36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 211
CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 20, 1999
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Natural Resources and Government Operations
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1005
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Merchant Navy Veterans
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Housing in Nunavik
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1010
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-79. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1030
1035
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1050
1055
1100
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1105
1110
1115
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1120
1125
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
1140
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1155
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1200
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1205
1210
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1225
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
1230
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1235
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1240
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1245
1250
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1305
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1310
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1315
1320
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1335
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1355
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA BOOK DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1400
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ST. PAUL UNIVERSITY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Parrish |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILINGUALISM
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Godin |
1405
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEADOWVALE THEATRE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CFB CALGARY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1410
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BLOC QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1420
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1425
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1435
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1445
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Serge Cardin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1450
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KOSOVO
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1455
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Assad |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CODE OF ETHICS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard M. Harris |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1500
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Government Response to Committee Report
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1505
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Blaikie |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1515
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1520
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-79. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1525
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1540
1545
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1600
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1605
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-79. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1610
1615
1620
1625
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1630
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1635
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1640
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1700
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1705
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Goldring |
1710
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1725
1730
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CODE OF ETHICS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1755
1805
(Division 378)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—The Balkans
|
1815
(Division 379)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1830
(Division 380)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion negatived
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-72. Second reading
|
(Division 381)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1835
(Division 382)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-71. Second reading
|
(Division 383)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-27. Third reading
|
1840
(Division 384)
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-403. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1845
1850
1855
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1900
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1905
1910
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1915
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
1920
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
1925
1930
![V](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1935
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 211
![](/web/20061116192018im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 20, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations.
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, March 15,
1999 the committee has considered Bill C-66, an act to amend the
National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
act, and agreed on Thursday, April 15, 1999 to report it without
amendment.
In tabling this report I wish to thank all hon. members for
their co-operation.
1005
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 70th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the changes
the committee is making to the list of criteria for the selection
of votable items.
The committee believes that this simplified list of criteria,
modified for the first time since the establishment of the
guidelines in 1987, will provide greater assistance to members
whose responsibility it is to select votable items.
This report would not have been possible without the energy and
dedication of the present and past members of the subcommittee on
Private Members' Business. I commend also the work of the
committee members and hope this new list will facilitate the work
of the subcommittee members.
I also have the honour to present the 71st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development, and I should like to move concurrence at
this time.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
need clarification. I was not paying close enough attention and
I want to know which report number it is.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, it is the 71st report
regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary
secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to propose
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
few finer examples of Canadian wartime success and magnificent
effort can be found than in the annals of the battle of the
Atlantic where merchant seamen sailed the enemy infested sea to
keep allies supplied until the Atlantic war tide turned in 1943
toward victory.
Now, 50 years hence, merchant navy veterans are still held
hostage to unresolved concerns. Merchant navy veterans are not
seeking great wealth, only the respect and benefits given their—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The presentation of
petitions is not an opportunity for a speech, it is for a brief
summary of the petition and I would urge the hon. member to
come to the point.
I am sure the House appreciates his remarks, but it is contrary
to the rules to make a speech during the presentation of
petitions.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners call
upon the Parliament of Canada to enact legislation to accord the
merchant navy veterans the specific recognition and benefits that
have been denied since world war two.
[Translation]
HOUSING IN NUNAVIK
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table a petition from the Inuit community of
Aupaluk, in Nunavik.
The petitioners state that there have been no housing starts by
either federal or provincial governments in Nunavik in the past
three years. At the present time, there are 16 to 20 people
living in three bedroom dwellings.
The Inuit find the housing conditions at Nunavik extremely
distressing. They consider the situation totally intolerable,
because it contributes to the high incidence of tuberculosis,
infectious diseases and social problems. At the end of October
1998, there was a shortage of 425 houses in Nunavik.
[English]
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order No. 36, I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including those of
my own riding of Mississauga South, on the subject of human
rights.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world
in countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge
that Canada continues to be recognized as a champion of
internationally recognized human rights.
1010
Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to continue to
speak out against human rights abuses and also to seek to bring
to justice those responsible for such abuses.
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to present a petition signed by grandparents from
across the country. They want the House of Commons to ask the
government to amend the Divorce Act so that grandparents will be
able to have access to their grandchildren in the event of the
divorce of their own children without having to go to court.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my petition is in the same vein as that of my colleague
from Ottawa Centre. It is a request to have the law amended so
that grandparents can have access to their grandchildren when
there is a divorce.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you
would ask for unanimous consent to return to motions.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 71st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your patience
and the patience of members of the House. I would be grateful if
you would seek unanimous consent to return to tabling of
documents.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 25 petitions.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.): moved that Bill C-79, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (victims of crime) and another Act in consequence, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to speak to a
subject that is one of my top priorities—improving the
treatment of victims in the Canadian criminal justice system.
On Thursday, I introduced Bill C-79, which will make changes to
the Criminal Code.
[English]
I am encouraged by the positive response I have received to
these amendments. This response is evidence of the impact the
voices of victims of crime and concerned Canadians have had on
policy makers and legislators. The fact that so many people are
prepared to support this bill and thereby advance the role of
victims in the justice system indicates to me that the
legislation has appropriately addressed those issues which have
for too long caused victims to feel ignored or overlooked.
There is no need for me to speak about these amendments in
detail.
All members have had an opportunity to review the bill. I also
anticipate that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights will conduct an appropriate review of the legislation.
1015
I would like to highlight the key features of the bill, but
first let me comment briefly on how we arrived at these
amendments.
The amendments I have tabled result from a thoughtful
consideration of the federal government's role and jurisdiction
in addressing the concerns of victims of crime as set out in the
Criminal Code. We have moved beyond the rhetoric of a victims
bill of rights and have engaged in a dialogue with victims and
their advocates, with victims service providers and with our
provincial and territorial colleagues about concrete measures to
support the concerns of victims.
We have advanced this through the concerted effort of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights whose review of
victims issues led to a singular achievement, a unanimous report
with recommendations entitled “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a
Veto”.
The standing committee heard from victims, victims advocates,
service providers, crown attorneys, defence lawyers, restorative
justice practitioners and countless other interested Canadians in
its hearings, town hall meetings and ultimately at its national
forum held last June chaired by our colleague and friend, the
late Shaughnessy Cohen. With her commitment to this issue and
her ability to put participants at ease and encourage them to
fully express their views, the report of the standing committee
captured what crime victims really want, what they should be
entitled to, and what we as a federal government can deliver.
The standing committee recognized and emphasized two significant
points. First, the provinces and territories and the federal
government share responsibility for the criminal justice system.
While we enact the criminal law that applies throughout our
country, the provinces are responsible for enforcing the law and
prosecuting offenders, and more generally for the administration
of justice which includes providing services and assistance for
victims of crime.
The second point recognized by the committee is that in Canada,
both at the federal and provincial-territorial level, we have
already made significant progress in responding to the concerns
of victims through legislation, policies and programs. We are
not starting from the very beginning.
The committee noted that despite the significant progress of the
last decade and despite the current laws and programs, there
continue to be gaps and much more can be done by both levels of
government to fill those gaps. I want to congratulate every
member of the committee for his or her efforts and co-operation.
The Bill C-79 amendments I have tabled fully respond to the
recommendations of the standing committee and will build upon the
solid foundation of provisions already in the Criminal Code.
While these amendments are significant in their own right, what
is even more significant is the cumulative and comprehensive
nature of the Criminal Code provisions which will result from the
proclamation of these amendments. Upon proclamation, Canada will
stand out as a leader in addressing the role of the victim in the
criminal justice system while at the same time fully respecting
the rights of accused persons.
As I promised, I do not intend to describe in detail every
provision of Bill C-79, but I would like to highlight a few key
features.
First, the preamble to this bill reflects why we as
parliamentarians and members of the government are bringing these
amendments forward. The preamble expresses our concerns about
the impact of crime on society and on victims. It emphasizes
that the criminal justice system depends on the participation of
victims and witnesses of crime, that this participation should be
facilitated and encouraged and that victims and witnesses should
always be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect by the
justice system.
The preamble also highlights our belief that the views and
concerns of victims should be considered particularly with
respect to decisions which have an impact on their safety,
security and privacy.
1020
The preamble also reflects a key principle of these amendments.
That is that this government is committed to ensuring that all
persons have the full protection of the rights guaranteed by our
charter and that those rights which do often come into conflict
are to be reconciled and accommodated. In other words, these
improvements to the justice system in the name of victims of
crime will in no way take away from the rights of persons accused
of crime.
The substantive amendments deal with several key concerns:
enhancing the victim impact statement provisions; expanding
protection for victims and witnesses to facilitate their
participation; ensuring that the concerns of victims and
witnesses regarding their safety and security are taken into
account when determining whether an accused person should be
released on bail; and revising the victim surcharge provisions.
The victim impact statement amendments build upon the current
regime which requires that the judge consider any victim impact
statement prepared at the time of sentencing of the offender. The
amendments will make it clear that where the victims want to read
that statement to the judge at the time of sentencing, they shall
be permitted to do so. This opportunity to present their
statement will assure victims that in addition to the requirement
that the statement be considered, it will actually be heard by
the judge and persons present in the courtroom at sentencing,
including the accused.
The amendments will also address the frequent and significant
concern of victims that they did not know about the opportunity
to make an impact statement. The code will require that the
sentencing judge ask whether the victim has been informed of the
opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement. This
legislative provision coupled with other initiatives to improve
the flow of information to crime victims will greatly assist
victims in their awareness of their role in the justice system,
that they have a voice and that it can be heard through the
victim impact statement.
Other amendments will permit victims of mentally disordered
offenders to describe the impact of the offence by providing for
victim impact statements at a disposition hearing following a
verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental
disorder.
Significant changes have been made to the victim surcharge
provisions. The new regime will place the obligation to pay the
surcharge squarely on the accused. As hon. members know, the
revenue raised by the victim surcharge stays in the province or
territory and goes into a dedicated revenue fund to provide
programs, services and assistance to victims of crime.
This new surcharge regime should result in a significant
increase in the revenue available to provinces and territories to
help victims. Equally important, the victim surcharge holds
offenders accountable, albeit in a small way, to victims of crime
as a group.
As I said when I tabled this bill last Thursday, victims need a
voice that is listened to and respected. These amendments
reflect this philosophy in a concrete and practical way. These
amendments are an important and significant step in a strategy to
improve the criminal justice system. This strategy requires not
only that we as a federal government do our part, but that we
encourage others, including provincial and territorial
governments, to continue their invaluable work in providing
information and other necessary assistance to victims and that we
encourage all the players in the criminal justice system to
willingly recognize the role of victims and witnesses.
As the federal government we intend to do our part. Today we
are focusing on essential Criminal Code amendments. My colleague
the solicitor general is eager to address the concerns of victims
in the context of the review of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act currently being carried out by a subcommittee of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
In addition to the legislative initiatives, I am committed to
full implementation of all the recommendations of the standing
committee. These include the establishment of a policy centre
within my department to provide the victims lens for all policy
and legislative initiatives, to provide a centre of expertise on
victims issues and to ensure that we continue to liaise with our
provincial and territorial partners and with representatives of
all components of the criminal justice system, including victim
advocates and service providers to explore emerging issues and to
ensure continued progress and improvements.
1025
[Translation]
I count on having the support of all members for Bill C-79. It
reflects our collective opinion that victims should be able to
speak out and our shared commitment to providing this right.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-79.
Victims of crime are finally going to see a start of some
significant initiatives toward rights and privileges. It has
been a long struggle but the government appears to have finally
recognized and accepted the necessity of rebalancing the scales
of justice to more adequately reflect the interests of victims of
crime.
First I would like to acknowledge and compliment the hon. member
for Langley—Abbotsford. He definitely got the ball rolling in
this place. Throughout the 35th parliament he and his Reform
colleagues pressured the government to introduce a victims bill
of rights.
It was he who moved the Reform supply day motion of April 29,
1996 which was successful. This place voted to direct the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as it was then
called to draft a victims bill of rights. The Minister of
Justice was also to initiate consultations with the provinces to
arrive at a national standard for a victims bill of rights.
At the time of the debate, the Minister of Justice, now the
Minister of Health, acknowledged the severe shortcomings of our
legislation in regard to victims rights. He stated: “Although
steps have been made toward progress in recent years, they have
been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done”. He
promised specific victim legislation by the fall of 1996. He did
not fulfill that promise. In fact it was not for two more years
that the government put victims rights on its agenda.
In June 1998 the justice committee finally got around to
conducting a review into what changes to the legislation were
necessary to acknowledge and respect victims of crime. In October
1998 the justice committee submitted its report “Victims'
Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. It was a good report. It
essentially had all-party support.
The Bloc submitted a short minority report but it essentially
encouraged the government to respect the provincial jurisdiction
within our Constitution in the area of victims issues. Even the
Bloc did not have much complaint over the recommended changes to
the federal legislation. Those changes merely enhance the role
of victims in our criminal law process. The actual financial,
physical and psychological assistance programs for victims would
still remain a provincial initiative.
For one of the few times in this place, all participants seemed
to be onside. The co-operation among the various political
parties at the committee table was refreshing and appreciated.
