Derek Lee

[Endangered Species, March 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, environmental groups across the country this week organized endangered species action days to draw attention to the fact that Canada still does not have an effective endangered species law.

We know that this area involves provincial jurisdictions, but I want to ask the Minister of the Environment what the Government of Canada is doing to protect our wildlife species which are now at risk.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently announced that it would suspend training at its Regina training academy until further notice. My question is for the solicitor general.

The RCMP is our national police force. Canadians want to know how we will provide training for our future police recruits.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate with colleagues on both sides of the House today in this prelude to the upcoming 1999 federal budget.

As I lead into my remarks, which will be made within the shared time, I cannot help but think back to the way things were just a few years ago when I was first elected to this House in 1988. The backdrop of how we got here from there is still important to Canadians. It is still important to all of us who understand how we got here from there as we try to lay out some kind of framework, some kind of direction on where we will go from here, what kind of leadership we will exhibit and where we will try to lead our Canadian economy within the ability that a federal budget can offer.

One concedes of course that a government budget will not always be able to provide leadership and direction in all elements of the economy. We do not run the entire economy from our desks here in the House of Commons, nor does the ministry of finance run the entire economy from its ministerial offices.

Approximately seven years ago we had the recession of 1992. I remember that it was supposed to be a difficult year. It turned out to be for Canadians a very difficult three years. It was not a one-year cyclical recession.

There were reasons for that. The cyclical recession of 1992 was exacerbated by several other economic circumstances, each of which was chosen by the government of the day as part of a policy option.

I know they were not selected to exacerbate the recession. They were selected because they were seen as necessary. Some of it was necessary medicine. Some of it was just the right time to implement policy. However, it turns out to have been poor timing.

I notice that our colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party made reference to choices made by the Progressive Conservative government in the very early nineties which perhaps in some way laid some of the groundwork for our economy. Some of those decisions that were taken did lay the groundwork. As I say this, one has to remember that the timing was actually atrocious.

In opposition I and my colleagues did not spare the government at all in our criticism, as much because of the timing as for its effect on Canadians.

High interest rate policies were pursued by the Bank of Canada. The timing was awful. High interest rates mean high unemployment. At the time of the recession the bank decided it would squeeze and crush inflation out of the Canadian economy. The timing was all wrong. It succeeded ultimately, but at a very high cost to Canadians.

The government decided to implement a new GST, replacing the earlier MST. However, there are economic costs in implementing a new tax like that.

There were adjustments to the free trade agreement. Those adjustments would have to have been paid in any event, but those adjustments, in terms of employment losses, occurred right at the time of the recession.

Then there was the hopelessly out of control government spending of the day that ran deficits from $25 billion to $42 billion.

All of these factors exacerbated that very difficult recession year.

I remember talking to constituents. Most of us in this House have dealt with constituents who have been in difficult personal situations. Some were unemployed. I remember saying “This is just a cyclical recession. It will be over in a few months or a year. Don't worry, the jobs will come back”. However, that situation persisted for several years at a very high cost to Canadians.

When it all ended, sometime in 1993, 1994 or 1995, as fate would have it Canadians elected Liberals in October 1993. Our first order of business was to deal with the deficit. We adopted a plan, a process which was called a program review.

There were tax adjustments. There were effective tax increases at the time. They were modest, but nonetheless they were increases. The revenues increased, expenditures went down and we ended up balancing our Canadian budget approximately one year ahead of schedule.

We are now entering a second or third year in which we will have a surplus. The result of that backdrop has produced a situation that is described as “good fundamentals”.

Who can take the credit for it? Certainly those who were in government. As a government member I will ask Canadians to give us credit for dealing with the deficit. I think they have given us credit for that, notwithstanding the desire of members opposite to discount that fact.

Other things occurred. Interest rates came down, in part because of government action, but in part as well because of market reaction to other economic factors.

Our interest rates now are the lowest in 25 or 30 years. Our inflation is down to the lowest it has been in 25 or 30 years. That is very positive.

The free trade agreement then became the North American Free Trade Agreement. We have adjusted to that and we are now seeing the benefits of jobs and exports.

Our balance of trade has been in positive territory for a long time. Our current account, which moved into positive territory a couple of years ago, is now slightly under and is heading back toward positive territory. That is all very healthy.

