Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Today, after ten months, the cumulative deficit is reported to be $7.3 billion, which could mean a real deficit of 10 or 12 billion in 1996-97 instead of the $19 billion he announced three weeks ago.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Either the minister was aware that he had this kind of flexibility and hid this from the public, or he did not know because he had no way of telling this would happen. Is the Minister of Finance sneaky or incompetent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, considering how my predecessor was criticized when he was incapable of meeting his objectives, I must say that being criticized because I did far more than meet my objectives is a criticism I am entirely prepared to accept.
As the Leader of the Opposition must know, we have a month and a half left before the end of the year. We have no figures for February and we have none for March. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition must know that a lot of adjustments are made in March which may alter the figures.
What I gave is perhaps a very prudent forecast, but I am convinced that once again, we will be able to build on the credibility the government has established.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government would have to produce a deficit of $12 billion in two months to get the extraordinary figures the Minister of Finance gave us three weeks ago.
Mr. Duceppe: Aha, Ms. Copps' flags.
Mr. Gauthier: He knows this does not make sense-
Mr. Loubier: This will not fly.
Mr. Gauthier: -being a reasonable man. And I know his answer does not hold water.
Mr. Loubier: So he is incompetent. It is sheer incompetence.
Mr. Gauthier: I want to ask him, why, with this kind of flexibility, did he do nothing for the poor and the unemployed who are legion in Canada, instead of the measly measures listed in his latest budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, consider what we have done: we spent $850 million to help poor families with children, and add to this our investments in tourism, in research and development and in education, all in order to create jobs.
So the question I might ask the Leader of the Opposition is this: at the request of Mr. Landry and other finance ministers, the President of the Treasury Board extended the infrastructures program, in order to create jobs. Why has Mr. Landry yet to accept the offer made by the President of the Treasury Board concerning the infrastructures program?
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with a miscalculation of about $12 billion in his estimates, the Minister of Finance should not have cut $4.5 billion from the provinces and $5 billion from the unemployed.
Are we to understand that what the Minister of Finance is about to do, with this incredible security of some $12 billion, is sprinkle a few billion dollars here and a few billion there across Canada during the next election campaign, to curry favour with the electorate?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, life must be tough for the Leader of the Opposition when his only criticism of the Minister of Finance is that he was too prudent in his forecasts.
May I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he ask his head office to accept the government's offer to extend the infra-
structures program, so that we can start creating jobs in Montreal and in Quebec as soon as possible?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
We learn, three weeks after the budget, that the Minister of Finance has a much greater leeway than the Bloc expected. It is beyond all. As of this year, the Minister of Finance will have at least $12 billion more than he projected in his 1996 budget. Next year, it will be $17 billion.
Today in Canada, three million people are on welfare and one and a half million children live in poverty. Why did the Minister of Finance prefer to keep this colossal float rather than use this money to give people hope once again?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, I wanted to quote someone and I was cut off.
I would like to quote the same person today, in response to the hon. member. I will be much shorter: ``We are on the right road. This is not the time to quit; we must keep going. Economies are changing. We must fix public finances, control the deficit and let interest rates drop''. That was Lucien Bouchard. He is right and so am I.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have never denied that a zero deficit had to be reached at some point. But here he is going too far.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: Is the minister aware that he could reach a zero deficit before the year 2000 by not cutting $4.5 billion in social programs; by leaving the unemployed their $5 billion surplus; by giving substantial help to job creation and by paying the $2 billion it owes to Quebec for harmonizing the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again, the member has not asked a question. He has made a statement.
I will simply say that, when you look at the fact that the federal government transfers over $10 billion a year, including 45 per cent of equalization payments to Quebec.
We have to look at the technological partnership my colleague has set up, at the number of aeronautics companies in Quebec that benefited.
[English]
It is amazing, but we have now had five questions from the official opposition and its main criticism of the Minister of Finance and of this government is that we have beaten our deficit targets every year. We accept the criticism and we are going to keep on beating our deficit targets.
(1425 )
This hearing will be an indescribable horror for the families of the victims. It should not be happening and it would not be happening if the government had acted sooner and if it had repealed section 745 instead of tinkering with it.