Bill C-79 is merely the response to the committee report. It is
long overdue. Victims have been waiting for far too long for
many of these rather simple rights. There has been little reason
for the government to delay as long as it has. Hopefully this
legislation will be a start to rectifying the historical
injustices to innocent members of our society who through no
fault of their own happen to become victims of crime.
For years the government has fallen all over itself to safeguard
the interests of criminals. Victims in many respects have been
completely forgotten. Perhaps this legislation is an indication
of change. There must be a more proper balance between the
rights of the criminal and the rights of the victim.
As I have said, the committee report was an example of how
parliamentarians could work together to produce a valuable
product for all Canadians. The report contained 17
recommendations. Bill C-79 really only addresses about seven of
the recommendations.
Recommendation No. 6 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to
require consideration of the complainant's safety concerns prior
to judicial interim release decisions, more commonly referred to
as bail.
There are a number of provisions to protect society as a whole or
to protect specific portions of our community such as school
children, et cetera, but there is a deficiency when it comes to
considering the safety concerns of the specific victims of crime.
It is the victim who is most likely to be the subject of
intimidation regarding providing evidence and it is the victim
who is most likely to be the subject of additional victimization.
It only makes sense to consider that particular victim's
concerns.
1030
Paragraph 3 of the legislation requires a police officer to
consider the safety and security of any victim or witness prior
to releasing the accused from custody. Paragraph 4 of the
legislation requires the officer in charge to make similar
considerations. Paragraph 8 of the legislation places similar
controls over the judge. The safety and security of any person,
but particularly a victim or witness, must be considered.
Recommendation No. 7 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to
facilitate exclusion orders and to prohibit cross-examination by
an accused personally during proceedings involving specific
offences where the witness is under the age of 18, rather than
the current age of 14. The committee found that persons under
the age of 18 were more easily intimidated by accused persons
when permitted to cross-examine these young members of our
society and, in effect, subjecting these victims to be victimized
again.
Paragraph 2 of the legislation appears to fulfill this
recommendation. Section 486 has been amended to change the age
from 14 to 18 years. The judge may appoint counsel for the
purpose of conducting the cross-examination.
Recommendation No. 8 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to
permit a judge to ban the publication of identifying information
concerning a victim, a complainant or a witness in certain
circumstances. Concern was expressed over respecting the dignity
and privacy of victims. Concern was expressed over hesitancy for
complainants to come forward as witnesses should they not wish to
have their identities revealed to the public.
Subparagraph 2(3) of the legislation appears to fulfill this
recommendation. The judge or justice is given power to ban
publication of information that could identify a victim or a
witness if necessary for the proper administration of justice.
Recommendation No. 9 proposed changes to the Criminal Code to
permit victims the right to read their impact statements into the
record either personally or by other means provided the accused
has received a copy of the statement in advance. As I have said
before, the opportunity to present a victim impact statement in
court helps the victim to feel that they are an important part of
the justice process, not merely a spectator. It gives them a
measure of closure in that they have had the opportunity to
impress upon the court just how they have been harmed by the
offence. It gives them an opportunity to impress upon the
offender just how they have been damaged by the actions of that
individual. It gives them the opportunity to hope that their
words may cause the offender to reflect upon their misconduct and
perhaps move them on the road to rehabilitation.
This recommendation was of special significance to me. As some
may know, my son was murdered six and a half years ago. I was
not permitted to present my impact statement orally. I have been
working for this change, among others, ever since.
Paragraph 17 of the legislation appears to fulfill this
recommendation. The court shall permit the victim to read victim
impact statements.
Recommendation No. 10 proposed changes to require impact
statements to be provided to the offender or counsel and to the
prosecutor as soon as practicable after a determination of guilt.
Concern had been raised over the fact that victim impact
statements were to be provided to an accused as soon as it was
filed. They were often used as evidence during the trial through
cross-examination to attack the credibility of the victim, even
though they were not permitted as evidence until the sentencing
portion of the hearing, if any. To provide fairness, this
recommendation proposed notice to the offender as soon as
practicable after the finding of guilt. They cannot and should
not be used until sentencing so they should not be available to
the defence until sentencing. There will be ample opportunity at
the sentencing for the defence to challenge the statement.
Paragraph 18 appears to fulfill this recommendation. The clerk
of the court shall provide a copy of the report to the offender
or counsel and to the prosecutors. We, as proponents of victims'
rights issues, are fair. We certainly recognize the necessity to
provide the offender with notice of the contents of an impact
statement.
1035
Evidence must not be presented in surprise although the rules of
disclosure currently allow the defence to do just that, but that
is a fight for another day. In this case. the offender must be
provided the opportunity to lead contradictory evidence, if any.
Recommendation No. 11 proposed changes to oblige the sentencing
judge to determine whether the victim had been provided an
opportunity to prepare and submit a victim impact statement and
to grant an adjournment for that purpose where satisfied it would
not interfere with the proper administration of justice.
Paragraph 18 of the legislation appears to fulfill that
recommendation. The court inquires of the prosecutor whether the
victim has been advised of the opportunity to prepare a
statement.
One of the primary problems with victims' issues is that no one
can forecast becoming a victim of crime. As such, victims most
often have little idea of what rights, privileges or provisions
are available to them. It is one thing to provide victims with
rights. It is quite another thing to ensure that the victim is
made aware of those rights.
Recommendation No. 11 was made by the committee to ensure that
the victim was made aware of the right to present a victim impact
statement and the opportunity to prepare and submit the
statement. Bill C-79 meets this test. The court has discretion
whether to adjourn the proceedings to permit the victim to
prepare a statement if satisfied that the adjournment would not
interfere with the proper administration of justice.
Recommendation No. 13 recommended that the Criminal Code and the
Young Offenders Act be amended to allow for the automatic
imposition of a mandatory minimum victim fine surcharge that
could be waved by the court to avoid undue hardship to the
offender. Paragraph 20 appears to fulfill this recommendation in
respect of Criminal Code cases.
The government has refused to initiate similar provisions with
respect to young persons. In the recent legislation introduced
in the youth criminal justice act, the government has essentially
left victim fine surcharges to the provinces. If the provinces
do not provide leadership in this area the court may impose a
surcharge. The government has left this type of provision in
spite of the Minister of Justice's comments that the practice of
leaving it to the courts has not worked. Judges have had that
power for years but they either refuse to use it or forget about
it when imposing sentences. It was because of this problem that
the justice committee recommended a mandatory minimum surcharge
or a sort of reverse onus clause. It requires the court to
automatically assess a fine surcharge but leaves it up to the
defendant to argue economic hardship. The justice committee was
attempting to provide sufficient financial resources to assist
the provinces to provide sufficient resources to victims of
crime.
We will be attempting to have this amended in the current
legislation or in the new youth justice act.
As members can see, Bill C-79 addresses a number of
recommendations of the justice committee report. The
recommendations that have been addressed have been relatively
simple and not too painful. None of them really require any
additional funding from the government or in actual fact the
taxpayer. None of the accepted recommendations impact on the
rights of the accused to any great extent. Yes, the accused may
be held in custody if there is a decision that the victim or
witness is at risk of further harm. Yes, the accused may no
longer personally cross-examine young victims in cases such as
sexual assault. Yes, the victim is being provided with enhanced
rights to present a victim's impact statement. Yes, there is a
better method of obtaining fine surcharges to provide assistance
to victims.
All of these are long overdue and are not a particularly
burdensome imposition on our accused or our criminals. They all
make common sense. It is indeed a wonder why we have waited so
long to bring them into being.
I will now move to comment on recommendations that have not been
addressed by the government. Victims have waited for years to
finally obtain substantive recognition and respect for their
interests. The justice committee heard from a number of victims
and victims' groups both in testimony and in a one and a half day
round table forum last summer. There was a co-ordinated response
from the committee of the necessity to act and act now.
Unfortunately, this same sentiment is not as present with the
government.
In recommendation No. 5, the justice committee proposed the
tabling of an omnibus bill to address needed amendments to the
Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Bill C-79 only addresses the Criminal Code aspect. The minister
has used the excuse that the justice committee is presently
reviewing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so the
government will await that report before deciding whether to
initiate reforms to that legislation in regard to victims'
rights. The minister has also claimed that the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act is the responsibility of the solicitor
general. My first thought is the old problem of the chicken and
the egg. Which came first?
1040
We have a victims' rights report. It addresses the needed
changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is
after years and years of waiting. It is difficult for me to
accept having to wait some more months, perhaps many months,
before the government might bring forth the needed victim
legislation as it pertains to our prisons and our parole system.
It is difficult to understand why the government does not just
do the job necessary. Why does it always have to seem to need to
be forced to introduce legislation that is best for its citizens?
Why does it play political games to procrastinate and to prolong
the suffering and disregard of innocent Canadians who just happen
end up as victims of crime?
For the minister to claim that the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act comes under the responsibility of the solicitor
general may be acceptable to the general public but we all know
that it is the Minister of Justice's department that puts
together legislation of a legal nature. Yes, the solicitor
general has overall responsibility but he and his predecessor
have had the committee recommendations the same time as the
Minister of Justice. Surely the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act response to the committee report could have been
completed in the same time as the Criminal Code portion. In fact
the more substantial portion of the report dealt with changes to
the Criminal Code.
There were essentially four recommendations dealing with the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These changes were
relatively simple. They were of the same nature as the changes
to the Criminal Code. There is no satisfactory explanation as to
why the solicitor general's area of response is not now before
the House. That is a travesty to victims of crime. It is
unacceptable.
A number of recommendations had to do with developing a victims
of crime strategy, co-ordinating federal-provincial
responsibilities, establishing a national office for victims of
crime and creating an advisory committee on victims of crime. All
of these aspects do not really require legislation.
The Minister of Justice has announced that she will be creating
the national office within her department. We have seen little
evidence of how it is to operate. We hope it develops into more
than just a public relations exercise or a haven for patronage
appointments. It cannot be allowed to develop into just another
bureaucratic department.
As a member of the justice committee, I know that this
recommendation had more to do with creating a substantial
initiative to properly assist victims toward obtaining justice
and closure for their unwanted and unfortunate involvement with
crime. This national office and any advisory committee must
provide concrete solutions and resolutions to victims' issues.
Canadians are looking for action, not some more bureaucratic
delay, not more red tape and certainly not more excuses.
I am concerned about the definition of victim. It has been
added to the definition section of the Criminal Code and merely
states, “includes the victim of an alleged offence”. For the
purposes of section 722 there is a broader definition of victim.
This includes a person to whom harm was done or who suffered
physical or emotional loss as a result of the commission of an
offence. Section 722 is restricted to victim impact statements.
During the anticipated justice committee review of this
legislation, I will be interested in hearing why a broader
definition, similar to what is included in the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act, has not been used. Without getting
carried away and making everyone a victim of any crime, there may
well be sufficient argument to ensure true victims are not
excluded merely because of the wording of the legislation.
I will conclude my submission with a couple of stories which I
hope will drive home to my hon. colleagues the shoddy treatment
some victims of crime are subjected to.
My son Jesse's best friend was at his side when he died. Can
anybody here even begin to imagine the trauma? Jeremy's parents
attempted to get him some help but were told the waiting list was
months long. Five months later, on the eve of my son's birthday,
Jeremy acted out by committing a very minor offence himself. As
an offender he received help within days. What does that tell
us?
Two weeks after our own tragedy, Laurie Woods and her roommate
were brutally stabbed to death.
1045
To make a long story short, Laurie's mother Pat anticipated the
possibility of requiring counselling. When Laurie's dad Bob
inquired about financial compensation for counselling, should it
be required, some thoughtless bureaucrat promptly told him that
his wife did not qualify because she did not personally witness
the killings.
Family members of homicide victims witness the event every night
in their nightmares. Bob and Pat are friends of mine. A short
time later we along with others were successful in getting the
rules in British Columbia changed. Granted these are provincial
issues but I think the point is made. The issue must be
approached at all levels.
I do not intend on being entirely of gloom and doom. The
legislation is a start toward victims rights provisions. It has
been far too long in coming. Even the government's response to
the justice committee is only half done. We will still have to
wait for the changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. Hopefully Canadians, and especially victims of crime, will
not have to wait too much longer for the government to fulfil the
needs of these individuals. Today is a start. There is still a
long way to go.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in
consequence.
This bill addresses several legitimate public expectations
regarding how our criminal justice system should treat the
victims of crime.
Criminal justice is defined in various ways. Some will say that
the purpose of the justice system is to punish those who have
broken the law. In fact, living in society involves respect for
certain fundamental values that help maintain social
equilibrium.
If we do not respect these values, we expose ourselves to the
disapproval of our fellow citizens and face a sentence judged
appropriate by the community. This sentence must meet various
considerations, one of them being to protect society. The
sentence imposed must make it possible to decrease, if not
eliminate, the probability of a repeat offence, thus lowering
the medium and long term social costs of crime.
The criminal justice system therefore has a very significant
social dimension. This is shown primarily by the fact that it
is the state that brings criminals before the courts. Contrary
to civil proceedings, it is the attorney general, representing
the community, who must defend our interests by proving the
accused's guilt before the courts.
In this context, we see that criminal justice is evaluated
basically according to our shared needs. When we pass
legislation aimed at fighting crime, we do so in light of an
overall analysis of the situation. We avoid legislating based
on specific, individual, cases. We ensure that the justice
system is properly integrated.
A good body of legislation is described as being consistent,
with punishments that match the crimes committed, and as
effectively addressing the harmful consequences of these crimes
on society in general.
