Shaughnessy Cohen

[The Late Bernie Newman, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bernie Newman, a former Liberal MPP for Windsor-Walkerville, passed away on Monday night.

Bernie was a teacher, an Olympic gymnastics coach of some renown, a great family man as well as a tremendous advocate for the city of Windsor.

Bernie believed in what he called positive representation which he defined as follows: "Positive representation is standing up on the floor of the legislature and hammering at problems others would like to ignore. It is overcoming indifference and getting action. It is the proper combination of the enterprise and energy of youth together with the weapons of experience".

Throughout eight successive victories and 28 years at Queen's Park, Bernie is best known for his commitment to and his love of his constituents. They kept sending him back to represent him over all those years. I do not know very many people living in Windsor-St. Clair during the years of Bernie's tenure at Queen's Park who did not receive cards or letters from him for anniversaries, birthdays and in sympathy.

I know all members of the House will join me in offering condolences to the Newman family and in honouring the memory of Bernie Newman.

[Middle East Peace Process, November 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked and saddened by the tragic death of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. They are also concerned about the future of the peace process and our role in the Middle East.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what role Canada has played and what future role we will play in the Middle East peace process?

[U.S. Border Tax, October 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Last February an American senator assured us that a plan to impose a fee on Canadians crossing into the States was "as dead as Elvis". Elvis may be dead, but I think he has been appearing in Washington before a Senate committee, because they are talking about moving ahead with this plan.

Will the minister please tell us what the government is doing to persuade the Americans not to tax Canadians entering their fair country?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Halifax, if only because very often there is nothing left to say so I can speak much more briefly.

First of all, I want to comment on how this bill fits in with the overall Liberal vision and the overall Liberal plan for Canada. I think the Reform Party is shortsighted when they criticize this bill only on the limited grounds they have set out. In reality, justice issues in many respects are economic issues. I say this because I come from a community, Windsor and Essex county, that has prospered as it leaves the recession. We are probably on the leading edge of recovery from the last recession.

I have noticed at home, and our city leaders and our citizens have noticed as well, that as our community becomes more prosperous, as we have more jobs, as we have a healthier community economically, we have a healthier community in other ways. When we look at the health of the community and we look at how we have been affected by this recovery from the recession, or partial recovery from the recession, what we see is that violent crime has gone down, other forms of crime have decreased, and the pressure of social problems has lessened. This is because the community is in better shape economically.

In the early 1980s, when the last great recession hit, I was practising law in Windsor, not as a young lawyer but as a new lawyer. I did a bit of matrimonial law in addition to my regular criminal practice. It was devastating, because as there were layoffs at the auto plants and at the feeder plants it seemed there were more marriage breakdowns. As there were more marriage breakdowns, it seemed that my practice in what were then called juvenile delinquents, young offenders, increased in terms of criminal law. It seemed to me also that I had to deal with more domestic violence in my practice.

Subsequently, when I began to prosecute I found the same thing. With economic waves and downturns and the economic roller-coaster we have experienced in the recent past in Windsor, domestic violence and other forms of violence increased. There were more robberies, more property offences, more break-ins. You could see and palpably feel the link between economic health and social health in our community.

When Reform talks about the justice system they should do so within the greater framework of economic development in our communities. A community with a healthy economic base and with active ongoing economic development is a community that is going to be healthy in other areas. This is part of the Liberal program for healthy communities.

The law commission is a very small part of this. I would like to point out that this is not something we have just recently pulled out of the air; this is something for which we set aside money in our February 1995 budget. In their joint wisdoms, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance agreed that setting aside a relatively small amount of money out of the overall budget for the work of the law commission was an important part of moving Canada forward, moving forward into communities like Windsor, Tecumseh, and St. Clair Beach to make them healthier.

The law commission allows us to reach into individual communities and into the broader Canadian community for advice and help as to how we can improve our justice system. As we are increasing the number of jobs in the country, over 400,000 since we were elected, as we are making the country economically more viable and as we are making it more prosperous, we are also looking at and dealing with aspects of our criminal justice system and our justice system in general that can be improved.

The Reform Party complains about the way the commission is set up. In reality, the commission is doing what the Reform Party has asked us to do. It is allowing us to go to what they call the grass roots. In reality, of course, the Reform Party's grass roots are people who think like them, who are not a majority of the country. They have a fundamental problem with democracy, which allows the majority of a country to rule.

