Jean Augustine

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the agreement on internal trade which will come into effect on July 1.

The agreement may not be perfect, in response to the Reform Party's comments, but it represents an improvement from where we were before that agreement. Bill C-88 is intended to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with its obligations under the agreement.

It is important the House proceed expeditiously in its consideration of Bill C-88. For years businesses and private sector groups have complained to both the federal and provincial governments about domestic trade barriers and impediments to a free and open internal market.

We have had numerous studies going back as far as the 1937 Rowell-Sirois commission which recognized the issue and documented the broad scope of the problem.

The Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1991 estimated the cost associated with barriers and economic inefficiencies to be approximately $6.5 billion annually. The most recent statistics indicate interprovincial exports of goods and services in 1990 were worth $141 billion annually and responsible, directly or indirectly, for 1.7 million jobs.

A recent study by the chamber of commerce underlined that the Canadian internal market is the most interdependent of any area in the world today.

In agreeing to negotiate the agreement, Canadian governments recognize how well our domestic economy works. It is key to how we will prosper as a nation and how we will compete in the international economy.

An open domestic market and economy will allow Canadians and Canadian companies to strengthen their internal competitiveness and develop new opportunities for growth and prosperity. The alternative offers only and ultimately self-destructive protectionism which benefits only special interests at the cost of the country as a whole.

When they agreed to negotiate the agreement on internal trade the federal, provincial and territorial governments all recognised and accepted the importance of working together in the national interest. In concluding the agreement Canadian governments have demonstrated they are prepared to work together both now and in the future.

As my colleague, the Minister of Industry, has said in the House, the agreement is a consensual agreement. Some members opposite have criticized the agreement as inadequate and insufficient. As I said before, the agreement may not be perfect but it is an improvement over where we were. It reflects a consensus on the principle of an open and efficient national economy. It establishes a detailed rules framework for internal trade. It provides a consistent and defined process for preventing and resolving disputes which may arise over specific issues or measures.

All the parties have accepted, to a greater or lesser degree, disciplines which in the sectors covered will improve how the national economy functions in the future. It will be possible and it is the government's intention to work to improve the agreement in the future and to expand its scope and coverage.

I call on all colleagues in the House to work together with us as we proceed into the future to expand the scope and coverage of the agreement. For the moment this is a start, a point from which to work. We can and should build on that.

Some members have also criticized the government for not exercising its constitutional authority over interprovincial trade to open the internal market more forcibly. The national economy has become considerably more complex than it was when the constitutional powers of the different levels of government were agreed on in 1867. In the context of today's economy and modern Canadian federalism the views of those critics, frankly speaking, are simplistic.

If anything is clear it is that the country operates most successfully when all levels of government work co-operatively in the national interest, not unilaterally and certainly not by fiat. Governments were not negotiating constitutional changes in the agreement on internal trade; rather, they were developing the basis for working together with their respective powers and responsibilities to make the national economy operate more efficiently and effectively.

Unilateral action may be a theoretically possible method to achieve the same ends. Some of us may consider it to be a desirable way of proceeding. However it is simply not an effective or acceptable way to make Canada's federal system work.

Some members opposite have suggested the government has a hidden agenda in Bill C-88, that it conceals a power grab and that it is intended to provide a means to force provinces over to the will of the federal government. That is purely and simply wrong. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has responded at length and in detail to those allegations.

Bill C-88 does not deal with the responsibilities of provinces or provincial measures, only federal responsibilities and measures. It is intended to make it possible for the federal government to comply fully with its own obligations under the agreement and to play its part in making the agreement work.

Bill C-88 gives the government specific authority to make changes to certain parts of legislation to enable it to act in accordance with its obligations. It also changes some existing legislation to make it easier for provinces to comply with some of their specific obligations under the agreements.

We should be clear in our understanding that Bill C-88 does not by itself legislate or give life to the agreement on internal trade. The agreement has been signed by all its parties: the federal, provincial and territorial governments. When it comes into effect, as agreed on July 1, all those governments will be bound by the obligations of the agreement. Each government is responsible for complying with its obligations and for living up to its responsibilities under the agreement.

Two provinces, Alberta and Newfoundland, have already passed their implemented legislation. As I said earlier, it is important that we proceed expeditiously in our consideration of this legislation. The federal government has played a leading role in getting all governments to work together in the interests of all Canadians on internal trade issues.

