Lee Morrison

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating two things simultaneously today. Primarily and foremost of course is the matter of the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole, but we are also discussing and have discussed at some length the failure of the government to support and live up to a promise which is contained in the famous red book.

There are some members opposite who have read it. There are some who, we found by their own admission today, have not. Nevertheless, this is the holy bible of the Government of Canada, Le petit livre rouge du président, s'il vous plaît. I would refer to it as the red book of musings, a list of promises to be kept if convenient and ignored if inconvenient.

The other day we heard that 78 per cent of the promises in this infamous document have been kept.

I had a rather interesting conversation on the day the announcement was made with a very devout Liberal. I use the word devout advisedly because every time the Prime Minister's name is mentioned in this lady's presence she genuflects. Her exact words were: "My, but it must be nice to be able to write your own report card". That statement was made by a Liberal.

Let us forget about this fraudulent red book for a moment and consider the public position of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He wrote a very scholarly report in which he recommended, without reservation, that two of the deputy speakers be chosen from among members of the opposition. There is no equivocation about that. That was his professional opinion. I would submit that it was a very sound opinion.

I have seen the hon. member sitting opposite. When this particular matter is raised he laughs quite openly. His head is rolled back and his hands are out. He finds it hilarious. I would submit that rather than taking this as a big joke, perhaps he should be reconsidering his contradictory position and withdrawing his name for consideration for this appointment.

It has been suggested by members opposite that if the government did accept the recommendations of the member for Kingston and the Islands and appointed someone from this side of the House that they would be duty bound to appoint a separatist because they form the official opposition. I do not know where that idea comes from. Certainly there is nothing in the standing orders which would suggest that it would have to be done that way. As a matter of fact, they have already bestowed an awful lot of positions, benefits, goodies, whatever you want to call them, on their dear friends in the official opposition by appointing every single committee vice-chair from that particular caucus.

Rather than get into a cat fight over that particular issue, I have a modest proposal, which is made on the assumption that the amendment we are now debating will be defeated. The government can do anything it wishes in the House. If our amendment is defeated and if the member for Kingston and the Islands will reconsider his contradictory position, my proposal is that this appointment should be from one of the smaller groups in the House. My modest proposal-and I hope it is not out of order-is that consideration be given to the member for Yukon. I think that

would be acceptable to all and sundry, certainly on this side of the House.

That is not a motion. If it were it would be out of order. However, if we did that it would eliminate the taint of blatant patronage.

Speaking of patronage, since we have veered rather steeply into that area in this debate, I find it rather interesting that both my Liberal opponent in the 1993 election and his campaign manager have received very lucrative appointments to federal boards. How does that square with the red book of maybes, or the red book of possibilities?

I hope the government and particularly the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will give some thought to what I have said today. My proposal is made in all sincerity. If lightning strikes and the heavens fall and our amendment is actually accepted by this House, then my proposal will become redundant and will be of no importance. Since I do not expect that to happen, I wish that in order to instil a little more democracy in this place and a little more respect-

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River raised a very relevant point in his presentation in relating what is happening here today to what happens with regularity in committee. That is the collusion of this government with the official opposition to cause vice-chairs to be selected by appointment, and there is no other word for it other than appointment, rather than by election. We want the position under discussion today be an elected one. We also want all other important functions outside of the House, in committee, done by a fair election, preferably by secret ballot.

Does the hon. member for North Island-Powell River think that would be practical?

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, would the hon. member for St. Albert comment on a comment made by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal who said we are wasting the time of the House by debating this very clear matter of principle.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion about exactly what we are debating here today. The title of Bill C-29 is to regulate the interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.

This is not about protecting the environment. It is not about members of Parliament making technical decisions beyond their

competency and it is not about this House acting as refereebetween two extremely powerful lobby groups.

This bill is related strictly to international and interprovincial trade, what can be traded and what cannot. Why, therefore, is this bill being brought forward by the Minister of the Environment? This makes no sense at all.

The Liberals have been opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement in the past but now they are its strongest supporters. If Bill C-29 is passed, there is going to be trouble with our trade partners in the NAFTA agreement. There will be a dispute. This government could save itself embarrassment. It could save the country embarrassment by dropping this whole bill completely.

