Ian McClelland

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands, who has over 36 years of military experience, to explore further the notion of the culture that allowed the horrific events of March 16 to happen and the horrific events that took place before March 16.

In the member's military experience is it possible in a closed environment of a military base for a corporal to find himself in a situation in a bunker with nobody else knowing about it, with nobody else accepting responsibility other than one sergeant?

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to refresh the memories of hon. members, this debate has to do with the events which took place in Somalia.

Specifically, I was asking the minister in response to his speech in this debate questions pertaining to ministerial responsibility, the relationship between defence command headquarters, the deputy minister, the chief of defence staff and the then minister of defence, Kim Campbell.

The terrible events of March 16 were reported to the minister by the chief of defence staff, John Anderson, and the deputy minister, Mr. Fowler, on March 18, two days later. At that time the minister of defence was not informed that there was a potential problem with criminality.

The minister of defence subsequently read that at that very time, on March 18, John Anderson had been reported in Maclean's magazine as saying that there was a suspicion of criminal intent from the beginning. That means either the chief of defence staff or the deputy minister misled or were totally incompetent in advising the minister, the civilian authority to whom they were responsible. It was not until March 31, almost two weeks later, that the minister of defence was informed of the events that took place.

That may be incompetence on the minister's part. It may be incompetence on the deputy minister's part. But there was incompetence. It was either gross incompetence or a cover-up to protect the minister.

The deputy minister, Mr. Fowler, retained the confidence of the government and was appointed to a high ranking position at the United Nations. Now either Mr. Fowler was lying or covering up, or he misled, but why would this cover-up have started in the first place and be allowed to continue? And why would a person who was involved in it enjoy the continued confidence of the government?

[Supply, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question about ministerial accountability, specifically contempt at the military headquarters level for the civilian authority of the armed forces.

Shidane Arone was tortured and killed on March 16. On March 18, two days later, the chief of defence staff, John Anderson, and the deputy minister, Bob Fowler, briefed the minister saying at that time that an unfortunate incident had happened in Somalia.

The defence minister at the time, Kim Campbell read in Maclean's magazine that there was a suggestion of criminal intent on March 18 at the same time that she was briefed without being told of criminal intent. It was not until March-

[Canadian Census, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, imagine someone coming from another planet, sitting down right here in Canada and finding that they were being asked some questions on a census. People came around and the person who came from outer space to Canada was answering the questions in a census and thought "I better find out where I am".

He got an atlas that said Canada. He checked around and found a hockey team called the Montreal Canadiens. He was watching TV and saw an advertisement for a beer that was called "Canadian" and thought "Canada, hmm".

When it came time to answer the census, the person from outer space looked for the slot that said Canadian and much to that person's chagrin he could not find it.

Imagine the same person sitting down anywhere else in the world. I suppose in England, English would not be there. It would have to be something else; American would not be there.

From time to time we ordinary Canadians sometimes wonder if there is a lack of oxygen in the air in Ottawa. God knows there has to be something that causes this. What other explanation could there be for such a bone headed decision to say in Canada we will have a census form and the person cannot be a Canadian?

It does not matter whether the person has been here for a week, whether they have been a citizen of this great country for a week, a day or whether we go back 10 generations, we are Canadians. Is that not what it is all about? Is that not what being part of the mosiac, of this family from a host of different countries around the world is?

Do members suppose that people came here from Rwanda to be Rwandans forever? Do members think perhaps that our forefathers came from wherever they came from to be where they were? What do they suppose it was that brought them to this magic land Canada? It was the values we have of inclusiveness. It was that in Canada it is possible to be equal before the law, no matter their station in life, whether high born or low born.

There are situations where that is not always the case. We can speak to that tomorrow when we talk about Bob Fowler and Kyle Brown and the difference between those two people who should be equal before the law but who are not.

