Robert Bertrand

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, is yet another initiative, another attempt by this government to achieve the targets it had set itself in terms of economic growth, job creation and federal administration restructuring.

Whether we like it or not, Canada is rapidly moving away from the widely resource-based and strongly labour-intensive economy we have had so far and towards an economy based on information, knowledge and innovation. The economic standard calls for the restructuring of not only our industry and trade, but also our society. It also calls for greater attention being paid to basic factors, that is to say the underlying sources of growth and competitiveness as well as to the establishment of a climate conducive to entrepreneurship and less reliance on government financial assistance.

We must do better in the areas of education and training and emphasize research and development. Today more than ever before, we must face changes with an innovative and flexible attitude. We must take an international perspective which opens the door to both unforeseen opportunities and stiff competition on the globalized markets. The infrastructure will have to be capable of supporting tomorrow's economy, which pre-supposes making available to the Canadian public in general world-class communication and information technologies.

We must also make all of our activities more effective, in the private and public sectors alike. Business and industry must eliminate waste, reduce costs and make the most of Canadians' skills and talents. More generally, in order to revive the economy, the government must give priority to fostering a climate in which businesses can create more jobs for Canadians, and that is just what the Prime Minister did on September 18 when he announced the program to be developed by the Department of Industry by the end of October.

This program is aimed among other things at improving the business climate for entrepreneurs, helping businesses take advantage of the new technology, searching for growing markets, and promoting the tourism industry in particular.

It will not be easy to meet all these requirements. All participants will have to work together continuously. Furthermore, the government will have to adopt a consistent approach to the allocation of our resources and to the development and implementation of these same policies. That is why we have brought together in one department all the effective economic development tools that previously came under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Communications, Investment Canada and the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.

First, this reorganization will increase efficiency by eliminating duplication and overlap. Second, it will lead to more coherent policy development and thus greater effectiveness. The mandate of the Department of Industry is to promote economic development in Canada and to continue to keep the commitment made in this regard. Instead of simply distributing money to solve problems, the Department of Industry will work in conjunction with industry, teachers, scientists, technologists, researchers, consumers as well as other governments to reach these objectives.

By giving responsibility for the consumer affairs policy to the Department of Industry, we will ensure that consumers have a say in the development of policies influencing our marketplace. Efficient market operation is essential to economic renewal, and will benefit consumers as much as businesses. The Department of Industry Act sets up an integrated process in which consumers' concerns will be addressed as early as possible in the policy development process.

Efforts to protect consumers can thus be focused on preventing problems, rather than on solving them after the fact. In areas of vital interest for all Canadians, such as biotechnology and genetic engineering, the Labelling Act, and the regulation reform, our action will be based on consumers' interests. The co-operation of the Consumers' Association of Canada in many initiatives reflects consumer representation in the policy development process.

Let me mention, among others, the consultative committee on the information highway, the drafting of a new privacy protection code, the discussions between the federal government, the provinces and the industry on a code of practice for electronic funds transfer, as well as a pilot project to set up an alternative to dispute resolution, so as to allow consumers easier access to small claims court.

Those departmental initiatives are well underway, as shown by recent announcements made. As you know, the action plan unveiled by the Prime Minister to create an innovative economy, is consistent with our guiding principle. The Minister of Industry will soon announce the details of that important initiative. You are also well aware that Industry Canada participates actively in various program and policy reviews which will help us fulfill our mandate under the law.

Here are a few examples of our activities. We have finally made real progress regarding the domestic trade issue. Indeed, the Minister of Industry recently had the pleasure and the honour of contributing to the signing of an agreement between the provinces, the territories and the federal government on the first measures to eliminate the obstacles to domestic trade which have been created in our country over the last 127 years.

The agreement on domestic trade signed by the first ministers on June 28 is a good thing for all Canadians. Obstacles to domestic trade cost Canadians up to $7 billion a year. Having the goal of allowing for freer movement of individuals, goods, services and capital, this agreement provides for the elimination of trade barriers by July 1995.

The agreement sets general rules prohibiting the implementation of any new obstacles and abolishing existing barriers in ten areas, including transportation, government contracts, investment and workforce mobility. The agreement provides for another very important feature, a dispute settlement mechanism for these areas. Obviously, there is still much to be done. However, some of the provisions in this agreement will help us make more progress. The kind of co-operation we got in preparing the agreement allows us to hope for free movement of goods, services and workforce in Canada within a true economic union.

[National Patriots' Day, June 20th, 1994]

-approximately .4 per cent of the gross national product. This represents close to $3 billion. Is the hon. member for Verchères prepared to accept that magnitude of burden on the economy?

