John Maloney

[Petitions, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today pursuant to Standing Order 36.

These petitions implore Parliament to introduce legislation which would prohibit criminals from profiting in any way from the crimes which they have undertaken.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, October 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the Canadian delegation to the seventh annual meeting of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group which was held in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa from September 1 to September 5, 1996, as well as the report of the executive committee meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Ottawa from September 6 to September 8, 1996.

The Asia-Pacific region is becoming increasingly important in Canada. Japan is now our second largest trading partner. Asia has become Canada's second most important trading region.

The recently completed seventh annual Canada-Japan meeting focused on our growing and harmonious bilateral relationship. Discussions focused on bilateral and multilateral co-operation in a rapidly changing world. Relations with our other Asia-Pacific neighbours are also changing.

Canada will be hosting the fifth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in January in Vancouver. The executive committee of the APPF just held a highly successful and productive meeting here in Ottawa and approved the arrangements for the Vancouver meeting. We look forward to hosting this meeting and to kicking off Canada's year of Asia-Pacific.

[The Late Samuel Victor Railton, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, Dr. Samuel Victor Railton, Liberal member of Parliament for the riding of Welland who passed away this summer on July 23 in his 91st year. I was privileged to know Vic and his first wife Ruth and their family.

During his seven years as a parliamentarian, Dr. Railton was deputy whip, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, serving with distinction in every capacity.

Vic Railton was a member of Parliament who regularly brought the concerns and achievements of his Welland constituency to this House. His Hansard record shows numerous excellent interventions on the issues of energy policy, veterans affairs, industry policy, health, welfare, social security and the very important St. Lawrence Seaway.

Doctor Railton's maiden address to the House of Commons was made during that great emotional debate on the abolition of capital punishment and illustrates a man with great personal convictions and principles. He said: "I do not think members of Parliament should vote in any way except for that in which they believe-we must stand up for our personal principles, no matter how they may be received".

Vic Railton served his country in peace and in war as a kind family physician, a talented surgeon and finally, as a dedicated parliamentarian. Canada has benefited from this hard working conscientious servant to the public. All of us-

[Petitions, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which requests that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

[Petitions, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Erie.

The petitioners pray that Parliament oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation which would provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Criminal Code, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-205, the proposed legislation which would amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act to prohibit a criminal from profiting by selling, authorizing or authoring the story or details of a crime.

Copyright refers to a system of legal rights that has been developed to acknowledge and protect the intellectual labour and works of authors and creators of every nature: literary, artistic, dramatic, musical. Copyright allows these individuals to control the exploitation of their works, to profit from their works and to protect the integrity of their works. Copyright should not be unduly interfered with, only under exceptional circumstances. Bill C-205 is one of these circumstances.

This bill amends the Criminal Code to include the definition of proceeds of crime as any profit or benefit gained by a person convicted of an indictable offence, or his family, from the creation of a work based on that offence.

This amendment extends to such profits or benefits in the existing provisions of the Criminal Code respecting search for, seizure and detention of proceeds of crime. It provides that a sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include an order that any work based on the offence is subject to a new section in the Copyright Act.

The bill amends the Copyright Act to provide that in such a work the copyright that would otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the property of the crown even after payment of any fine or service of any period of imprisonment. The bill does not prevent any person from creating or publishing such a work but prohibits any profit or benefit that might accrue to the convicted person or to his family.

There is an interesting paradox in Canadian society today. On one hand the public decries it should have the right to know the details of a crime. We saw the outrage surrounding recent publication bans with the infamous Homolka trial. On the other hand, many of the same people say that the rights of victims and their families should be paramount. I happen to agree with the latter sentiment. No criminal should ever profit from relating the story of their crimes.

It is clear that the groups representing victims of violence and crime strongly support Bill C-205. In the words of Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers of CAVEAT: "Criminals and their families should never be allowed to accrue rich rewards for their offences anywhere, any time, any place". I agree.

The Canadian Police Association says: "This bill will provide much needed protection for the victims of crime, and ensure that their pain and suffering is not exploited". I agree. A press release from the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime stated: "This bill strikes an appropriate balance between the criminal's rights and the victim's rights". I agree.

Debbie Mahaffy said that despicable, unconscionable entrepreneurs and yes, even the public, were exploiting and profiting by selling their spin on Leslie's murder to the rest of the public which felt it had the right to know the details. The French family from my neighbouring community of St. Catharines said: "The fact that people want to profit from someone else's tragedy is disgusting but the fact that the criminals themselves can profit from crime is an outrage". I agree.

These quotes are overwhelming testimony to the revictimization that occurs when criminals profit financially from their crimes. I share this outrage.

I support Bill C-205 for three basic reasons. First, this kind of legislation has been a long time coming and will go a long way in ensuring that crime does not pay. That principle is a longstanding value entrenched in the Canadian justice system and Canadian society.

The deterrent aspect of such an amendment is of vital importance as criminals continue to be portrayed as heroes. If criminal acts continue to promise heroic status and financial profit both to the offenders and their families, the escalation of heinous crimes will never be deterred.

