Warren Allmand

[Credentials, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 21 I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Canada would introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention and what Canada was doing to support the enforcement agency which was to be set up in The Hague.

The chemical weapons convention is the result of 24 years of work at the Geneva disarmament conference and had its origins in the first world war when poison gas attacks caused 1.3 million casualties and 100,000 fatalities. Canadians will recall that many Canadian soldiers were killed by gas attacks in the first world war. Therefore this treaty should mean a lot.

Following the first world war and the horror of people all over the world at the use of gas during that conflict, there was an attempt to get a treaty to ban chemical weapons. We did get the 1925 Geneva protocol which banned the use of chemical weapons in war, but there was no enforcement agency and there was no provision against the production or stockpiling or trading in chemical weapons.

This treaty that I am talking about tonight was signed in Paris, France in the middle of January 1993. It bans the use of chemical weapons and also the development, manufacture, distribution, transfer and stockpiling of chemical weapons. It also provides for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of the treaty and provides for penalties when the treaty is broken.

It is the most complete disarmament treaty ever developed and has the most comprehensive system of verification and compliance of any multilateral disarmament treaty.

The problem is that while the treaty was signed by 150 countries, it requires 65 ratifications to make it enforceable. So far only 16 have ratified after nearly two years. Only 16 have ratified and we need 65 to make it enforceable.

I put my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: When will Canada table legislation to ratify this treaty and what is it doing to support the enforcement agency which is called the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons to be set up in The Hague in the Netherlands?

I would hope the minister's parliamentary secretary would have an answer for me tonight.

[Criminal Code, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate to strongly oppose Bill C-226. As has been mentioned the bill would remove the 15-year review with respect to parole eligibility for convicted murderers. I want to make clear that the provision we are talking about does not deal with the reduction of sentence. It deals with a change in the parole eligibility date, that is the date at which an individual offender can go before the parole board and request parole or release on to the street.

We are talking about a provision which can change the parole eligibility date between 15 years and 25 years. It is not a reduction of sentence, because the sentence for murder is a life sentence and a life sentence cannot be changed by any provision in the Criminal Code.

Prior to 1976 when capital punishment was on the books in a very limited way and the sentence for murder was life, the parole eligibility date was 10 years. When it was set at 10 years there were very few tragedies. As a matter of fact the average date of release on parole was not 10 years, although that was the eligibility date. It was more or less 15 years. The average date for people who were paroled was near 15 years. A good number of people who were eligible to go before the parole board at 10 years were never released; they spent their entire lives in prison under a life sentence.

The suggestion that parole eligibility dates mean automatic parole is nonsense, misleads the public and misleads the House.

With the abolition of capital punishment in 1976 once again the sentence for murder was fixed at life. The parole eligibility was set at 10 years for second degree murder and 25 years for first degree murder but with the provision that an offender could seek review of the parole eligibility date at 15 years. Once again I repeat the sentence remained a life sentence.

I hear people talking in this debate, in the press and so on about a 25-year sentence being reduced to 15 years. That is not the case. By the way, no one is automatically released at either 15 or at 25 years. Offenders are paroled by the parole board and not by the provision of section 745. They are subject to conditions of parole, must report to a parole officer and can be returned to prison to continue a life sentence if they commit not only a minor offence but if they break the conditions of parole. I will deal with that in a minute.

A person on parole is serving his sentence on the street, outside the institution, rather than serving it inside the institution. Under the section 745 process the offender must apply to the court in the province where the offence was committed for a review of his parole eligibility date. If the parole eligibility date was 25 years, the offender can ask the court to reduce it to at least 15 years. It can be set at any time between 15 and 25 years. The matter goes to a jury and the jury can only make a decision to reduce the eligibility date with a two-thirds majority; it is not a simple majority.

If the jury reduces the parole eligibility date by a two-thirds vote the person is not released as suggested by the Reform member who spokes a few minutes before me. When the date arrives, if it is 17 years, the individual offender must go to the parole board to prove that he is no longer a danger to the public and has been rehabilitated. If he cannot prove that he is not paroled. It is never automatic. It is not automatic with the section 745 process and it is not automatic before the parole board.

Furthermore the provision is not a loophole, nor was it ever hidden. It is a very specific provision written into law and set out very clearly. When members of Parliament voted on the measure in 1976 they knew exactly what it was and so did the press. It was not hidden. It was in the bill like any other measure. It can be read in the law right now. It is not a gap or a crack in the law. It was provided for intentionally. It was Liberal Party policy put forward by a Liberal government and supported by the majority in the Liberal Party and by the majority in the House. It is consistent with long time Liberal policy.