Crimes have always had names associated with them. The
suspect's first and last names appear on the court decision.
The media pick them up, and associate a face and an identity
with them. The suspected perpetrator has not only rights, but
also has obligations, freedoms but also constraints.
As we have seen, crime has an adversary: the state. Criminal
justice does not just involve us and the crime, us and evil.
There are also, above all, those who have been the victims.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that crime, to which we have
attached a name, also involves another set of names, the first
and last names of the person who has been killed, hurt or
otherwise affected, a person with a face and a specific
identity. That person might be our friend, our relative, a
child we know.
1050
That name imposes the unlooked-for status of victim of crime,
with all the suffering, torment, distress and of course anger
that entails.
The legal process the victims are required to take part in does
nothing to lessen all this suffering. On the contrary, the
victim is forced to face the perpetrator and to relive in every
last detail an unbearable event he or she wishes to forget as
quickly as possible. The criminal justice system is therefore
often perceived as more of an irritant than a balm.
The members of the House of Commons must assume their
responsibilities and work to reduce the negative effects of
criminal proceedings on the victims of criminal acts. They must
not only ensure that the victims are not obliged to relive the
drama, but they must also enable them to speak out.
Accordingly, in the spring of 1998, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights began to study the role of victims of
criminal acts in the criminal justice system. After lengthy
consultation, the committee, of which I am a member, tabled a
report, some elements of which are reproduced in the bill before
us today.
In this regard, we would point out that the amendments proposed
by the committee and approved by the minister in her Bill C-79
serve to protect victims and involve them in the criminal
justice system and to increase the funding available for the
services offered them. We will see briefly how each of them is
expressed in the bill.
The so-called protective measures include the fact that the bill
recognizes the urgency of better protecting victims as they are
cross-examined by a person accused of sexual assault. The Bloc
Quebecois has repeatedly asked in recent years that this
protection be reinforced, since cross-examination is probably the
hardest thing for a victim to face, especially when the accused
is doing the questioning.
Unfortunately, sexual offences are regularly committed by people
known to the victims. In fact, the statistics and files on
these cases indicate that a friend, a parent or someone in a
position of trust, an object of affection, not hatred, is often
found to be responsible for the sexual aggression.
Since the victim must be very brave to report this sort of
offence, even more courage is, understandably, required to face
one's aggressor in court. The additional protection provided
under Bill C-79, which prohibits cross-examination by the accused
of victims under 18 years of age, is therefore a step in the
right direction. It will certainly allow the most vulnerable to
prepare for the effects of this difficult stage of the process.
This limitation for victims under the age of 18 also ensures
that the bill meets the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
With respect to the provisions for greater victim participation
in the judicial process, there are the amendments regarding
victim impact statements.
Once Bill C-79 has been passed, victims will be allowed to read a
statement describing the impact of the crime on their life and
that of their family. This amendment would have the merit of
allowing victims to play a more active role in sentencing
mechanisms. In addition, the new wording of the Criminal Code
would require judges to ensure that victims were duly informed
of the possibility of preparing such a statement.
Parliament has responsibilities towards the victims of crime.
However, its role, although extremely important, is linked to
the criminal procedures defined in the Criminal Code and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In essence, the role
of the Parliament of Canada is limited by the distribution of
powers.
1055
In fact, under this distribution of powers, the provinces have
primary jurisdiction for coming to the aid of victims of crime.
Any legislative measure concerning victims, other than measures
set out in criminal law and proceedings, falls exclusively under
provincial jurisdiction.
As an example, the Government of Quebec has implemented a system
of co-operation between the CSST, the Department of Justice and
the Department of Finance in order to provide financial support
to victims through the application of its crime victims
compensation act.
The Quebec Department of Justice funds a number of programs
including those offered by the Quebec crime victims assistance
centres.
These provincial program may be numerous, but they are also
costly. Maintaining these essential services cannot be assured
unless the funding is equal to the demand. Since 1988, part of
this funding comes from a victim fine surcharge that is imposed
by the courts.
This compensation is a penalty over and above any sentence that
is intended to involve the criminal directly in making
reparation to the victim. In fact, it goes toward the funding
of provincial victim assistance services.
It must be made clear that the victim fine surcharge does not
come from any of the resources generated by the federal
government.
By imposing this surcharge, the court taps into the financial
capacity of the offender, not that of the federal government.
Thus, in approving any change to the victim fine surcharge
system, great care must be taken that the federal government
does not play any part whatsoever in the funding of provincial
services for victims.
According to the provincial prosecutors involved in the various
victim assistance programs, the surcharge authorized and
collected under the Criminal Code is not enough for improvements
to the victim assistance programs.
By making this subject to a maximum of 15% of the fines imposed
on sentencing, or setting it at $35 if there is no fine, the
Criminal Code did not guarantee basic services of the financial
health they required.
Bill C-79, reflecting the recommendations from the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, makes a substantial
change to the victim fine surcharge system, first of all by
making it mandatory for all offenders. Unless the court is of
the opinion that its imposition would cause undue hardship, the
surcharge ought to be paid by all offenders, regardless.
As for the amounts, these would in future be 15% of any fine
imposed on the offender for the offence, or if no fine is
imposed, $50 in the case of an offence punishable by summary
conviction, and $100 in the case of an offence punishable by
indictment. As well, the court may order an offender to pay a
higher amount if it is satisfied that the offender is able to do
so.
It may prove necessary to review the provisions on victim
surcharge. The provinces, responsible for managing all direct
services for victims of criminal offences, count on this
significant contribution the offenders must provide.
The victims of criminal offences deserve attention commensurate
to the tragedy they have undergone. Policies on criminal
justice can be fair only insofar as they take the victim's
interests into account.
So, Bill C-79 is welcome. The measures it contains will
gradually rebalance the interests at stake in the criminal
justice system. The victims and their families will now be able
to count on protection and greater involvement in the criminal
proceedings they are thrust into, much against their will.
It is from this perspective, that the Bloc Quebecois welcomes
Bill C-79 from the Minister of Justice.
1100
Nevertheless, I would like to conclude by recalling that the
role of the federal government with respect to the victims of
criminal acts must be limited to jurisdictions relating to
criminal procedings and law. The minister cannot, under any
pretext, succumb to the temptation to cross into provincial
jurisdiction in connection with providing help to victims of
criminal acts.
In introducing Bill C-79, on April 15, the minister announced the
establishment of a victim strategy centre. In a press release,
she stated that the new centre would manage, co-ordinate and
increase federal initiatives to victims.
Despite the minister's good intentions, we feel that crime
victims would be better served if the federal government stopped
duplicating existing provincial services.
In fact, the Bloc Quebecois is not only convinced that respect
for the distribution of powers serves the interests of crime
victims, but it fears that the minister's announcement will lead
to additional administrative costs that could be avoided if the
tools now available were better used.
The Bloc Quebecois will therefore ensure that the mandate of the
Victims' Policy Centre is defined in terms of federal
jurisdiction, so that the provinces' constitutional authority
with respect to victim assistance is respected.
I would remind the Minister of Justice that, in response to the
dissenting report I tabled during consideration of this topic,
she said that she would do everything she could, that she agreed
with me that this centre should fully respect provincial
jurisdictions, and that she would intervene in an area of
provincial jurisdiction only with the agreement of the
provinces. I am confident that, in such a case, the minister
will act in accordance with her response to my dissenting
report.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to
address Bill C-79, an act respecting victims of crime.
All the previous speakers who worked on the committee and the
minister herself mentioned that this was a good day. It is a
recognition of what a committee can do when parties put aside
partisan differences and work in a constructive way for the
benefit of Canadians. It is, and the minister referred to it, a
tribute to the late Shaughnessy Cohen who chaired this committee.
I am cognizant of the remarks of the member for Surrey North.
Much of the preliminary work was done for the committee prior to
my election in June 1997. It was done in the last parliament. It
is against that backdrop we should examine the work of the
committee, the recommendations of the committee and the bill
brought forward by the minister.
I came to the House and became the spokesperson for the New
Democratic Party on justice as a former defence lawyer. I came
to the committee dealing with the role of victims with much of
the preconceived ideas that one would have, as did my colleague
from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who came here as a former
crown prosecutor. It is fair to say that all parties brought a
perspective to the committee which helped to shape what became a
unanimous report by the committee presented to the House of
Commons.
It is a tribute to both the Conservative member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the member for Surrey North
who brought the perspective of the victim to the committee. Also
a Bloc Quebecois member brought to the committee the perspective
of provincial rights and the importance of understanding the
roles of the federal and provincial governments. Members of the
Liberal Party brought a sense of listening to the victims.
We put aside our differences. We debated some very fundamental
issues about which I will speak in a moment. As a result we were
able to come to a unanimous report which is a tribute to both the
chair of the committee and to the work that went into it.
I do not think we can underestimate the importance of the day and
a half long meeting all members of that committee from all
parties had with not just victims of crime but with
representatives of every aspect of the criminal justice system.
1105
There was goodwill. Whether they were from the National Police
Association, groups representing victims of crime, the Canadian
Bar Association or the Defence Lawyers Association, there was a
real attempt by the participants in that meeting to work
constructively and represent to members of parliament the kinds
of changes that had to be made in the criminal justice system to
accommodate what has for a long time been neglected, that is the
role of victims in the criminal justice system.
Much has been said about the rights of victims and much has been
said about the rights of criminals. Working at this level on the
committees I think all of us struggled with some difficult
questions. On the surface it seems fairly straightforward. One
is a victim of crime. One ought to be afforded certain rights.
One is a criminal. Certainly criminal rights ought not to
supersede those of the victim.
However, when we scratch the surface and begin to explore what
that means, there are difficult questions. When does one move
from being an accused to being a criminal? When does one move
from being the accuser to being a recognized victim?
The member for Surrey North has mentioned that there is a
definition of victim in the act which requires careful scrutiny.
There is a hazy area where we still have to ensure the balance
between the presumption of innocence and a recognition that a
wrong has been done, a balance between the rights of the accused
before a finding of guilt or innocence and the rights of the
person who is accusing them, and then competing balances when
there is a finding by the court of guilt. Where one becomes a
criminal the accuser moves into a different area and certainly
the victim has been affirmed as in fact a victim.
We struggled with those competing rights and how best the
legislation could meet the balance of ensuring the protection of
the rights of the accused on one hand and the role of the victim
on the other.
We have to be very careful when we talk about rights to
understand that rights are not a little package which each
independent individual person carries around in a briefcase.
Rights are collective. They are all our rights. When the rights
of an accused are infringed upon my rights are infringed upon, as
are the rights of every citizen in the country. When a victim's
rights are not adhered to, my rights are not adhered to. Nor are
the rights of anyone in the country.
It is not as though we have a section on victims rights here
that goes to war against the accused rights there. They are the
collective responsibility and fall into the safeguard of all of
us as citizens. That is why the committee struggled so hard.
That is certainly the perspective that we from the New Democratic
Party brought to find that important balance where we safeguard
the rights of all Canadians and ensure that justice is done and
seen to be done.
The legislation responds to a number of unanimous
recommendations that came forward from the justice committee and
which all parties signed on to. The act does a number of things.
I think it is worth examining exactly what is in the legislation.
As has been commented upon, it provides that all offenders must
pay a victim surcharge of a fixed minimum amount, except where
the offender establishes undue hardship, and provides for
increased amounts to be imposed in appropriate circumstances. Not
only is that important in bringing responsibility to bear on the
part of the offender, which it does. It also provides a revenue
by which many of the programs can be funded.
This was a criticism, some may recall, that we had of the
initial act to replace the Young Offenders Act because of the
costs. These things cost money. It is important to know where
the sources of revenue will be and who will bear those costs. In
many cases it will be the provinces in both this legislation and
in the legislation to which I just referred. It is important to
know where the source of revenue will come from.
This provides some moneys to go toward establishing what will be
necessary to implement the law. This law will create a greater
burden on the courts. There is no question about that.
It will create a greater burden on the role of crown prosecutors
or crown attorneys, as they are referred to in some provinces.
1110
Prior to this legislation the crown answered almost exclusively
to the state which it represented. There will be increased
pressure on the crown to respond and to ensure the victim plays
an essential role in the criminal justice process. Some of those
costs to the provinces can be recouped through this victim
surcharge tax.
There are also provisions to ensure victims are informed of
their opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement at the
time of sentencing. One of the most important aspects of the
legislation to the victim is that it is essential to the victim
of a crime, especially after the finding of guilt at the time of
sentencing.
At that point we are no longer talking about the competing
rights of the accused and of the person who accuses. At that
point there is a determination of guilt. We know then there is
an offender who has committed a criminal offence and a person who
has been done wrong. It is important they be given an
opportunity at the time of sentencing to prepare a statement and
to deliver it either in written form or orally before the court.
Many cases before the courts today involve young victims. That
is why there is a section extending protection to victims of
sexual or violent crime up to the age of 18. It restricts
personal cross examination by self-represented accused persons.
The purpose of that was to ensure where a young person of 16 or
17 years is a victim of a sexual crime and an accused wants to be
self-represented that the accused did not intimidate the young
person. An important caveat to that, which indicates the balance
between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim,
is contained in the legislation. It is one that we on behalf of
the New Democratic Party brought to the table at the justice
committee.