Outraged Canadians are holding rallies today in Vancouver and elsewhere, asking how the government could be so callous and insensitive toward the victims of Clifford Olson's crimes.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how could the government be so utterly insensitive to the families of Clifford Olson's victims as to permit this hearing?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every member of this caucus has nothing but profound empathy for the tragedies suffered by the families of those victims and for the people who have lost loved ones to crime.
It is because of the victims, it is in their interests and in their name, it is for them that the government has acted so often to change the criminal law so that it might be more responsive.
With regard to section 745, it was after I met with the widow of an RCMP officer who was murdered in Saskatchewan who explained to me how awful it was for her to be at the 745 hearing but not be allowed to participate, it was after that meeting with Marie King Forest that I proposed in the House a change to section 745 to guarantee victims a role in such hearings.
It was because of the government's concern with the plight of victims that last year we introduced in the House Bill C-45, which ensures that section 745 of the code will be used only in the most exceptional cases, not at all for those who have taken more than one life, and for all the others only after a judge agrees that their case is meritorious and only when a jury unanimously agrees that they should have consideration. This government has acted on behalf of victims.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister professes this great empathy and sympathy for victims of crime and he gives us a list of tinkering measures.
What has the government done to actually act on its sympathy and empathy? It tinkers with section 745 rather than repealing it. It pays lip service to our victims bill of rights and then allows it to languish in the Parliamentary committee. It spends hundreds of man hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars on ensuring that
Clifford Olson gets a hearing and it invests no time, no money and no energy in the victims of his crime.
If the justice minister is so sympathetic, so empathetic to the victims of crime, will he commit today to enact a victims bill of rights that was presented to the House 11 months ago by the member for Fraser Valley West?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the chair of the justice committee requesting that it undertake that task, designing changes to the Criminal Code in addition to what we proposed on behalf of victims.
Let me point to the record of the government in establishing that we have done more for victims in the justice system than any national government in memory.
The drunkenness defence was available until we acted on behalf of victims to make sure that it would not be. On behalf of victims we have introduced changes to provide for DNA testing in criminal law for the first time, putting it on an express basis.
If we look at the record of the party opposite we find an entirely different story. When we proposed changes in Bill C-37 to the Young Offenders Act to provide for victim impact statements, the Reform Party voted against it.
When we proposed in Bill C-41 elaborate provisions to help victims get restitution, the Reform Party voted against it.
Last year when we proposed the changes to section 745 which would prevent multiple murderers in the future from applying the Reform Party voted against it.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that Clifford Olson, as a result of the actions of this minister, gets a national soapbox. What victims get is a study.
In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the section on legal rights there are 16 provisions affirming the rights of persons suspected or charged or convicted of crimes. There is not one section, not one clause, dealing with the rights of victims of crime. Right across the country Canadians are sick and tired of that imbalance. They want a justice system that puts the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals like Clifford Olson.
Will the justice minister commit today to pass the victims bill of rights that is languishing in committee or will the Liberals fail Clifford Olson's victims yet again?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at a certain point one wonders why the hon. leader of the third party would ask, since every time we come forward with a measure on behalf of victims his party votes against it. If we are to have further amendments, indeed if we are to have an amendment to our charter, perhaps it should be against the shameless exploitation of victims.
One could understand why those victims were on the stage yesterday in Vancouver. They are driven by the pain of the tragedies they have suffered. One also understands why Reform members are on the stage and why Reform members are leading this band. They are exploiting the very tragedies which they pretend to decry.
Perhaps most important of all, by behaving as they are, Reform Party members are giving Clifford Olson exactly what he most wants, the only thing they can give him, a platform on which to become even more infamous-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the American legal system has been asking Canadian authorities to extradite the Jacques Émond, of the Hell's Angels. Mr. Émond, who is now living in British Columbia, is accused of conspiring to traffic in large quantities of hashish and cocaine and of having been a full time member of a criminal organization between January 1976 and February 1990.
How can the Minister of Justice explain that after three and a half years the case to request extradition has been postponed eight times at the request of the crown and that Jacques Émond is still in Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details of this case. I will raise the matter with my officials and I will reply in a few days.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by postponing the case in this way, the minister must be aware that there is a risk of abuse of process.