As our economy has started to emerge from the depths of a devastating recession, can we afford to introduce a measure that risks reducing overall productivity and GNP while increasing the need for overtime work?

In our increasingly globalized economy can we afford to introduce another statutory holiday when our competitors are not doing the same? Surely the hon. member for Verchères recognizes that Canadian industry must strive to remain competitive and that the addition of a new national holiday would add a significant cost to doing business.

Thirdly, if we create a new national holiday, will the hon. member from Verchères not want the government to create programs to celebrate it? Where will we find the additional funds for that purpose?

I am not opposed to the idea of underlining the contribution of historical figures to the establishment of responsible government. Quite the contrary. Canada Day already gives all Canadians the opportunity to stop a minute and think about the greatness of their country and the contribution made by every citizen.

Further, Canadian citizens have privately organized celebrations of a number of aspects of their heritage. Many Canadians have been celebrating Heritage Day for years on the third Monday in February. While not benefiting from a full day off, they have used the occasion to reflect on the cultural, architectural and social heritage as well as the political contributions of our citizens. May I suggest that those members interested in the celebration of responsible government use their position to organize private celebrations of our democratic heritage.

Our Canada Day programs provide Canadians with the focus for a national celebration each year. Should Canadians wish to additionally celebrate our democratic heritage on another day, I would suggest that this be organized at the local level providing considerable flexibility for Canadians to tailor their celebrations to their particular community.

Schools could also organize historical re-creations of the debates which surrounded the advent of responsible government. They could ask local historical societies or heritage conservation groups to help them. None of these activities would require the creation of a new national holiday. The initiative would come from citizens wanting to promote and celebrate the tradition of democracy which they have inherited as they do for the celebrations surrounding Heritage Day.

[National Patriots' Day, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, if we want the new holiday to have a truly national dimension, all provinces and territories should adopt it.

Moreover, considering our economic difficulties, I believe it is important for members to think of the cost of creating a new holiday.

To shut down the Canadian economy for one more day out of the current working year would according to some commentators cost the economy-

[National Patriots' Day, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for presenting this motion and welcome the opportunity to give my views on the question of establishing a new national holiday.

Since the early seventies, this House has been asked several times to consider proposals for the creation of a new national holiday. The date most often suggested is the third Monday in February since there is a long period without a national holiday between New Year's Day and Easter Sunday. It is argued that a holiday in this long winter period would do a great deal of good to Canadians.

Proposals for the name of the new day have been wide ranging. Some have suggested the celebration of common elements of our heritage. Examples include proposals for a heritage day, a communities day or a multicultural day. Others, like my hon. friend, have proposed that the contributions of specific Canadians be celebrated. Examples here include Macdonald-Cartier day, Baldwin-LaFontaine day, prime minister day and national heroes day.

The proposal to create a Baldwin-Lafontaine Day is surely of great interest to my learned friend since it would mark the contribution of Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine to the establishment of responsible government.

My colleague will surely not want to overlook the richness and originality of the contribution made by the first champion of responsible government in Canada, the great Nova Scotian Joseph Howe. Howe was the one who established the first form of responsible government in the colonies which were to become the great country that is Canada.

While I agree that Canadians should celebrate the achievements of those who contributed to the establishment of a system of responsible government, I have two difficulties with the proposals of my hon. friend. First, I do not believe that we should narrowly focus on the contributions of individuals he refers to as patriots. Second, I do not believe we need a formal national holiday to celebrate responsible government.

On the first point, I have already pointed out that the proposal of the hon. member for Verchères ignores the contribution of the father of responsible government in Canada, Joseph Howe. It was his courage in facing the executive branch of government in Nova Scotia that led the executive branch for the first time in Canada to be fully responsible to the elected members of the House in 1848.

As Howe stated: "This achievement came without a blow struck or a pane of glass broken". Many Nova Scotians already celebrate his achievement each year. All Canadians should take pride in his critical contributions".

In fact, thousands of Canadians have played a role in the process which led to the establishment of responsible government. They came from all regions of Canada and they contributed in various ways to the establishment of a more genuine democracy.

Real responsible government was not achieved merely by adopting a model in which the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch. Women did not have the right to vote in Canada until relatively recently. The efforts of Nellie McClung and others resulted in Manitoba being the first province which gave the franchise to women in 1916. Only on May 24 1918 did all the women in Canada acquire the right to vote in a federal election.

Thérèse Casgrain played a major role in the fight to obtain for women the right to vote in provincial elections in Quebec, which was granted to them only in 1940.