Second, this bill would also help to ensure that victims and their families are not further victimized by criminals. The effect of such exploitation on victims is overwhelming and unacceptable. Canada must do more to protect victims and to ensure their rights and freedoms are respected.

Third, this bill strikes an appropriate and difficult balance between the criminal's rights and those of the victim. There is concern that a criminal has the right under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to tell his story in any form, and to pocket the profits. We are faced with balancing the protection of victims and their families with the rights of criminals to freedom of speech.

This bill provides that criminals need not be prevented from telling their stories, provided they do not profit from telling them. There are many of us who wish these horrible accounts could be silenced forever. The next best thing is to send a clear message that no criminal will ever profit financially from a crime.

I commend my hon. colleague for Scarborough West for his research and thoughtful dealing with this issue. Part of this bill deals with changes to the Copyright Act. It provides that a sentence for an indictable offence is deemed to include on order that any work based on that offence is subject to a new section, that in such a work the copyright which would otherwise belong to the convicted person becomes and remains the property of the crown forever.

The government could bring action in any country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention on Copyright to enforce its rights. This would include the seizure of funds paid to the criminal or injunctions to halt the sale of books, movies, videos, et cetera.

Our world is an ever expanding universe of technology with the ability to transfer money abroad. Criminals can access this technology. The enormous financial cost Canada incurs in enforcing law and order and public safety affects the community as a whole. It is only fitting that any proceeds from the exploitation of such crimes should revert to the crown to recompense society for at least part of those expenses. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the provisions for the seizure of such profits.

I wish to address my hon. colleague's comments regarding the ability of Canadian consumers to make choices on these goods. Murder, violence, degradation, dehumanization and pornography are currently being marketed in novels, electronic games, slasher movies and videos. It could go on and on and must be stopped.

There is already an array of horrific material available. I do not see signs that publishers and directors are being sent a clear message from the public that this is unacceptable. Quite the contrary. It took legislation by this House to limit the sale and import of the macabre serial killer cards.

I thank my colleague again for his efforts to protect the victims and their families and ultimately all Canadians who do not want to see criminals being allowed to profit from their crimes. It is time that our society examined more opportunities to have criminals pay for what they do to victims and to society. The criminal must pay for the crime, not the victim, nor the victim's family.

Public confidence in a just and safe society depends on societal values being reflected by the justice system which is exactly what this bill does. I urge all my colleagues in the House to support this most worthy bill.

[Financial Administration Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. Albert for his motion to introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act, a motion that will require all departments and agencies to table in the House responses to the recommendations of the auditor general. I am honoured to have the opportunity to express my views as we resume debate on this motion.

In March, when we last debated this motion, many interesting points were raised. Several comments were made about the lack of adequate government response to both the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. As these comments have become part of the public record, I feel it is my duty to provide some defence.

The role of the auditor general is to call attention to anything he considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons. The auditor general is an officer appointed by Parliament. He tells parliamentarians and all Canadians what he has found as he investigates the workings of government. He has tabled three reports on government in the past year.

Each report is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This committee is chaired by a member of the official opposition and investigates in depth many of the issues the auditor general has identified. The committee also contacts each and every department mentioned in the reports and requests a response outlining actions taken.

It was suggested on March 21 that unless the Standing Committee on Public Accounts calls witnesses and tables a report the government ignores the recommendations of the auditor general. This is not true.

The government is continually making improvements to its programs and policies based not only on the recommendations of the auditor general and the public accounts committee but on recommendations from program managers, from its own internal review groups and from its clients.

To take the second of these, I cannot think why any department would continue to employ and pay these internal audit evaluation and review shops if it were not interested in learning how effectively and efficiently it does business and how it can improve. It is part of being a good manager.

It was suggested that in cases where the Standing Committee on Public Accounts did investigate there was a lackadaisical attitude on behalf of the government in addressing these issues. I do not think I would consider, for example, that the President of the Treasury Board tabled the first annual report to Parliament on review an indication of a lackadaisical attitude

Allow me to elaborate a little to show the government's dedication to improvement. This report tabled in Parliament in November 1995 was titled "Strengthening Government Review". It was a snapshot of the state of review in the federal government and the kind of performance information available. It also included an action plan to address the opportunities for improvements identified.

This report was produced in response to concerns raised in the 1993 auditor general's government-wide audit of program evaluation and internal audit and to follow up a report by the public accounts committee. It was and continues to be by no means a small or lackadaisical effort.

In response to the 1993 auditor general's call for strengthening government evaluation and internal audit, the Treasury Board issued a new review policy. The policy encourages departments and agencies to develop better information. It asked that they use performance information in business planning processes and that they make this performance information accessible to the public. In short, the Treasury Board asked for greater accountability for the use of public funds.

In 1995 Treasury Board developed a revised expenditure management system. This system requires departments to articulate goals, targets and measures in key expenditure areas.

Over the years the auditor general has been asking government to become more accountable by providing better information on results and costs. The government has responded in no small way. Departments and agencies must demonstrate to parliament and to all Canadians whether goals set have been met and if not, why not. What better example of accountability is there?