Does the Minister of Justice realize that his department is creating conditions that will make it impossible to extradite Jacques Émond, thus protecting a criminal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am not familiar with this case right now, but I intend to ask justice department officials for details and I will reply in the coming days.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as we all know, today in Vancouver hearings begin into Clifford Olson's application for early release. This is the man who brutally raped and murdered 11 little children. Because of Clifford Olson's application the families of these children have to relive their pain and their agony.
(1435)
I ask the Minister of Justice, who is directly responsible for letting this reprehensible occurrence take place, what action he will take to ensure that these 11 families will never have to go through this agonizing and painful ordeal again.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government last year introduced and this Parliament last year adopted legislation to change section 745 of the Criminal Code to ensure that it will be used only in exceptional cases.
That legislation changes the system so that such applications will never be brought by those convicted of taking more than one life. It provides for a screening mechanism by a judge in advance of any application by those eligible and it requires that the jury on any such application be unanimous before any relief is granted.
It seems to me that is exactly the way to prevent future victims' families from having to experience such proceedings while at the same time providing for the exceptional cases in which such applications are appropriate.
In those circumstances one wonders why the hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party voted against those amendments.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, every family member of victims who appeared before the standing committee on Bill C-45 opposed the bill. That is why we represent their concerns here today.
Private member's Bill C-234 would have eliminated section 745 from the Criminal Code entirely. The justice minister voted against this bill. By doing so, he voted in favour of Clifford Olson and against the 11 families that lost their children to Clifford Olson.
Can the justice minister today explain to these families and to all Canadians why he voted for Clifford Olson and against the families of these victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the three and a half years that it has been my privilege to serve the Prime Minister in my present occupation I have met with dozens of family members of victims of crime. I have met with mothers who have lost children. I have met with husbands who have lost wives.
The importance I place on their experience, the importance I place on respecting victims, is reflected in the many pieces of legislation we have brought forward in the House to protect and safeguard the position of victims in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Olson's case is now before the court. It is inappropriate to comment on the merits, but let me say this. Whatever else can be said of Clifford Olson's application, it would be proceeding in obscurity now in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the pain felt by the families of the victims would be of a different order than that which they face today if it were not for my hon. friend and his colleagues in the Reform Party who are providing Clifford Olson with exactly what he wants, that which he can get from no other source: they are satisfying his lust for notoriety.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Since August 1995, when young Daniel Desrochers died as the result of the explosion of a vehicle boobytrapped by organized crime, there have been a number of other explosions. Innocent people have been wounded, blood has been shed. Whole cities and towns are in shock. Municipalities such as Saint-Nicolas, Montreal and Quebec City have no idea how to cope with a problem of this scope.
On September 21, 1995, the minister said that he was carrying out consultations and that he was optimistic about finding a solution. Since the problem is still there, worse in fact than in 1995, can the minister tell the House what solution he has found to the problem of motorcycle gang wars?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I met with the mother of the boy who was killed on the Montreal street, Daniel Desrochers, last year.
(1440)
I have also worked with my colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada, and with the police chiefs of Quebec and elsewhere, to find ways of improving criminal law to back up our police forces in their battle against organized crime.
Last September, the solicitor general and myself held a symposium here in Ottawa on organized crime, to which we invited police chiefs, lawyers, and provincial attorneys general. We discussed various approaches to provide police forces with the tools to combat organized crime. We identified about a dozen concrete measures.
The solicitor general and myself intend to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code in the coming months, to that end.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, outside of these empty words by the minister, which quite obviously do nothing to solve the problem, since it continues in Quebec, what does the minister have to say today to the family of little Marianne, who was hit by shards of glass in her own home, in her own crib? Or to the people of Saint-Nicolas, who watch helplessly as criminal organizations occupy their entire territory?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to such Canadians who live in fear or with the pain of the consequences of that kind of crime, the government pledges again to renew its commitment to improve the criminal law to provide police with the tools they need to combat the activities of gangs.