We are not satisfied with that either. We know that not everyone who voted for us agreed with every single thing we wanted to do in the red book. We know that the people of Canada who voted for us did so because of the overall thrust of our policies, and they may have some disagreements. We are not satisfied with that. We are setting up structures that allow us to reach out to find out what is going on, what people are thinking and where we can go.

The Reform Party derides the efforts of the former law reform commission, which was summarily executed by the Conservative government. Deride that as it will, in fact this is not the old law reform commission; this is a new law commission, and it is a commission with a difference. This commission has a special mandate, which is very different from that of the old law reform commission.

When the law reform commission was eliminated there was a cry from many parts of the country, from groups that had benefited, who had been able to persuade the law reform commission that new advances were required and changes were required in the law and who saw that come to fruition in legislation. However, this law commission, with its special guiding principles-which are not just stuff we are talking about, they are actual principles we have put into the legislation-has a very real difference, which will allow us to tap into what all Canadians are thinking about our justice system.

This law commission is mandated to take a multi-disciplinary approach to law reform and to the legal system. Like the Liberal government, it sees the justice system as part of a broader social and economic environment. It is mandated to look at what people

have to say from a social work perspective and at what people have to say from labour. It is mandated to look at what people have to say who are concerned about violent crime in our communities. It is mandated to take a look at what probation officers have to say, at what parole officers have to say, and at what the people on the street have to say. It is mandated to be open and inclusive by making its work more accessible and more understandable to all Canadians.

The member for Halifax indicated that she has always believed there is a need to demystify the law. Any of us who have worked in the law know that is the case. We can work in an ivory tower, prepare our mumbo-jumbo and talk to each other with our special language and never communicate that to Canadians or to our clients. If it is a mystery, it is somehow something only a specialist can deal with.

We are not content to have that carry on. The Reform Party talks about that all the time. Yet it criticizes us for making a law commission that is open, inclusive, and makes its work accessible and understandable to all Canadians.

This law commission will utilize innovative research, consultation and management practices by utilizing new technologies, something that, as good as it was, the old law reform commission was not very good at doing. It will be responsive and accountable to key groups that are affected by law reform through partnerships that build on existing knowledge and expertise.

This is an interesting one, because this again contrasts with what the Reform Party says and what it does. The Reform Party loves to talk to us about special interest groups. It loves to accuse the government of being captive to the special interest groups. What it means is that we listen to groups it does not listen to. Its special interest groups, like the American National Rifle Association or certain alleged wildlife organizations or the people who I like to call the gunners, are of course not special interest groups. That is not what Reform members mean; they can listen to those special interest groups.

There are lots of special interest groups out there. There are groups that are interested in the welfare of human beings. There are groups that are interested in benefiting mankind and their fellow Canadians. The law commission will give them a place to go, so they do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying parliamentarians who are busy with other aspects of their work. It gives them a place to go and be heard. It also gives the individual a place to go and be heard as well. I cannot see how the Reform Party could object to that.

The law commission is mandated to be cost effective in its operations and in the recommendations and advice it provides. The last law commission, indeed many of the vehicles that governments have used in the past to advise them, did not have to worry about budgets or about making recommendations the government could implement in a cost effective manner. We are mandating this group to do so. We are telling them to come to us with a project or a piece of legislation and think of the economic impact that will have as well.

I would suggest that this bill is part of good Liberal government in Canada. It is part of what the majority of Canadians elected us to do.

I will never forget what the little person from the Reform Party who ran against me said. When Reform became the government-quite a leap of fancy-it would listen to Canadians. Here we are providing the vehicle to not just listen to Canadians but to go out and shake them and ask them what they think about this, so that we can incorporate their views into our overall scheme. When we try to do that, where is the Reform Party? Politics as usual. It is here heckling and arguing but it has not bothered to take a look at what this bill really does.

On that point, I would like to comment on something else I heard today, which is the use of what I would call fear tactics and fearmongering to try to scuttle a bill of the importance of this one.

When Reform members talk about violent crime, when they feed the myth that violent crime is on the upswing in Canada, they do their own constituents a disservice. It is not for them to create a false environment and then try to force the government to operate within it. It is not for them to set up a straw dog in order to knock it down. It is up to them, as a responsible third party, to focus on problems that actually exist in society.

There is no question that violent crime exists in Canada. There is no question that violent crime that exists at any level is unacceptable. However, it is wrong to suggest that it is growing and this government is doing nothing about it. It is also wrong to suggest that a law commission made up of people from every aspect of our greater Canadian community will do nothing about it.