The deficit is gone. We are now faced with the difficult problem of how high taxes should be and what kind of a surplus there should be. Certainly we want balanced books. Maybe there should not be a surplus. Maybe there should just be a balance. Then we would not need to argue about a surplus.

Because of the finance minister's prudent planning we are facing small surpluses this year and next year. That allows all of us to happily debate over what targets the surplus should be directed to.

This government has undertaken to use the surplus in three areas. It will use it to pay down the debt, which was sitting at around $583 billion and has now been paid down in modest amounts to $570-some billion. That may be small progress with a billion here and a billion there but pretty soon it adds up.

Our economy is growing at the same time, which means that our national debt to GDP ratio is dropping. This is the measuring stick most economists use in looking at our ability to sustain and carry a debt. That ratio is now poised to drop below 50%. It was riding up toward 60% at one point. We are now headed below 50%, which is positive territory for us. We have to deal with debt management. Like it or not it is there and we have some bills to pay.

Second, we will have to restore the effectiveness of our social programs. There is more than one way to do that. Spending money properly is one way as well as sustaining them and making sure there is enough money to deliver on our objectives.

Third is tax reduction. In the last budget the government began to deliver tax reductions in modest amounts. These reductions are showing up at the low end of the income scale. This time I as one member of parliament would like to see tax reductions spread right through the economic spectrum. In its report the finance committee mentioned the surtax which is still a part of income taxation at the federal level. My constituents and I would like to see that addressed seriously.

[Privilege, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is the third or fourth time this subject has been raised in the House.

While I know it is a very serious matter for all members of the House and they regard it as serious, I reiterate that if members of a particular committee whose report was leaked or scooped or whatever feel sufficiently strong about what has happened, and I hope they will feel sufficiently strongly about it, they will take the steps to provide a fuller factual background for the House and not simply delegate this messy problem back to the House or delegate it to the committee on procedure and House affairs.

If committee members feel strongly about their work on a committee they have the ability at that committee to take the steps to find out what has happened, then report it to the House. The House then deals with a better factual backdrop and takes steps perhaps involving discipline, perhaps admonishment. I do commend that to members. Let them take care of their own backyard in their committees rather than simply complaining and offering it up to the Speaker and to the PHA committee.

[Extradition Act, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-40, the new Extradition Act. As colleagues have pointed out today, this is a substantial rewrite of a century old piece of legislation. It is a good piece of work in my view. It modernizes, streamlines, properly codifies, and takes account of the charter and the many other things we like to see in new legislation. I congratulate the Minister of Justice for bringing the legislation forward.

It was not a recent exercise that created the bill. It is my understanding that this re-write of the Extradition Act has been on the agenda and work list of the Department of Justice for a number of years now, even going back to 1992-93 when the existing act was modified to streamline appeal procedures.

Colleagues have more than adequately outlined the many attributes of the new legislation. I wanted to bring the attention of my colleagues to three sections in the statutes for one reason. As we create laws and as we pass them in the House, we design them on a drawing board, run them through a computer and do our very best to create a statute that will work well and be in the interest of Canadians. We must all take account of the possibility that what we take from the drawing board and put out on the street may contain some things that do not always work well on the street. That is inevitable in any new piece of legislation. There are three areas I thought I would pass comment on, all the while being strongly in support of the legislation.

The first area involves the potential effect of the waiver of extradition concept referred to in section 72 on the section 96 adaptation to accommodate the provisions of the Immigration Act. In section 96 that accommodation essentially backs off the Immigration Act and accedes to the higher priority attached to the Extradition Act so that there will not be dual pieces of litigation at the same time.

The section 96 provision assumes that there are two outcomes of an extradition exercise. One is a discharge of the individual and the second would be an order for surrender of the individual. That is fine. In the order for surrender there is an override provision which is important to note. Where the offence for which the person is being sought for extradition is one that has a term of imprisonment in Canada of more than 10 years, the person would be deemed under the Immigration Act and the refugee procedures to have been found not to be a refugee. Colleagues in the committee and in the House have accepted that concept.

Although the person is deemed not to be a refugee before an order of surrender is executed, the Minister of Justice will review each case to look out for concerns that are already reflected in the refugee procedures and to protect individuals from extradition to jurisdictions where they might be subjected to the same types of difficulties defined in the international convention on refugees.