There is no single simple answer to this complex issue. One speaks of an anti-gang bill. It is very difficult to define such a bill in ways that would make it valid and effective. Simply to criminalize organizations is not an answer. The simple response to that by the gangs is to change the name or the nature of the organization.
What is more effective in the long run for the victims of which the member spoke and for Canadians everywhere is to work constructively with the police to change the criminal law in ways that will make it easier for the police to gather proof and evidence against such illegalities.
That is what we had in mind when the solicitor general and I convened our anti-gang symposium last September. We left with a dozen concrete proposals for changing the criminal law. We will act upon them in the weeks and months ahead so that we will give police the tools to combat the very activity of which the hon. member spoke.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Christine, Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun, Terry Lyn and Louise. These are the names of Clifford Olson's victims and it is their families that are being victimized, again thanks to the Liberal government.
Thanks to the Liberal government, Clifford Olson gets a soapbox while his victims have to fight to be heard. Why will the Prime Minister not put the rights of victims ahead of the rights of criminals like Clifford Olson and enact a victims' bill of rights?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone who is providing a soapbox, it is the hon. member and colleagues in her party who are providing a soapbox to Clifford Olson. It is a tactic of which they should be ashamed.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are glad that someone is willing to speak up for the families and the victims in the right way.
It is clear the Liberal government is determined to put consideration for brutal criminals ahead of consideration for innocent citizens. How can Canadians trust their safety to a government with such skewed priorities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's priorities from day one in the criminal justice system have been to make our society as safe as it can and to show respect for the victims of crime.
(1445)
Through all the legislation in the three and a half years of the government there is a single thread, that is to make the system more responsive to and respectful of the needs of victims. Yet time and again the hon. member and her colleagues in the Reform Party have voted against initiatives we have introduced on behalf of victims.
In Bill C-41, changes to the sentencing law, we provided for restitution to victims and the Reform Party voted against it. In Bill C-45 we proposed to change the very section of which the member complains. The hon. member and her colleagues in the Reform Party voted against it.
The Canadian people will have an opportunity in due course to look at the record.
This morning the Globe and Mail reported that Mr. Justice Krever complained in a letter about the government's interference with the work of his commission. He stated that the government had threatened to shut down the commission if it insisted on laying blame on certain senior officials and ministers.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister again justify her government's interfering with a commission of inquiry that should normally be able to finish its work without government interference?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that in December 1995 the Minister of Justice made application to the court to have certain matters adjudicated.
The court that heard the application by the Minister of Justice denied the application. Thereafter certain individuals and stakeholders appealed to a higher court.
I am sure the hon. member would want the record to show that the Government of Canada did not appeal the decision which I believe was reached in June of the following year.
I make perfectly clear that the government looks forward to the report of Justice Krever. We look forward to examining his recommendations. To the best of my knowledge there was never any intent whatsoever to try to close down the Krever inquiry.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is one particularly disturbing fact in this whole affair. Both the Krever and Létourneau commissions were targets of all kinds of obstruction from the government's officials and its ministers.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that with this kind of approach she has discredited commissions of inquiry, and could she tell us if any judge would, in the future, agree to preside over an inquiry, in the knowledge that the government can intervene at any time to prevent the chairman from doing his job?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the desperation of hon. members opposite when they make such ludicrous charges.
The House should be informed that the commission has held over 250 days of public hearings. It has heard over 350 witnesses, almost half of whom were the victims.
Testimony has been recorded on over 40,000 pages of commission transcript. Over half a million pages of exhibit evidence has been filed. The commission's deadline has been extended not once, not twice, but three times and the commission has a budget of well over $15 million.
We were the ones in opposition who called for a judicial inquiry into the blood system. I am happy Justice Krever is heading that inquiry. I look forward to his conclusions as I am sure all provinces and all stakeholders look forward to them.
Despite this I have a lot of concerns coming to me from my own riding which has a lot of immigrants and refugees.
Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration clarify the newly imposed regulation she has put on refugees?
(1450 )
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was also amazed by that comment of the Reform Party critic. I take note that in the future the Reform Party will support our refugee program.
Canada has a long history of responding generously to the different people in the world who are in crisis. Never in the past have we imposed quotas on immigration. We do not intend to do so in the future.