Bill C-88 does what is necessary to ensure the federal level of government will be able to continue to play its role in the co-operative intergovernmental process.

We should not delay this further. I call on all colleagues to join with us in ensuring that Bill C-88 gets swift passage through this House.

[Petitions, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Religious Faith Community supporters and members, who call upon Parliament to put an end to

discriminatory treatment in Canada of gay and lesbian citizens in their familial relationships by amending federal legislation that currently allows unequal treatment.

[Volunteers, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give special recognition to the many volunteers in Etobicoke-Lakeshore who donate their time and energy for the benefit of our community.

In particular, I would like to commend the efforts of Tamara Cooper, Jo Matson and R. J. Welsh, recipients of the 1995 volunteer of the year award. These individuals are among over 13 million Canadians who care for children, visit the sick, organize special events, serve on local boards or committees, or bring attention to important issues affecting Canadians.

The value and importance of voluntarism cannot be underestimated. It factors into our gross domestic product contributing 191 hours per volunteer per year of non-paid work, the equivalent of an estimated $12 billion wage bill or 617,000 full time positions. While the country gains tremendously from the charity of volunteers, voluntarism also enables individuals to acquire and sharpen skills in today's highly competitive job market.

At this time I would like to welcome to Ottawa individuals from the Lakeshore Immigrant Aid Centre who play an important part in our community's volunteer sector.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 16th, 1995]

We are definitely keeping our promise because we said we would do this.

What are the existing provisions and what are the provisions we are proposing? It is important for the party across to see where we are presently and where we hope to be with the bill. We are calling for their support because we feel that lowering the minimum age, taking out double dipping, ensuring the accrual rate, will make the pension plan a far better one than it is presently.

We also spoke to the option of coverage. The members across the way have that option available to them and at the same time they are asking for a review of the remuneration on a yearly basis. They are talking about a time period in which they can opt out and they are not really taking the opportunity to use the 60-day period.

Members of the House of Commons will now pay 9 per cent of their salaries per year toward their pension plan, rather than the current rate of 11 per cent. This reduction reflects the reduction in the pension accrual rate.

This is a good bill, a good way in which to proceed, to ensure we meet the needs of the public, to ensure we save taxpayer dollars, to ensure we reform the plan as we said in the red book. We call on all members to support the motions and to ensure the bill gets through the House.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because we need to straighten the record on some remarks made.

We said in our red book, "Creating Opportunity", the Liberal plan for Canada, that the pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus of considerable controversy. We said we wanted to ensure reform took place. We also said we would use an independent review and that a Liberal government would reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end double dipping, MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new full time paying job from the federal government, and we would review the question of the minimum age at which MP pensions will begin to be paid.

The commitment of the government and the Liberal caucus to reform pensions has been unwavering. We have brought this to the House. These were promises we made and these are promises we have kept. As promised, the Liberal plan will do what we said it was to do, eliminate the practice of double dipping, introduce a new minimum age requirement for receipt of the pension, 55, reduce the government's contribution to the pension plan by one-third, saving taxpayers $3.3 million in the first year.

Those reforms are significant. Reforms members across the way should keep in mind. Pension benefits earned by all MPs will be reduced by 20 per cent. All MPs earning pension benefits will be affected by the accrual rate of benefit reduction.

Several statements made in the House are erroneous and the discussion has gone beyond the pension plan to a whole series of issues which do not have specific significance to this debate.

The Prime Minister stated over and over after the review that we knew in comparison to other occupations, MPs are not paid for the job they do, the work they commit to and the assignments they take on. The Prime Minister also pointed to the comparison between what we do as members of Parliament and other people who are public office holders.

In looking at the topic of integrity the Liberal Party has nothing to worry about and we should not be taking lessons from the Reform Party. It is often hypocrisy to listen to the mouthings on the way procedures are laid out in Bill C-85 and what we are attempting to do in this pension reform. It is also important for the opposition to note the changes we have made and to stand with the government in support of these changes.

The bill went further than the red book commitment to reduce government spending on MPs' pensions. It has gone to 33 per cent. I do not hear any talk across the way about that reduction and that saving to the Canadian public. I do not hear discussion across the way about the lowering of the age. I do not hear any discussion across the way about significant measures that are savings to the Canadian public.

I do not hear discussion across the way about the fact that we have done away with double dipping. I do not hear any discussion across the way that speaks to some very positive elements. I do not hear discussion across the way that would take us back to the earlier pension plan of the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s or the changes that the government is making in order to meet our present fiscal needs and to ensure that our pensions are in line with other public pensions and other private plans.