In any event those two outcomes under section 96 do not appear to take into account the waiver provisions of section 72. The section 96 immigration procedures do not appear to accommodate a person deciding to waive extradition. They do not appear to deal with it. It is arguably an element of unclear practicality which may be resolved practically in the processes that will be there. If there is any difficulty, I am sure a judge somewhere will have an opportunity to assist the parties in interpreting the provisions.

I point out a second area to the House. In the decisions that will be made by the Minister of Justice both prescribed formal and informal consultations will take place among the Minister of Justice who presides over Extradition Act procedures, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In consulting with those ministers in terms of a particular individual and a particular extradition there is envisaged a consultation and a transmittal of information either about the extraditing country, the individual or organizations in the other country.

It is not clearly visible on the face of our statute that such important information from the point of view of the individual involved in the extradition is made known to the individual. I am reflecting my sense of this as one MP who is voting for the legislation. In all respects information used by the Minister of Justice that is received from foreign affairs or immigration should be disclosed to the individual.

That principle would have to be subject to the occasional instance where significant national security or other security issues would need to be protected. However it is important to note that point. I am confident those who administer the statute will not be hiding the information used by the Minister of Justice in making decisions about extradition or not, surrender or not, under this statute. I suggest somewhat tongue in cheek that in a middle of an extradition hearing a citizen or other person should not be saddled with the need to make a freedom of information act application.

The third area concerns the concept of specific agreement in the statute. In the past countries have extradited based on an existing extradition treaty or extradition agreement between the two states. The bill if passed would provide for a specific agreement which is a one-off extradition agreement between country a and Canada. The only provision in that agreement would be something to the effect that country a wishes to extradite Mr. X and Canada agrees to accept this as an agreement to extradite, provided there are contained in that agreement the relatively minimal elements already set out in the Extradition Act.

That agreement will not be treated like an extradition agreement or treaty. It will not be published in The Canada Gazette . It will not have been published in the treaty series. It will not have been tabled in the House of Commons. It will not have otherwise seen the light of day. It will have received the signatures of both countries and it will name an individual.

My concern was that over time I would not not want the specific agreement to be used more greatly in numbers than the extradition treaties. I believe it should be seen as the exception to the rule. It appears to me from this statute that one could even enter into specific agreements to extradite a person while an extradition treaty existed. There does not appear to be any barrier to entering into a specific agreement to extradite a person even though there is another extradition treaty in existence between the two countries.

Why would one want to avoid the extradition treaty? I am not sure but the existing agreements governing general circumstances often become a little cumbersome or outdated and it is possible that officials in both countries will decide it is easier to set up a specific agreement and avoid the existing treaty. They will use form B, fill it out, send it over, get it signed and fill in the blank with the person's name and that will be our specific agreement, our extradition instrument for this person. Over time I do not know how that will evolve. It would be my hope that we would not have a proliferation of specific agreements but would continue to negotiate appropriate treaties and other agreements.

Those are the three areas I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. I did not feel they were substantial enough matters to suggest amendments to the House. I believe that with officials who administer the act, the processes that would be put into play by the new provisions will adequately allow for a fair evolution in relation to those three areas and that the new statute will serve Canadians and Canada's partners in criminal justice administration well perhaps for another century as the previous act did.

[Gerald Vandezande, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Citizens for Public Justice is celebrating 35 years of strong non-partisan advocacy in policy development and reform on behalf of many in our society who would not otherwise have such a strong voice. Today I want to pay tribute to the volunteer leadership of in that organization.

Mr. Vandezande is a constituent whose commitment and dedication has played a major role in the pursuit of public justice during his 35 years of service. He has attended many political gatherings and waited patiently outside meeting rooms to twist the arms of MPs, MLAs and ministers on social policy issues. His accomplishments also include extensive writing on social, political and economic issues for many publications. He has provoked thought and encouraged society to challenge the status quo and fight for those in need. Gerald Vandezande will continue to passionately voice these messages of CPJ even in retirement.

On behalf of our constituents I congratulate him and wish both him and CPJ well in all future endeavours.

[Privilege, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I too want to make some comment on the matter raised by the hon. member from Rosedale.