On the contrary, with the new resettlement from abroad class, we will extend our ability to answer the needs of people abroad. It will help us to be more generous than we have been in the past. Let us be proud of that new settlement class.
What special knowledge did the minister's personal friend have about the Canadian flag that was worth $30,000 in Canadian taxpayers' money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every contract that has been let by my department has been let in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines.
If the member of the Reform Party has any kind of a scurrilous accusation to make, I would suggest he make that accusation outside the House where he will be subject to the libellous action he should be subject to.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take particular note that Thornley did not receive a single, solitary heritage contract until the minister took over. Since the minister took office in January 1996, Thornley has managed to secure at least four contracts worth $60,000. I also note that the minister's personal friend is listed as official agent for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Does the heritage minister really believe federal contracts to her well connected Liberal friend, her personal friend, will foster Canadian patriotism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat the fact that any contract that has been let through my department has been let in full compliance and respect for Treasury Board guidelines.
If the member has a scurrilous accusation to make, I would suggest that he go outside the House like a parliamentarian and make it where he will be subject to the full effect of libel suits. He is attempting to hide under the protection of the House which would not be accorded to him outside in making such a libellous statement.
[Translation]
Four years ago, Karim, the son of Micheline Tremblay, was kidnapped by her ex-spouse who is hiding him somewhere in Egypt. Mrs. Tremblay made numerous representations to the police and judicial authorities. Interpol issued an arrest warrant against the former spouse. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. André Ouellet, promised early in 1996 to sign a bilateral agreement with Egypt that would have made it possible to bring the child home. However, Mrs. Tremblay only saw her son for three hours, and she is still calling for help because nothing has really changed.
Can government members, who like to travel with Team Canada to promote economic ties, remain insensitive to this very disturbing humanitarian case? Will they promise today to intercede with the Egyptian government to make sure Karim returns to Canada?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no sensitivity in terms of dealing with this case. We are very sensitive to the situation that exists. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has met with the mother and we continue to make representations to the Egyptian government.
We will be sending an official of our department to Cairo within the next week to continue that dialogue to try to bring a successful resolution to the matter.
I also understand the matter is due to be coming before the Egyptian courts later this year.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, ever since 1993, every time the government has been asked about this question, the answer has always been the same. They promise an agreement will be reached, they promise something will be done, but although the government seems to get moving every time a kidnapping causes a media storm, there are never any concrete results.
(1455)
My question is straightforward and is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is she prepared to sign an agreement with Egypt before the next election and is she prepared to guarantee that Karim will return to Canada?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Egyptian authorities apparently have only recently confirmed that Madam Tremblay's son is in Egypt.
Moving on this matter the courts have granted her access. We are certainly pressing the case as much as we possibly can to bring about its successful resolution as quickly as possibly to unite son and mother.
This morning Major Vince Buonamici, who is testifying in the dying days of the Somalia inquiry, accused the government of covering up what was ``at least a manslaughter and at worst a culpable murder''. He said that there was a ``high level conspiracy'' to stonewall the investigation into the shooting. This stonewalling almost certainly led directly to the death of Shidane Arone.
If the minister is intent on shutting down the Somalia inquiry, how will he get to the bottom of these incredible allegations?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that since the inquiry began, and particularly since I have been the Minister of National Defence, I have not commented on the testimony of witnesses before the inquiry because it is the job of the commissioners to prepare their recommendations.
I am sure the hon. member is as anxious as I am to see those recommendations. As a result of the government having given the commission of inquiry a third extension but asking it to report by the end of June, no doubt it will be an area the commission will address when it makes its report.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear what the government is doing.
A Somali was shot in the back. There was a cover-up. There was a high level conspiracy to delay the investigation. This delay resulted in the torture death of Shidane Arone. Military officials then destroyed, shredded and altered documents to keep it a secret. Now the defence minister is ensuring that the cover-up will continue and Canadians and Somalis will never learn the truth.
Why is the minister so determined to hide the truth about the high level cover-up at National Defence headquarters?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the attempt to
determine what went on in Somalia in the incident the hon. gentleman has referred to began on March 15, 1995. The commissioners have had nearly two years to call a roster of witnesses and to make sure they determined who they wanted to hear from.