It is one thing to stand in the House and constantly berate the government and make grand statements of political and ideological positions. It is important for members to know what they are doing, what the government is attempting to do for the taxpayer to ensure we save tax dollars.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Bill C-68.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I accept his apology because that is the kind of person I am and this is the kind of debate that brings out the worst in members as we address those issues that face society.

We are talking about the kind of society where there is respect for diversity, where there is respect for the individual. We are talking about measures that have within them preventive, rehabilitative and other measures.

The bill before us would ensure the function of our communities, as I said in my remarks, and would ensure the safety of every individual within society regardless of race, colour, creed, nationality, age, sex or sexual orientation.

I think the member has difficulty with this. I can quote from other sources that speak in very positive terms to the bill.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing, and other acts in consequence thereof. It is a criminal law bill directed at hate motivated crime.

First, I want to commend the work of the Minister of Justice, who has responded to the call of Canadians for the need to reform our sentencing process by establishing a clear framework of provisions to guide the courts in our country.

We have before us a criminal law bill directed at hate motivated crime. We have before us comprehensive legislation that for the very first time gives Canadians a say in the purpose and principles of criminal sentencing.

In these very challenging times, it is now necessary to provide clear guidelines for the courts to protect society to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to promote their sense of responsibility, and to provide reparation for sometimes irreparable damage, both physical and emotional, done to victims and the community.

Rules of evidence and procedure have now been set out in this bill, along with alternative measures to prisons and conditional sentences to be served in the community under strict compliance with conditions ordered by the court.

This bill works in partnership with the community to rehabilitate offenders while at the same time protecting the public from those criminals who have committed serious and violent crimes.

The strength of this bill is clearly evident from the support it has garnered across the country, despite what we might hear in the House.

I represent an urban riding in the greater Toronto area where people want only to live in peace and safety. In Etobicoke-Lakeshore we are firm believers in crime prevention measures as a method of improving safety in our community. As a community we are working very hard to eliminate crime. I give as an example the hard work of the Etobicoke Crime Prevention Association, which has succeeded in making our community more aware of crime prevention. I would like to read to the House the tip of the month published in its May 1995 newsletter. It reads: "A key element in preventing crime is public education through a variety of means. Let the public know that prevention is possible. They are capable and it is worth their while".

The sentencing reforms contained within Bill C-41 will indeed make the efforts of all Canadian communities worth their while. Our government is committed to restoring safety to our homes, our streets, and our communities. Bill C-41 is a clear indication of this commitment. We want to give Canadians back their sense of security by working hard to implement policies that will reduce and help to prevent crime in Canadian communities.

Canadians have asked for changes to the criminal justice system and we have responded with reforms that enhance the rights of victims and encourage respect for the law.

When we talk about public education we want to make sure that people have all the facts. What has been happening across the way today has not been all the facts.

I will now proceed to give what I perceive to be the clear facts in this legislation and emphasize the benefits these reforms will mean to the protection of all Canadians.

With the passage of this bill judges will henceforth be required to give clear reasons for sentencing in all cases. This clarity will benefit the public and will assist later in potential appeals trials.

The bill also gives consideration to offences committed in breach of trust, usually against children and increasingly in cases of violence against women. These vulnerable individuals who lost this essential and assumed protection in society will now find it in the courts.

This legislation will also benefit and consider the victims of crime, whose suffering and anxieties for so long have been pushed aside.

The statement of purpose and principles will allow for reparation to the victim or the community while at the same time forcing the offenders to take responsibility for their actions.

This means first of all that financial restitution can now be audited to compensate for loss of property or damage inflicted on an individual. I know that many seniors in my community who have been victimized by theft will be very pleased with the introduction of this provision.

Financial compensation by the offender in the case of less serious crimes often encourages rehabilitation of the offender. In the legislation, amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code will give victims of violence the chance to voice the effects the offender's crime has had on their lives during their hearing for early parole.

It is about time the victim's experience is given greater emphasis. The statement will play a key role in the determination of the release of violent offenders back into society. Fines will now be officially recognized as part of the sentencing process. The fact is that many offenders are in prison for non-violent crimes simply because they are not able to pay the fine levelled on them.

Consideration will now be given to these individuals and fines will be imposed based on the offender's ability to pay. Inability to repay will result in other penalties such as probation or community service.