Generally speaking, one of the magic, marvellous things about Canada is that we are equal before the law. It does not matter what colour our skin is. We are a nation of values. What could possibly be the motivating factor? What could motivate these people at Census Canada who are known around the world for the fact that we really have a good census?

The census information that is compiled is good for the country. It gives us statistical factual information from which we can have a foundation for a whole host of different things, like how the economy is going, the number of children there are, what we should plan for, the number of schools we are going to need, the number of senior citizen retirement homes we are going to need and what happens demographically in a community in response to a particular initiative, financial or otherwise.

The census is good and the census takers are recognized around the world as being first rate. Therefore it does not seem logical for them to say "how can we screw up this census and enrage half the population?" Do we suppose they get up in the morning and say "It is just too easy. Why do we not do something to drive everybody crazy and knock our phones off the hook so that people think that we are the crazy ones, not the people in the House of Commons who represent us"?

If we scratch the surface we will find that there is a method to the madness. There is a reason. The employment equity affirmative action legislation passed by the Liberal government is not worth the powder to blow it to hell, which is where it should be blown to, unless we have the data base from which to explore and make comparisons.

I had the privilege to respond on behalf of our party to the multiculturalism report on the 25th anniversary of the new wave of multiculturalism in Canada. At that time I was proud to say that our country is one heart and many colours. That is what we are. However, when we set up a country based upon division, based upon our ancestry, then we are going directly counter to everything we have tried to do to make our nation inclusive.

We are Canadians because we share common values. Canadians understand that there are some of us who are less able to carry the load and we help them. We measure the quality of our community not by the highest but by the lowest among us; not by the most privileged but by the least privileged. These are the values that make a nation. They are fairness and equality. All people are measured equally, based on merit, and those who need help can depend on that help.

The minute we introduce into our culture the notion that people should have or be declined benefit because of their race, we are introducing sand into the foundation of our nation that we will come to regret.

It is interesting to note that the only country that has ever, to my knowledge and to the knowledge of my researchers, asked for the racial determination of persons in a census was Germany during the horror of the Nazi times. I am not suggesting for a moment that these two are equal. I am not suggesting that the motivation is the same. That would be ludicrous. We all know it is not. However, the fact remains that the racial background of people in this country is nobody's business, period. We are Canadians because we are human beings and that is where our equality comes in.

Everything we do in our country should be based on merit and the values that we share as human beings, and not for any other reason; not because of the colour of our skin, our religion, our sex or our sexual orientation. It should be based strictly on merit.

Introducing this innocuous little change has the potential to take us down further on a path that many Canadians already see as being divisive and harmful to our nation in the long run.

I would ask all hon. members to consider the fact that by putting Canada back into the census we will be helping to build and to mould an inclusive country where we do not look at each other and see the colour of each other's skin, or our sex, but that we look at each other and see who we are as human beings, sharing a common value system, a common destiny, all of us as Canadians.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost a necessity for a member of Parliament to wade into this GST harmonization debate. This is an issue that brought many people in the House to the political process in the first place.

It seems particularly ironic that the government that ran on a pledge to abolish the GST finds itself in a position of trying to squirm out from between a rock and a hard place, finding itself inexorably smashed by the fact it had made a commitment all over the country, in every single constituency saying: "Elect us and we will get rid of the GST". The Liberal lexicon of getting rid of the GST is to try to disguise it by harmonizing it.

Because the package would not sell across the country, it was necessary for the government to then try and involve as many provinces as possible in a nefarious scheme to slide out from under its responsibility for a campaign promise clearly made across the country.

The only provinces that the federal government was able to induce to going along with its nefarious scheme were the maritime provinces, all of whom in one degree or another have consistently been recipients of largesse from the federal treasury for many years.

In fairness, I would expect that many of the premiers thought this would not be a bad deal. It is not a bad deal for the four Atlantic premiers who signed on to this nefarious scheme because the rest of the country was going to have to finance it, top it up a little bit to the tune of almost a billion dollars. That billion dollars comes from the other provinces.