This bill responds to Canadians. I would like to compliment the Minister of Justice for what he said when he announced this bill. It sets out a real Liberal and a real Canadian attitude to law reform. He said: "Canada's legal system faces complex legal issues that require more than a legal solution. Effective long term remedies lie in an approach that includes not only legal but social, economic and other disciplines as well. The Government of Canada believes that an independent, multi-disciplinary law reform body is essential to this process".

I would suggest that is good common sense. I would suggest that the Minister of Justice is right on. That is the Liberal vision. That is the Canadian vision.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today. I have gathered up some comments from the speeches of the members for Beaver River and Calgary Southeast and the member for the Reform Party who just spoke. What they have done is typical of what the Reform Party does in debate, particularly on this legislation. They have refused to either read it or, if they have read it, to acknowledge the actual content of the bill.

If the bill were operating in a vacuum, if we were making no effort in any other area of society or in any other form of legislation to improve the lot of Canadians, I might oppose it as well. The bill is part of a package. It is part of our platform set out in our red book. Beyond that it is part of a package of legislation we intend to use to improve the lot of Canadians. By improving the lot I mean by making our communities healthier, economically healthier and safer.

We have tried to take other steps to assist people who do not have the same advantage as the last speaker. We have improved our student loan programs so that we are offering funds to encourage women into areas where they have not traditionally sought training in the past. We have a student loan program which encourages the participation of persons with disabilities.

We are revamping our social programs in order to take away the systemic barriers that exist for single mothers who are untrained and also unable to go back to work because they have no one to take care of their kids. We are taking a look at child care as a form of social program which will support our effort to get Canadians back to work.

Bill C-64 is a clear example of how the Liberal Party delivers on its promises. In the red book we said we would strengthen the Employment Equity Act and that is exactly what Bill C-64 does. This legislation is deeply rooted in our country's conscience. In our Constitution every individual has "the right to equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law".

The Reform Party in general and certainly the last speaker do not like the charter very much because they think protection of the individual should be limited, that the application of the charter should be narrow and that only those they say are deserving of its protection should receive that protection.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically recognizes the rights of the individual and specifically recognizes that special programs are needed and that they are allowed in order to benefit those who are discriminated against in our society. That is what this bill addresses after all.

At the end of the day the bill is there because there are people who suffer in employment today because of accidents of their birth or accidents of their lives, accidents like colour, race, sex, disability.

We believe employment equity is about building a more caring and a more just society. It holds up a mirror to the fundamental principles that we all hold dear and it seeks to create a level playing field while providing practical and reasonable employment plans for employers.

Employment equity was conceived under a Liberal government initially drawing on the work of Madam Justice Abella and her commission. It reflects our party's long history of commitment to justice and equality for all Canadians, not just for the privileged classes.

Yet many insist on making the false assumption that federal employment equity is a carbon copy of the American affirmative action policy or of the Ontario bill. This was apparent in the comments of the last speaker and also in the comments of the member for Beaver River.

These speakers claim that Americans and Ontarians are now rejecting legislative efforts out of hand in the area of employment equity. That is simply not true. Bill C-64 is not affirmative action U.S. style. It is not the severe imposition of regulations put forward in the NDP Ontario bill.

Bill C-64 is really about fairness in the distribution of jobs. It is not about quotas. It is about levelling the employment playing field. It is not about preferential treatment. It is about fairness in human resources administration. It is not about complex regulations or greater administrative burdens for business.

This is a made in Canada, made in Ottawa bill that has none of the earmarks of the anti-discrimination legislation we might find in other jurisdictions. It certainly does not seek as its goal to attribute blame or to right past wrongs.

Reformers like to draw parallels to the American experience, but our bill differs from American affirmative action bills because our experience and our history differ from America's in significant ways. Our law has none of the excesses of the American program, excesses like inflexible quotas for jobs, quotas on college admis-

sions, quotas on bidding preferences and minority set asides in procurement programs. That is not what is in the bill.

Bill C-64 is not punitive. Instead of penalizing citizens it encourages employers to recognize and use the largely untapped talents of women, persons with disabilities, aboriginal persons and members of visible minorities, members of the so-called special interest groups the prior speaker mentioned. These four designated groups account for 60 per cent of Canadian citizens.

Reformers also cited the Ontario experience but they play fast and furious with the facts. There are no quotas in the bill. Ontario has a third party complaint scheme which is central to the operation of its bill. Ours is more like a planning document for human resources development.

