Bryon Wilfert

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-10 since I once held the position of president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I would like to clear up a misunderstanding that has been presented to the House.

This legislation is something that the FCM has wanted since the arbitrary freeze and the 10% reduction the Tories brought in in December 1992. Two weeks ago federal officials briefed the FCM on the policy initiatives and proposed regulations in the bill. While it is true that the FCM general membership has not had a chance to review the details, the executive director of the FCM and the director of policy have reviewed it. I can say from long experience if there were problems in the bill, I for one would have received a call because I am in constant contact with my municipal colleagues.

This bill is something we have wanted for many years, particularly since the December 1992 announcement by the then Conservative Minister of Finance who brought in the 10% reduction. This is an extremely important bill for municipal governments.

To clarify in terms of how we got to this stage, the Municipal Grants Act and various acts establishing crown corporations provided for federal payments in lieu of taxes, PILTs, based on local property taxes in 1950 following years of persistent representations by the FCM. The purpose of making the PILTs is to ensure that the federal government meets its financial obligations to those municipal governments where federal properties are located. In this way we underline the principles of fairness and equity so that they are upheld.

In 1992 the federal government paid $426 million on departmental properties. In addition, federal crown corporations responsible to the treasury board paid $175 million. In December 1992 the Conservative government imposed a two year freeze on property taxes without any consultation. This was done at a time when many municipal governments had already established their 1993 budgets. The freeze was clearly arbitrary. No concern for any of the levels of property tax payments was expressed when this was done.

An important principle behind federal payment of property taxes is that municipal governments and local taxpayers should not be at a disadvantage for having a federal property in the community which could otherwise be taxed at the applicable rate. All properties should be taxed equally regardless of ownership.

What happened in 1992? The Conservatives imposed a freeze on crown corporations with unfair tax advantages over the private sector competition, at the expense of homeowners and businesses. As the largest property owner and taxing authority in this country, the Canadian government set a dangerous example when it declared a freeze on property taxes to some 2,200 municipal governments with federal properties. This 10% reduction was unacceptable to the municipal leaders and to the general public.

Fortunately in 1993 this government came to power. It sent out an immediate note that it was prepared to work with municipal governments. I would point out that in 1993 it was this government which supported the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in its national infrastructure program. It was this government which supported and has promoted the 20% club, which is to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% over 10 years. It was this government which supported municipal governments and provided the tools when it came to urban crime and safety issues.

This government has nothing to apologize for on this issue. This government clearly has worked every step of the way with municipal governments to make sure that the legislation which they have been asking for is before the House today.

After the 1993 election the newly elected Liberal government committed that all increases in PILTs on departmental properties would be met for the second and final year of the freeze. The freeze on crown corporations was lifted outright in the second year.

Moreover, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the President of the Treasury Board agreed in 1995 to negotiations with the FCM on longstanding municipal concerns respecting laws and regulations governing PILTs. Rules governing federal payments respecting law regulations have long been an issue between the federal and municipal governments. 1996-97 was a watershed. The FCM and federal officials had intensive negotiations. My colleague from the New Democratic Party referred to the technical steering committee that was set up. That culminated in an agreement in 1997.

I was present when that agreement was reached. My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River was one who was concerned as well when he was mayor. Issues such as the following ones were agreed to. Interest on late payments would come into effect. There would be improved assurance on payment amounts and greater timeliness of payments. The federal government and crown corporations would begin to make PILTs on property improvements subordinate to buildings commonly found in the private sector, including fencing, paving, sidewalks, et cetera.

I am very pleased that the government has now brought legislation to the House which will modernize the Municipal Grants Act to improve fairness and equity. What is very important to municipal leaders is that we now have predictability of federal payments in lieu of taxes to approximately 2,000 municipal governments.

I congratulate the minister of public works and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the work they have done over the years which has led to this historic occasion. The legislation has been changed to payments in lieu of taxes. That in itself is an important recognition. The federal government is not giving out grants. It is paying taxes like everyone else. It is no different from anyone else and it is prepared to pay on time like everyone else.

A goodwill clause has been introduced to better reflect the nature of the program and the relationship between the federal government as a property owner and municipal governments. Of particular importance, and what highlights the very positive relationship which has developed since the coming to power of the Liberal government, is that despite recent increases in payments in lieu of taxes brought about by provincial assessment and taxation reform, there is nothing in this legislative package which causes a reduction in the payment to a single municipal government. The government could always appeal its assessment like we can, but it would go through the same process.