Why is it there? It was put there because we in the Liberal Party believe that a reasonable parole eligibility provision is an incentive to reform. It gives hope. It provides for correction. It provides for redemption. It provides for an opportunity to start over again. It is also a control mechanism. When there are reasonable parole provisions people who work in the penitentiary or the institution can expect that prisoners will attempt to behave well. There are carrots or sticks and parole is a type of carrot which is an incentive to good behaviour and to reform.

In addition, if the person is really reformed and no longer a danger to the public, that person after 15 years can be put back on the street to earn his or her living, to support his or her family and to pay taxes rather than being paid for by the state while in prison, while the family is being supported by welfare. I am talking about a person who is no longer a danger to the public, who is no longer a risk and who is deemed to be rehabilitated by the parole board.

This is a Liberal Party policy and always has been. I can understand members of the Liberal Party wanting to change it if it did not work, if there was some massive failure in the 745 provision, but that is not the case. Since 1976 when this provision was brought in, 128 people have been eligible to apply under section 745.

Only 71 people have applied. The others perhaps felt they would not be accepted and did not even bother applying. As of March 31, of the 71 that have applied, 43 cases have been heard by courts with judge and jury. Of those 43, 19 were granted full reduction from 25 years to 15, 13 were granted a partial reduction, which means somewhere between 25 and 15, and 11 were denied any reduction whatsoever.

My colleague from the Reform Party did not mention that those persons that were granted a reduction in parole eligibility date were not released from prison. They had to go to the parole board when the eligibility date came up to apply for parole. What happened to them? After a change in their parole eligibility date, 30 of those cases finally went to the parole board. Of those only 11 were granted full parole; 6 were granted day parole; 2 were granted temporary absence and 11 were denied any kind of parole.

Through this provision, of the 128 eligible since 1976, only 2 have been returned to prison. One was returned, not for committing an offence, but for breaking the conditions of parole while out on the street. This person was put back in to serve a life sentence because the conditions of parole were broken. The other was put back in for an armed robbery offence.

It means that out of 128 eligible people, one person was returned to prison for committing another offence. That is not a failure of the provision. Kinsella was mentioned in the examples that were given. Kinsella was turned down by the system.

I have heard reference to Clifford Olson as if he was going to be accepted for parole. Of course Clifford Olson will have the right to go to the court in 15 years and ask for parole eligibility to be reduced, but he will never get it. He would have to go before the parole board.

I ask my colleagues to look at the profiles of the cases of those who have been released and those who have been turned down. They would realize that it is a red herring to suggest that Clifford Olson would be released under this provision. Charles Manson in the United States has gone to the parole board in that country six times because he was eligible. He has been turned down every time. He is not reformed, he is not rehabilitated and he is still a danger to the public. It is not automatic. We are simply talking about parole eligibility date.

The Liberal Party definition of justice is not the Reform Party definition of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is not revenge. That is not our definition of justice. We believe the purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the public, including the public who work in prisons: the teachers; the correctional officers; all the people that must work in prison. They deserve protection too. That is the purpose of the criminal justice system. We believe that one of the best ways of protecting the public is by rehabilitation through treatment, through correction.

Once people are rehabilitated and no longer a danger to the public it is ridiculous to keep them in prison forever, when they can be on the street doing good. One of the persons released under this provision won the medal for the best volunteer in Montreal a few years ago. That person came out of prison and established a reputation as an outstanding volunteer in the community.

My time is up, but I want to say that the bill being presented by my colleague is not a Liberal bill. It is more of a Reform Party policy rather than a Liberal policy and it should be defeated.

[Justice, October 26th, 1994]

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

Recently the minister decided to consider the case of Patrick Kelly under article 690 of the Criminal Code, which allows the minister to order a new trial when a conviction is based on false evidence.

However, as the minister knows, there has been a lot of criticism of the 690 process, that the criteria are vague, it is secret, too long and not independent.

When will the minister act to meet these criticisms and reform the 690 process?

[Chemical Weapons, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

In January 1993 Canada and over 100 countries signed an historic treaty to ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons. Unfortunately after nearly two years only 14 countries have ratified this treaty, when 65 ratifications are required to make it enforceable.

Would the minister say when Canada will introduce ratification legislation and what Canada is doing to support the enforcement agency to be set up in the Hague?