The Ontario bill has very broad regulatory powers which are not present in our bill. The threshold for being caught by the Ontario bill in the private sector is 50 employees. That catches 17,000 employers in Ontario. In our bill the threshold is just over 100 employees and catches only 350 employers. The Ontario bill develops new agencies and tribunals to enforce its act. Ours has no such new agencies.

Just after the Ontario election an omnibus polling of businesses showed they have supported employment equity but not that particular bill. Our bill, which is on a much different model, is much more satisfactory.

Another central feature of our system is our firm belief in flexible targets businesses can reasonably achieve. Under the bill the law is streamlined and clear. There is none of the complex or overlapping regulatory channels found in the United States, nor are there the tremendous regulatory burdens which one would find under the Ontario bill. Enforcement is streamlined, cost effective and relies on negotiated solutions rather than expensive litigation.

One of the main criticisms of the other systems has been their adversarial nature. Bill C-64 takes a consensual approach, an approach of compromise; another great Canadian tradition of helping to bring people together to work in harmony. It is practical. It is well thought out. It addresses inequality in the workplace. It is a uniquely Canadian solution to the challenge of getting the most potential from our highly diverse workforce.

What I am referring to here is the same ethos of fairness which is now driving many private companies to diversify their hirings. Some of those employers have told us how well this can work. Bob Sutherland, executive vice-president of Human Resources for the Royal Bank of Canada, said: "The Royal Bank has undoubtedly benefited by gaining access to some very talented members of the workforce, many of whom we might not have discovered otherwise".

Dan Branda, CEO of Hewlett-Packard Canada, told a Globe and Mail reporter that diversity ``is an absolute business imperative because it gives us the edge in attracting the best and brightest people''. Are they afraid of the employment equity bill? No.

Employment equity is about every Canadian having the opportunity to know that dignity and security come with a salary. Most of all we are putting into practise the very values which make each of us proud to be a Canadian: fairness, justice and equality not just for a chosen few but for all Canadians.

[Governor General's Awards, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I am joined by all members of the House in paying tribute to the six outstanding women who are the recipients of the 1995 Governor General's awards in commemoration of the Persons case, which were presented this morning at Rideau Hall.

We recognize Marthe Asselin Vaillancourt of Jonquière, Quebec for her continuing efforts to prevent violence against women, children, and the elderly.

We recognize Dr. May Cohen of Burlington, Ontario for her leadership and pioneering work in the field of women's health.

We recognize Dr. Ruth Flowers of Makkovik, Labrador for her community activism and dedication to improving the quality of women's lives.

We recognize Sheila Kingham of Victoria, British Columbia for her belief in the power of collective action and her tireless advocacy on behalf of rural women.

We recognize Carolyn G. Thomas of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia for her courage as a human rights activist.

We recognize Alice E. Tyler of Edmonton, Alberta for her promotion of women's advancement through her art.

Our congratulations from this House go to these remarkable women who have each contributed substantially to the furtherance of women's equality.

[Underground Economy, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate the member for Mississauga South on Motion No. 382, which addresses the ongoing problem of the underground economy. The motion demonstrates his interest in the problem. It encourages debate on something that really has bedevilled the government in our attack on both the deficit and our desire to pursue and maintain our social programs, because the collection of revenues is impeded.

I hope this debate allows Canadians to focus as well on the problem and to reflect on the difficulties created by the underground economy. In my constituency of Windsor-St. Clair I hear regularly from constituents who understand the problem and who resent their neighbours who operate within the underground economy.

Cash business transactions, cheap smuggled beverage alcohol, under the table employment, and other practices of this type shortchange all of us. When we do this we do not remit taxes. The taxes themselves would help to maintain our health plans, our roads, our universities, our social programs. When we do this we help to create unfair competition for honest businesses who do remit taxes. When our neighbours do it, they help ratchet up our own tax bills.

This motion calls on the government to consider establishing initiatives to address the underground economy that exists in Canada today. A great deal has been written about this phenomenon: its size, the social and economic costs, the reasons people abandon the legitimate economy in favour of under the table transactions, and suggestions for dealing with the problem.

The issue is of concern to me and it should be of concern to all Canadians because the underground economy has significant implications for all of us. The greater the activity in the underground economy, as I said earlier, the less revenue available to governments. The creation of unfair competition for honest businesses has driven some small new businesses, marginal businesses, out of operation. This results in lost jobs and in us paying more taxes.