I had the opportunity to consult with municipal leaders in my riding during the summer last year. The feedback was extremely positive. Many of the issues raised are now contained in the legislation.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services has clearly listened. The parliamentary secretary to the minister indicated the minister had 11 consultations around the country. The feedback was extremely positive. The government, rather than imposing freezes or reductions, has been working co-operatively and constructively with municipal governments, particularly with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I am very delighted to note that many of the issues have been addressed.

The legislation empowers the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to pay at his discretion supplementary amounts when payments are delayed. A dispute advisory panel can be established under the act with expert representation from all provinces and territories to recommend to the minister appropriate solutions for disputes by municipal governments and the department concerning payment accounts. It also commits to meeting municipal payment schedules when information is provided on an equivalent basis to that accorded to taxable persons. There is the introduction of compensation for late payments and authority to make payments when tenants on federal properties default on their tax obligations.

These are important changes under which the government accepts a position much closer to that of other property owners regarding its tax obligations. What a difference seven years makes. This bill marks a turning point in the federal government's relations with municipal governments through co-operation, consultation and respect. These changes confirm a new era.

If there are concerns by the opposition or if some municipal governments look at the bill and want to slightly change it, after this bill is passed at second reading it will go to committee. I presume that is where, if needed, any i 's will be dotted or t 's will be crossed.

Canada's largest urban centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal will benefit significantly from these changes. There will be no more unilateral tax freezes, no more tax reductions by the federal government and no more changes without consultation.

We have to work together remembering that there is only one taxpayer. The goal of the government is very clear. For federal leaders and municipal leaders, it is the same. We have the common goal to serve the taxpayer best.

This bill fulfils the commitment which the government made when it came to power in 1993 having been part of the negotiations from 1993 to 1997. It is a commitment I am very proud of. The government has this legislation before the House.

The FCM was very anxious that this legislation came before the House because it provides the predictability. It provides the fairness. It provides the equity. These are things which those of us who have been involved in this issue for some time have wanted. This legislation recognizes the realities of the 1990s. It is legislation that is modern and reflects the desire of governments to deal with each other in a fair and clear manner.

[Veterans Week, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of Veterans Week, a week when we remember the sacrifices of all those who served for Canada.

This year I would like to pay tribute to our Canadian war artists. Through Max Aitken's efforts during the first world war, over 850 works including paintings, sculptures and prints were brought together in the Canadian War Memorial's collection.

During the second world war, Vincent Massey and the director of the National Gallery, H. O. McCurry, compiled a collection of over 1,000 creations. The entire collection from both world wars was transferred to the Canadian War Museum in 1971.

This museum presently displays only a fraction of the collection.

One year and one day ago the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced that a piece of land near CFB Rockcliffe would be held for a new facility. It is time that we honour all those who served this country of ours and especially our Canadian war artists by displaying their works with dignity and pride in a new home worthy of their sacrifices.

[Historica, October 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I thank and congratulate Mr. Charles Bronfman and Mr. Red Wilson, co-founders of Historica, and their supporters.

They have just launched Historica, a new foundation that will bring more Canadian history into our classrooms. It will act as an umbrella organization for other established Canadian heritage groups and will use television, film and the Internet to help educate people on Canada's history.

The foundation will establish a website where we will be able to access a Canadian encyclopedia. It will include chat rooms so Canadians from coast to coast to coast can talk on line in both English and French. It will also provide a directory of Canadian Internet addresses so students can find direct links to other Canadian history sites.

When polls show that young people are not sure who Pierre Trudeau is and only half can name Sir John A. Macdonald as our first prime minister, I applaud this initiative to promote the study of Canadian history.

It says on the website “celebrating our past, sharing our future”. What could be more important?

[Canadian Volunteer Advisers To Business, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I acknowledge the outstanding efforts of one of my constituents, Mr. Tom Gibson.

Accompanied by his wife Betty, he went on assignment to Lithuania with the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business. He spent six weeks in Vilnius, advising the municipality of the establishment of a tourism advisory board and preparing a business plan for the tourism department.