[Via Rail, October 18th, 1994]

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

Last Friday when VIA Rail announced that it was cutting another 478 jobs, half of them being in Montreal, it stated that it would be done without a cut in service.

Would the minister please explain how VIA can cut 478 jobs and not reduce service to the public? Why is VIA still pursuing a downsizing policy introduced by the Conservative government in 1993?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in answer to the question yes, it should be a real insurance program. I refer to the program in Germany where the Germans have a quasi-public corporation made up of employers and employee representatives. They decide what the rate of premium should be and what the rate of benefits should be. It is strictly an unemployment insurance program and has been proposed by some of the unions in Canada.

With respect to those who have high wages and those who have lower wages, the member knows that even under the present system there are caps on what the high wage earner will contribute and there are caps on what they will receive.

What the $50,000 a year man might receive in unemployment insurance benefits is nowhere near his $50,000 income. We have four categories of contributions and four categories of benefits. They are subject to fairly low limits when one considers the plight they face today.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, this paper identifies some real problems with our social security system. I congratulate the government for putting those problems before us and offering some alternative solutions.

I also said it emphasized some goals which I approve of. I approve of the goal of eliminating child poverty. I approve of the goal of eliminating the disincentives from the welfare system. On the other hand I said I had serious concerns about some of the alternative proposals for unemployment insurance and for assistance to the universities.

I speak with respect to unemployment insurance because I was the critic in opposition for five years on questions of unemployment insurance and employment. For five years I was the critic for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I criticized both Flora MacDonald and Bernard Valcourt when they brought in bills which did some of these things.

Our government is putting forward this discussion paper in an attempt to get some discussion started on how to deal with the problems in the system. I do not deny there are problems in the system. The discussion paper has overlooked the fact that we have many one-industry towns in Canada, that we have many seasonal workers, that we have many workers who are fully trained. They do not need training when they are unemployed, they need enough money to help them and their families.

I am being consistent with the position I have taken for years and years, especially with respect to the Conservative government under Brian Mulroney who made some very terrible changes in the unemployment insurance system. I hope we do not do this. I hope some of these things are not written in stone, that they are not the last word. That is what a discussion paper is supposed to be.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, tonight we are debating the government's discussion paper on social security in Canada entitled "Jobs and Growth". I must say that I take the government at its word when it says this is a discussion paper. It is not a law or bill as I heard a few minutes ago from one of the Bloc Quebecois members. It is not the last word. It is not cast in stone. It is a discussion paper.

It covers such things as unemployment insurance, the Canada assistance plan, assistance to post-secondary education, training, child support and some other matters. However it does not cover our pension program, nor does it cover our medicare program which are being examined in other studies. Many of us are extremely interested in knowing what proposals will come out of those studies.

This discussion paper has certainly identified some serious problems and I congratulate the government for doing that. It has identified the very serious problem of child poverty. It has identified the problems of disincentives for work in many of our welfare programs, and other things.

It has also emphasized some excellent goals. For example there is the goal of lifelong training, the need to continually upgrade our training and our ability to compete in the modern world. There is the goal of a national day care program to permit many women to go to work and earn their living.

All that having been said, I have some serious concerns about some of the proposals in this discussion paper. First of all, with respect to unemployment insurance, if I understand it correctly the paper proposes a 10 per cent cut in unemployment insurance benefits amounting to about $1.7 billion. This is on top of the cuts of about $2.4 billion that were made in the government's budget in the spring.

The government says in this discussion paper that these cuts in unemployment insurance benefits will be used for training. Well, let me point out that historically in this country the unemployment insurance fund was never used for training. It was used to provide support for persons who were unemployed against their will. It helped them to buy the food that was necessary for their family, to pay the rent and to pay the necessary expenses while they were unemployed. It was only under the Tory government of Brian Mulroney that moneys were taken in large amounts out of the unemployment insurance fund to pay for training. Historically that fund was never meant for training and it was not used for training for years and years.

Also, I have a concern that in taking so much money out of the unemployment insurance fund and reducing benefits we are going to leave short those people who are already fully trained. There are many unemployed people who are fully trained. What they need to help them are jobs. They do not need more training. What they need is enough money to keep them and their families going until the next job comes along, until the economy improves.

I am also concerned about the unemployment insurance proposals because of what they might do to seasonal employees. I listened to a member of the Reform Party who suggested that seasonal employees prefer to go on what he calls the pogey. Very few workers prefer to go on the pogey. As a matter of fact as a result of amendments made to the act under the Conservatives if you leave employment you totally lose your unemployment insurance benefits.