For those who have the ability to pay, fines will be strictly enforced. The system of fines will result in decreased costs of running our institutions. The community plays an important role in this bill, especially under the provision that allows for alternative incarceration.

Under strict supervision, a less serious non-violent offender who has been determined to pose no danger to society could serve the sentence within the community in some way. Counselling, probation, fines and community service will be part of a more effective rehabilitative approach to minor and first time offenders.

Limited funds could be spent protecting the public from more serious and violent offenders. Prison will be reserved for their rehabilitation. This legislation will prove beneficial to communities because it contains measures that will ensure the culture of hate is not permitted to flourish in this country.

Hate crimes are an unfortunate and insufferable reality in our society. The fact that people are specifically targeted because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation cannot be ignored or purposely be swept under the carpet.

Police bias crime units have reported that crimes motivated by hate are on the increase. We must also keep in mind that this probably does not include the many hate crimes that go unreported because of an individual's fear or historic mistrust of authorities.

Have you ever stopped to think, Mr. Speaker, about how traumatizing it is to victims, knowing that they have been specifically attacked because of who they are and what they look like? This is a very personal attack because you cannot change these aspects of yourself.

Canadians have expressed their alarm at the intolerable increase in this type of violence. The government has responded by introducing these amendments that will allow judges to impose stiffer sentences on those who have been convicted of a crime motivated by hate based on race, nationality, colour, religion, sex, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation.

Working with the community to improve education in combination with stiffer sentencing measures will result in a better co-ordinating response to hate. Section 718 which got much discussion across the way specifically comes into play after a person is convicted of a crime motivated by hate toward a specific group.

The government recognizes the need to replace the vagueness that currently exists in the sentencing process to protect the groups that are being senselessly and violently targeted.

History has taught us that we will only suffer as a society if violence, intimidation and fearmongering toward any group is tolerated. Ours is a society of equality and Bill C-41 will offer a solid deterrence to all people who threaten human life.

Sentencing practices should be a reflection of Canadian values and this legislation mirrors the values of equality and democracy quite clearly.

There is great support for this bill because the people of Canada know that in combination with other elements of our crime prevention package, change will come and the risk toward safety will lessen.

Sentencing reform, amendments to the Young Offenders Act, parole and corrections reform, the creation of a crime prevention council, greater control of firearms will go a long way toward making our communities safer places to live.

In addition to all this we will continue our efforts to reform the social programs, implementing more effective measures to combat poverty, lack of education, unemployment, illiteracy. We are making progress toward a safer, less violent and more progressive society.

Bill C-41 will guide us in that direction. Let us show tolerance and support this bill.

[The Environment, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to the Environmental Centre for New Canadians which in partnership with Environment Canada and the Environmental Partners Fund established a very worthy environmental educational project. The creation of a multilingual resource centre which provides materials on the impact of pollutants on the environment will increase the diversity, experience and numbers of people involved in improving the state of our environment.

The centre's goal is to overcome the barriers new Canadians face in their attempts to seek information on a range of environmental issues. Their voices strengthen the efforts to improve our

environment, facilitating a better relationship with all levels of government, schools, corporations and environmental groups.

Our government along with several community partners in the metro Toronto area support the need for culturally and linguistically sensitive and relevant environmental information to diverse ethnic groups. Sustainable development can after all only be achieved through preventive environmental care by all Canadians.

[Grand Parents' Day Act, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member for Burnaby-Kingsway's question of March 15, and not really the last gospel that we just heard recited.

Children continue to be a priority for the Government of Canada, especially those who currently live in conditions of risk and poverty. As the House is aware, given the fiscal realities that all Canadians face, the federal government has had to make some very difficult choices.

The budget for the community action program for children, CAPC, has not been reduced dramatically and is still quite substantial. In the next two years over $92 million will be available through the community action program for children.

Let me assure the hon. member that the reduction to the community action program for children was applied in an equitable manner. All jurisdictions, including British Columbia, will continue to receive the percentage of total CAPC funds originally agreed to in the respective protocols signed with all provinces and territories.

The community action program for children remains a model of how different levels of government can work together with community groups to address the health and social needs of at risk children.

In addition to the children's action program, the government is making significant investments in new programs. For instance, the aboriginal head start and the Canada prenatal nutrition programs also address the social and health needs of children at risk and their families.

As stated in the red book, we must give our children the best possible start in life. Investing resources in our children is investing in the future of our country.