If we want to celebrate the establishment of democracy and responsible government, we must also recognize the contribution of great Canadians like Nellie McClung and Thérèse Casgrain.

Our First Nations people were denied the right to participate until much more recently. For example, status Indians were not granted the right to vote in federal elections until 1960. I suggest that if we were to celebrate responsible government we should celebrate the breadth of contributions by the many Canadians who made true responsible government possible.

My second point is that I do not believe that Canada should declare a new national holiday at this time. There are a number of reasons for my position.

First, the federal government only has about 10 per cent of the Canadian workforce under its legislative control. Thus the creation of a national holiday would only directly affect the employees of the civil service, the banks and the crown corporations. I ask hon. members if most Canadians would not be annoyed rather than celebratory if they had to work while our banks, government offices and post offices were closed.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the bill tabled by the hon. member gives us an opportunity to address important issues central to the efforts to make Canadians safer.

We clearly need effective measures to reduce the crime rate, especially violent crime. The government is moving in that direction, as its recent legislative initiatives demonstrate. Its actions in other areas are just as important.

Today I would like to go over the progress the government has been making on the important issues of risk assessment and the treatment of offenders to better protect people in the long term.

But first I would like to consider for a few moments the situation now prevailing in federal penitentiaries, particularly the effectiveness of imprisonment as punishment. As we all know, Canada has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, around 130 per 100,000 people on average. The number of offenders under federal responsibility has risen rapidly in the last five years. The annual increase jumped from 1.6 per cent in 1989-90 to 4 per cent in 1993-94. A 5.1 per cent increase is forecast for next year. Keep in mind that this increase is occurring at a time when federal correctional services face substantial budget cuts.

In this era of fiscal restraint, we must remember that incarceration is extremely expensive, much more in fact than the supervision of offenders in the community. It costs Canadian taxpayers $47,760 a year on average to keep an offender in jail compared with only $9,400 to keep him under supervision in society for the same period of time.

We must therefore resort to incarceration only to the extent necessary to protect the public. While it is true that some offenders must be jailed for a long time in the interest of the public, the fact remains that the vast majority of criminals serve definite sentences and that most of them can be released without danger to society, provided they receive appropriate treatment and are under adequate supervision.

Parliament recognized this reality when it passed the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which favours using the least restrictive measures without jeopardizing public safety.

Conditional release under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is effective in protecting the public. While I do not desire to minimize certain tragic incidents, released offenders are not becoming more dangerous.

Although this perception may result from media reports on crime, statistics simply do not support this position. For example, in 1991 only 1 per cent of admissions to federal custody were the result of a new violent offence committed while on release. Indeed, keeping offenders in prison longer instead of gradually integrating them into the community may in fact increase public risk over the long term.

Research evidence shows that strictly punitive measures which result in longer terms of incarceration have little deterrent effect on serious offenders and do not lead to a reduction in reoffending.

I believe that the key to improving public protection lies in our ability to develop effective treatment programs and to effectively assess offenders in their ability to benefit from treatment and the level of risk they present to the community.

The research strongly supports this approach. Risk which one could define as a likelihood that an offender will engage in dangerous behaviour upon release is the overriding consideration of correctional authorities and parole board members.

Because of its central importance to the correctional process risk is managed and assessed throughout an offender's sentence. In brief, risk is managed by identifying factors that contribute to an offender's criminal behaviour, determining an offender's treatment and program needs, developing correctional plans that address these needs, matching treatment programs and services to the needs and risk level of the offender, and providing the necessary level of custody.

It is on the basis of risk assessment that offenders are moved from higher security to lower security and eventually considered for conditional release on the basis of their changing level of risk.

Prediction of human behaviour is not a perfect science nor will it ever be. However, the effectiveness of the tools that have been developed to assist professionals in assessing offenders have improved dramatically over the past few years.

Efforts continue to be made to improve the system's capacity to monitor changes in an offender's behaviour, situation, and circumstances which are clearly related to the likelihood of further criminal behaviour. Today we have a much better understanding of what factors may be valid risk predictors. Over time our capacity to better distinguish between high and low risk offenders will continue to improve.

I would also like to bring to the attention of hon. members that individual offenders who at one time represented a high public risk can with appropriate treatment both in an institution and in the community be safely released to the community.

There is a growing body of research pointing to the rehabilitative potential of well formulated research based treatment programming. Some things do work.

Correctional Service Canada has invested a lot of time and money to develop programs with a proven record as regards their usefulness to help reduce the number of repeat offenders. Based on these data, the service designed and implemented a number of programs to meet the various needs of the federal inmate population. Here are some of them.

