions are acted on is to inform the solicitor general that the commissioner failed to act.

Several avenues could be explored by the government to ensure that the recommendations of the correctional investigator are binding. The government could simply change the existing legislation so as to direct the commissioner to follow the recommendations of the correctional investigator.

Between April 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999, the correctional investigator received 4,529 complaints made by inmates or on their behalf. The correctional investigator's workload is considerable. Moreover, the correctional investigator must make sure that custodial provisions are appropriate and look after the rehabilitation of inmates, while ensuring public safety.

That is why I encourage the government to introduce amendments to the appointment process, so as to give the correctional investigator an independent status, as I said earlier. I also say to the government it should introduce amendments to the legislation in order to give some real authority to the correctional investigator. In fact, the correctional investigator knows that I have moved this motion in the House today and he is, in his own words, totally in agreement with this motion.

I want to stress that this motion is absolutely non-partisan. I believe that all parties in the House stand to benefit from the correctional investigator reporting directly to parliament. We want to make sure that this function is real, efficient and independent. I believe this concerns us all as parliamentarians, whatever our political allegiance.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not selected the motion I am submitting to the House this evening as a votable item, even if the issue is of primary importance. I think it is unfortunate that we cannot vote on such a serious issue. In spite of that, I have addressed the House on the subject, and other members may do so for a total of one hour.

What is the use of debating for one hour if the members will never have the opportunity to vote on the issue? My speech tonight will certainly convince several members of the validity of my motion, but no concrete measure will be taken following the debate.

I am tempted to say that we are wasting time and precious resources. Members of parliament work very hard to introduce motions and bills on issues affecting the general public. That is why all members should have the opportunity to vote on such initiatives.

The introduction of motions and bills by private members allows them to speak for their constituents. It is also an opportunity for other members to express the views of their constituents on the issues before the House. To deny members the possibility to vote on these initiatives is to withdraw a basic vehicle for action in our democratic system.

Therefore, I think that out of respect for the voters and for the position of members of parliament, the issues submitted by private members to the House should all be votable items. Do members not believe that talking for the sake of talking is a waste of taxpayers' money? No, that is not why we were elected. I think that the job members of parliament do is a serious one and the motions and bills they introduce should be treated as such.

I admit that I am a little embarrassed to be doing this tonight. I know that I am not alone in this regard. As a matter of fact several other hon. members already expressed their views on votable items in 1996, before the subcommittee on private members' business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Many of us thought that there were not enough votable bills and motions in spite of the importance of the issues. Many also thought that all the bills and motions by private members should be voted on.

Accordingly, I urge all hon. members who share this view to keep on working to change the way things are done in the House. Furthermore, the subcommittee I mentioned recently sent a questionnaire concerning Private Members' Business, and I hope all hon. members take the opportunity to express their view on this matter.

If it is not the case—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but her time is up.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech. There are only two sentences left.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that if members have not yet taken advantage of the fact that they are being consulted on whether they want all motions and bills to be made votable, I invite them to do so.

Together, we should succeed in changing this practice that leads us nowhere.

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

Madam Speaker, we have before us Motion M-228, which deals with the office of the correctional investigator. This motion asks the government to introduce legislative amendments to have the correctional investigator report to parliament directly, and not through the solicitor general, as is the case now.

For reasons which I will explain in greater detail, I simply cannot support this motion.

It seems that the criminal justice system has held a place of prominence in parliament in recent months. The Minister of Justice has initiated action in the area of youth justice. Her extensive proposals are still being considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In the last session, among other initiatives, she oversaw the passage of significant additions to victims rights legislation.

The solicitor general has done his share of legislative reform by extending the protection of young Canadians from sexual predators with amendments to the Criminal Records Act, which has just received royal assent.

Our justice system is being updated practically on a continual basis. In fact, one could consider that correctional reform was undertaken when the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act were replaced by the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act that was passed in 1992. It is in that new act that the Office of the Correctional Investigator was established.

In establishing that office through legislation, the government reinforced the right of inmates to have access to a grievance process, while ensuring better protection of their right to be treated in a fair and humanitarian manner.

We can take pride in our worldwide reputation for maintaining a correctional system which acts fairly while pursuing its primary goal of public protection. I fear, however, that Motion No. 228 would change our law in ways not envisaged or intended by those who drafted, debated and later amended legislation which became the Corrections and Conditional Release Act as we know it today.

Motion M-228 asks us to reconsider an aspect of the office of the correctional investigator that could have been included in the 1992 legislative package, an item that was indeed proposed by some witnesses and committee members during the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

But the proposal was rejected, and it is no more desirable today than it was then.

I will point out that we are expecting the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights dealing with the most recent review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The solicitor general has said that he looks forward to receiving the recommendations of the subcommittee, and I am certain that he will consider those recommendations very carefully.

Motion No. 228, however, proposes a change to this act, and a change which I cannot support.

In the time I have left, I will try to shed some light on the way the Office of the Correctional Investigator currently reports and explain why this proposal is not judicious.

The solicitor general is responsible for the federal correctional agencies, of which there are two: the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada.

The minister is accountable to parliament, thus to the Canadian public; moreover, he has the mandate to make the necessary changes—when they are called for—to the policies and practices of these agencies.

When the correctional investigator reports to the minister, as is the case now, he brings his concerns directly to the attention of the system's responsibility centre. If the report contains recommendations that it would be appropriate to implement, the solicitor general encourages the government to take the necessary measures accordingly.