It was also suggested the government sometimes appears to be not interested in being accountable. Sometimes in our busy day in the whirlwind of issues we forget the amount of progress that has been made. We are so busy focusing on the trees we sometimes miss the forest. It is important we consider what has been happening in the widest sense before we focus on specifics.

The auditor general notes that for over 65 per cent of of his recommendations there has been full implementation or else satisfactory progress has been demonstrated.

Specific examples cited by the auditor general include significant improvements in the layout and presentation of the government's annual financial statements that have been made in response to recommendations by the auditor general.

Another example is the significant improvements in the quality of information in crown corporation corporate plan summaries and annual reports provided to Parliament.

These responses illustrate the dedication of government to continuous improvement and reflect its emphasis on accountability.

That these criticisms were uttered suggests a disturbing misperception that government does not listen to the auditor general. Even more disturbing is the misperception that the government does not care to listen. It is important to hear these comments. It seems the government has been too quiet about its success stories. In our drive to improve we sometimes forget to celebrate our accomplishments.

Believing these misperception might very well lead one to suggest departments and agencies should table in the House of Commons action plans in response to the auditor general's findings.

If it were true that nothing happened in response to the auditor general's reports, it would make sense. However, this is clearly not true. As we have seen and heard both today and on March 21, quite a lot happens to remedy shortcomings noted by the auditor general.

Not only does the government address the specific items noted by the auditor general, it has been working diligently government-wide to address the underlying themes present in the auditor general's reports. This diligence is visible in a concerted effort to improve the quality of its programs and services to make them effective, efficient, affordable, accessible and fair.

How has the government been achieving this? On March 7 we all saw the progress report on getting government right. Perhaps we should remind ourselves of the efforts in using information technology better, being more responsive and flexible, changing the way government makes decisions, and focusing on results based management to achieve our goals.

For example, the government has been harnessing information technology innovatively to make services more accessible and affordable for Canadians. Canadians can now receive at a single location a range of government services from several departments and levels of government. Some of this is possible from home or through an automated kiosk.

New approaches provide new solutions to old problems. The government is exploring new ways to deliver programs and services that offer the best value for taxpayer dollars. Some of these ideas include partnerships, integration of departmental responsibilities and employee takeovers.

I think these changes reflect a fundamental shift in the way government manages itself. For example, the move to accrual

accounting allows government to report more accurately the cost of its activities on an annual basis. This increases public and parliamentary accountability. Better information means better decisions.

This shift is also reflected in the government emphasis on results. The quality service initiative is designed to provide accessible, affordable, relevant and responsive services to Canadians. Most departments have published performance objectives for the delivery of government products and services. These standards act as benchmarks against which Canadians can measure the timeliness, accessibility, reliability and accuracy of services to which they are entitled.

I could go on at length. However, I think these examples more than adequately show the dedication of the government to getting government right by improving and becoming more accountable.

I certainly hope I have begun to remedy the misperceptions that government does not want to change. The government is committed to improvement. The government has recognized a deep and enduring public demand for better governance. In response, the government launched major reviews of its overall policy frameworks, co-operated with the provinces and territories to make all levels of government work better, initiated program review which examined all federal programs and activities to rethink not only what the federal government does but how it does it. This includes reducing areas where costly overlap and duplication had previously occurred.

I call it progress. It is undeniable. Progress in reducing spending levels is also progress in restoring financial health. Progress in making government work better is progress in restoring public faith in government.

If the government were not listening to the auditor general, to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to the citizens of Canada, this motion would be a welcome initiative to get us back on track. However, we must consider the facts. When the auditor general thinks change is occurring to a large extent in a timely and satisfactory manner, we must stop and think. I do not think members can disagree. It is becoming increasingly clear that if we were to implement the motion suggested by my fellow member we would be to a large extent duplicating much of the effort that currently exists.

I am sure none of us would want to ask the citizens of Canada to pay more for something that is already provided. I am sure fellow members would not want to show the Canadian public an attempt to create a larger and more expensive bureaucracy, flying in the face of all we have been trying to accomplish.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from the residents of the township of West Lincoln in my riding of Erie.

The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Constitution to remove the rights of denomination classes of persons to operate their own schools and to refer the problem of educational reform back to the Government of Newfoundland.

[National Police Week, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize national police week. It is an occasion for all Canadians to pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and personal sacrifice exhibited by our police officers as they carry out their duties, often under unpleasant or adverse circumstances.

This year's theme of police in the community promotes the links between Canada's police forces, large and small, with the communities they serve. Community policing projects continue to record tremendous success in the war against crime and community security. An ounce of crime prevention is worth countless pounds of cure.

I would like to particularly acknowledge members of the Niagara Regional Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, all of whom serve with distinction in various capacities in Erie riding.

I encourage all Canadians to shake a police officer's hand this week. Thank you for helping to keep our streets safe, our homes safe and our families safe. Thank you for being there when we need you.

[Agriculture, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

Our country allows the import of food products which have the benefit of pesticides that our own farmers are prohibited from

using, and this is to their competitive disadvantage. Canadians eat this food. In the Niagara region our entire peach crop is at risk because of increasing resistance to current pesticides.

What measure is the government taking to expedite the pesticide approval procedures in this country and to harmonize approvals with the United States?