I agree with the hon. member for Mississauga South that Canadians must act on the problem of the underground economy. I say all Canadians because the responsibility for dealing with the issue does not rest entirely on the shoulders of the government. We all have a responsibility and a role to play. Public confidence in Canada's tax system depends on all of us paying our fair share and having the confidence that our neighbours are doing so as well.

Individuals and businesses involved in underground economic activity are not playing by the rules. Governments cannot afford to allow the practice to go unchallenged. People have to know there is fairness in the tax system. They have to know that honest businesses have a level playing field and that people who try to cheat are going to be dealt with appropriately.

Public confidence depends on effective government measures as well. It is for this reason that our government has introduced measures to address the underground economy and other forms of non-compliance. Revenue Canada has put in place a compliance strategy that supports self-assessment and voluntary compliance through assistance, education, services, and responsible enforce-

ment. It seeks to ensure that revenues legitimately owed to the government are collected. The strategy is comprehensive, covering the entire portfolio of Revenue Canada and all dimensions of revenue administration. It is also dynamic because it is sensitive to modern business practices and the changing forces at play in both the national and local economies.

It is a targeted program which makes use of modern technologies, compliance research and a cross-matching of information from Revenue Canada's extensive databases, other federal departments and provincial revenue administrations.

The department's approach also recognizes there are many different kinds of taxpayers, individuals, corporations, salaried employees and others.

The department has launched special projects as well to address areas of systemic concern, as in the case with its underground economy initiative announced by the minister of revenue in November of 1993. The department has established special audit teams to focus on construction, home renovation, jewellery, hospitality, auto sales, repairs and other service sectors which are areas of high non-compliance. Under this initiative we have put agreements into place with all of the provinces to co-ordinate actions and to ensure progress.

The government's underground economy initiative also involves working closely with business, unions, industry and professional groups to identify ways to further strengthen Revenue Canada's enforcement efforts and to encourage voluntary compliance. During the last year departmental officials consulted extensively with more than 240 groups. They know that tax evasion cheats honest workers out of steady, secure employment and compromises the ability of governments to provide service. They want to help.

Specifically I will address that part of the motion which suggests some relief or limited forgiveness on interest and other penalties which would be payable when a taxpayer voluntarily declares previously undeclared income. This section of the motion calls for an amnesty. The suggestion is an interesting one in terms of how it might facilitate the return of individuals and businesses from the underground economy to the legitimate economy. In no way, however, should it be possible for taxpayers to get away with not paying the taxes they owe. There is merit to the thrust behind the suggestion but I think there are some problems with it as it is framed here.

Opportunities already exist for Canadians who may have deficiencies in their tax reporting to come forward and get a clean bill of health from Revenue Canada. The preferred approach to non-compliance is voluntary disclosure. The department has a voluntary disclosure policy which I as a lawyer in my previous life was able to use to assist clients who had been following business and personal tax practices which did not comply with the law.

This policy allows individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, non-profit organizations, charitable and other organizations to come forward to correct deficiencies in their reporting to the department. When a disclosure is made voluntarily before the department has started its audit or other enforcement action, then no penalties or other sanctions such as prosecution for tax evasion will be imposed. The taxpayer will have to pay the amount of taxes or duty owing plus interest. This is a fair policy. It is a form of amnesty which has been available for some time.

I do not agree, however, that interest should be set aside. The interest owed reflects the true value of the money. It also recognizes the fact that those who have not paid their taxes on time have had the use of these funds, which essentially they were holding in trust for the government.

Revenue Canada under its voluntary disclosure policy takes a responsible approach to collections. Arrangements can be worked out so that the taxes owing to the government are paid in a manner which does not cause undue hardship for the taxpayers. This aspect is particularly important to those individuals or businesses operating in the underground economy for some time that feel they would face onerous penalties if they were to come clean and operate honestly.

A person can make a voluntary disclosure by contacting a Revenue Canada office directly or by having someone do it on their behalf, such as an accountant, a lawyer or a friend who wants to assist. A disclosure will be considered voluntary so long as it is made before Revenue Canada has basically started its audit or any other enforcement action.

As a result of co-operative agreements Revenue Canada has with the provinces, we are working toward developing a co-ordinated voluntary disclosure policy with all of the provinces. It is our view that a consistent policy among the federal and provincial governments with respect to disclosure will make it easier for taxpayers who have decided to rejoin the legitimate economy.

I believe we need to be careful about tax amnesties. When tried in the past, more extensive tax amnesties than what are available under the voluntary disclosure program, they have had only limited effect. They may actually create more non-compliance. This happens because people believe that once an amnesty is in place others will follow and so they can wait and delay co-operation. The result is less compliance, not more.