The testimony to which the hon. member refers was heard, as he indicated himself, this week. There was nothing that precluded that evidence being heard a year and a half ago. The commissioners knew exactly what had taken place with respect to the people who were looking into the incidents.
We will not disagree with the hon. leader of the third party who in September 1996 said:
Mr. Speaker, to ensure there is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will be made fully public before the next federal election?I am doing the best I can.
Many people in my riding are frustrated in their efforts to find employment. Some are frustrated because they can only find work through temporary placement agencies. It is difficult for them to support their families on salaries from part time jobs. Many may wonder in today's job market if the government's Human Resources Centres of Canada are still relevant.
Does the minister have any suggestion on services available in HRCCs to many Canadians who are looking for employment to support themselves, their families and their relatives?
(1500 )
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): I thank the member for his very good question. We are very preoccupied with the high level of unemployed people in the country.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the very nature of work is changing these days. It is more and more difficult to adapt to its needs. This is something that we try very hard to do as a government.
Placement agencies happen to be very useful in a number of circumstances and we have had good results with the ones we have actually worked with.
I want to assure the country and the House that HRDC is still working very well at the employment centres and that we have a number of important programs. Reinvesting $800 million in active measures is one element of it. We have had very successful programs to help Canadians find jobs.
The new electronic labour exchange which matches employers and job seekers has had an extraordinary 80 per cent positive result. We still give a lot of face to face services for these people. The job bank which links employers with job seekers is quite efficient as well.
How can the Minister of Transport justify this measure which is a reward for the railways' poor performance and allows them to increase their profits at the expense of hard working farmers?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has forgotten that many factors are taken into account when the cost of capital allowance is made in determining grain freight rates. This is done by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
I should point out to the member that there have been adjustments downward as a result of improvements in the capital market, as well as the adjustment that he mentioned, which is related to the risk involved in the current system of grain transportation and the risk to the railways themselves.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
I am now going to recognize the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair who wants to speak to the question of privilege which was brought up this morning. Is that correct?
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
This morning the member for Hamilton-Wentworth raised a question of privilege concerning the operation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. His allegation is that the committee has misinterpreted Standing Order 108(2) and in so doing has violated his rights as a member of Parliament.
By a motion on report of the subcommittee on procedures, our steering committee, the committee on justice and legal affairs which I chair agreed unanimously to embark on a study of the subject matter of what has now become Bill C-46 which is presently before the House at second reading. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the production of records in sexual offence proceedings.
The member objects and claims his privileges have been breached. I did not have notice of his objection this morning but I do have the blues now. From the blues, as near as I can tell his allegations rest on the following: first, he has expressed grave reservations about the subject matter of the bill and second, he wants to stay in the House during the debate and at the same time wants to put questions during committee hearings. He says that he cannot ask those questions until after he has heard the debate.
In support of his position he argues that nothing in Standing Order 108(2) gives us the authority to discuss, deliberate or consider the subject matter of a bill before the House. He also argues what I would suggest is a tautology, that the bill is the subject matter and the subject matter is the bill, et cetera, forever in a circle.
In response I would argue that in June 1985 the McGrath report was published. It suggested that committees of the House of Commons should have more power. As a result Standing Order 108(2) was enacted. It is a successful attempt to give committees more power by allowing them to very much control the process as well as the subject matter that is studied. In addition to studying matters referred to them by the House, committees on their own initiative can undertake other endeavours which are thought important.
In this case, the agenda is very full. The justice committee has probably the busiest agenda of any committee in the House. We wanted to take a look at policy initiatives which are now embodied in Bill C-46 and are the subject matter which we resolved to study as a priority. Because the committee is busy its work had to be prioritized. One priority was Bill C-55 dealing with dangerous offenders. It was reported last week. The committee then wanted to study Bill C-46 which it suspected was coming or knew was coming.
A great deal of attention has been paid to the subject matter of Bill C-46 in terms of letters and public response. As a committee, all parties, including the one that is heckling me right now, unanimously agreed that the subject matter of this bill would be a high priority.
