Jean Augustine

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-7, a bill in which many in Etobicoke-Lakeshore have an interest. I am talking about individuals who work in the areas of education, prevention, rehabilitation, treatment, enforcement and control. Those individuals are very interested in the general types of control substances outlined in Bill C-7.

Narcotics are covered under the Narcotic Control Act, as well as some from the 1961 single convention. Examples of drugs in this group are cocaine, opium, codeine, morphine and marijuana. Controlled drugs, as defined under the Food and Drugs Act, are stimulants such as amphetamines and sedatives such as barbituric acid. Restricted drugs come under the Food and Drugs Act, the so-called designer drugs, as well as the anabolic steroids, the precursors and the drugs from the 1971 convention on psychotropic substances.

The majority of the substances are diverted from legitimate manufacturers and then illegally imported and sold. Until recently dealers have been able to sell the steroids at up to 20 times their prescription value with little risk of getting caught.

The amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and its appended regulations contained in the bill have resulted in 42 androgenic-anabolic steroids and their derivatives being classified as controlled drugs.

In the grim world of the effects of illicit drugs on the lives of abusers can be severe. This is the crux of my argument. If the effects on the lives of the abusers can be severe, the penalties proposed for convicted dealers in the most dangerous drugs should be severe. Sentences for the most serious offences of trafficking, importing or exporting narcotics remain life imprisonment in the bill.

We know that the specific provisions of the bill have been given the close scrutiny they deserve by a subcommittee on Bill C-7 of the Standing Committee on Health. I will comment on the work of that committee. Members heard from many national groups and associations representing a community of thousands of people, as well as officials from the departments of health and justice.

I will quickly list some of the groups that made representations before the committee: the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the Department of Public Health, the city of Toronto, the Addiction Research Foundation, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, Lambton Families in Action for Drug Education, the Quebec Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers Association, et cetera. Many groups appeared before the subcommittee.

The subcommittee fully addressed each and every concern with the intent of improving the bill before us today. Several amendments were made at committee stage. Some particular issues of discussion resulted in amendment. The main amendments to Bill C-7 are the ones in which my constituents are interested.

The amendments create a new offence for possession of marijuana and hashish involving certain quantities. They create a new offence for trafficking in marijuana and hashish in certain quantities. They provide for a purpose clause dealing with sentences and, more particular, they encourage rehabilitation and treatment in appropriate circumstances.

The aggravated circumstances section has been expanded to cover in or near public places usually frequented by minors. This means that when an offender has been convicted in those circumstances a judge will have to give reasons for not imposing a jail term.

The amendments will delete subsection 3(1), which was meant to cover non-scheduled substances having or presented as having the same effect as scheduled substances. There were some apprehensions among other things that it might cover herbal products.

At the same time there is a limit on the ability of inspectors to examine the records so that they may not examine the records pertaining to the medical condition of patients.

The bill clarifies those situations where a practitioner would be considered to be trafficking by providing that unless authorized by the regulations it will be illegal to sell a prescription to obtain a scheduled substance. Several things have been done and several amendments have been made to the original Bill C-7.

I am confident that the current situation facing Canada today as it relates to drug abuse will prompt each member of this place to consider the facts in his or her own constituency, to reflect on the implications for the future, and to respond accordingly by supporting this bill.

Through education and prevention we must continue to inform our young people, alerting them to the seductive snares of addiction. Through rehabilitation and treatment we must reach out and free those already trapped in the nightmare of dependence and desolation. Through enforcement and control we must strive to disinter the roots of those criminal enterprises that prey on the young and defenceless, those who otherwise risk being enticed into a never-ending cycle of addiction and deprivation.

The bill gives the police new authority without giving them sweeping authority. It gives us greater power to prevent dangerous substances from entering the country. It gives us the tools to help ensure that justly prosecuted criminals do not benefit from their crimes.

I submit that passage of the controlled drugs and substances bill is but one step toward a healthier and safer tomorrow. It is nonetheless a very important step in the right direction. I urge all members from all sides of this House to give this bill the scrutiny it richly deserves. Anything less would be an abdication of our responsibility.

Let us pass this bill so the government can get on with its mandate to protect and promote the health of Canadians in a way consistent with what we have a right to expect. I call on everyone to support this.

[Law Commission Of Canada, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-106, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada. In doing so, I want to focus on one particular aspect of the approach to law reform embodied in the legislation: the emphasis on consultation in the bill.