The section actually reads that protection is provided to the
young person and the accused cannot personally cross-examine him
or her. It also makes a provision for the court to appoint a
lawyer for the purposes of cross-examination. We cannot refuse
the accused the right to question the person who accuses them. At
the same time we do not want the accused to be able to intimidate
the victim, so we have provided for the court to appoint a lawyer
to perform that function. That is a very important aspect of the
balancing act in the legislation.
I am pleased to say that the NDP supports the overall intent of
the legislation to give victims and witnesses of crime a greater
role in the criminal justice system and to increase safeguards
for those victims. The legislation attempts to strike that
balance which we will be looking at very carefully in committee
to ensure it does. I have already spoken about the need to
ensure it does not infringe upon the rights of the accused at the
same time as it provides an opportunity for the victim.
The establishment of the policy centre for victims of crime
announced earlier this year is important. That is intended to
ensure that all federal policies and legislation take into
account the concerns of victims. This is a major step forward.
It is something we recognize and applaud. It is the type of
approach that could be applied in other areas of social policy.
I have often thought we ought to have a policy centre for
poverty where we might ensure that legislation is looked at
through a lens in terms of what it will do to those who are
currently poor in this wealthy country. It is a step and it may
provide a model we can use in other areas.
It is our hope that the legislation will redress many of the
concerns raised by victims and make it easier for victims and
witnesses to play a meaningful role in the courts.
From my own years in the courts it is clear that the judiciary
in many cases looked in the past to the crown to represent the
views of the victim to some extent, especially at sentencing
hearings. This will provide victims an opportunity to fulfil
that role themselves. It is important legislation in that
regard.
It goes some way to meeting the needs expressed by many victims
at the round table.
Again I applaud them for coming forward. I think that much of
this would not have happened but for their work. It is a
testament to the way laws can be drafted in a democratic society
when a group of people who feel they have a contribution to make,
and this group certainly did, can come forward through their
elected representatives and the government can respond to an
all-party committee and accept the recommendations.
1115
As has been indicated, there are some areas that have not been
accepted yet. We will be watching very carefully to see what
kind of changes take place under the solicitor general's
department with regard to the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. We will be watching that to ensure they match up with the
recommendations of the all-party committee. However, it is an
example of the government responding and I think it is to be
congratulated for that.
I believe also that members of the committee in the other
parties are to be congratulated for coming forward in the
positive way they did. Let us hope we can continue to reform the
criminal justice system with that kind of spirit.
We will be looking at the legislation carefully. We in the NDP
will continue to advocate for a sensible, compassionate response
to the victims of crime, but one that takes into account the
essential balancing that is so necessary for justice to be done
in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, as previous members have mentioned, I am very
pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-79, which I feel is
a very positive piece of legislation brought forward by the
minister. I congratulate her on her wisdom in recognizing the
recommendations that were put forward by the justice committee.
I also want to take a brief moment to recognize the
contributions of the previous speakers and previous members of
the justice committee for their positive contribution to this
bill, which has now come to the stage where it is before the
House for debate.
At this time in our country's history and in the world's history
the issue of victims rights is certainly something about which
there is a raised awareness. We have seen in Kosovo every
evening news coverage which shows disturbing images of people
dying, people being injured and families separated, crimes being
committed under the guise of war. We continually hear of
accounts of terrible crimes being perpetrated on individuals at
the hands of Milosevic's forces.
It saddens me to think that victims such as this will never have
an opportunity to reach justice or to seek justice or retribution
for these attacks. It also makes me and I think others reflect
on how lucky we are to have a criminal justice system in this
country that at least attempts to address those issues of
victimization.
I would also be remiss if I did not pay some tribute to the late
Shaughnessy Cohen, the chair of the justice committee at the time
of the drafting of this report, and also recognize her very
significant contribution to this cause, which I believe is
embodied in the legislation that is before the House.
We are fortunate to live in a society that is progressive with
regard to our criminal justice system. I think this bill
displays an attitude of non-partisanship concerning a justice
issue as important as this.
As a crown attorney I found myself considering daily the rights
of victims and the issues they were wrestling with in seeking
judicial retribution from criminal parties who preyed upon them.
We need to recognize that there is also more that we in this
parliament and we in the justice system can do to address further
those needs.
As I said at the outset, I believe that this is a positive step
forward. With that being said, the Progressive Conservative
Party will support this legislation and will continue to work
toward improvements to our Criminal Code which will entrench the
rights of victims during the prosecution of offences.
I also want to commend the minister for accepting that these
recommendations are necessary and timely. However, supporting
the protection of victims and supporting legislation that perhaps
sometimes raises expectations beyond their real means is a very
dangerous thing to do.
It is a shame that the Liberal government has once again failed
to recognize that these amendments to the Criminal Code are going
to cost a great deal of money to implement. While Bill C-79 is
comparable to the youth justice bill in that regard, the
government has enacted legislation that is essentially going to
leave the provinces holding the bag in many instances with
respect to the cost of implementation. In the House of Commons
we have unfortunately come to expect this to a degree.
1120
With respect to false hopes and expectations, we have seen that
type of legislation before in two bills, ironically both labelled
Bill C-68. However, for the victims of crime who want their
ideas to be heard, and for their safety and protection, the
actual implementation of this bill is very timely and very
important.
The biggest disappointment, as I said, pertains to resources.
It was also mentioned by previous speakers and certainly at the
time of the round table that was held in the summer and during
the implementation and discussions of this bill that there was
hope there would be a national office to address the needs of
victims. It was hoped that there would be one central point
where victims could go to receive information, a place where
victims could receive answers to their very serious questions,
having gone through a justice system that often seems very
sterile and cold. That was the hope of the Progressive
Conservative Party as well as other members of the opposition who
were involved in the drafting of the report.
The victims office would be modelled after what is called the
correctional investigator's office. For the benefit of those
present who are not aware, there was a correctional
investigator's office set up to address the needs of those who
are serving time in federal institutions, those who are paying
their debt to society. The office has a budget of close to $2
million and is staffed significantly to address those needs. I
am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but to not have a
similar office with a similar budget, at the very least, for
victims of crime, I find completely perverse and offensive.
Correctional services currently has an investigator who deals
with concerns and complaints of prisoners. To suggest that
victims should not have similar treatment is certainly paying
short shrift to the suffering which victims have endured.
Since elected to parliament, it has been increasingly clear to
me that victims in our justice system are in need of such an
office. As a critic for my party I have had the opportunity to
speak to victims of crime. Previous to that I spoke with victims
and dealt with victims quite regularly. These individuals are
not looking necessarily to change the outcome of a trial or to
have the judge or the prosecutor act upon their every demand.
I believe that this piece of legislation and the report that led
to the enactment of these changes is quite aptly named “Victims'
Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. I think that encompasses the
spirit of what victims are looking for in our justice system.
They are looking for the recognition that they should be heard
and that their input should, at the very least, have some impact
on the court decisions that have to be made.
Victims are also spouses, children, parents, siblings; many of
whom have lost loved ones as a result of criminal activity. All
of those individuals often are extremely affected by this. The
previous narrow definition of victims is also something that had
to be changed. We certainly welcome the fact that we see that
encompassed in the bill today.
Our party also understands the need which Canadians and victims
of crime have to get support from their elected officials. I
think that a very important signal is being sent today in the
non-partisan and, for the most part, very positive comments that
we have heard emanating from all members who have spoken to this
bill.
I certainly feel that the office which I mentioned has been an
oversight. It has to some degree been overlooked by the
minister. There is still hope that burns eternal that in future
months and future opportunities that will arise in this place
that will change. I know that hope exists also amongst the
stakeholders in the community who have worked so tirelessly to
bring legislation forward to this point and who have worked with
the minister and her departmental officials to encourage them to
open or to move toward an office such as this.
1125
The reason for not doing so appears to be jurisdictional. We
have heard a number of comments made by my colleague in the Bloc
about the fear that exists—and perhaps it is a legitimate fear
on some occasions—about jurisdictional matters treading into the
matters of the provinces. However, not only are victims rights a
non-partisan matter, but when it comes to positive change I would
suggest that this is not an issue that would offend anybody with
respect to treading into jurisdictional matters. This is a
purely good news initiative.
We should have an office that would work in conjunction with
existing offices in the provinces. I know that Ontario and, to a
large degree, Quebec have been leaders in this particular area.
I am sure that a schedule or scheme could be worked out where
victims could be given information and there could be a better
co-ordinated effort to provide this type of information through
one central office that should, in terms of its national scope,
be coming from the federal government and not the provinces.
The minister herself was quick to admit that it is the provinces
which administer justice at the street level and she quite
correctly points out that fact. However, the federal government
is ultimately the drafter of much of the legislation and is
ultimately the one to pay the piper. It should take the
leadership role in setting up a national victims office and
naming the person who would act as an ombudsman and an ongoing
source for the information which victims need.
It is not only in the first instance when victims become
victimized—and we all know that begins the moment it happens—
it is also the follow up and ongoing contact that the victims
seem to be most offended by in our criminal justice system. That
is where that type of office would be extremely important, in
addressing those very real needs of victims.
There are other positive amendments that I will speak to
briefly. I welcome and to a large degree commend the minister
for recognizing the need. One of those positive issues includes
the sections that pertain to the publication ban of a victim's
name or a witness's name. That protection of identity will make
it easier for victims to take part in court proceedings.
There are also amendments that will permit a victim impact
statement to be heard at a parole eligibility hearing to
ascertain whether a person should be released at the time of
serving a certain portion of their debt to society.
The initiatives that will permit the oral presentation of a
victim impact statement are extremely important. The knowledge
element of informing a victim that a person convicted of a life
sentence will in fact be eligible for parole at some point is
once more a bitter-sweet bit of knowledge. I am hopeful that at
some point in the future we will see the removal of section 745
from the Criminal Code so that this terrible piece of information
will not have to be made known to a victim that parole
eligibility exists for a first degree murder conviction.
Improvements have also been made concerning the conditions upon
the release of an accused with respect to the participation of
the accused in programming and the participation of the accused
in their own rehabilitative efforts. Amendments were also made
to improve the criteria of a victim impact statement. One of
those mentioned includes the protection of both victims and
witnesses in their participation in the system. The impact is
often the only way victims can express their concerns and
feelings resulting from incidents of criminal behaviour.
I do not want to leave anyone in the Chamber with the impression
that this is entirely a good piece of legislation. I believe
there were some missed opportunities which existed for the
minister to perhaps go further with respect to matters such as
the enactment of a victims' office and an ombudsman.
Certainly there is a further need, and it is not a legislative
need, but a need for the recognition that there is going to be a
cost associated with this.
1130
I was very encouraged to hear the comments from the previous
speaker, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He pointed out
quite aptly that there is going to be a greater emphasis on crown
prosecutors, and I would go further and say on judges as well,
that emanates from this bill. It has been my experience that
most crown attorneys have been doing much of what is now enacted
in this legislation when it comes to information sharing. This
bill will certainly be the impetus for crown attorneys to do so
in a more systemic way.
Unfortunately victims have had no one to turn to for assistance
at the federal level when those individuals were faced with lack
of information. Oftentimes that fell to the discretion of crown
prosecutors when it came to the drafting of things such as victim
impact statements. So clarification does come from this bill,
which is certainly a welcome and necessary change.
In my home province of Nova Scotia there is a victim services
division within the Department of Justice. There are very
dedicated individuals like Judy Whitman and Coreen Popowich who
work in the New Glasgow office who daily make great contributions
to the cause and needs of victims.
In Quebec le Bureau d'aide aux victimes d'actes criminels,
BAVAC, provides information and assistance to victims of crime.
We have seen Progressive Conservative governments in provinces
like Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario which
have also increased the level of services available to victims at
this time.
Again we see that the provinces have had to act upon a problem
and have used their political expediency because of the fact that
the federal government has not been moving quickly in this
direction.
We heard from previous speakers the fact that much of the
initiative for this legislation was announced publicly. Huge
press conferences were held and ministers toured the country. It
has been very slow to see the change that was initiated and which
has come forward today. That is not something the federal
government can be proud of. The federal government is getting on
board.
Initiatives were taken in the previous parliament by members of
the Reform Party as has been mentioned. Once more the victims
themselves and their advocates and members of that community who
have lobbied so strongly for these needed changes are truly the
ones who should feel a sense of redemption and should be reaping
the credit and the reward that is due today.
Under normal circumstances one would think that this would be a
day for celebration. Certainly a great deal more can be done to
ensure that victims are going to be participating in a system
that affects them greatly, that has affected them and will
continue to do so for a long period of time, if not until the end
of the day.
The fact that legislation such as this is slow to come about
must leave victims with somewhat of a sour taste in their mouth.
In my opinion, our justice system has been moving in the wrong
direction for a long time. There is almost a feeling of
begrudged giving in on the part of the government when it comes
to acknowledging the role of victims in our system.
If this bill was treated like that of the Young Offenders Act in
that the provinces themselves were so active in lobbying for
change, then I would have hoped that this bill would have come
about in a much more timely fashion.
Certainly a federal agency would go a long way to assisting
individuals like Carolyn Solomon of Garson, Ontario. I want to
cite this example because it is one which I think epitomizes some
of the problems not only in the correctional system but
throughout the entire process.