Section 108(1)(a) gives us the authority to sit while the House sits. I want to point that out because that is one of the objections that the member raises.
(1510 )
Section 108(2) empowers committees to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate-and I am paraphrasing-of the departments of government which are assigned to it and that includes the Department of Justice which is the primary source of the legislative agenda at this time.
In the commentaries in the Annotated Standing Orders at page 324 the author states:
Standing committees are now empowered by the House to inquire into and report on all aspects of the departments assigned to them-the Standing Order includes a blanket reference permitting the standing committee to examine any matter relating to the department as it deems necessary and worthwhile.
We are doing exactly that.
With the end of term approaching and knowing that the agenda would be very full, members of the committee really cannot afford any down time and that is why we prioritize our work.
The policy initiatives in Bill C-46 are a subject matter that we resolved unanimously to study as a priority. There are precedents for this. The finance committee was the first committee to do this during the last Parliament and our committee has done this with Bills C-45 and C-110. As well, I understand the transport committee has studied some subject matter in the same way.
The hon. member's specific argument that he wants to hear the debate and then go to committee and question people can be responded to this way. First, the blues are available to him almost immediately. I had the blues of his motion by noon today. Hansard is available to him. The committee briefs are public and are available to him. Witness lists are public and are available to him. Department officials and briefings are available as they have been to all members who require them. All of these could help him prepare for committee work.
I would suggest that section 108(2) gives committee members the power to do what we are doing. Really, all we are doing is controlling our own destiny and determining what work we will do at what priority.
I would like to thank the Deputy Speaker for giving me notice of this motion and allowing me the opportunity to speak.[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
What the hon. member said about the way we proceeded is correct. However, I think the member raised a very important point about procedure. It would be worthwhile having an enlightened decision from the Chair on this so we could use it later on.
When I gave consent for the committee to follow this procedure, I was very familiar with Bill C-46 and aware of the consequences and the speed with which they wanted it passed, given that it pretty well had universal approval. We also knew that there were a lot of women's groups and that the Supreme Court had reached decisions that concerned Bill C-45.
All this resulted in the opposition's agreeing in full knowledge of the situation to not follow the rules. What I would like clarified-and it is your job, I believe, Mr. Speaker-is that I do not perhaps entirely agree with the way my colleague has interpreted the new powers of the committees. I think there is a rule providing that, following second reading, the committee receives the bill, hears witnesses and so on.
There are two questions I would like you to answer The first is this: What rule prevails under the Standing Orders? The second question I would like you to answer to help the committees eventually is: If the members of a committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, unanimously agree to proceed other than in the way the rules provide, is it legal for them to do so?
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, without prejudice to whether this may be a point of privilege, I thought that since the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair mentioned the McGrath reforms, I might intervene very briefly as the last surviving member of the McGrath committee.
It was certainly not the spirit of the McGrath reforms to have things happen simultaneously. In fact, the intention of the entire reform with respect to reorganizing the hours of the House and of committees, et cetera, was to make sure that a situation would not occur in which things were being considered both in the House and in committee at the same time.
(1515)
Committees are still masters of their own destiny or at least should be if we were able to change the political culture such that parties still did not run the committees.
Technically speaking, the member is right. I just want to indicate that the spirit of the McGrath reform was that things would not be happening simultaneously.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to be brief and say thanks to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth for raising this question of privilege.
When you consider your decision on this matter, I urge you to consider that this really does affect every member of this House even though it was raised by just the one member, the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
The Speaker: The hon. member spoke this morning. It was his question of privilege. Does he have anything new to add to what he said this morning?
Mr. Bryden: No, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I think I am getting the gist of what has gone on. Of course, you will permit me to take the time to review everything that was said, including the information presented by the member for Hamilton-Wentworth.
I will have a look at everything that was said today. I will have a look at the precedents and I will try to ascertain what has occurred, what was intended in the McGrath report and, if necessary, I will address myself to the two questions that were brought up by the member for Berthier-Montcalm.
In that way, hopefully we will all be able to better understand what has transpired and possibly have some direction as to which way we should be going in the future.
I will get back to the House after I have made a review of the facts put before me and through my own research.