Patrick Gagnon

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Liberal and as a Canadian as well I should add that I believe in the concept of universality in different programs that are given to all Canadians. That is one of the hallmarks of this federation, that we recognize the fact that all Canadians should be treated equally.

However, trying to answer a hypothetical question as posed by the Reform Party would be like asking one of my predecessors elected in 1962 whether he foresees the election of the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois 32 years down the road. It is very difficult to make those kinds of assumptions that moneys will not be there.

The economy is evolving and changes are taking place. Of course, our government is taking charge of our finances. The Minister of Finance is doing a commendable job. We have to keep in mind that also our Minister of Human Resources Development wants to consult Canadians. That is one of the reasons why we are out there asking Canadians to put something into the system.

We want to consult them and I am sure we are going to get all kinds of proposals and solutions outside this Parliament which we do not regrettably receive from the opposition benches.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member is raising a very pertinent question on the state of finances in Canada. We know we have a high deficit. We are facing problems, but we are also facing challenges.

One has to keep in mind that the whole idea of the projet de loi is to try to find solutions, to bring Canadians back into the workforce, putting them back to work. Much has to be done in terms of training and retraining. Much has to be done in terms of trying to free up capital for small businesses.

Just the other day there was a report that was brought to the attention of hon. members as a result of which we are going to be asking banks to put up some money to try to encourage small businesses and free enterprise and to go on to try to create jobs throughout Canada. Much can be done with small employers.

Of course the Canada today is not that of the year of my birth, 1962. Things have changed. Things will keep on changing. However, as long as we look into other venues in trying to encourage investment, foreign investment, trying to free up capital for small companies and corporations, I am sure that we will surmount these obstacles and that there will be money available for all Canadians in the years to come.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that a long time has passed since the unfortunate events of the 1970s; however, I can assure him that, under the terms of the law as proposed, we will ensure the confidentiality of information on Canadians. Nevertheless, we should still take into account the presence of some war criminals, or at least consider certain crimes against humanity that they committed. Of course, I referred to the period from 1939 to 1945, but we must still understand that others who took part in wars which are still going on, be it in Yugoslavia or Somalia or elsewhere in the world, committed crimes which are as atrocious as those committed from 1939 to 1945 for which people were charged.

Unfortunately, such people try to enter Canada and settle among us, and I believe that it is the duty of the RCMP, the Government of Canada and all hon. members here in this House to denounce the presence of any war criminals in this country.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, public servants who administer these programs are required to collect personal information from millions of Canadians in order to manage these programs. It would be a tremendous administrative obstacle if clients refused to give officials of the Department of Human Resources Development personal information because they feared this information would not be adequately protected. Confidentiality provisions were made as restrictive as they are to protect Canadians from unwelcome intrusions.

However, Canadians are also concerned about criminals who have entered Canada and may be living in their midst. While Canadians value their privacy they also want justice.

Finally, there remains another amendment that I would like to explain to all members of the House. It is the amendment to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan, which results from another amendment that has been proposed by the Solicitor General.

This amendment would allow the Department of Human Resources Development to provide information on OAS and CPP benefits now paid to prison inmates. This must surely be of interest to Reform Party members.

The goal is to deduct housing and feeding costs from these inmates' income. The Solicitor General could then receive from the Department of Human Resources Development accurate information on inmates' income so he can make reasonable deductions.

Is it right that inmates are housed and fed for free and that they can accumulate income from federal benefits which are, of course, eventually paid for by the government and by Canadian taxpayers? I do not think so. Pensioners who are not criminals must pay their own housing and other costs. To ensure a minimum level of fairness and responsibility, the same principle should apply to prison inmates, especially if they also receive federal benefits.

In conclusion, I hope that my explanations have helped to establish the validity of some of the amendments in this bill and that all members now have the information they need to explain in turn these amendments to their constituents.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

I will give you some views later on.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very important debate. I should also advise hon. members opposite that this government takes its work very seriously. I am also informed there are 15 committees taking place today on a variety of subjects.

I would like to continue my speech.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to speak to the bill before us. I want to emphasize a specific aspect of the bill, namely the proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Unemployment Insurance Act. These amendments are intended to advance the cause of social justice in this country.

The proposed enactments would allow the government to disclose information to the Commissioner of the RCMP for the sole purpose of facilitating investigations, prosecutions and

extradition activities in relation to individuals suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The existing OAS and RPC legislation does not allow us to disclose privileged information, unless the person in question has been charged formally. Regarding unemployment insurance, the present legislation prohibits the disclosure of certain information, but does not prescribe the type of information that can be released in other instances to facilitate investigations.