The Minister for International Trade agrees with what I have said. He is very concerned about the possible passage of this bill. He fears for the reputation of Canada in the international trading community.

I wish to read for the record a letter that the Minister for International Trade wrote to the Minister of the Environment on February 23, 1996:

Dear Sergio:

I understand that you are considering the reintroduction of Bill C-94 in the upcoming session. My department continues to have certain reservations concerning this measure, which I wish to draw to your attention.

One of the original arguments favouring the ban on MMT was that the United States already prohibited its use as a petroleum additive. Recently the U.S. Court of Appeal overturned the U.S. ban. This has effectively removed harmonization arguments in support of Bill C-94. Indeed, since adding MMT to petroleum products is now permissible in the U.S., harmonization would now be promoted by introducing no new Canadian regulations.

An import prohibition on MMT would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the WTO and NAFTA: (1) it would constitute an impermissible prohibition on imports, particularly if domestic production, sale and use is not similarly prohibited, and (2) it could not be justified on health or environmental grounds given current scientific evidence.

The United States trade representative-is monitoring the situation closely. There is the possibility that the United States could mount a challenge, either on USTR's own initiative or pursuant to a Section 301 petition; Ethyl Corp., the American producer of MMT, has indicated that it most certainly intends to file such a petition. Also, Ethyl Corp. may try to advance an argument that such a ban would be a measure tantamount to expropriation of Ethyl's investment in Canada. Thus, Canada may also be susceptible to an investor-state challenge under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

There has been heated debate surrounding the exact effects of banning MMT. The claims of the automotive and petroleum industries conflict markedly, with little common ground between them. Testing is only now starting in the United States, with unambiguous results some years away.

In view of the Presidential and Congressional elections this year, American politicians are particularly sensitive to any foreign initiative which might injure their domestic industries.

In conclusion, let me stress my department's belief that Bill C-94 should not be re-introduced as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade, without compensating environmental benefits.

It is signed by the Minister for International Trade.

I am sure the House is aware that Bill C-94, to which this letter refers, is the precise equivalent of Bill C-29 which we are debating here today.

In view of this, I move:

That all the words after the word "that" be deleted, and the following substituted therefor:

This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-29, An act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances, since the bill fails to address the impact of the import prohibition on certain manganese based substances on international trade.

[Canada Shipping Act, October 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, the Reform Party's critic for transport, along with several other members of the transport committee, was involved in a transport problem. Their bus was hit by a flying wheel from another vehicle, and so today you are getting the B team. It is most unfortunate. It seems to be endemic in the province of Ontario. Maybe they should start tying the wheels on to their equipment.

The Reform Party supports the hon. minister's motion that this bill be sent to committee forthwith. It is good legislation. It addresses a problem of great magnitude.

There is a longstanding and ongoing problem in the shipping industry relative to this which is the indirect cause of an awful lot of problems in the marine environment. Many ships are flying flags of convenience and therefore it is very difficult to enforce environmental regulations, safety regulations, labour regulations and so on against them.

Canada has some means under existing law of exerting pressure on its nationals to register. This mechanism is simply to deny access to Canadian ports to foreign registered ships that do not meet our safety, sanitation and environmental standards. However, some ships that fly flags of convenience will slip through that net even though they do meet those standards. They fly flags of

convenience primarily to avoid labour laws and taxes. It is very difficult to deal with these ships.

I have a very modest proposal. Since the Minister of Canadian Heritage is giving away free Canadian flags, maybe she could give some to the Minister of Finance to put on certain ships, of which we are all well aware in this House, that are presently flying foreign flags.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, having used the GPS myself in my line of work, I did not really need that explanation as to how it functions.

The point is, if we can tell where someone is who is wearing the bracelet, that will not help anyone if the police take three-quarters of an hour to get there. If someone is really dedicated to harming a person, it will not stop them.

There are many places in my riding where the potential victim might have to wait for two hours for police assistance. The hon. member is wearing his urban blinders. He does not realize that the whole country is not Toronto.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that wearing an electronic bracelet will protect anyone who is truly in danger. I have never heard such an absurdity in my life.