He drafted a constitution for the board modelled on Ontario bylaws and proposed the list of initial members. He developed the composition, duties and responsibilities of the board and contact associations, indirect suppliers and allied organizations.

Mr. Gibson expects the result of his work will be improved working relations between the municipality and the tourism industry. I ask the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Gibson for his fine work as a volunteer for the Canadian Volunteers Advisers to Business in this, its 31st year of service.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the greedy ambitions. I would point out to the hon. member that currently about 30% of the fund is supplied by the employees and the rest has been picked up obviously by the taxpayers. There is no question that when there was a shortfall it was covered by the taxpayers. One would assume then that there is a significant surplus. It has been pointed out by the actuary. There is more The fact is that there is more than enough in the fund to take out the $30 billion and it will be protected.

In whose interest is it? I would presume it is in the interests of the Canadian public, those who are contributing by way of being a taxpayer and those who are contributing by being a member of the plan. In both cases the moneys are there. This is something we accept in this society.

In terms of fairness, if one reads the legislation one would come to the conclusion that if the fund is covered during shortfall times, the moneys would come out when there is a surplus.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that what I have outlined clearly illustrates the improvements to the plan. If anyone is concerned it is probably because they have been listening to the fearmongering by some members on the other side.

The benefits, as outlined extensively by members on this side of the House, clearly indicate that there are significant improvements. There is nothing to fear because the moneys will be there and there by law. I do not know what could be clearer than that. The moneys are there by law. If there is a shortfall it will covered. That has been the case all along and will continue to be so.

I would suggest to the hon. member that the old saying “There is nothing to fear but fear itself”, in this case there is nothing to fear at all because it has been clearly outlined in black and white. If the member reviews the bill again I am sure he will come to the same conclusion.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.

It my pleasure to speak today on the employee benefit improvements that will ensue from the legislation before us. The first thing I must do is clarify that as far as retirement benefits are concerned, improvements are the only effects that will ensue from the government proposals.

It has been alleged that the government proposals will somehow diminish the pension benefits of federal retirees and employees. I want to make it clear that this is absolutely false. Public service pension benefits are protected and guaranteed by law. Nothing in the bill will or can diminish those benefits. They will continue in full and be fully indexed for inflation as before.

Far from diminishing benefits, they will actually improve the employee benefit package in several concrete ways. As members may recall, two of these improvements have already been discussed in the House. They were introduced in the recent budget bill and will come into force on passage of that bill. Both involve changing the formulas used for calculating benefits and both changes favour the plan member.

The first formula to be changed is the basic one used to calculate retirement benefits for the public service pension plan. Up until now, that formula has been based on the plan member's average salary over six consecutive years of highest paid service. Other public sector pension plans use five as the number of consecutive years in their formula. From now on, under the amended legislation, so will public pension plans. In most cases, averaging over five years instead of six will mean greater benefits for plan members on retirement.

The second formula relates to the integration of the public service pension benefits with those of the Canada and Quebec pension plans. This new formula will produce a somewhat smaller reduction in benefits at that point. Two small changes in formula amounting to two concrete improvements to benefits for current members of the public service pensions.

The legislation before us today further improves the pension benefit package for federal employees. A proposed change will allow a survivor to waive entitlement to benefits after a member's death in specific circumstances.

Another change facilitating the administration of survivor benefit provisions will allow a survivor who cannot be located to be disentitled to survivor benefits. Currently, final determination of the payment of survival benefits can be delayed indefinitely when a survivor cannot be found. This is clearly unfair to those other persons whose benefits are affected.

Finally, for cases where two survivors are entitled to an annuity in respect of one plan member, the method of determining the percentage of the annuity payable to each survivor will be set out in the legislation. Specifically, each survivor will receive an amount that is directly related to the length of time he or she contributed with the deceased contributor in relation to the total amount of time the deceased cohabited with both survivors.

The bill also proposes changes to the supplementary death benefits and term life insurance to employees and retirees payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act. For example, the paid up benefit will be increased to $10,000 from the current $5,000. This paid up benefit will also be extended to another group of pensioners. Persons who retired on or after April 1, 1995, with an entitlement to an annual allowance payable within 30 days of ceasing to be employed will, if they elected to retain their SDB coverage, have entitlement to the paid up coverage at age 65.