If I may, I would take a minute to define the term "consultation". Consultation is a word that over the years has been sucked into the chilly abstract vocabulary of social and organizational planning and also has become a part of the technical jargon of experts and specialists. Sometimes in the House the word "consultation" seems to take on a negative connotation.

In talking about consultation in the bill, I am talking about consultation as a living, social process, the antithesis of arbitrary rule, and what is in a positive sense the soul of the democratic system of government; that is, asking what one thinks and getting a response and acting on the response.

When parties bring their policies before the public at election time or other times, that is consultation on the most basic scale. The building of democracy consists in large part in consulting ever more broadly and thoroughly, involving all who have a stake in the process. By consulting one looks at all the players, all those the end result of consultation would affect.

All members of both Houses at this moment are working in a mode of consultation. We are doing the nation's business in a consultation mode. That is, when we are considering something that is before us we see the importance of consultation, the importance of sharing with the stakeholders and getting the views of all stakeholders and bringing this to the discussion.

The agenda of law reform is set by the challenges of the times. It is a continuing task of renovation, identifying existing problems and new trends, and of dealing with the areas of the law in which time and change have revealed gaps and insufficiencies. That task was once handled for the most part by lawyers and legal professionals, toiling in the framework of the royal commission or other temporary bodies. It was shouldered by a permanent law reform commission, which operated from 1972 until 1992, when it was abolished by the previous government to the general dismay of the legal profession.

In the election platform of 1993 we said we would reverse that action. At the same time, we recognized that we should do more than restore the previous commission in a form identical to that prescribed in the early 1970s. We wanted to give that reform life and energy.

The agenda of law reform is shaped in direction and detail by the social and economic environment of the time. That agenda has been utterly transformed since the structure and approach of the previous commission was laid down by Parliament nearly a quarter of a century ago. Times have changed. It is different. We are in different times because Canada is different. First of all, there has been a far-reaching social transformation. In 1971 we were a country of 21 million. In 1995 we are approaching 30 million in population. The demographic and cultural composition of our population is different, 1971 to now. We are also 25 years further down the road in terms of our democratic evolution.

Consultation has now been incorporated by custom and institution into our way of life and our way of doing things. Canadians of our time, including the generation that grew up with the charter of rights and freedoms, take it for granted that they will have a part in the making of policies that affect their lives. Meanwhile, transformations in technology, trade, and industrial structure have made the Canadian economy more complex.

As a result of change at all these levels, the inadequacies that make law reform necessary reveal themselves not only in the courtroom but in other settings. They emerge in the marketplace, the workplace, the home, the scientific laboratory, the social welfare centre, and at the centres of learning of about a dozen disciplines. These trends have made it more important that law reform become a co-operative enterprise informed by expertise in many fields.

The process that has brought this bill before us today has been open and consultative from the start. The Minister of Justice knows the benefit of consultation. This process began with two original consultations. They brought together representatives of the academic community, the judiciary, provincial governments, and also non-governmental organizations with an interest in law reform.

The process continued in 1994 with the distribution of a consultation paper on the structure and modus operandi of the new commission. That document went to over 800 groups and individuals and to all members of the two chambers of Parliament.

To illustrate the breadth of the consultation, the organizations involved included, to name a few, the Canadian Medical Association, the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, women's groups, multicultural groups, aboriginal associations, et cetera. Of

course the process also allowed the full and active participation of experts in law. The Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice held a nation-wide consultation with judges on the proposed law commission. The federal Department of Justice conducted a consultation with legal academics from all provinces. In addition, the subject has been discussed at meetings of the ministers responsible for justice in the federal, provincial, and territorial governments and at other meetings involving both the legal and non-legal communities. That is consultation.

The legislation now before us has been shaped by many hands and moulded by experience in many fields. It is the product of consultation. It proposes an instrument for doing the work of law reform in the same mode. That commitment is reflected on every page of this bill. It starts with the first paragraph of the legislation, which says the advice the commission will provide will be based, and I quote, "on the knowledge and experience of a wide range of groups and individuals".

The first of the five guiding principles in the preamble is that the commission's work should be open and inclusive of all Canadians. This approach is also expressed in the organizational design of the new law commission. Clause 7, which deals with organization, says, in effect, that the five commissioners need not be lawyers or judges or other legal professionals. Indeed, it specifically states that the membership should be representative of the socio-economic and cultural diversity of Canadian society.

As an aside, I heard from the other side that we should have a number of parliamentarians sitting on that commission. Of course there are opportunities here for the full participation of the diversity of Canadian society.