People also believe that when there is an amnesty policy in place that will forgive interest it becomes their right to avoid paying interest on taxes.

A great deal has been accomplished since the Minister of National Revenue introduced his action plan for addressing the underground economy. The initiative has resulted in more than $860 million in additional taxes assessed. Revenue Canada's ability to identify non-filers and non-registrants has been strengthened. The department has put co-operation agreements in place with all of the provinces and is working in partnership with private sector groups.

It is clear Canadians are concerned about the underground economy and that Canadians are willing to work together to find solutions. I thank the member again for this motion. I congratulate him on it because it demonstrates a desire on his part and on the part of his constituents to get Canadians talking about the negative consequences of the underground economy and to find ways of encouraging as many people as possible to return to the legitimate economy.

[Witness Protection Program Act, October 5th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-78. I sought the opportunity because over the past 15 years I have been active as a lawyer in the criminal justice system. As a lawyer I have worked with witnesses in court, as a defence counsel, as a crown prosecutor for the provincial government of Ontario and as a crown prosecutor for the federal government.

On other occasions I have worked as counsel for witnesses who were involved in witness protection programs. I have had the opportunity to see firsthand what happens to a person, particularly a member of the public, who becomes a witness and to people in the past who became involved in our less formal former witness protection program. I have also seen what happens when a witness is intimidated or when an accused person or a person involved in crime attempts to intimidate a witness.

It is now past the time when we should come forward and set out some clear legislation, some clear rules and clear guidelines and regulations to deal with persons who find themselves in the very delicate and very dangerous position of being a witness and being subject to duress and penalty from those who would seek to quiet them.

Criminals have successfully utilized fear and intimidation of potential witnesses to avoid prosecution and punishment for their criminal acts. Individuals will go to great lengths to avoid convic-

tion or to exact violent retribution from witnesses. We have recognized this. We have worked with this in the system for a long time. We now recognize that enforcement agencies need the support and the assistance of the public to further their investigations and to achieve success in their efforts to bring criminals to justice.

That support would not be forthcoming in the absence of programs designed to ensure the safety of those citizens prepared to get involved by providing information or testifying against criminals.

Witnesses are the ultimate public servants. They are people without whom we could not operate our criminal justice system and without whom we could not bring criminals to the courts and to justice. Witnesses fall into several categories. There are witnesses who are paid to be witnesses and who receive salaries for that, public servants, police officers, investigators at Revenue Canada or at Canada Customs, investigators in various forms of activities that could result in criminal prosecutions. These people are accustomed to dealing with criminals. They also have a role in life that allows them within the system to have the protection of their office and the protection of their job.

On the other end of the spectrum there are ordinary citizens who by coincidence or accident find themselves witnesses to crimes: somebody is walking down the street and they see a bank robber getting away or they witness a car accident in which one of the drivers was criminally negligent or drunk.

Some members of the public become witnesses by virtue of their status as victims of crime. These witnesses by and large come forward and provide a tremendous public service with little concern for their own personal safety as a result of their testimony.

Witnesses who may have been involved with organized crime or other forms of criminal activity and who come forward, as much as they may want to come forward, have their lives affected adversely. These are people who live under threat, people who live in fear of some kind of punishment from those they would seek to accuse or witness against.

There are also witnesses we seek out, we being the government or the agency doing the investigation. These witnesses fall into the general loose category of informants, paid informants or sources. It is an unfortunate fact of life that sometimes we have to go to criminals to bring criminals to justice. Sometimes we have to go to people involved in an activity to have their assistance in bringing to justice the main perpetrators.

The legislation is intended to cover these people and to protect them in the event their lives are in danger. The legislation will cover agents who participate in investigations as well as informants.

The witness protection program act defines a witness as a person who has given or who has agreed to give information or evidence or has agreed to participate in a matter relating to an inquiry or the investigation or prosecution of an offence whose security is at risk as a result. Also included in the definition are persons who may require protection due to their relationship to or association with the people previously mentioned.

We are talking about people who by accident or on purpose become involved in an investigation and who are under duress from those who would be investigated as a result. Protection under the act can include relocation, accommodation, change of identity, counselling, financial support for those people or for any other purpose in order to ensure their security and to facilitate their re-establishment or their becoming self-sufficient. It covers a wide range of services that can be provided.