In 1997 Mrs. Solomon lost her son Kevin who was murdered by
Michael Hector. Hector was a federal parolee who was not properly
supervised. Moreover, Hector's parole supervisor was not provided
with sufficient information about this individual to make
informed decisions about his release. This was no doubt due to
lack of funding, lack of resources and also I suggest in some
small part, due to the fact that Correctional Service Canada was
already initiating the early phases of its 50/50 prison release
quota.
Michael Hector breached conditions of his parole and should not
have been out on the street in the first place. Consequently he
was free to kill. Three young individuals lost their lives as a
result, including Carolyn Solomon's son Kevin.
1135
Mrs. Solomon wanted to know, and rightly, why Michael Hector was
permitted to breach these conditions of parole and not held
accountable at that time. She wanted to know why Correctional
Service Canada did not provide Michael Hector's full criminal
record and psychological record to his parole supervisor. She
also wanted to know why the parole supervisor took everything
that Michael Hector told him at face value, a sense of
self-reporting, and why there was no in-depth investigation of
the information statements that were provided by the parolee.
To their credit, Correctional Service Canada and the National
Parole Board have a mechanism in place to promptly undertake a
review when cases like this are botched. Mrs. Solomon was a
victim, as was her son, of Michael Hector's crime which resulted
from mistakes by Correctional Service Canada and the National
Parole Board and they are charged with investigating themselves
in the wake of this tragedy.
I raise this point because of the fact that there was an
opportunity to also incorporate some of these entrenched rights
of victims within the changes we are currently looking at in the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act review. As was
previously mentioned, there was an opportunity to encompass these
recommendations from the entire justice panel and they were
simply ignored. Once again, if we could put aside the
partisanship and move toward positive change in our justice
system, surely it would be much the better for Canadians.
More recently there are other sad examples of this which I do
not have the time to cite at this moment. Anyone who has been
involved and who has been a victim of crime will know that this
is a focus which we in this place must have if we are to improve
our justice system.
The bill itself I admit is a positive step. We have arrived at
this point through a great deal of effort by all and I commend
those individuals. I look forward to continuing to work with
those same individuals in this place and at the justice committee
to make improvements.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciated
the member's comments and his involvement in the development of
this bill. I have a specific question to help me think through a
solution to a problem which arose this week.
Many years ago a young woman in my constituency was abused
repeatedly over a period of time. The abuser was arrested,
charged, convicted and served time. Subsequently he finished
serving his time and was released back into the community in
another province. Many years later he applied for a pardon and
was pardoned.
Fifteen years later he has re-emerged in the community and has
contacted the victim. In attempting to get a restraining order
or a peace bond to keep him away, she has found it extremely
difficult because of the pardoning process.
Has that situation arisen before? Was there some discussion of
that in the preparation of this bill? Will the passage of this
legislation give her some avenues to protect herself?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
I certainly understand the frustration and difficulty that his
constituent would feel and that perhaps the hon. member himself
must feel.
There is also another piece of legislation coming forward in
this place very soon, Bill C-79. I think the issue of pardons,
which makes this a rather unique situation where information such
as that cannot be shared and cannot be considered by a court in
the granting of a peace bond, which this particular victim is
seeking, will be addressed better in that legislation than in the
bill currently before the House.
A peace bond is certainly a discretionary instrument that a
judge has at his or her disposal.
The issue itself of this person's security and her feeling of
frustration in not having the information available to her and
more importantly the court not having that information available
to it in deciding whether or not she has a legitimate case, and
obviously she does, to have a peace bond granted, I believe, will
be addressed better by Bill C-79.
1140
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, just
for clarification, was that Bill C-79 or Bill C-69 the member was
referring to?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it was Bill C-69. Bill
C-79 is the bill before the House. I may have misspoken.
I am not going to single anybody out but I will take the
opportunity to say that efforts have been made by members of the
committee to suggest that, in the context of the new legislation,
Bill C-69, certain offences be absolutely excluded from the
granting of the pardon, or at least the protection that a pardon
provides to prevent the public at large from obtaining knowledge
of a previous conviction against the person whether it be a
sexual assault or a violent offence. I believe that type of
information is pertinent and the public have a right to know to
be protected in their communities.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House in support of
Bill C-79, an act which amends the Criminal Code to enhance the
protection and participation of victims and witnesses in the
criminal justice system.
As the Minister of Justice stated last week when she tabled the
bill, these amendments will strengthen the voice of victims of
crime in the criminal justice system and increase resources for
provincial and territorial governments to provide services
directly to the victims of crime.
It is also important to note that these amendments to the
Criminal Code respond to the unanimous recommendations of the
all-party report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights. I take this opportunity to commend the members of the
standing committee for their work and their recommendations. The
report is entitled “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”.
The title of the standing committee report is important as it
embodies the spirit and intent of these amendments.
The victim of a crime has the right to be informed and to be
heard. These amendments provide the victim with a stronger
voice, but there is nothing in the legislation that limits the
rights of the accused.
Victim advocacy groups have been encouraging the government to
ensure that the views and concerns of victims are considered
especially on decisions that will impact on their safety,
security and privacy. The government's commitment to respond to
the concerns of victims of crimes is embodied in this
legislation.
The preamble to Bill C-79 is unequivocally clear on this
commitment. The preamble is very comprehensive. It addresses
why this legislation is necessary, how the government is
improving the criminal justice system and encourages greater
participation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice
system.
I draw attention to two specific paragraphs of the preamble
which embody the government's commitment to the victims of crimes
and their concerns.
Paragraph 4 of the preamble states:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada supports the principle that
victims of and witnesses to offences should be treated with
courtesy, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system,
and should suffer the least amount of inconvenience necessary as
a result of their involvement in the criminal justice system.
Paragraph 5 of the preamble goes on to state:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada, while recognizing that the
Crown is responsible for the prosecution of offences, is of the
opinion that the views and concerns of the victims should be
considered in accordance with prevailing criminal law and
procedure, particularly with respect to the decisions that may
have an impact on their safety, security or privacy.
Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I forgot to state that I will be
sharing my time with the member for Scarborough East.
It is clear from the preamble that the amendments proposed to
the Criminal Code need to reconcile the rights of victims and
witnesses with the rights of the accused but at the same time
ensure that victims and witnesses are treated with courtesy,
compassion and respect.
While there are a number of amendments included in Bill C-79 to
enhance the protection and participation of victims and witnesses
in the criminal justice system, I would specifically like to
highlight two provisions. First, I will talk about the victim
surcharge on offenders.
1145
The amendments include changes to the victim surcharge imposed
on offenders. A victim surcharge is an additional penalty
imposed on offenders at the time of sentencing. It is collected
by the provincial and territorial governments and used to provide
programs, services and assistance to the victims of crimes within
their jurisdiction.
The proposed amendments in Bill C-79 would: would make the
victim surcharge automatic to ensure that it is applied
consistently to all offenders; and change the amendments to the
surcharge to provide mandatory minimum amounts. Under Bill C-79,
the surcharge amounts will be: 15% of any fine imposed on the
offender; if no fine is imposed, $50 in the case of an offence
punishable by summary conviction and $100 in the case of an
offence punishable by indictment; or, an increased surcharge at
the discretion of the judge in the appropriate circumstances.
The victim surcharge revenue will continue to remain in the
jurisdiction within which it is collected. These amendments
would significantly increase the revenue available for victim
programs and services in all provinces and territories. It would
be administered by the provinces and territories.
The constituents in my riding, led by a wonderful organization
known as Parkdale Community Watch, have always urged me to
support the passing of legislation that requires moneys to be
reinvested into those communities and individuals affected by
crime. This legislation is certainly an important step toward
addressing their concerns.
The second amendment I will address is the victim impact
statements. I highlight this because it is very important.
Victim impact statements have an incredible role to play. A
victim impact statement is a written statement prepared by the
victim and considered by the court at the time of the sentencing
of an offender. It allows victims to participate in the
proceedings by describing the impact of the crime on them and on
their families.
Proposed amendments under the legislation would ensure that the
victim is permitted to read an impact statement at the time of
sentencing if he or she wishes to do so. Under the present
legislation, a judge is required to consider the written
statement but allowing the victim to read it remains
discretionary. Under the amendments, the judge will be required
to ask before imposing the sentence whether the victim has been
informed of the opportunity to prepare such a victim impact
statement. The proposed amendments would authorize adjournment
to permit a victim to prepare a statement or submit other
evidence to the court about the impact of the crime on himself or
herself and his or her family.
The amendments would further require that victim impact
statements be considered by courts and review boards following a
verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental
disorder.
Lastly, the amendments clarify that at proceedings to determine
whether an offender sentenced to life in prison should have his
or her parole eligibility reduced, the information provided by
the victim may be oral or written. At present, the Criminal Code
provides that any information provided by the victim will be
considered. However, in practice some victims have actually been
discouraged from making an oral statement.
Bill C-79 is just one of the proposals which is part of an
overall government strategy to respond to the victims of crime.
Last month the Minister of Justice tabled the youth criminal
justice act which also recognized in its principles the important
role of victims in the youth justice system and their need for
information. In addition, the youth criminal justice act
acknowledged the important role played by communities toward
combating crime in the community.
The creation of a policy centre for victims of crime announced
in December by the Minister of Justice is a key element of the
strategy to respond to the needs of victims of crime. The policy
centre will ensure that all federal policies and legislation take
into consideration the views of these victims of crime. The new
victims policy centre will manage, co-ordinate and enhance all
federal initiatives relating to victims and become a centre of
expertise on emerging national and international trends in victim
advocacy, legislation and services.
1150
Last week when the minister tabled Bill C-79, she stated:
These measures are important steps forward to reform the way the
criminal justice system treats victims. But our work is not
over. Through our new victims policy centre, we will ensure that
the victim's perspective will always be considered in the
development of any future legislation.
While I certainly applaud the minister on the amendments to the
Criminal Code embodied in Bill C-79, I must also comment on her
statement that our work is not over and use this as an
opportunity to present my constituents' concerns again, as voiced
by Parkdale Community Watch, as to what we should examine in the
future.
My constituents feel that in future we must continue to involve
our communities to a greater degree, along with individual
victims of crime. While Bill C-79 is the first step to ensuring
that an individual victim is permitted to read an impact
statement at the time of sentencing, I also believe that we
should examine the possibility of giving communities the
opportunity to read a community impact statement at the time of
sentencing. The value of community impact statements must be
acknowledged, particularly in cases of alleged victimless crimes
such as drugs and prostitution where the impact on the community
is significant.
I would like to confirm my support for Bill C-79. It is truly an
important step in reforming the way the criminal justice system
treats its victims, but most important, it shows that the
government has not only listened to the victims and their
advocacy groups but it has also proceeded to address their
concerns.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
had the privilege of sitting on the justice committee which
produced the report “Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”,
which is behind the legislation that we are currently dealing
with.
I have only been in the House for two years, but I have never
heard such compelling testimony as the testimony I heard from
those who came before the committee. While sitting there, many
of us would take off our glasses, stop reading the reports and
literally put down our pens. For those of us who had been
involved in the legal system in this country, we would hang our
heads in shame listening to the horrific crimes that these people
had been subjected to and the awful way in which our criminal
justice system had treated many of them.
Mr. Speaker, you and I share a profession outside of the House
which has, how shall I say, a problematic reputation at best,
probably second only to that of politicians. Frankly, this was
and is a shot across the bow of the justice system, a justice
system that this country is supposed to serve.
This is a warning to judges, crowns, defence attorneys and the
police that parliament and the public are watching. Parliament
and the public will hold the custodians of our justice system
accountable for how they implement legislation and how they treat
many of the most vulnerable victims in society. Victims cannot
be taken for granted. Victims want a voice, not a veto.
In some respects the title of our report captures the essence of
what we had heard. Victims want to be able to say, “This is
what happened to me. This is how the criminal act impacted on me
and my family”. They want to be heard and to be taken
seriously. They want the justice system to sit up and take
notice when they speak.
In October 1998 the justice committee produced the report
“Victims' Rights—A Voice, Not a Veto”. The chair of that
committee at the time, the late Shaughnessy Cohen, worked
tirelessly in producing the report. I would also note the
contributions of the member for Surrey North and the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who were both were very active in
the production of the report.
I, along with many other committee members, held town hall
meetings to ask members of our constituencies what they thought.
We held the meeting in June 1998 and produced our own report. We
had contributions from Barbara Hall, the former mayor of Toronto
and now the national chair of the crime prevention initiative;
Tim Danson, a noted civil rights lawyer; Priscilla de Villiers,
the chair of CAVEAT; Carol Sparling from the National Parole
Board; and, Terry Spencer from the Toronto Police Victim
Services.
We had an excellent meeting. My constituents were fully engaged
in the discussion. These people were truly very articulate and
those who came away from the meeting were very impressed by the
extent of their knowledge and ability to articulate the problem.
1155
That report, along with other members' reports, became part of
the report that made 17 recommendations to the government in
October 1998 to which the government, to its great credit,
responded in a very detailed fashion in December 1998 and
dedicated its response to the late chair. In its response it
quoted extensively from the report and promised to make every
effort to fulfill the spirit of the recommendations in a timely
manner.
The tabling of the bill in April 1999 is a substantive response
to the committee's recommendations. It is both timely and
substantive and, I would argue, a good response in less than six
months of the committee's report.