The four part time commissioners would live wherever their homes are, where their full time jobs and occupations require them to be. This means that at the executive level the commission would be linked personally and directly with the concerns of main street Canada.

Clause 18 describes the advisory council of the commission, which will comprise 25 people serving on a voluntary basis-I repeat, voluntary basis-appointed by the commission. Like the commission members, the members of the council itself would be generally representative of the diversity of Canadian society. Its members will advise the commission on such things as strategic issues, review of its annual report, agenda setting and performance review. A varied blend of training and experience will be applied to the basic shaping of the process as it responds to the issues of the day.

Clause 20 allows for an even further extension of the commission's connections with other disciplines and backgrounds. Under this clause the commission can bring in voluntary experts and specialists in any aspect of law reform to serve as members of temporary study panels. I am stressing the words "temporary" and "voluntary" because the Reformers who spoke earlier seemed to miss that in the bill.

Clause 23 is important in this regard. It ensures the products of work done in this mode will not disappear into a vault but will emerge without delay into the public domain for inspection and discussion. The minister must table any commission report to the two chambers of Parliament in session within 15 days of receiving it.

In short, the commission created by this bill will be itself part of a wider network of collaboration in the work of law reform. It will allow us to renew and extend the architecture of law on the basis of an expert understanding of the complex issues involved. It will permit us to do so efficiently, effectively, and at a manageable cost.

This bill is a blueprint for a law commission that will meet the needs of our time, a body that will be known not only for the legal soundness of its products but also for the relevance of its work on the issues of our time. This bill will meet an urgent need. It deserves our support. It deserves the support of all the members of this House.

[Breast Cancer, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a time for all of us to remember that in 1995 an estimated 17,700 Canadian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,400 will die from this terrible disease.

The leading cause of cancer deaths among women, breast cancer can be eradicated through education, awareness, good health, and with the support of our community. The collaboration of survivors, health professionals, and governments must also continue in order to address breast cancer issues and to ultimately find a cure.

Chances are we have all known someone who has had breast cancer. I therefore invite you to visit the Canadian breast cancer memorial tribute this week in the foyer of the House of Commons. With this memorial we will remember the many Canadian women who have battled courageously but have lost to this disease. In their memory we must continue to provide support to those who are fighting for their lives.

[Employment Equity Act, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join with my colleagues on this side of the House in support of this important piece of legislation, which many disadvantaged Canadians have long dreamed of.

Yes, I use the word "dream". I am proud to be a member of a team that dares to dream, one that has such faith in our capacity as individuals and our capacity as a nation.

In the Liberal Party the vision was set out in what we called "Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada ". In that document the government reinforced and spoke about the social fabric of the country. We promised to strengthen our employment equity legislation to ensure that we meet a very simple but profound commitment. That commitment springs from the belief that everyone in Canada is entitled to equality.

I remind members that the red book speaks of a future where all Canadians, regardless of gender, race, or physical and intellectual attributes, enjoy a standard of living and quality of life equal to those of other Canadians. With this legislation we are moving forward and ensuring that that future will become a reality.

I want to talk about Bill C-64 in terms of the strength we hope this will build in our society, in our communities, and among us. It is capitalizing on the diversity. It is about creating jobs and growth. It is about removing barriers to full employment. The modifications of the act are designed to streamline and strengthen its existing provisions to ensure that the philosophy behind employment equity becomes the everyday practice in the federally regulated workplace.

This constructive piece of legislation builds on the significant progress we have achieved since the Employment Equity Act was introduced in 1986. I remind the House that Canadian banks, airlines, broadcasters, some of the largest and most visible companies in the country, have been implementing employment equity programs for a decade. They have recognized that without such plans their businesses would become less and less representative of the clients they serve, a point which must not be lost on us as government.

As a result of the federal policy and the dedication of business to implement it, the numbers of designated groups have risen, without backlash but with plenty of benefits to our society. Bill C-64 is a continuation of our efforts to create real equality of opportunity in the federally regulated workplace. It goes further than our existing legislation by expanding the act's coverage and clarifying what employment equity will and will not do.

This legislation will help explode the many myths we hear coming from across the way in this House. These folks have circulated many of those myths: employment equity challenges workplace norms that reinforce existing patterns of power. This can be threatening to people who are satisfied with the status quo. They do not understand the need to accommodate differences because they are satisfied with the way things are.

The so-called playing field is already tipped in favour of those for whom it was constructed, so it is not surprising that there are attempts to find reasons to justify resistance to more inclusive employment policies and practices.