There are provisions in the Criminal Code and someone can be prosecuted for stalking, for uttering threats. These should be rigorously enforced and with due process. That is the key phrase. That is something Liberals should learn. They should write it on their blackboards: due process. We have 200 years of tradition in this country.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

The hon. member says he would have to appear before a judge. That is quite correct. Who makes the decision of whether one appears before a judge? The crown attorney. No charges need be laid.

The government's approach to justice is developing a very frightening pattern. Vicious convicted criminals are assured of due process and every possible consideration of their rights but ordinary citizens had better beware because it will be possible under this legislation to impose criminal sanctions on the basis of rumour, misinformation or malice. If someone is having boundary troubles with a neighbour and has had heated words with that individual, watch out, they could end up with an electronic bracelet around the ankle if the fellow is well enough connected.

If someone is involved in a dispute with a vindictive or vengeful ex-spouse, watch out, he or she could end up with an electronic bracelet around the ankle. As a matter of fact, anybody could.

All of this is not really surprising when we consider the past Liberal record toward civil liberties. It was a Liberal government that incarcerated Japanese Canadians during the war without any formal legal proceedings. It was a Liberal government that invented the War Measures Act and used it in peacetime. It was a Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68 which, if it is ever enforced exactly as it is written, would require penalties for even the mere possession of an unregistered firearm which could be

stiffer than penalties people are receiving right now for assault, arson or drunk driving causing death.

It is absurd, but that is the Liberal concept of justice: treat vicious, depraved monsters with a lot of TLC but come down like a ton of bricks on ordinary citizens who for one reason or another just do not fit in or who do not conform. This is the Liberal social engineering tactic. It is a kick them in the head philosophy we have lived with for the better part of a half century. This is just a logical continuation of what we have been about.

I hope there are people opposite-they are not sitting there right now-who care about civil liberties so that when the amendments which we will be proposing to this bill come before the committee, the section on judicial restraint will be stricken from the proposed legislation. It is a brutal and indiscriminate infringement on personal liberty that unduly violates the civil rights of everyone.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

It is easy for the hon. member to say we cannot. If we do not have that then any prisoner who refuses to co-operate in any sort of counselling or rehabilitative program cannot be nailed. He will still get out in the usual period of time.

The minimum sentence for dangerous offenders will now be increased from three to seven years. I approve of that but in the end, dangerous offenders will continue to be turned loose on society, and that is wrong. The 10 year supervision, as I understand the act, is not aimed at dangerous offenders. It is aimed at what is referred to by the member as long term offenders such as pedophiles, people who are not considered potentially very brutal, sadistic and extremely undesirable folks.

Unfortunately, while this act will religiously protect the rights of the convicted, the justice minister has no compunction in the same bill in threatening the rights of people who have never been convicted of anything or even charged with a crime. Under his judicial restraint section, a person deemed likely to commit a serious crime can be required to accept supervision, including the wearing of an electronic bracelet, for up to one year without being convicted of anything or even formally charged. All it would take to set the process in motion would be for a crown attorney to believe that a person might injure someone. So much for the hard won principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.

[The Criminal Code, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island-Powell River.

Before I enter into my semi-prepared remarks, I will comment on something the member said about the declining crime rate. I think we have heard this convenient juggling of statistics about eight times in the House today.

Yes, there has been a temporary blip in the last couple of years in the rate of violent crime, a slight decrease. But if we do statistical analyses-if members do not believe me, talk to people at Statistics Canada-we do not go on blips. We take the long term timeline. In this case we can take it over the period beginning with 1962.

There has been a steady progressive increase in the rate of violent crime. During this period there have been years when the crime rate has dropped precipitously. There have been years when it has risen precipitously. But if we look at the trend, there has been an increase of almost 400 per cent since 1962. That is the gospel according to StatsCan and we all know that the Liberal government never argues with anything StatsCan says.

This bill, as with so many other major pieces of legislation brought forth by the Liberal government, is like the bishop's egg, it is good in parts. However, it always has the problem of making it this grand melange of the good and the bad which makes it almost impossible for any normal human being to either support or oppose it. This is strategy. Fine.

The thing I could support and which I do not find offensive in the bill is that the crown will no longer have to apply immediately for dangerous offender classification when a prisoner is sentenced. It will have as much as a six month window of opportunity in which to do it. I do not object to that at all, but I wish the government had gone the whole nine yards and allowed the crown to make dangerous offender applications through the entire length of the sentence.