I will not go into a lot of detail right now, but I do want to
pick up on a couple of points that may be of interest to members.
The creation of a policy centre for the victims of crime is a
good idea. All legislation should be looked at through the lens
of the victim. The only fear I have is that it will raise false
expectations among the victims' communities that have become
something of an ombudsman's office. I think we need to be very
clear about that.
The second area is with respect to victim impact statements. In
the proposed amendments, it would ensure that the victim is
permitted to read an impact statement at the time of sentencing
if he or she wishes to do so. At present, the judge is required
to consider the written statement, but allowing the victim to
read it is discretionary. It removes the judge's discretion in
this matter.
It also requires the judge to ask before imposing sentence
whether the victim has been informed of the opportunity to
prepare a statement. It further authorizes adjournments to
permit a victim to prepare a statement or to submit other
evidence about the impact of the crime. After reading that, I
wondered why someone had not thought of it before. In some
respects that encapsulates why the public is in part so upset
with the system of justice that we have in the country.
It requires that victim impact statements be considered by
courts and review boards following a verdict of not criminally
responsible on account of mental disorder. It also clarifies
that at proceedings to determine whether an offender who is
sentenced to life in prison should have his or her parole
eligibility reduced, the information provided by the victim may
be oral or written. At present the Criminal Code provides that
any information provided by the victim will be considered.
However, in practice some victims have been discouraged from
making statements.
This is a good piece of legislation and I compliment the
government. This time I think it got it right. The bill
deserves the support of all members. I hope it will receive the
support of all members and arrive in committee in a timely
fashion so that the committee can determine whether it is in fact
an adequate response to the testimony that the committee has
already heard.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for his very
insightful and in-depth remarks. It certainly signifies his
awareness and his contribution as well to the process and to the
justice committee in particular.
In the latter part of his remarks, he raised a very important
issue with respect to a false impression or perhaps an unfair
expectation on the part of victims upon hearing that there will
be this policy office, which I think he characterizes correctly
as being a lens on a lot of other federal legislation in terms of
efforts to improve victims' participation in our justice system.
1200
I would like to follow up on the issue of an office of an
ombudsman filling the need of many victims for information
sharing. I am sure the member conducted town hall meetings. I
know I conducted one in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Repeatedly the number one complaint of victims was that they did
not receive the information quickly. Sometimes they even
received contradictory information from various sources in the
justice system.
One person in particular who has a very strong feeling in this
regard is Lynne Charron who lost her father Ferdinand to a
terrible murder. She was very much in favour of an office where
information could be obtained, a 1-800 number, and a system that
would provide timely and important information to victims on
matters pertaining to their cases which might be pending before
the criminal justice system. Equally important, in the aftermath
when a person is incarcerated and parole is pending or
rehabilitative programs are being attempted, victims have an
ongoing unwilling attachment to a person who has intruded upon
their lives. Members such as the member for Surrey North can
certainly attest to that.
Does the hon. member opposite feel that this is an important
step his government could take? The next step would be a
national victims office with an ombudsman, similar to the
correctional investigators office, to provide these needs to
victims in a timely fashion.
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I know
how to respond to the good question of the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
The initial response of the government is to create an office
which creates a lens on legislation. To move it to the stage of
an ombudsman, a quasi-ombudsman or 1-800 number, we on this side
of the House are tempted to hide behind the old
federal-provincial saw, that all we do here is create laws and
the provinces administer them.
Until and unless the provinces were on side in this manner I
could express a wish as a private member that we would move in
that direction. I agree with the member's analysis of the
testimony that time after time we heard people just want
information. They wanted to know about their situation in the
system, whether it was at first hearing, at second hearing, at
sentencing or at parole. That is all people want to know. That
is perfectly legitimate.
Unless the provinces could be signed up to a 1-800 system, a
website system or whatever, I could express all the wishes I
would like from this side of the table as a government member,
but I do not know how I would implement them. When it goes back
before the committee possibly we could go over it. Maybe we
should call in some provincial AGs and ask why we cannot set up
this system.
In terms of wish, I would agree with the hon. member. In terms
of the ability to fulfil it, we are only talking about one-half
of the problem.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-79. I will
take some time to give the House and those watching an idea of
the history of victims rights in the House of Commons, where they
came from and why they got here.
To some extent the government is misleading people in Canada. I
hear time and time again the government's initiative on victims
rights, that it has done such a wonderful thing. It is a bit of
a sad tale to tell because it is really not true. It was never
initiated by the Liberal government. In fact it was done in
spite of the Liberal government, quite frankly, and I will show
that today.
I do not want to dwell too long on that. We can thank the
victims and those who were involved with them for all their hard
work to get it to this point. Much more needs to be done yet,
and we have to talk about that as well.
In 1993 when I first became a member of parliament I talked with
many victims of crime.
I remember being in the living room of Chris and Sue Simmonds,
talking to two people who were very heart broken at their
daughter's murder and wondering how they were ever going to get
through such a legal industry and such a morass of difficulties
on top of one thing after another.
1205
It was more after the death of their daughter that they were so
coldly treated by the system. I began to wonder even then in
1993, early in my stages of involvement in it, just why that was,
why victims were so poorly treated in our society when it seemed
the criminal had so many rights.
I began a fairly long and arduous exercise to find out more
about the system. I attended many court trials. I spoke with
victims across the country. I spent a great deal of time looking
at prisoners rights and trying to compare prisoners rights to
victims rights.
In 1994 I initially wrote the national victims bill of rights
and presented it as a private member's bill. We looked at it and
asked what we really wanted and how to get from there. All along
victims rights groups were growing and growing and speaking out
and speaking out. Yet nothing seemed to get done.
We brought the issue to the House of Commons many times during
1995 and 1996. It was difficult to have a debate on it because
the Liberal government actually did not have an understanding of
what we were looking for as politicians and what victims were
really looking for.
I want to show what I mean by that. I recall asking the justice
minister of the day many questions about victims rights. The
answers he gave us were perplexing. In fact one of the comments
of the justice minister was that the Reform Party was exploiting
the very tragedies it pretended to decry. It hurt a great deal
when he said that to me, in particular, because that was not what
it was about. There was no exploitation at all. We were merely
carrying a message forward. We see today that there is victims
rights legislation, so those kinds of rhetorical, hard crusted
comments by the government were needless and were quite unfair.
The minister made another comment on March 11, 1997. He said
that the importance he placed on their experience, the importance
he placed on respecting victims, was reflected in the many pieces
of legislation they had brought forward in the House to protect
and safeguard the position of victims in the criminal justice
system. They were talking about gun bills, the Young Offenders
Act and all kinds of other bills, but they were not addressing
the issue. The issue is victims rights.
After we developed a national victims bill of rights, I can
recall that in my town of Abbotsford, B.C., we had a rally in
1995. One of the speakers at that rally was my colleague from
Surrey North. He was not elected then. There were about 2,200
people there. The message became clearer and clearer to Ottawa
that there was a growing problem, a growing need for more rights
for victims, always comparing it to the rights of criminals. That
was the largest rally of its time. It told us a lot about that
growing movement, much of it due to the hard work and dedication
of the victims themselves and victims rights groups.
We continued to raise questions in the House of Commons about it
in 1995 and 1996. There was still not an understanding by the
government.
Late in 1995 I took a motion to the Reform Party assembly and it
was overwhelmingly endorsed. It is now a part of our principles
and policies that victims rights should be front and centre and
should have certain principles involved in them. We moved it on
from there. We had more questions in the House of Commons, but
there still was not quite an understanding of what needed to be
done.
1210
On April 29, 1996, we tabled a motion in the House to get the
work started on a national victims bill of rights. The justice
minister and I had a great debate on that day. To my surprise he
actually admitted at that point that we needed to do something.
From there it went to committee. I can recall being with
victims in the justice committee who presented what had to be
done. We were basically all on side at that point.
It was a difficult job convincing members on opposite side. When
they stand to say we should look at what they have done for us,
they should first thank us for teaching them, thank the victims
who showed us as well, and look at what we are helping them do.
That would be a much better approach.
I want to talk briefly about what was originally in the victims
bill of rights. There are some who say that some of this is
provincial so we should not deal with it. Personally I think
that is hogwash, particularly since I had commitments in the
House, and I can produce them, that the government was prepared
to talk to the provinces about those other issues which were
administratively their responsibility and to get them at least
committed to the point where we were consistent across the
country. That is one of the greatest problems in the country.
From Newfoundland, to Nova Scotia, to British Columbia there are
different processes. That does not help victims.
One of the first things we wanted to do was to define what a
victim was. I understand that the committee is looking at
talking about about that later. I am not interested in talking
about it later. We should be talking about it now. Originally
we defined a victim as any one who suffered as a result of an
offence physical or mental injury or economic loss; or any
spouse, sibling, child or parent of the individual against whom
the offence was perpetrated; or anyone who had an equivalent
relationship, not necessarily a blood relative.
We have to relook at the definition of a victim in the Criminal
Code and all our documents. That job cannot be set aside today
or tomorrow for expediency. They cannot tell us to look at what
they have done, that the victims legislation is done and that the
rest of it can be forgotten until some other day. We have to
look at it now and be proactive on these issues.
Another right victims should have had was written into the
original national victims bill of rights, that they should be
informed of their rights at every stage of the process including
those rights involving compensation from the offender. They must
also be made aware of any available victim services. I hear
again that is a provincial jurisdiction. That may be so but it
does not exclude the House of Commons from saying that it will
attempt to do its very best to work with provincial organizations
to try to make it consistent across the country.
Another one of those rights was to be informed of the offender's
status throughout the process including but not restricted to
notification of any arrests, upcoming court dates, sentencing
dates, plans to release the offender from custody, conditions of
release, parole dates, et cetera. All information was to be made
available upon request.
Some say that is provincial jurisdiction. Some say that it is
the CRA, the Conditional Release Act. I suggest the House take
seriously the issues which victims are concerned about and make a
commitment in the legislation that something will be done.
1215
How do we do that? We can make an appendix to any legislation
we wish. We can make a commitment in the House of Commons. We
can put it in a throne speech, which will likely be coming up
next fall. All kinds of commitments can be made. Judging from
my six years of experience in the House of Commons, without these
commitments it will not get done.
I believe it necessary to go through a couple of the things we
were looking for in a national victims bill of rights which are
not in this legislation and which this government really has to
pursue.
The first would be the right to be informed on a timely basis of
the details of the crown's intention to offer a plea bargain
before it is presented to the defence. I cannot tell the House
how many times I have spoken with people who have been absolutely
flabbergasted by the fact that plea bargains or deals were made
when they had no idea they were being made. Some would say, the
technocrats I suppose, that it is provincial jurisdiction.
The fact of the matter is, we can do more with the provinces.
The justice minister meets with the attorneys general of every
province every year. Commitments can be obtained. To say that
we cannot do it because it is within someone else's jurisdiction
is wrong.
Another right is the right to know why charges were not laid, if
that is the decision of the crown or the police. Some say again
that it is within provincial jurisdiction, but if we talk to
victims they will say “Will someone please make up their mind?
Could we please get help?” Is it not our duty in the House of
Commons to at least try to convince provinces on a wholesale
basis to undertake these commitments?
We need protection from anyone who intimidates, harasses or
interferes with the rights of the victim. We must have the
police follow through on domestic violence charges. Once a
victim files a complaint the police should have the authority to
follow it through to the end. Do not tell me that this is a
police problem and that we are not responsible in the House of
Commons. If we adopt a head in the sand approach in the House of
Commons in trying to get consistency across this nation, then
more victims will suffer.
The last issue we had written in the national victims bill of
rights way back in 1994 was to know if the person convicted of a
sexual offence has a sexually transmittable disease. That seems
reasonable to me. I have dealt with two individuals who have had
that problem. One young lady was raped by an individual who
finally was deported. He would not give consent to be medically
tested, so he never was.
Those are the kinds of rights we need in this country. I will
not be satisfied in saying that we have done all we can, the rest
is up to the provinces, or the rest will come in another bill. I
do not think that is practical. I think we have to do all we
can, whenever we can, whatever the jurisdiction.
Way back in 1994 and 1995 when I was involved in this there were
a lot of people who went the extra mile to fight for victims
rights. It is necessary to thank people like Ron and Corrine
Schaefer. Corrine's sister Angela was murdered. Corrine is now
a member of CAVEAT and has done a lot of good, hard work. Both of
them have been and still are avid supporters of CAVEAT.
Chris and Sue Simmonds initially helped tremendously in drafting
and reviewing the national victims bill of rights.
Gary and Sharon Rosenfeldt are people I have met along the way,
sincere people who are doing the very best they can to improve
the rights of victims in this country.
I should also mention Bula, who has had a very tough time as a
victim. She was sexually molested by an individual who was
allowed out of a prison on a day pass. That individual had 63
prior convictions.
These are courageous people.
1220
I should also mention Heather Fougere and Gail and Terry Smith.
Heather and Dean are the aunt and uncle of Tanya Smith who was
murdered in my town of Abbotsford. They have now joined the
ranks of victims, which is sad to say, but they are also turning
a negative into a positive in doing the very best they can to
improve things in Canada.
I also want to thank Rosalie Turcotte from Mission, British
Columbia. I want to thank Rosie from Windsor, Ontario, whom I
spent a great deal of time with when preparing a private member's
bill which dealt with prisoners changing their names.