We have heard the myths coming from the other side of the House. We want to affirm that employment equity, with its emphasis on fairness toward all Canadians, shatters all those unfounded assumptions.

The legislation requires only that employers consider all qualified candidates, I underline qualified, when seeking new employees or choosing among workers for promotions. The act does not allow quotas, and it certainly has no mandatory preferences when employers choose new workers or consider their existing employees for promotions. Somehow those two concepts, the qualified candidates and no mandatory preferences, seem to be lost on the opposition.

This bill is not about preferential treatment; it is about equal treatment. If it is given a chance to work, everybody will benefit. The legislation is meant as an unobtrusive human resource management tool that would educate and assist employers as they create more equitable workforces. Would that we could do this in the House.

The whole point of this bill is to enhance this country's economic performance through the removal of barriers that prevent members of the designated groups from contributing to the workplace. It is as much about economics as it is about justice. Clearly it is about both. We want to achieve a better balance, one that assures fairness and dignity for disadvantaged Canadians and works to our country's social and economic advantage.

We are not interested in compiling statistics. The act is not about counting numbers or instituting reams of new regulations. We are talking about Canadian people, work ready individuals anxious to demonstrate their abilities in a fair and welcoming environment, who must be given that choice.

We need to rethink how we relate to one another as groups of people. That is exactly what our improved employment equity legislation asks us to do.

Bill C-64 asks Canadians to open their hearts and open their minds to the many advantages of workplace diversity. It asks that we put into practice the democratic principles we profess to believe in: fairness, access and equity for all, regardless of gender, race, disability, orientation. It insists that we live up to our moral and legal obligations by upholding the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.

Clearly employment equity is not an impediment to business or an infringement on anyone's right. It is a catalyst for improvement to the workplace and progress in our country. It is the foundation of Canada's future. More than just the stuff dreams are made of, this legislation can dramatically impact the standard of living and quality of life of disadvantaged Canadians, the millions of women,

visible minorities, persons living with disabilities, aboriginal people, et cetera, who are an important part of our great nation.

I remind my hon. colleagues that these people are counting on us to do the right thing. They are counting on us to endorse this crucial legislation. There can be no debate. Bill C-64 is the right thing for Canada. It is the right thing for us to do. It is the right thing for us to do right now.

Let us get on with the job. Maybe the myth carriers and those who would stand in this House and continue to have those myths circulate will begin to understand that Canadians are counting on us to ensure that fairness and equity exist in this country.

Let us get on with the job. Let us support this legislation.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the fears and misconceptions which the Reform Party member is taking advantage of in this motion on best qualified.

These are anxious times for many Canadians. The economy, while improving, is no longer as assured as it once was. Jobs are not as permanent as once expected. Canada's labour force has experienced swings as traditional industries shed workers, while new ones arise with different skill needs. There is a sense that the economic pie is not growing as much as we would like it to.

The government understands that families face social pressures that were largely absent a generation ago. Young people grow up surrounded by issues from which they cannot be sheltered. There is a sense that our society is more troubled than it once was.

The federal government is pursuing an agenda that is addressing those issues. However, we recognize that there are a lot of ways that people respond to those different kinds of uncertainty. One is backlash against people who are perceived as part of the problem. Any groups that are seen to be by some as pushing for too much or getting an undeserved share of too limited resources face an angry response.

I think this is the real motivation behind the Reform Party's introduction of this motion on best qualified.

However, the truth is often far different than those stories would indicate. Unfortunately, lots of people are having trouble finding good work. In fact, people from the designated groups under employment equity are more likely to experience those problems that other persons.

Employment equity is not about preferential treatment. The simple fact is that Bill C-64 does not oblige an employer to hire an unqualified person. It is quite explicit on that point.

Let me quote Mona Katawne of Manitoba Telephone System who testified before the standing committee. She said:

There is no evidence that hiring from among the designated group members is a lowering of qualifications; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. There are people from the designated groups who are both available to work and qualified to work.

The fact is that our economy has surpluses of highly qualified people from all designated groups for many of the jobs that are out there.

However, this myth of preferential treatment persists because of misinformation. A perfect example is the Gallup poll that appeared in the December 23, 1993 Toronto Star . The headlines blared that 74 per cent oppose job equity programs. Let us take a look at the actual question. What was the question? It was:

Do you believe government should actively attempt to hire more women and minority group members for management positions, or should government take no action whatsoever and hire new employees based solely on their qualifications?