Because the government is in a majority position it has the power and the authority, although it does not have the moral authority, to do pretty much as it sees fit, provided it can get the provinces to go along.

As members know, I represent a riding in Alberta. In Alberta we do not have a provincial sales tax, so harmonization to Alberta would be a particularly bitter pill to swallow. It is interesting that as of March 1996 provincial retail sales taxes varied across the country. The federal government wanted to somehow harmonize everything across the country so that everybody would have the same sales tax, thereby removing the competitive advantage of a lower tax or no tax at all from any part of the country that was able to do so.

It is interesting to note that as we go from east to west in 1996 Newfoundland had the highest retail sales tax at 12 per cent, Prince Edward Island at 10 per cent, Nova Scotia at 11 per cent and New Brunswick at 11 per cent. So a harmonized tax at 15 per cent is really a significant reduction on their tax rates but it represents a significant tax increase based on the fact that it will be applied over a much broader range of products.

As we continue from east to west we find that the tax rates come down significantly. In March 1996 Quebec was at 6.5 per cent, Ontario was at 8 per cent, Manitoba was a 7 per cent, Saskatchewan was at 9 per cent, Alberta was at zero per cent and British Columbia was at 7 per cent. That means some of the provinces raised more money, perhaps through gasoline taxes or other excise taxes or had a higher rate of surcharge on personal income taxes.

However, the province and the people of Alberta have made the conscious decision that we do not want higher retail taxes. When the idea of applying a harmonized tax to Alberta was floated recently, the University of Alberta in the Western Centre for Economic Research led by senior research analyst Karen S. Davis put together a study on what would happen in Alberta if a harmonized sales tax were applied in Alberta. The study has revealed some interesting statistics and conclusions, some of which I will read into the record. In fairness to Karen Davis and her research I am reading very selectively into the record from this report.

She makes the case, as was made early on, that if given the choice between having two very different taxes at different rates that cover different bases, that is they apply to different products differently or some not at all, obviously for the ease of everyone concerned it would make sense not to have these differences. Then the decision would be on what products should the tax be applied to, should the tax be applied broadly or narrowly, and should the tax be high or low. It makes sense that the broader the application, the lower the rate; the more narrow and focused the application, the higher the rate would be. It is plain common sense.

But even in a situation like Alberta's where we have a zero rate of provincial tax and with the commitment from the federal government that any taxes raised by this harmonized tax in Alberta would come into the federal treasury and then be refunded to Alberta, even with that undertaking, if it could be believed, try to find 10 people who would say with any degree of confidence they will give the government the opportunity to get its hands on x amount of money and expect to get it all back. I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

I would like to give credit to the research done by the University of Alberta. I would like to read into the record the financial impact a harmonized tax of 12 per cent would have in Alberta. It reads: "We conclude that harmonization at a 12 per cent rate across Canada will cause real gross domestic product in Alberta to fall by up to one-half of a per cent in the short term, and as many as 10,000 jobs would be lost. The impact on GDP is lessened if wages also fall to mitigate the effects on employment. Real wages can be expected to decline by 1 per cent to 2 per cent depending upon their flexibility".

The authors of the report have clearly stated that there are two effects, the short term effect and the long term effect. Their conclusion is also that in the long term it is possible, but not necessarily probable, that the negative effects could be mitigated over the long term. However, in the short term it is most likely there would be serious economic damage done to Alberta.

The authors also point out that there are two aspects to harmonization. This is something that is often overlooked. During the debate in the House today it was mentioned very rarely, if at all. There are two aspects to harmonization, that of the tax base and that of the tax rate. A key issue is the need to weigh the incremental benefits to Canada of a harmonized rate against the adverse short term adjustments imposed on Alberta by a sudden increase in sales taxation. Based on the premise that if we are in the boat together, the better the boat is doing, we are going to do better incrementally. Unfortunately these are theories, they are not proven in fact. The one thing that we do know is that the short term damage would be significant.