All of these people and many more deserve much more than just
some things in victims legislation. I very much encourage this
House to do more. We should not stop here.
I want to talk about a rally that is going to occur which will
shake this nation out of its complacency. The rally will consist
of grassroots people from all over this country who will bring
the issue of drugs to the House of Commons.
On May 27 we intend to hold a very large rally in my riding.
The theme of the rally will be “Drugs: Are You Ready to
Fight?” I would encourage members of the House on both sides to
consider this very serious issue.
I have gone through the national drug strategy of the Liberal
government. I have been on the streets in many difficult
situations where drugs are everywhere. When we talk to the
people on the streets who are trying to help, they look at the
national drug strategy that the government has produced—and I am
not belittling the government—and they say it is not helping on
the street, that this is rhetorical stuff, that these dollars do
not reach the street.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I am hesitant to interrupt the member, but I think he
is carrying what would be constituted as a prop, which is
contrary to the rules of the House. I am talking about what is
on the back of his speaking notes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Surely the hon.
member knows that props are not allowed in the House and I have
not seen what is on the back of his notes.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I will not belittle the
issue of drugs by commenting on the remark of the member. If I
had another ten minutes the member would wear that comment.
However, I will say that the issue of drugs is not a matter of a
point of order. The issue of drugs in this country is serious.
An hon. member: Watch who you are talking to.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I have just been told to
watch who I am talking to. I have a feeling that we are going to
be dragging the government through a knothole on the drug issue
just like we did on victims rights. That is why I brought this
issue up in my last two minutes.
We will take on the issue of drugs in this country. Members
opposite can be sure that we will be as vociferous as we were on
victims rights. Victims rights came to this House because of
this party. Government members can be sure that they will not
duck under the rocks they come from on that issue either.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was most interested in my
colleague's comments about drugs. I wonder if the member wishes
to comment on the DARE program, drug awareness resistance
education. I am sure the member is aware of it. I wonder how it
is working in British Columbia and whether the member thinks it
is something we should be helping.
I would tell the member that I learned recently that 37,000
Alberta boys and girls in grade 6 took the course last year. It
is a one hour course which lasts for 17 weeks. I wonder if the
member has any comments as to how he thinks the DARE program is
working in British Columbia and elsewhere.
1225
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I welcome that comment.
I have a feeling that the member opposite is probably as
concerned as we are about this issue.
The DARE program, educationally, appears to be a very good
program. There are many educational programs involving drugs
today. What I see, however, is a lack of co-ordination
nationally on all of these programs.
When I go into one needle exchange in one city, in one small
office, and find out that there are 2.5 million needles per annum
issued out of that office, I say that not only is this a national
priority, but what is happening with the DARE program and all of
the other programs? What are we missing that is not going from
education into the addiction aspect of it?
I was in Sydney, Nova Scotia and Cape Breton last week and I was
surprised to see a needle exchange there. Typically, needle
exchanges are in areas where there are really very serious
problems.
I think this issue has crept up on us and is to the point now
where it is not just education, it is that we have to stop
treating drug addicts and people who commit crimes because of
their addiction as criminals and look at them as a serious health
issue. We have to look at those who are non-addicted and selling
drugs as serious criminals and do something very serious with
them.
I welcome the hon. member's question. I hope that when we get
into this seriously, and we will, like it or not, we will get
into this together. We have to look at all of the educational
programs, all of the rehabilitation programs and all of the
criminal aspects of legislation and make them work right across
the country.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I took note of the fact that the hon. member was in my
home town recently. I share with him the concern. I know he was
surprised to see a needle exchange program in my community. I
can share with him the reflections of many of the community
groups that I have met with on this issue.
I want to go back to the hon. member's comments on the issue
before the House today, which is the legislation providing for
the role of victims in the criminal justice system. In my
comments I talked about what I thought each of the parties
brought to the table, as well as the participants. One of the
things I talked about was rights and the competing balance
between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim.
We have to find that balance.
I ask this in all seriousness because I am curious. The member
refers to a bill of rights for victims. As I see it, there is a
charter of rights for all Canadians. I know his party has long
said that Canadians are equal in every aspect. If we all have
rights under the charter, would the member then propose special
rights for victims in a bill of rights and then perhaps special
rights for those accused and special rights for other groups? Or
is he proposing that we do away with the charter of rights for
all Canadians and have particular rights for different groups?
I ask this because I see competing rights and I see rights as
something that we all share and we all have to preserve. It is
perhaps a philosophical question, but I ask it.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, actually it is a very
good question. The charter of rights and freedoms has created
some problems. What I did initially before I wrote the national
victims bill of rights was to look at the prison system and
compare the rights of criminals to the rights of victims.
When I looked at all of the charter fights, most of them, if not
all of them, were for criminals. They ended up with the right to
vote. They ended up with the right to refuse work. They ended
up with Canada pension plan benefits. They ended up with
virtually all of the rights and even more in prisons than they
had when they were outside. They had the rights, but they did
not have the privileges. I think we have mixed up the rights and
the privileges.
1230
Today and in the past victims have felt like third class
citizens. They have felt like some party that is outside of the
exercise when it has come to going to court or any other instance
they were involved in. Many a lawyer has said publicly and to me
that victims have no place in the courtroom. The crime was
against the crown and the lawyers have ended up outside a
criminal justice system and inside a legal industry where the
best buck gets the best lawyer.
Victims were basically being told to go away, to keep quiet, to
say nothing, “We will deal for you, we will do all of the plea
bargaining, we will do everything. Don't worry, we will look
after you”. The fact is they were not being looked after. They
were treated like third class citizens. That is why it has all
come about. It is unfortunate.
We should all have the same rights and freedoms, with the
exception of some of the rights and freedoms given to criminals
in prisons. I do not agree with all that.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Since we have the originator of the original victims bill
of rights here talking about it, could I seek unanimous consent
that we extend questions and comments by 10 minutes?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
work a lot with the hon. member and I thank him for his comments.
I worked a lot with him before I became a member of this place.
Would he care to elaborate on some of the more common
complaints? What were the major complaints he was hearing from
victims on their part in the process? Does he have any idea as
to why it took so long to finally get to this day? Where was the
resistance coming from if indeed there was any?
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member
for Surrey North asking for the extra 10 minutes.
One of the things that touched me greatly was talking to
victims. The member for Surrey North will probably not remember
when I first met him. We were talking to some young kids in New
Westminster. He was speaking to them and it touched me greatly.
Here was a person who was trying to get a system changed from the
outside and not in the House of Commons, who knew what he needed
and what the problems were, yet it just was not coming together.
Who was listening?
One of the frustrating things that happened and why it took so
long to get victims rights in legislation in this country is that
there was not the comprehension on the other side. The thought on
the other side was that we were helping victims by bringing in
Bill C-68, the gun law. It was the victim out there who said
“Somebody in my family was murdered with a gun, but I am treated
like dirt in a courtroom”. Those were the kinds of issues.
I recall sitting at a sentencing hearing. One of the victims in
the room was listening to a written victim impact statement she
had prepared. She leaned over to me and said “I don't think
that is mine”. We found out that the thing had been purged so
badly. We asked about it and the defence lawyer said “We had to
take certain things out of the victim impact statement because it
would harm the credibility of my client” who had murdered her
sister. She was asking what rights she had as that guy was
protected. Those are the kinds of things victims were asking
about.
I have another story. I recall sitting in a room with a lady
whose house had been torched by her ex-husband. She asked the
system to tell her when her ex-husband would be getting out of
prison, where he would be located, how long he would be there,
and of any reports on how well he was doing. She was afraid of
this fellow.
They never told her a thing. And then he showed up with the
gasoline and a car and drove through the carport and set the
place on fire. She asks “Who cares about me?” That is what
victims rights are all about: “who cares about me?”
1235
Hon. David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I have already asked a
question, but I would like to salute the member and his colleague
from Surrey for the work they have done on victims rights. It is
a very important matter in their ridings, my riding and every
riding across the country.
Going back to drugs, I believe the figure is 240 residents of
Vancouver died of heroin overdoses in the first six months of
last year. That is more than one a day. Sharing his concern
about drugs enormously, I wonder if he would say anything more
about why he thinks those 240 fellow human beings might have died
the way they did last year and why people continue to die in
Vancouver and elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, if it were just 240
residents, but it is much higher than that as we speak. I was in
Vancouver's downtown east side a week and a half ago. I was in
one building and watched a person who had overdosed be carried
out.
The drug market is extremely profitable. I have talked to
people who have sold drugs. I talked to a 14 year old who was
doing community time for selling cocaine. I sat down with this
young fellow and said, “Why do I not help get your grades 10, 11
and 12 and then we can help you through post-secondary school”.
I had previous connections with school districts. This 14 year
old looked at me and said “Listen fellow, I make 18 to 20 grand
a month which is non-taxable profit. I have a lawyer on retainer
and I have a” whatever car it was. He was not even old enough
to have a driver's licence. Profit is the problem.
Meanwhile there are people who are so hooked on drugs that their
job is to get kids out of the schools, young girls in particular.
They come from Vancouver and go to the Fraser Valley and get
kids on this stuff. They give it away to start with. They get
them hooked and then it is on with the home invasions, the break
and enters, and so on and so forth. I cannot impress upon the
House how important this issue is. I think my colleague knows
that. The co-operation we get could make the difference in this
nation as to how we deal with all these issues.
By the way, the speakers we have for the May 27 rally are very
serious people. There is a young lady who has been a drug addict
and lived on the streets on Vancouver's east side for four years.
She has been off it for a year but of course, addicts are never
ever off it. There is the Washington state drug enforcement
administration and the Vancouver narcotics squad. There is a
mother whose daughter is actually on the streets in Vancouver. I
am happy to announce that George Chuvalo will be attending as
well. George has lost three of his kids to heroin.
This rally is not a show. It is not a partisan political body.
I invite all members to show their support. There will be local
and provincial politicians there. We should all go and listen
and say we can do more about this problem.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
want to add my congratulations to the members of the Reform Party
justice team, particularly the member for Langley—Abbotsford and
the member for Surrey North who worked so hard on this issue. I
know the member for Langley—Abbotsford has promoted the victims
bill of rights for a long time. It is nice to see that it has
come but it is unfortunate it has taken so long for the
government to act.
The member has talked at length about the victims who have come
in contact with him. One issue is the definition of a victim.
It is there in this bill and it is defined. I would like the
member's comments and thoughts on what the definition of victim
should be.
1240
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, the definition of a
victim has to be changed. It has to acknowledge anyone who
suffers as a result of an offence, physical or mental injury,
economic loss, or any spouse, sibling, child or parent of the
individual on whom the offence was perpetrated.
I can recall one case, and I know my colleague from Surrey North
knows the individuals as well. I will not mention the names.
Assistance was attempted for the individual's wife and the system
said she was not a victim. Her daughter had been murdered and
the system said she was not a victim. How appalling. How could
we be so callous, so careless about that? Can we not make a
better definition of what a victim is?
I am sure my colleague could speak a lot better than I on this
subject. It is not necessarily the individual who was murdered
but those left behind who are victims.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, before I got into politics I was somewhat cynical about
the whole process of politics.
The member for Langley—Abbotsford lives in a community
neighbouring mine. I saw a number of articles in the newspapers
having to do with issues he was raising. It made a lot of sense,
particularly in the area of victims rights. I know there were a
number of incidents in my own community where victims were
created by acts of criminal negligence.
There was a young gal whose sister was killed by a drunk driver
just a few blocks from my home. I know the member was involved
in that situation. His involvement in the lives of those victims
is ongoing, as well as others he mentioned in his speech. I want
to thank him for taking a stand on that. That is one of the
reasons I got involved in this process, to make some positive
changes.
It may be difficult in a short period of time, but I would like
my colleague to give a few personal reflections of his
involvement in this issue and how it has impacted on him and
motivated him to seek these changes in such a positive way as he
has.
Mr. Randy White: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We
do share the same surrounding areas and in fact our colleague
from Surrey North is not that far away.
We do not have a unique market on compassion in this party. It
is all through the House.
We have seen a lot of crime in our day. We have seen a lot of
victims. As we have seen today, victims in fact are elected to
the House of Commons. This is no small issue. This is serious.
I can only reflect this about all the people I have met, their
desire and willingness to make a difference and change. I have
to plead with the government since it is a majority government to
go further with victims rights. Do not stop here. Much more has
to be done. I think the government has the message now. It is
on the first step of the ladder. Let us not stop. It has our
support certainly for progression on victims rights.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
express my gratitude to my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford
mainly for his seriousness about his work.
In the last parliament by 1996 he was able to introduce in the
House a victims bill of rights which was strongly supported.
1245
I know the reason the member worked so hard on that bill. I was
there on a number of occasions with him when we had spent hours
visiting with people who were victims of crime, listening to
their stories, listening to how things were developing in their
lives, and listening to some of the tragedies that were taking
place. It just was not answering the call.
I watched the member put together this package and present it
with great pride, as he should. He had full support of victims
across the land from CAVEAT, CRY and FACT. A number of
organizations commended him. When it left the House and was sent
to the committee that was the last we heard of it.
To me that presents a serious problem. In 1996 a valuable
document was presented in the House. Why is it now, three years
later, that we will finally talk about this extremely important
issue? My friend and colleague from Edmonton mentioned drugs and
what we needed to do because the situation was so serious.