With such a question the response was what the headlines blared. The question unfairly forced people to choose between actively attempting to hire more women and minority group members and hiring based on qualifications. I am not surprised that 74 per cent, when asked such a question, chose qualifications.

Employment equity means broadening access to all qualified people. It means giving people the chance to become better qualified.

On virtually any scale, people in the designated groups fare poorly in today's labour market. I want to underscore that point. There are still barriers to full participation by members of the designated groups. The goal of this legislation is to end those barriers, not to create a new discrimination against someone else. It is to end those barriers.

Let us look at one specific group that fares especially poorly in our labour market and that is people with disabilities. Only about 60 per cent of adults with disabilities are in the labour market at all. They have unemployment rates that are almost double the national average and that costs us all as Canadians.

The Canadian Association for Community Living did a study that looked at people with mental disabilities. They calculated the loss to our economy of large scale segregation of these people from our economy in terms of lost tax revenue due to unemployment, social assistance costs and lost consumption. They found that the cost to Canada's economy of keeping these people out of society in many ways is about $4.6 billion a year.

We must reject those attacks on employment equity and defeat the motion. It is important that those of us who come here responsibly realize and recognize the demands of society, the demands that are before us, and do what Canadians expect of all of us in the House. They expect us to be caring, compassionate, responsible individuals ready to meet the needs of society, ready to ensure that equity and equality exist in society.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 29th, 1995]

(a) $128,100-$155,800; (b) Upon retiring from the Canadian forces in January 1993, General de Chastelain received: i) severance pay in accordance with the Queen's regulations and orders 204.40 and the Canadian forces administration orders 204.10, and ii) a Canadian forces superannuation pension; (c) none; (d) General de Chastelain is currently serving in the regular force; (e) Salary and termination benefits were set by order in council; (f) $140,100-$170,500; (g) The Chief of Defence Staff, CDS, has not received an annuity since his re-enrollment on January 1, 1994. His annuity payments will resume when he is released from the regular force.

Question no. 218-

[Un Conference On Women, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth world conference on women has recently concluded with the ratification of a solid agenda for the equality and advancement of women within the United Nations.

In a great spirit of co-operation between 180 nations, a general agreement on the platform for action was reached in an effort to achieve social, political and economic equality for women around the world.

This agreement includes the protection of women from violence in the home and in society, women's rights as human rights, freedom of expression, equal rights to female children, control over our health, alleviation of poverty and improvements to education.

Canada was instrumental in the negotiation process and in bringing about the ratification of a progressive platform for action.

I commend the leadership of the secretary of state responsible for the status of women and I applaud the work and contributions of all the women from across Canada who represented our country so successfully.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 18th, 1995]

Twenty individuals are benefiting from the allowance. The amount of the pension received by each individual cannot be released since it is considered personal information in accordance with the Privacy Act. For the same reasons, the names of individuals in receipt of a pension from the federal government cannot be released, nor the amounts.

It is not possible to determine how many people will be eligible to receive the special retirement allowance at a future date for example, after the current fiscal year. Deputy ministers serve at pleasure and they must retire to become eligible; the decision to retire is not always communicated ahead of time. Furthermore,

eligibility for pension varies in accordance with age and service at the date of retirement.

Since 1988 the number of deputy minister positions has been reduced by 19 per cent and one individual has been recruited directly from the private sector to a deputy minister position; he was the CEO at a consulting firm. Four other individuals appointed deputy ministers, since July 1988 had recent experience outside the federal public service.

Question No. 184-

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member talking in circles.

If he were to make suggestions on how the bill could be amended and not just by going around what he thinks is in the bill, what specific recommendation would he make to ensure that we would have some internal agreements between the provinces and territories in order to facilitate trade?

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is presuming quite a lot in his interpretation of section 9. Perhaps he has misread the section. In that section there is a principle underlying the concept of retaliation. My colleague spoke quite clearly to this by giving some real life examples within his own family situation.

It has to be understood that subsections 9(a) to (d) do not give the government greater freedom of action. To suggest that it does ignores the headnote of the section. I would ask the hon. member to go back to the headnote which limits the degree of possible action pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement. Article 1710 would limit retaliatory action only to cases where a province has been found to have an impartial panel which violated the agreement and has refused to comply within the period of a year or more.

It spells out quite clearly that the government would have to discuss whatever it proposes to do with the committee on internal trade which is composed of representatives of all the parties to the agreement. Any action to be taken has to be equivalent to the economic impact which led to the original violation.

There is much within the section which must be read with article 17(10) in mind.