Not everyone involved in the witness protection program will live a secret existence in the future. They may simply require counselling or assistance to get on with their lives after the trauma of having dealt with this.

We know from previous speakers that the annual cost of the protection program is $3.4 million and that there will be no additional costs as a result of the legislation.

The legislation clearly defines what is expected of the government and what is expected of the witnesses as a result of this program. In the past there has been a problem because our program has been informal and because the program has been allowed to change with particular circumstances.

As a result there have been complaints from those who are protected and from the RCMP which administers the program that people's expectations are not being met and that the RCMP needs assistance in defining how far it can go and what it should do to protect the witness.

The new legislation will ensure a clear defined admission policy for witnesses, consistent treatment of cases across the country, a clear setting out of responsibilities and obligations of administrators of the plan and protectees entering the program, and a more defined management structure within the RCMP for the daily operation of the program, thereby increasing accountability.

This is an important section. I recall dealing with a witness who was under protection and who was having difficulty within the system making contact with someone to assist her or to give some answers on some information she required. Even as a lawyer it was a bit of a nightmare trying to get through the maze of administration to find someone who could assist her with her problem. The

more clearly defined management structure within the RCMP will assist to straighten that out.

A complaints procedure will be in place and the commissioner of the RCMP will submit to the solicitor general an annual report on the operation of the program.

During 1994 and 1995 we have provided protective services to 70 new witnesses, 30 of whom were referred by other agencies. The $3.4 million we are spending annually on the program will not increase as a result of the change in administration but the money will be spent more effectively. It will be spent more clearly on guaranteeing the safety of the witnesses.

It is important for the public to understand and appreciate that the witness protection program operates across the country, but it does not operate in a vacuum. In devising the statute and in setting out the scheme in the act we have consulted all the provinces and territories.

When someone applies for the program or when a decision is made to admit an applicant to the program, the following factors will be taken into consideration: the potential contribution the witness or source can make toward a police investigation; the nature of the offence under investigation; the nature of the risk to the individual; what alternate methods of protection are available; the danger to the community if the individual is admitted to the program; the potential effects on any family arrangements; the likelihood of the individual's being able to adjust; their maturity, their ability to make judgments and other personal characteristics; the cost of maintaining the individual in the program; and other factors the commissioner of the RCMP finds relevant.

It is important that there be a clear, defined decision making process to admit an individual into the program. In serious cases such as those requiring a change of identity or an admission of a foreign applicant, the decision to admit an individual will be made only by the assistant commissioner in charge of the program. A decision to terminate protection must also be made by the assistant commissioner.

This is only part of the Liberal safe streets, safe neighbourhoods program. Obviously we need statutes like this. No matter how much serious crime there is, we know there always will be crime and there always will be a need to protect people.

When we are protecting people we need to be able to say to Canadians we are protecting people worthy of protection, that we are protecting people when there is a serious risk and that we have a clearly defined methodology for doing it. As the economy becomes healthier, as we work toward the creation of jobs and the creation of prosperous communities, we will find there will be less and less violent crime on our streets.

Those who would seek to encourage Canadians to believe that violent crime is increasing at the present time are being disingenuous because we know statistically and from crime reports that is not the case.

The bill is not a response to the fearmongering that exists in certain quarters of society. It is a practical, concrete response to a need to clearly define and assist the criminal justice system in witness protection. It is a practical, pragmatic response to a situation we have been able to identify. It is part of the ongoing Liberal government plan for safe streets and safe communities in Canada.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly stay on my feet after that. It is phenomenal.

The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has made a great contribution to this legislation at committee. Although I am not a permanent member of that committee, I do have some interest in this particular legislation and sat in on that committee a couple of times and was very encouraged by his participation.

I do have some reservations about this motion, but not because I am not sympathetic to union-sided labour requests. In fact I am very sympathetic to their concerns. However, it seems to me that this section is not necessary in order to get co-operation between management and trade unions or employee unions in this context. Any employment equity plan could and should and indeed probably will be the subject of a collective agreement.

The problem I have with this is in legislating union involvement as opposed to leaving the balance between management and unions the way it is so that management retains the prerogative in terms of recruitment.

It seems to me that clause 15, which the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had a hand in establishing at committee, sets out the necessary collaboration between management and labour. However, the problem is that ultimately, because management has the prerogative to hire, only management can have the responsibility under the scheme of this act.

I would be afraid that if we create a scheme where management and union are both responsible, then effectively we undermine our ability to enforce employment equity through management. We cannot simultaneously undermine management and promote a scheme that would make labour responsible for management activities. It seems to me that this is an integral part of human resources management and an important part of the general Canadian way of doing business.