Another change would see the coverage reduction of 10% per year delayed until age 66 rather than beginning at age 61. This means that the basic coverage of twice the salary for employees and the covered pensioners under 61 is extended by five years and that benefit coverage would not finally reduce to either one-third of the salary for employees or, in the case of pensioners, to the basic paid up amount of zero until age 75.

The new coverage reduction schedule would apply automatically to those employees and pensioners who have already reached the aged of 61. However, those persons who would prefer to remain on the current schedule would be given the opportunity to do so.

The benefit improvements also include the removal of the provision in PSSA and Canadian forces plans whereby persons dismissed for misconduct could be denied access to any benefit other than a return of contributions.

Finally, there is to be another noteworthy improvement to benefits in the larger sense of the term. It is the new cost sharing dental plan the government intends to establish for present and future public service pensioners.

I will not elaborate here because strictly speaking the new dental plan does not form part of the legislative package but rather will be introduced under the authority of the Treasury Board once consultations are complete and full details are finalized. I merely mention the new dental plan in order to place it in a context to which it truly belongs, significant improvements that public service plan members can expect from their benefits package.

The public service pensioners of the present have no need to fear the proposed amendments to the public service pension plans. Their benefits are defined and guaranteed in law and will in no way be diminished. Today's pensioners can rest assured that the usual cheques in the usual amounts will keep coming as they always have.

As for public service pensioners of the future, they too have no cause to worry. The proposed amendments will leave their future benefits safe and intact. Plan members will continue to receive on retirement all that their pension plans have promised them. In fact, with the improvements currently proposed they will receive even more.

[Public Works, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the town of Richmond Hill in my riding for the many successful events last week during National Public Works Week.

The town has already won two consecutive national trophies for its public works awareness activities and is reigning champion in York Municipalities Public Works Challenge for the second year in a row.

Education was a major theme of this year's public works week. The town gave school tours of its operation centre and the Leslie Street pumping station. More than just that, it has taken the program directly to students.

The new Hawk program will feature students working with town staff to report problems to operations staff for their review and repair. A special council meeting is already planned for June to thank these responsible young citizens.

National Public Works Week is all about the quality of life in our community, and in my town the quality is exceptional.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-78. I would like to focus, in particular, on the issue of the debt and talk about the financial implications of this bill.

In successive budgets the federal government has balanced the federal books and has made a commitment to bring down our national debt.

Bill C-78 represents another stepping stone toward that goal. Bill C-78 will allow the federal Treasury Board to deal with existing surplus in the superannuation accounts of the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.

Funds from these pension plans will be directed at paying down Canada's $583 billion debt. The pension plan now has a balance of $119 billion from years of contributions and interest payments. The federal governments actuaries, however, estimate that only $94 billion is needed to pay the pension benefits of all existing and retired public servants.

In the public accounts of 1996-97 the Auditor General of Canada pointed out that the accounting for employee pensions should be carefully re-examined and changed. This is exactly what Bill C-78 addresses.

Canada's current economic success is due to sound economic and fiscal policies and the hard work and sacrifice of Canadians. In just four years we have eliminated a budgetary deficit which stood at $42 billion in 1993-94. In fact our first surplus in 28 years of $3.5 billion was recorded in 1997-98 and went to pay down the debt.

In the last federal budget the government put forward its debt repayment plan to address our national debt. The government will continue to present two year fiscal plans based on prudent economic planning assumptions. The first fiscal plan will continue to include a contingency reserve as a buffer against unexpected financial pressures. The current plan contains a contingency reserve of $3 billion a year. When the contingency reserve is not needed, such as last year, it will go directly to paying down the public debt.

In addition to the federal budgets of the government, legislation such as Bill C-78 would go to bringing down our national debt further. I am surprised that the Reform Party does not support the bill. I would have thought that a party so ardent about pinching pennies would stand up against the chance to put a solid concrete contribution of $30 billion toward reducing our national debt. I would like to know where the consistency is in terms of its policies on this issue.

There is support for the bill. The Edmonton Journal wrote the following about Bill C-78:

—the government is looking for money to pay down Canada's gigantic national debt—a worthy cause, if ever there was one.

The Toronto Star wrote:

By claiming the surplus, Ottawa can thus produce a painless $30 billion reduction in its debt. With reduction in the debt, of course, goes a reduction in interest payments, leaving Ottawa more money to spend on other things.