He has brought to the attention of the House the apparent publication of contents of a draft report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Such publication or disclosure of committee reports at draft stage or disclosure of committee work in process before it is made public, particularly work done in camera, has always been considered and classed as a breach of the privileges of the House. From what has been told to the House today I can only accept that there has been what we sometimes refer to as a prima facie breach of privilege. In listening to members today I see no difference emerging in their views. The question is what should the House do, what should the committee do in responding to this.

It is my view that this might well be an appropriate case for the House, for colleagues on both sides of the House, to draw the line in the sand, first so that we will all know and the public will know where this stands in terms of parliamentary law and that we are not doing this simply to assert a parliamentary position. We are doing it to protect what we regard as representatives of Canadians as the public interest, that we need the flexibility to deal with these public interest issues in camera from time to time. When we do that we must demand that the rules of the House and the privileges of parliament be respected.

We now have to determine what we should do. Should we just make the point and walk away? Should we deal with the case generically by referring it to one of our committees? Or should we make use of this instance to draw a line in the sand and actually attempt to locate the source of the leak?

Experience in this and other parliaments seems to show that while it is easy to find the publication of the information, it is not so easy to find the location of the leak. Locating the person or the mechanism by which the leak occurred would involve calling witnesses and require testimony from individuals who might not wish to provide testimony.

While the House has the undoubted authority and power to do this, it is an exercise which colleagues on both sides of the House would want to undertake with a fair bit of dedication and commitment. There would be no point in pursuing this and doing half a job.

The member from Rosedale did not indicate that he wished to move a motion, but I am sure he would move a motion if the Chair found that the facts in this case did constitute a breach of the privileges of the House. I am confident that the Chair will find that and I want to make the following suggestion.

It may not have occurred previously in this House but I gather it has occurred in the British House which takes the same position, incidentally, in relation to the premature publication of committee draft proceedings or in camera proceedings. That is to refer the matter not to the House management committee, which would address the breach of privilege issue, but to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs out of which the problem first arose. That committee would attempt to put together the facts surrounding the unauthorized publication and release, the leak, call witnesses as appropriate and report back to the House with comment on how serious the unauthorized publication would have been, how serious for public interest it would have been and what importance the House should attach to it.

The House will probably agree that there are times when a leak of a phrase will not mean too much. But in this case it was a report dealing with the formation of this country's policy on nuclear disarmament and it is a matter of no small importance to the way this country formulates its policy and carries on business in the international community.

I suggest it is a fairly serious issue, but members best equipped to comment on that would be the members of the foreign affairs committee.

I simply hold that out as one option available which the Chair or members of that committee may wish to look at more closely. In the event that approach is not taken, I believe if a breach of privilege is found by the Chair the matter should stand referred to the House management committee which looks at these matters generally.

I for one would want to see that committee pursue the matter aggressively, making this case for all Canadians and the media that sometimes rely on MPs to entertain the masses and to write their stories without having to do their homework. We should look at this case as a serious breach and attempt to make use of it to draw the line in the sand so that we would have fewer or no breaches of this important parliamentary privilege.

[Committees Of The House, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 8, 1998, your committee has considered Bill C-51, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

[Emily Stowe, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, October is Women's History Month. This year's theme is entrepreneurship and unpaid work. In honour of this celebration my constituents and I want to recognize the achievements of Emily Stowe, an entrepreneur pioneer who played a landmark role in our history.

She was born in Upper Canada in 1831. Although it was a time when employment opportunities for women were very limited, she became a teacher, a doctor, a wife, a mother and a leader.

In 1863 her husband contracted tuberculosis and she sought medical training. The Toronto School of Medicine did not accept women so Emily had to attend a medical school in the U.S.A. When she returned to Toronto, Dr. Stowe became the first woman in Canada to openly practise medicine.

She was committed to equality, was an advocate for women and a founding member of the Canadian Women's Suffragette Association. Her remarkable achievements are recognized in Scarborough at the Emily Stowe Shelter for Women, which provides a home for women and children at risk.

Emily Stowe was indeed a pioneer and entrepreneur and an inspiration in the movement for women's equality which continues to this day.

[Justice, October 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week has been proclaimed by Canada's YWCA as a week without violence. The Minister of Justice knows of the high degree of concern among Canadian women about crimes of violence generally and in the home.

Will the justice minister tell the House during this week without violence what her ministry is doing to bring about a reduction in criminal violence in our homes and in our communities?