An education program has been established. According to a classification test, about 80 per cent of offenders under federal jurisdiction have less than a grade 10 level of education when they are admitted. This low level is a major obstacle in their rehabilitation, because it greatly affects their chances of finding work.

A treatment program was instituted for sex offenders. At the end of last year, 17 per cent of the inmates in federal penitentiaries were classified as sex offenders. The correctional service now has more ways of meeting their needs and can offer treatment to nearly 1,800 such offenders every year, compared to 200 in 1988.

A program aimed at developing cognitive abilities was created in 1989 to help offenders alter their modes of thought which lead to criminal behaviour. The program is offered in 71 locations and the number of participants has increased from 50 to over 3,000.

The correctional service also offers a drug treatment program to nearly 5,000 inmates and to roughly 1,800 people in the community. It endeavours to ensure that programs are geared to the different needs of offenders.

Another initiative is the program for native offenders. While natives account for only 3 per cent of Canada's population, they represent up to 12 per cent of the federal inmate population. Studies have shown that native inmates are more receptive to programs that are specifically designed for them and the Correctional Service is working to increase the number of such programs.

A program aimed at helping offenders with mental disorders has also been established. According to a survey of the federal inmate population covering the past four years, a significant proportion of inmates suffer from acute psychosis, depression or anxiety. Since there is a definite need, in the years to come it will be vital to establish appropriate evaluation services, various types of specialized care in institutions and support programs in the community.

A family violence initiative has been taken. Research has shown that federal offenders are very likely to commit acts of violence within their family, especially those who abuse or have previously abused family members, who have committed assault in the past or are judged to be very likely to commit abuse. Community pilot projects for the evaluation and treatment of these offenders have already been set up in a number of cities, the necessary resources are being assembled to be able to treat 300 offenders, compared with 100 in 1992-93.

In concluding, I want to emphasize the importance of risk evaluation methods and therapy programs in achieving our main objective, which is to protect the public.

[Quebec Economy, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today's newspapers report that the economist most often quoted by Quebec separatists when the question of the economic consequences of Quebec separation arises has taught Mr. Parizeau and the Bloc Quebecois a lesson in economics and given them a reality check.

Mr. Raymond Théoret, an economics professor at UQAM, is quoted as saying the following: "Obviously the climate of political uncertainty in Quebec will push up the high cost of borrowing on international markets. This will translate into higher costs for people taking out mortgages or bank loans. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to delude the public".

Furthermore, he had this to say about the statements made by the president of the Bank of Montreal: "The banks are not wrong". He concluded with the following remarks: "Quebec sovereignty is the worst-case scenario. Unfortunately, it could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back".

In light of these statements, is Mr. Parizeau planning to retaliate in some way against Mr. Théoret? Will he threaten to fire him should he become the Premier of Quebec?

[Weather Forecasts, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 10 in Rimouski, Environment Canada inaugurated the Weathercopy Service for the Eastern part of the Lower St. Lawrence and the western part of the North Shore.

As a result, the authorities in charge of public safety and emergency measures for these regions will receive weather warnings and weather forecasts directly from Environment Canada via radio transmitters and receivers, as soon as they are issued by the meteorologists at Environment Canada.

According to public safety authorities, this information is essential in order to take the necessary precautions in the event of an emergency, provided there is a quick and reliable access.

Weathercopy is a new technology, a world first developed by Dataradio Inc., a Canadian company. The development of this technology was fully financed by the company itself. This is another good example of co-operation between the public and the private sectors.

[Pulp And Paper Industry, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.

For some time, the minister has been negotiating with provinces to harmonize the implementation of the regulations in the pulp and paper industry. Can the minister give the House a status report on that very important issue?

[Territorial Bilingualism, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week, a Reform Party member tabled a motion to amend the Official Languages Act so as to reflect the principle of territorial bilingualism, which consists in providing federal services essentially in French in Quebec, and essentially in English in the rest of Canada.

This concept of territorial bilingualism is an aberration which reflects a profound ignorance of the history of our country. Such an idea does not take into account our Canadian national identity, and it more or less promotes intolerance.

There can be no doubt that, after being in effect for over a quarter of a century, the federal official languages policy is an integral part of the Canadian identity.

According to an Angus Reid poll conducted in May 1993, close to 70 per cent of Canadians approve the federal government's promotion of official language minority rights.

It is inconceivable that anyone would suggest taking a step backward!

[Canada Customs, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, an Ottawa Sun article of April 21 states that although 350 new full-time customs staff members were promised for the government's anti-smuggling initiative, only one person has been hired.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of National Revenue inform the House if this is in fact the situation?