The Montreal Gazette stated the federal approach to dealing with the pension surplus was not only sound fiscal management but also a perfectly defensible use of the pension surplus.

Malcolm Hamilton, a pension specialist at William M. Mercer, said that time was ripe for the government to privatize the pension fund. With the deficit under control, he said, the government no longer needed to borrow from the plan. Mr. Hamilton argued that the government had public opinion on its side to use the surplus to pay down the debt. Public servants pay high premiums for their pension, 7.5% of their salaries, but they also have one of the best pension plans in the country.

Even Mr. Rex Guy, national president of the Federal Superannuates National Association, stated:

Any surplus must be shared equitably by the employer (the taxpayers), employees, and pensioners. FSNA believes that forcing a decision at the Supreme Court level on “ownership” of the surplus would inevitably lead the discussion away from the question of fairness and equity. FSNA has consulted independent professional and legal experts in the pension field and has been advised that, on the basis of current legal jurisprudence, the employer can decide how to dispose of the surplus.

Mr. Guy as well as many others have raised concerns to the effect that Bill C-78 might lead to shortfalls in the pension plan. There are provisions in the bill to address these concerns.

Bill C-78 proposals will allow for the establishment of an appropriate reserve to smooth any adverse effects in future actuarial assumptions. This is the same amount that is currently provided under the Income Tax Act for other employers, up to 10% of the pension liabilities.

Further, the legislation does not require surpluses to be withdrawn all at once. Rather they can be debited over a period of up to 15 years.

The federal government has always been committed to the pension plan. The current superannuation account was established by law to assure the employees that the government recognized its obligation to pay their pensions. If any shortfall or deficit exists between the amounts in the pension account, the government must make additional contributions to cover that shortfall. It has done so on many occasions in the past. The government has always assumed 100% responsibility for any funding deficits, that is all the risk that arose in the federal public service pension plan.

On the question of whether the government is setting a dangerous precedent by taking the surplus and applying it, clearly there are few plans primarily in the public sector where both surpluses and deficits are shared by the employer and the employees. Entitlement to surpluses excluding withdrawals is actually based on specific provisions in the pension plan text. Again Bill C-78 is adding such a provision to the public sector plan.

Bill C-78 represents the government's commitment to putting our fiscal books in order while protecting the pension plan. It represents a strong commitment to taking Canada out of debt. By passing the bill we can take one more step toward a healthier fiscally sound future and, as the Toronto Star so rightly pointed out, reduce our debt and interest payments which in turn would allow us to focus on other Canadian priorities: health care funding, more money for children's benefits, for seniors programs, and for an overall better quality of life for all Canadians.

We are not taking money away from Canadians. We are actually judiciously addressing our financial and fiscal responsibilities. We are making sure that all those involved in the pension plan, both those who are currently working and those who are retired, will get every cent. As has been pointed out in the House, the plan is even being enhanced.

Again I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to consider this point very carefully when they vote later this evening.

[Criminal Code, May 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Yukon for bringing Motion No. 265 to the attention of the House.

The Minister of Justice is fully aware of the criticisms of the law and the controversial cases that tend to promote public outrage. My colleague across the way from Sackville—Eastern Shore gave us a few examples.

The minister accepts the merit of many of the criticisms and is committed to reforming the law of provocation. Indeed the Department of Justice has been expending a lot of energy and resources reviewing the law, as was noted earlier, and exploring different options for addressing the concerns raised through consulting with very important groups such as the Law Reform Commission of Canada, individuals, and provincial and territorial colleagues.

The Department of Justice released a discussion paper on the law of provocation in the summer of 1998 which formed the basis of public consultations. Abolition of the defence of provocation is one of the three options being considered by the department.

It is important to note that the consultation paper also focused on the law of self-defence which is integrally related to provocation as well as the defence of property. This consultation process is still under way and for this reason the minister cannot support this motion as it is worded at this time.

As the Department of Justice has determined and as it has heard from many groups, this matter is very complex. We see that in the comments made here in the House today. Any change could clearly have a significant impact. As a result, the consequences of reform must be carefully considered before the best possible option is brought before the House for consideration in the form of a bill.