The amendments contained in this bill will standardize the circumstances under which information can be communicated to the RCMP regarding the three programs I mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, with the new legislation, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada are the three persons to whom the information could be made available. It would be strictly forbidden, under any circumstances, to disclose information concerning any beneficiary to a foreign organization.

In 1985, the federal government instituted the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, presided by the hon. Justice Deschênes. The commission tabled its report in the House of Commons in March of 1987. It recommended that the RCMP and the Department of Justice work together to investigate war crimes that were said to have been committed between 1939 and 1945, that is to say during the last World War.

The report also contained a list of people presumed to be war criminals living in Canada. Both the RCMP and the Department of Justice worked hard to find and charge these people. Unfortunately, this was no easy task. Despite the considerable resources invested by Canada and 17 other countries, the RCMP was unable to find many of those suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity. The lack of information is, of course, the main reason behind this lack of success.

Furthermore, efforts to obtain relevant information overseas were compromised since the information was destroyed. Although such information exists in Canada, it is more often than not impossible to access because of the restrictions imposed, not to make war criminals untouchable but to protect the legitimate rights of honest Canadians.

Given the age of the individuals in question, the clientele of the OAS and the CPP programs, the databases for these programs are clearly a valuable source of information for locating and identifying persons alleged to have committed war crimes. A first step toward providing access to this information was taken in 1992 when the legislation for OAS and CPP was amended to allow the release of confidential information where a criminal charge had been laid.

However the loosening up of the existing restrictions did not prove to be all that helpful to investigators since a charge cannot be laid if the RCMP is not certain that the suspect is in fact a war criminal. Unfortunately the needed information to establish this can only be released after a charge has been laid.

There are two types of information belonging to the unemployment insurance program which could be of value to investigators. The first type is the information given by the persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Given the ages of the suspected war criminals few of them are likely to still be in the labour force let alone collecting unemployment insurance. However, there may be exceptions and providing the RCMP access to UI client information could in fact provide the missing link needed in a few cases.

This type of information will be of valuable assistance in the investigation of modern war crimes and crimes against humanity. As well it would mean that all beneficiary information under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources Development would be treated in essentially the same way for war crimes investigations.

It is also important to emphasize that providing access to client information in this one instance does not mean the government is taking its responsibility to safeguard client information any less seriously. OAS, CPP and UI privacy provisions have always been deliberately restrictive because of the nature of the information collected. Public servants who administer these programs are required to collect personal information from millions of Canadians in order to manage these programs.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the debate on these bills under review this evening gives me the opportunity to dispel certain myths concerning the Criminal Code provision which Bill C-226 would repeal and that is the section providing for a judicial review of the parole ineligibility period.

This provision was adopted in 1976. The legislation adopted at that time stated that people convicted of first degree murder or high treason were to wait for at least 25 years before being allowed to apply for parole and for those convicted of second degree murder, the jury would set a 10- to 25-year parole ineligibility period.

But Parliament was wise enough to determine that in both cases, once the convict had served 15 years of his sentence, a jury could be formed and the parole ineligibility period could be reviewed and revised if appropriate.

This provision was based on the principles of justice and rehabilitation, two principles which are still very sound today. Parliament added that section to the legislation because it believed individuals could improve.

They considered then, and the argument is still valid today, that the possibility for the parole ineligibility period to be reviewed could be an incentive for the convicts to make special rehabilitation efforts.

I should remind you that this provision was linked to the abolition of capital punishment which occurred in several countries where authorities instituted life imprisonment without any eligibility for parole as a compromise to please both those in favour and those against the death sentence.

No doubt the creation of section 745 was unique in the criminal law of the country. However the section was included in the first reading of the original bill in 1976. It was fully reviewed and discussed by the justice and legal affairs committee at that time before it was finally debated and passed by the members of Parliament.

In fact, rather than the original proposal to have three judges to hear a case, Parliament amended the bill so that a jury would decide the case instead. This was done specifically to increase public participation in the process.

Clearly there was debate and communication in the public arena. Efforts were made to make the resulting judicial review hearings as public as possible.

Let me review briefly how the provision works. I think the Reform Party-

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I take offence to the term that Canadians were conned by a piece of legislation.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

I will take you on.