From the Alberta perspective, the finance committee's 1994 recommendations are more attractive than the finance minister's plan to move to a uniform rate. Even with the abatement of the incremental revenues collected from Alberta in its June 1994 recommendations to government, the finance committee stressed the benefits of adoption of a consistent broad base and gave suggestions on how to do it, but it was not accepted.

[Multiculturalism, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I ask members to put themselves in the position of a boatload of German Jewish refugees in June 1939. They were turned away from our shores and ended up going back to Europe where many died, ending up in the crematoria. At about the same time Chinese people were prevented from coming to Canada. We acknowledge that our country has not had a particularly welcoming attitude to people of other colours, races and backgrounds.

If we are ever to be sure to never repeat the errors of the past, it is particularly important when discussing and when considering multiculturalism to remember the Canada we have today is one of which the vast majority of people are very proud. We have a deserved reputation around the world for being inviting and accommodating.

As we use this as an opportunity to consider what multiculturalism actually means to our country and its future, based on the notion of a multicultural country, it behoves us to bear in mind that it is the values we share in common as Canadians that are the foundation of our country of the future. And as a rule, all of us should live our lives as if we were members of a minority or were refugees from some other part of the world.

Even today there are blemishes on our record. For instance, we now have a head tax on immigration, and while that may not be very much to some people, for some it is a great deal of money. The ability of a person to come to Canada based on their ability to buy their way in, even if it is only a bit, is something we should really look at and reconsider.

In Alberta we had, some time ago, a program of inclusion, to make the notion of multiculturalism one of inclusion of all people to celebrate it. The key that we had there was one heart, many colours. I have yet to hear any description of what multiculturalism

is about, better than that, that Canada is a country of people from all over the world with one heart of many colours.

[Family Violence, February 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians believe it is not possible to commit murder and get away with it. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Susan Klassen was killed by her estranged husband. She was killed by strangulation. Her killer choked her so hard that he bruised both thumbs and then used a pillow case to finish the job.

Susan Klassen's killer will be eligible for full parole in less than two years. How is it that our society values Susan Klassen's life so little that her killer is released in just two years?

Susan Klassen was betrayed by the very justice system pledged to protect her. Her killer was able to claim provocation and the charge was reduced to manslaughter. How could cold blooded murder by strangulation possibly be considered manslaughter?

Did Susan Klassen deserve to die because her husband's feelings were hurt?

Legislators have a responsibility to Susan Klassen and to her family to ensure such a travesty will never happen again. Parliament must send a signal to the judiciary. Canadians have zero tolerance for family violence.

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate. It was made much more interesting by the intervention of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth who brought another dimension to the debate. That dimension is that it is far better that 1,000 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. That is the cornerstone of our jurisprudence and that is the way it should be.

If we go back to zero, back to the start of parliamentary democracy, I believe we will find that as parliamentarians our fiduciary responsibility is to the individual citizen and to protect those citizens from the power of the state. That is what this bill is about.

The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth dealt specifically with people who came to see him and brought to his attention that someone with false memory syndrome could totally destroy the lives of people with false accusations. The counsellor protecting the accused would not then have the ability to investigate, to prove that it was false memory syndrome that caused the problem. This is a particularly cogent criticism of the bill and it is something we should investigate very carefully in committee.

This bill has the effect of making it far more difficult, but not impossible, for defence lawyers to break down the credibility of a complainant. We must ask ourselves, why is this? I believe it is basically to protect innocent persons from being victimized by the trial process.

This was very aptly put when, in a 1988 presentation of how to go about undermining the position of a complainant, a criminal lawyer said: "Whack complainants hard at the preliminary inquiry. Attack with all you have got so that he or she will say, `I am not coming back"'. We ask if this is justice for someone who has been assaulted or sexually assaulted. It is usually only a small minority of women who are sexually assaulted that actually come forward. Why? It is because they have been invaded as it is. Then they come forward and find their whole lives being bared to everybody. They find themselves being whacked by the lawyer for the accused. We must balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the accused. As I read it, that is what this legislation is all about.