I am familiar with the construction industry. The people in Canada's construction industry have a tough time during the winter. They would prefer to work the whole year long, but it is difficult to do that in many parts of Canada because of our climate. They do not prefer to go on unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is a definite reduction in income for them but it is all they have in the winter, even though their wages are good when they are working.

The other thing they must keep in mind is that Canada is a country with many one industry towns. There are people living in towns that for example are almost completely mining towns, such as Sudbury, Ontario. For people who are fully trained and excellent workers in the mining industry when the world market for a metal goes down and all those people are put out of work, it is not a question of retraining. It is a question of making sure those workers have enough money to see them through until the market price for copper, nickel, or whatever goes up again.

I can remember a few years ago when the market prices for copper plunged. Thousands of workers were put out of work in Sudbury. These were fully trained, highly skilled mining workers but thank god for the unemployment insurance system because it saw them through until the market prices for those metals went up again.

There are many one industry towns in Canada, whether they are lumber towns, mining towns, railroad towns and so on.

Finally, I have to ask whether any government now has the right to tamper with the unemployment insurance program. The Mulroney Tories withdrew the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund which was about $4 billion. Before Mulroney did that the unemployment insurance fund was made up of contributions from workers, employers and the government out of general revenue, especially when the rate of unemployment went above 6 per cent. Mulroney stopped that and we criticized Mulroney severely for doing that.

Now many workers and unions say if it is only workers and employers who are contributing to the fund, they should control the fund as is done in Germany. In Germany a corporation is made up of representatives from the unions and the employers which controls the unemployment insurance fund, sets the benefits, sets the rates of contribution and so on. I have concern about that.

I am fully in support of the goal in the paper that we need much more training. Of course we need much more training but not as we said in previous years out of the unemployment insurance fund. Training benefits the whole society. It should be paid for out of general revenue and not by the contributions of workers and employers who are contributing to a fund that is to see them through when they are unfortunately put out of work. Therefore I have concern about that particular provision.

I also have concern about this concept that jobs are the answer to the poverty and the social security problem in Canada. There are many working poor in Canada. For many young people a job alone is not the answer. We must look at what kind of jobs people are getting these days. There are a growing number of people, especially women, working in service type jobs. They get minimum wage, it is temporary or part time work, no union, no benefits. They cannot start a family. It is almost impossible for a young person to get ahead in those kinds of jobs.

Somebody mentioned McDonald's. Unfortunately there are too many people working in McDonald's type jobs. I like a big mac from time to time myself but that is not the type of employment which is going to enable people to get married, start a family and buy a home.

I am also concerned with the provisions in the paper with respect to universities. Under the present program the government gives money to the provinces to assist with post-secondary education. We know that money is committed-there have been some problems with some provinces-but it is committed to the universities. The universities to a certain extent have some guarantee of funding with that money.

Under this proposal we terminate that type of funding. We give more money to students so that they will have more money, it is said, to pay tuition at whatever university they please. With this proposal we will find that universities are left in a doubtful position. They have guarantees of funding now. They will not have guarantees. There will be very serious risks. Students may decide not to go to university. They may decide not to get those loans. They should, but they may not.

We in Canada need world class universities. In my city of Montreal I would say we have four world class universities: McGill, Université de Montréal, Concordia, Université du Québec à Montréal. With this kind of proposal I do not know what will happen to those types of what I call world class universities, when they are not assured of that type of funding.

In conclusion, I have to say I do not know to what extent this reform package is being driven by demands of the Department of Finance and the problems of the deficit. All I can say is that we said in the election campaign that we would deal with the deficit by economic growth and jobs, not by cuts. Consequently, I am a bit concerned by what I read in this paper.

I am also concerned by the suggestion that there is not enough money for these types of social programs. I believe we should cut out waste wherever waste is present, but on the other hand I see too many instances in our society where there is waste in consumption. We are closing hospitals. At the same time there is an unbridled pressure to buy more and more consumer goods which are not essential.

Madam Speaker, I see you signalling my time is up. Let me say this: There are some good proposals in this document, but there are some that give me grave concern. I will reserve judgment on those. I will see how the discussion goes in the country. I encourage Canadians to participate in the discussion, but I hope these proposals are not the last word, that they are not written in stone.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

That is it.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were in the period of questions and comments. This is not supposed to be a period for another speech. I was expecting the hon. member to put a question to her colleague or to make some short comments in accordance with the rule, but it certainly is not an opportunity to make another speech.