Their is no chance these reports will get lost along the way, or shelved as they say, because not only does this series of legislative measures make it mandatory for the solicitor general to present such a report, but also the act categorically states that it must be tabled in parliament by the solicitor general within 90 days. In short, the correctional agencies are independently monitored and reports must be submitted.

And besides, there is another important element, of course. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which the author of the motion is a member, may examine, at its own discretion, the annual reports and special reports of the correctional investigator.

Questions may be asked about the follow-up given to recommendations made by the investigator, either in his annual report or in his special reports. Questions may also be asked about the way complaints lodged by inmates have been dealt with.

Therefore today's motion is totally redundant.

We are living in times of tremendous change. You, Madam Speaker, and all of my colleagues are well aware that change is experienced no less by the criminal justice system than it is by any other institution in our society.

Obviously, the last decade has seen a great deal of activity in the area of criminal justice.

Is our justice system working? Is it indeed protecting our most vulnerable citizens? Are our actions in line with our speech in terms of making the safety of Canadians of paramount concern to the Government of Canada?

Our government was well prepared to deal with those difficulties. I would add that Canadians are not asking us to allow inmates to submit their problems directly to the House.

The rights of offenders imprisoned or on conditional release are protected by the law and by international codes of ethics, of which Canada is a signatory. Besides, the rights of individuals living under the authority of the correctional system are protected by legislative provisions on human rights, as well as by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I sincerely do not believe that the motion moved—in all good faith—by my colleague, who is a hard worker, will improve those protections in any way.

Of course, what interests me most is that this proposal can in no way guarantee better protection of the public.

Therefore, since this motion can neither improve protection of the public nor increase the public's confidence in the correctional system, this motion is useless, in my opinion.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to enter the debate on this justice issue brought forward by the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint Hubert.

We are discussing once again the issue of justice and sentencing. I vacillate back and forth between the whole concept of holding people accountable for their actions in a meaningful way while at the same time upholding a very important principle in which I strongly believe. The principle I am talking about is our justice system, which in all aspects should be based on the principle that it is the safety of law-abiding citizens which should take pre-eminence in all cases. I also very firmly believe that if the rights of a victim and the rights of an accused collide, then the rights of the victim should take precedence.

I think this motion was brought forth today out of a sense of frustration with our justice system in Canada. I do not want to particularly pick on the current Minister of Justice, since I do not think the situation was substantially better under the previous minister. The way the justice system works in Canada is very seriously flawed. We have a minister who, unfortunately, does not respond well to issues which are very important to Canadians.

We have more than 500,000 names on petitions asking the government to do something with respect to the possession of child pornography. The Minister of Justice simply wrings her hands and says “I cannot do anything”. Canadians do not understand that. They do not like it and they have expressed that to me.

I mentioned in an earlier speech today that I spent a number of hours at trade fairs in two of the major centres in my riding in the last couple of weeks. One of the issues that came up over and over was the issue of child pornography. I can see my colleague being motivated to bring forward her motion when the minister does not respond to issues such as child pornography. The member is really bypassing the minister with her motion.

At the present time the annual report of the correctional investigator is tabled in the House by the minister. It is required by statute that the report be tabled in the House so that it will be available to all of us. Consequently, the minister can sit on it and forget about it. There is never a requirement to actually act on any of the recommendations. I can understand the member's frustration.

I feel bad about this because I know this motion has come forward from correct motivation. I wish the member had worded it a little differently, because then I would have supported it quite heartily. However, I have a real concern with a motion which lets a correctional officer prepare a report with recommendations that are binding on the House.

When we actually so arrange our affairs, we are in danger that parliament will not be supreme. We have already done that thanks to former Prime Minister Trudeau who brought in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with its overriding control over future parliaments. We have lost our autonomy. We no longer have a parliament that can pass a law based on the majority in a democratic process either of our people or of our representatives in the House.

If I am reading this motion right, the primary flaw that I see is that the motion would further erode the supremacy of parliament. I am sure the hon. member will correct me during her last five minute speech if I am wrong.

The way I read it, the motion states, and I quote, “recommendations would be binding rather than simple recommendations”. It means that the recommendations made in that report to parliament would not be debated or passed by the House. If they were, there would be no choice but to adopt those recommendations. I think that would be unwise.

Undoubtedly many of the recommendations would be valid and would carry the support, but if there were recommendations that were not supported by the majority of either our citizens or, by projection, their representatives in this place, then we ought not to allow yet another individual or small committee somewhere out there, that is neither elected nor accountable, to dictate to Canadians how the conditional system works. As I see it, that is the most serious flaw in the motion.

I would, however, like to say that we need to seriously look at the whole question of sentencing and we need to have better feedback.

I happen to have a major institution located a few miles from the boundary of my riding. Many of the people who work at that institution live in my riding. They live in the towns of Fort Saskatchewan, Gibbons or Bon Accord. They work at that institution and they express their concerns to me. Many of the things that happen in Correctional Service Canada are not really geared toward the protection of citizens they way they ought to be.

I commend the hon. member for bringing this motion forward. I certainly sympathize with her frustration with the system. We do need to look at the way this reporting should be done. However, it would have been better if she had moved a motion that said that those recommendations must be dealt with in the House within a certain length of time and that a subsequent vote on those recommendations would be a free vote, as Private Members' Business is. Perhaps that would have been a better way to accomplish the goals she is seeking.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has five minutes to reply at this time, if she so desires. She has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, following the comments I made earlier about having one hour to debate a bill or a motion that just dies after the hour is over, without even being voted on, I have no further comments to make on my motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Since the motion was not selected as a votable item, this item is dropped from the order paper.

It being 6.05 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m.)