Only the employer has the final decision on who to hire, promote, train, or terminate. The hon. member should be conscious of the importance of that within this bill, because it allows us to maintain the balance between management and labour. There is no disagreement here. We need the unions to participate fully, but we cannot upset the balance by forcing them to co-design a program or to consider them co-responsible with employers or we are going to undermine the system.

I would like to remind my colleague that workforces of employers are often represented by more than one union. This happens frequently, for instance, in Windsor, Ontario, where I am from. If all union representatives were expected to co-manage the preparation, implementation, and revision of this kind of plan there could be a situation of protracted delays in implementation, increased costs to employers, and possible deterioration in labour-management relations.

To my good friend from the Reform Party, I would like to point out that the cost of this to government would be phenomenal. If unions as well as employers were to submit reports and the human resources ministry required to make the reports public, there would be significant additional costs incurred. Since the human resources development ministry is required to make reports public, every expansion requires a greater budget for copying and distribution to interested parties across the country.

It is because of the Canadian people and in their interests that the Employment Equity Act is where it is today. It is a viable and effective tool for human resources management. I think we should let it continue to work the way it is, working co-operatively between management and unions. This has been done successfully in most employment equity activities for over a decade. Employers should continue to strive to get the input of interested parties in this valuable process, but let it be part of the collective bargaining system rather than something we enforce.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow on the hon. member's comments with respect to the word best and the concept of best qualified which Reform is seeking to introduce into the legislation. It strikes me that it could have a twist, an irony of resulting in imposing on the private sector a ridiculous standard. The word best is very hard to define. The prior speaker indicated that he thought the language itself was problematic.

If we use the term best qualified then we would have to look somewhere for a definition of it. I briefly looked in the Oxford dictionary and it states that the word best can be an adjective, a noun or an adverb. It is defined as follows: "excelling all others, inherent or relative to some standard, the most appropriate, advantageous, desirable, or in a person, the kindest, the greatest in size or quantity", and so on.

I wonder how the Reform Party will explain that kind of an imposition of regulation on the private sector. Which of those definitions should we choose? Are we asking employers to hire the biggest person, the kindest person, the most appropriate person? If the job involves answering the telephone, do we need a Ph.D. in communications, or would a graduate certificate from a business college suffice? Could we use someone who has a physical disability to answer the telephone?

My view and the view of many people on this side of the House is that the imposition of the term best qualified is ridiculous in this context. How can we legislate a definition of best, a word that could have different grammatical forms?

All this goes back to the fundamental Reform position which is absurd in my view. Government is not here to create barriers. Government sometimes has to act to take away the barriers, to intervene on behalf of our citizens to remove barriers in different situations: barriers in the legal system and barriers in employment.

Reform has stated today: "The only criteria on which people should be hired or promoted is merit. Anything else is discrimination".

Testosterone levels are a little high on the Reform benches today. The concept of discrimination is dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act. If Reformers would bother to read that act, they would see that their definition of discrimination does not hold water.

The Canadian Human Rights Act specifically allows special programs designed to reduce the disadvantage suffered by groups or individuals when those disadvantages are based on race, national or ethnic origin, sex, disability and other characteristics such as accidents of one's birth or accidents of one's life. These programs are allowed under that statute and under the Constitution of Canada.

I know it upsets them to mention the charter of rights and freedoms because they do not like it. However I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the law of the land, section 15(2) of the charter which deals with the right to equality before and under the law and to equal protection and benefit for all individuals.

Subsection 15(2) of the charter states:

Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

That is part of the country's Constitution. It means that equality means more than just treating everyone identically. It means that equality also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences. That is what employment equity seeks to do, to achieve equality in the workplace through the accommodation of differences, through the elimination of barriers, through outreach recruiting programs, but not through hiring the unqualified. This is not discrimination by any stretch of the imagination.

We fully support hiring on the basis of merit. Nobody is disputing that point. However Reformers have created a strawman. They call it discrimination. They set it up and then they knock it down.

That is why section 6 is included in the act. Section 6 is there because employment equity does not require any employer to hire someone who is unqualified. That is what section 6 does.

How much clearer can we be? Reform repeatedly insists on raising this spectre. I want to be perfectly clear that employment equity is by no stretch of the imagination discrimination. It is perfectly compatible with the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If Reform members

object then we should let their objection be against the foundations of the country and not against the employment equity act.