It is important to look at the mindset of a society which allows the law to put the rights of the accused far ahead of the rights of the victim. I would like to use as an example a particularly egregious incident which took place and was recently brought to light in a trial in Yukon. I am talking about the circumstances of the murder of Susan Klassen.

Let me tell the House something about Susan Klassen. She died in November 1995. She was 36. She was murdered by her husband Ralph. Her husband pleaded guilty to manslaughter, notwithstanding the fact that he killed her with his bare hands, bruising his thumbs doing it, and then knotted a pillow case around her neck.

How is that manslaughter? Manslaughter is when a person hits someone and they fall over dead. The person did not mean to kill, however, the individual hit his head and ended up dead. How is it manslaughter when you choke someone so hard that you bruise your thumbs and then you strangle them with a pillow case? How in God's name can that be manslaughter?

We wonder what it would take to get 300 people from the Yukon, on one day's notice, at minus 38 degrees, to march in honour of Susan Klassen. They were not marching just for Susan Klassen; they were marching out of frustration and rage at a judicial system that would allow provocation to be used as the excuse for killing. Provocation. My God. How on earth could anybody use provocation as why they killed somebody by strangulation so hard that they bruise their thumbs and then smother them with a pillow case? Provocation is when somebody says something, you get a little bit upset, like what happened here in this House today, you go over and you nail them, and the person winds up dead. You did not mean to kill. That is what manslaughter is all about.

Susan Klassen attended St. Angela Catholic elementary school and Sir John Thompson junior high school in Edmonton. She won the top award for excellence at Archbishop MacDonald high school, graduated from university in 1981 as an occupational therapist with distinction, and worked in the community. She probably was not an angel. None of us is. Was whatever happened in the relationship between Susan and her husband sufficient provocation for this person to kill her and then plead manslaughter because of provocation?

How does that come back to Bill C-46? It is an entirely different circumstance but it has a common root. When women-and we all know that 99 per cent of the time it is women-suffer from assault, whether it is sexual or any other kind, and when that assault is permissible because of provocation for whatever reason, then we are in a situation where a person who brutally kills someone is able to say: "I did not mean to, therefore, it was manslaughter. I did not mean to rape this girl. I did not break into her house and rape her. I was provoked into raping her because she was there".

It is time that we put an end to that. We need to balance the rights of the accused and the victim through amendments and at committee we may satisfactorily answer the question of false memory syndrome. However, the rights of the victim must at least be on par with the rights of the criminal. I would ask the House to consider this when the bill goes to committee and before it goes to third reading.

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Early in the first session of the 35th Parliament, I can recall very distinctly the occasion when a member opposite came into this Chamber wearing a turban.

People were all waiting for the explosive fireworks to happen. I can recall being asked about that and saying that it did not matter what was on a person's head but what mattered was what was in the person's head.

I would say today, it does not matter what kind of pants a person is wearing. What matters is what is in the pants.

[Criminal Code, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for his interventions, which I know from experience are interventions that will add to the value of the legislation we are addressing. I hope the member opposite will raise this as the bill progresses to committee. If there is substance to the concern particularly as it surrounds false memory syndrome, it is something we had better inoculate this bill against.

I would bring to the attention of members that what Bill C-46 does, at least in the interpretation of what I bring to the debate, is it clarifies the circumstances when such records may be subpoenaed. It was not considered advisable that the term "likely to have relevance" be left to a case by case judicial interpretation. Specifically, the records cannot be subpoenaed at a preliminary hearing, only at trial. This is a very important distinction. They cannot be brought forward at a preliminary hearing, only at trial. At that time there is a two-step process, first to establish the relevance of the documents and second, an examination of the documents by a judge in private.

Does the member think that the legislation would be improved if part of the legislation was that the judge who reviews the evidence may not be the trial judge?