When the original defence of provocation was developed hundreds of years ago in England, it was founded on the social reality of the time that men could be partially excused for killing if in so doing, they were defending their honour either in the context of a spontaneous fight or upon discovery of their wives in the act of committing adultery, or discovery of someone in the act of sodomizing their son. The original defence was based on the concept of honour and in part on what is now clearly the discriminatory and offensive idea of male proprietary rights over women.

Provocation was actually relatively limited at that time. It was only in the very precise circumstances I have just noted that the partial excuse could be raised because it was felt that although a provoked killer deserved to be convicted and punished, he did not deserve to be put to death, which was the penalty for murder at that time.

When Canada codified the criminal law in 1892, including the law of provocation, the partial excuse was expanded to allow for partial mitigation for a killing provoked by a wrongful act or insult which allowed for a vastly broader array of circumstances to amount to provocation that had been considered under the common law.

The modern law is based on the rationale that the law should make some allowance for human frailty where a person is provoked beyond the ability to exercise self-control by an act or an insult that would have caused an ordinary person to also lose control.

The defence is meant to provide a measure of compassion and flexibility where a person has killed while under extreme psychological or emotional stress or anguish. It has built-in protections, such as the objective ordinary person test designed to ensure that a person is only excused for reacting to something that an ordinary person would also have reacted to. The provocation must be something of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control.

This assessment has to be made on the facts of each case. For instance, witnessing an attack on a person's child could be something sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control.

The defence is no longer explicitly based on offensive and discriminatory notions of honour, or men's proprietary rights over women. However, despite its modern rationale and built-in safeguards, it can certainly be argued that the modern defence has retained in part its profoundly inappropriate historical foundation, as seen by the way in which the defence has been applied and accepted by some courts.

The essence of the criticism of the hon. member for Yukon and others is that provocation gives a credit for angry violence, in particular violence by men against women and devalues human life by minimizing the seriousness of homicidal violence in response to common everyday and lawful acts such as leaving a relationship, insulting someone, or expressing a difference of opinion.

This criticism is understandable. We have to question how effectively and fairly the law protects Canadians and what values the law is upholding when it discounts a killing simply because the killer was angered by the victim's words or gestures, or departure from a relationship, or even repeated nagging.

As the hon. member for Yukon pointed out, killing in the domestic context should receive a stiffer penalty, not a more lenient one. On this point, I would like to add that the government agrees and has enacted section 718.2 of the Criminal Code which specifically requires the judge to consider the abuse of a spouse as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

The hon. member for Yukon was eloquent and indeed passionate in her criticisms of provocation in her speech introducing the motion. Again I congratulate her. She focused our attention on the cases which cause the most trouble with the defence. These problems cannot be ignored or overlooked.

However, the speeches of other hon. members reveal other sides to this debate. We must also be clear that provocation is not accepted in every case in which it is alleged. In many cases it is rejected by the judge and not even given to the jury to consider.

As another hon. member who spoke to this motion mentioned, the defence has been virtually unchanged since 1892. A law of such long standing must be carefully studied before the House decides to abolish it since such a change could have many consequences.

Another member pointed out that while some cases clearly illustrate a need to reform provocation, the defence of provocation provides a concession to human frailty that may be warranted or appropriate in certain other types of circumstances. The member also referred to the fact that provocation, like other laws, is subject to constant interpretation by judges who are in a very good position to shape the law based on actual cases and their perception of justice and fairness.

The need for open debate and caution cannot be overstated. While it may appear clear to some that the defence must be abolished, this view is not shared by everyone. Some groups take the opposite position, recommending further expansion of the defence on the basis that human frailties should be recognized by the criminal law. Others still would prefer to reform the defence in some way that it is not available in some types of cases, but it is still available in other circumstances where there was widespread agreement that a killing was partially excusable given some extreme provocation by the victim.

Even equality-seeking women's groups have changed their views about what to do with the defence of provocation in recent years. It is simply not the case that there is consensus as to the best course for reform.

Basically, reasonable people disagree about the best possible solution and that is why the Department of Justice determined the best course of action was to proceed in the prudent manner which I have outlined.

I would suggest that this is premature. I note the passion with which the member has presented her case but I think we should let the course of action as outlined continue. Then appropriate amendments which would reflect the comments made in the public consultations can be brought forth to the House.