It is extremely serious. I am now visiting reserves with the
department of Indian affairs. I am saddened to find that in many
of our reserves in the last little while there have been a number
of suicide victims. Those family members are telling me that it
is mainly because of drugs. It is becoming so common that they
do not even make the newspaper any more. In my own province of
Alberta I know of at least six suicides in the last few weeks
which have not even made the newspapers because they are so
commonplace.
We are talking in the House briefly today about what we will do
to prevent having future victims. That is one issue. We cannot
have a three year delay. Three years can be terribly disastrous
to a number of individuals.
I sat in a home on one reserve with a mother who had lost three
children to suicide because of drugs. Her plea was for help
because she did not want to lose any more of her kids. I talked
to a fellow, Mike Calder, who works on the streets of Winnipeg
with young aboriginal people who come from the reserves and are
being roped into gangs that are promoting drugs, prostitution and
all the evil things we could think about. Kids under 12 years of
age are being scooped up and used by those who are profiting from
these kinds of things.
My whole point in raising this point is that we cannot
continually sit in the House and wait for three years to do
something about a problem that is progressing so horribly. We
have many people dying on the streets in Vancouver, as the member
just said. How bad does it have to get before we would consider
it to be an emergency and maybe decide to do something about it?
I am thinking about a person who was convicted in 1998 of a
drunken driving charge. He had killed four people as a result of
a stupid decision to drive while drinking. His victims lived in
Saskatchewan and were killed on an Alberta highway.
At the scene the individual was very upset that it had happened.
He admitted his guilt. It was proven that he was terribly
intoxicated. Yet it took 18 court cases to deal with what seemed
so obvious. He immediately pleaded guilty. He was immediately
remorseful. All the things were in the right place to deal with
it.
1250
The families of the people who were killed on the highway drove
back and forth to Calgary 18 times in over two years to finally
hear the verdict for the individual who had taken the lives of
these people. It took 18 court cases on a cut and dry drunk
driving case. He was obviously guilty and had pleaded guilty.
I cannot begin to describe the trauma and the major effect it
had on the lives of the victims. I have become well aware of
them over a period of time. There was the trauma of not knowing
what the justice system would do for them. Eighteen courts cases
is very profitable for the legal system but it does nothing for a
justice system.
The military used to have a code, and I hope it still has, that
some things need to be in place to have good justice. It has to
be fast. It needs to be firm. It needs to be fair. It needs to
be final. It used to be called the four fs. It would not
take long to make decisions on cases like that one. If it had to
be investigated it would take a lot of time and energy. Four
families were involved. They lost their children in a car wreck
caused by a drunk driver. For over two years they drove back and
forth from Saskatchewan waiting for this cut and dry case to be
dealt with.
Finally the House has a victims bill before it three years
later. The victims have been calling for it for ages. It was
introduced and passed in 1996 but something happened. It died
somewhere. Is it because we have become so political that an
idea from my Reform colleague is not acceptable by a Liberal
government? Does it have to die at the committee level and then
be reproduced later by a Liberal minister so it looks better? If
that is the motive we need to examine how we operate in this
place.
A five year old girl in Calgary went missing. By evening they
found her in a dumpster. She had been murdered. It was very
sad. They found the person responsible for her death. It was a
next door neighbour who lived across the alley behind them. He
had taken the little girl out of her yard.
His cry to the police was that the little girl had been coming
on to him. He was 47 years old. They spent time and energy on
him. The 47 year old individual received psychological guidance.
He even went to the hospital to be checked over. I cannot
imagine it but he received legal aid. All kinds of assistance
were overflowing from our system to him.
The mother was a single parent and had two other children. She
suffered a great loss when this little five year old girl was
taken. The only counselling they got was from friends. The only
professional medical help they could get was through psychology,
psychiatry or whatever for which she paid herself. There was no
program offered to help them overcome the grief they were going
through.
However, the 47 year old man who claimed to have been led astray
by this little girl was to go to a place where thousands of
dollars would be spent to provide some kind of rehabilitation
program for him.
1255
For months and months it went on. Organized victim groups went
to the home of this mother to hold her hand and give her a
shoulder to lean on. There was absolutely no help from the
system whatsoever.
We recognize the serious problems faced by victims in the land.
In 1996 it was passed in the House, sent to committee and lost.
1999 rolls along and we finally get to doing something about it.
What kind of a procedure is that?
In 1994 the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act failed
dismally. The government announced that something had to be done
with that act. Now it is 1999 and, lo and behold, we are to have
a new act. Nothing has changed in the meantime. There are still
all kinds of problems. We concentrate so heavily on the rights
of the criminals that we have completely forgotten the victims
involved and how protecting them is so essential.
On behalf of my friend from Edmonton, we cannot delay fighting
drugs any longer. We have to get at it. We have to consider it
to be extremely serious and deal with it. It is time to put
partisan politics completely aside when young people all across
the country are dying on our streets from drugs.
I do not believe there is anyone in this place who would not
co-operate with another person to help alleviate that problem. I
do not believe that for a moment. Let us not do anything that
would cause the kinds of differences that would make that happen.
Let us just agree that there is a problem and, for heaven's sake,
let us work jointly together to solve it.
A lot of it has to do with poverty. In 1993 when I came here
there were one million children living in poverty. Now I hear
talk about 1.5 million. That is not solving the problem. It
seems to me like it is going in the wrong direction.
Let us start thinking about where we are spending our money and
where it can have the best effect. I agree that it was extremely
nice of our heritage minister to spend $25 million to see to it
that everybody got a flag, but there are children's aid societies
all across the land that could really have used that money.
Why can we not make victims of crime our priority? Young people
are a big part of the problem of being victims. They are victims
of poverty. They are victims of all the things that could be
fixed if we decided to do it.
When something good comes forward like my hon. colleague's bill
of rights, something that was acceptable to every hon. member of
the House as far as I know, it is time to get rolling and get it
done. I know a few members may not have liked it but they were a
very few. It went to committee and it died. Why? I do not know.
We could only speculate from that point on.
Partisan politics interfere far too much in this place when we
need to deal with serious problems. We need to visit more
individuals out there who are paying our wages to be here. We
need to learn of the problems they are facing and learn of the
situations that can be overcome if we get our priorities straight
in this place.
Hon. members can object to the spending of money as I just
mentioned I did. I can see the headlines tomorrow: the hon.
member for Wild Rose is anti-Canada; he did not want the heritage
minister to give away flags.
That is not the point at all. That is a very good thing to do.
It is too bad we do not have an extra $25 million lying around to
do that with. However, how can we justify spending money in some
areas, like committees for seniors for sexuality, when we have
people committing suicide. In Vancouver alone over 300 young
people have died this year because of drugs. Victims are growing
by the numbers.
1300
I plead with the government to start putting some fast tracks on
some of this legislation so it can be debated and we can begin to
solve the problems facing the nation. Forget all the rhetoric
and baloney that goes on with some of these items. Let us get
down to brass tacks and start looking at what the problems are
and begin solving them.
I thank the justice minister for getting this at least to the
floor of the House. I wish it had happened years ago. It should
have. I encourage all members to get behind the bill and support
it. Let us continue to look for ways to assist the victims in
our land who number in the thousands.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Wild Rose
mentioned a family from Saskatchewan who was obliged to come 18
times to court in Alberta on a guilty plea involving a terrible
tragedy.
As the member knows, I spent 10 years in court as a defence or
crown counsel. Could he tell us, if he has the case at his
fingertips, whether the fault for that was because of a probation
officer, the judge, the crown or the defence counsel? Can he
tell us the reason for this 18 time requirement?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me
to do that. I only know of the one time that it was delayed. I
will have to work in reverse because there was so much going on
in between. I was caught off guard that it had lasted so long. I
thought it would have been over.
The last time we all thought we were going to court was on the
day of sentencing. The families drove in from Saskatchewan.
While we were sitting in the courtroom, the judged looked at the
guidelines for sentencing only after the conviction had already
been made. As he was going down the guidelines he noticed there
was one little sentence that had been added in, not by this House
but by order in council I presume or however some things get
added in to the Criminal Code, “that before sentencing we must
consider whether the person is aboriginal or not”.
The judge looked at it and said he was not sure what it meant so
he was adjourning court for the day. He scheduled it for five
days later so he could investigate what that particular sentence
was supposed to mean. Those are the kinds of things that get
implemented into the Criminal Code that do not really make sense.
We had a drunk driver who killed four people. Pray tell, what
difference would the person's nationality make? The
circumstances in that person's life were all brought out through
the 18 months in court. Neither his race nor his nationality
were discussed until the last day when it was to be suspended. I
think the judge was honestly surprised that it was even in there
and he had to find out what it meant.
The family drove back to Saskatchewan. Five days later they had
to come back again for the final sentencing which, I might add,
was a big disappointment to the victims. They thought it should
have been a lot more severe than it was.
That is the only incident that I can definitely say happened. I
do not really know about the other times.
1305
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
member mentioned the terrible impact of drugs on young people and
the local communities. He even mentioned the downtown area of my
own riding of Vancouver East.
I would like to pursue this a bit further. There is no question
that the impact of illegal drugs is overpowering in terms of
death and destruction, not just on individual lives but on whole
communities. As he has pointed out, this does have a
relationship to crime. It marginalizes people and involves them
in taking on a criminal lifestyle.
Does the member's party agree that in order to deal with the
issue of reducing the harm of obtaining drugs illegally on the
street that we have to provide a social and medical response?
I have, for example, a motion coming up that will look at
providing a heroin maintenance program. This will enable us to
put chronic addicts into the medical system. They should not be
out on the street leading very desperate lives and causing harm
not only to themselves but to the whole community.
We have heard two members speak about the impact of drugs and
the drug trade. Does the Reform Party recognize that there are
victims and to continue with a criminalized approach does not
really solve anything?
The member also mentioned growing poverty which, I agree, has
been a tragedy in the country. I saw a letter the other day from
a Reform member suggesting that housing and homelessness were not
a national responsibility but a responsibility that should be
left to the provinces. I am curious as to the Reform Party's
position as articulated by the member today. Growing poverty
also impacts on victims of crime and on the people involved in
crime. The provision of housing as a basic human need is
something that is very critical.
I would also like to know whether the Reform Party supports the
provision of housing? Does it feel there is a role for the
federal government to play in ensuring that there is no
homelessness in Canada?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, unlike a lot of policies
and parties I have seen, I think they are lacking a little
ability to determine priorities.
The government should know where best to use the money that will
benefit Canadians the most. Education, protection and health are
always priorities. Our policy strongly suggests that there has
to be an amount of money available for those who are severely in
need. I am talking about people who are living on welfare and
cannot do anything about it. I am talking about the handicapped
who are unable to earn money because they cannot get a job. I am
talking about a genuine need. That is where we would expect the
dollars to go.
We would also expect the dollars to go into native affairs. For
example, money should be used to eliminate the poverty and
squalor that some of these people are living in on the reserves.
I have seen it with my own eyes. It is a shame.
I do not think we need to look at people who are addicted and
caught up in the activity of drugs as being anything more than
victims. We need a system that is going to help as best it can.
I am certainly no expert on what type of program we could have
that would help people avoid drugs. We live in a country where
drugs are rampant and available in our penitentiaries. This is
where it could be corrected, but we have failed to even attempt
that. That certainly has a bearing on what happens out in the
rest of the world. People are supposed to be sent to
penitentiaries for drug rehabilitation yet drugs are more
available in the penitentiary than anywhere else. It hardly
makes sense to me.
1310
A lot of people come into Canada from foreign lands just for the
purpose of distributing drugs and profiting highly. When we
catch these individuals committing a crime, why do we want them
to stay in Canada and impose their evil deeds on our young
people? Let us deport them. Who needs them?
It is thoroughly disgusting to go into cities and see 12 and 13
year olds working as prostitutes. These are children who are
victims. When they find the 20 or 30 year old individual who is
called their pimp, he gets a small slap on the wrist and is back
out finding a new victim. Why do we want to treat those people
so kindly? If I suggest there are better solutions to dealing
with criminals of that nature, then immediately the words would
come out “Oh, the extremist”.
Is it okay that a pimp can manage 11 and 12 year old kids on our
streets, get a six month sentence and then be released back into
our community? No, it is not okay. We have to take these
criminals a little more seriously. They are going to try to suck
all our young people into these programs and we have to stop
them. We have to make up our minds to do it and get away from
the political rhetoric of “Oh, what an evil thought” or “Oh,
what an extreme man”.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-79,
an act respecting victims of crime.
It is quite amusing that we should be debating a bill that was
supposed to be a priority not only to the present Minister of
Justice but to the previous Minister of Justice.
In 1996 the former Minister of Justice promised that specific
victim legislation would be presented by the fall. Here we are,
three years later and two justice ministers later, debating a
bill that, according to the present justice minister in June
1997, listed victims rights as one of her top three priorities.
It is two years later and we are debating this top priority of
the Minister of Justice.
This is one area in which the Reform Party has played a very
important role. Three years ago, a supply day motion was
presented by the Reform Party, and supported by the House, which
put a victims rights bill into the system and before a committee.
The justice committee was instructed to come up with legislation
that would be reported back to the House. I guess three years
late is better than not at all.
I have several concerns with the legislation. Nowhere is the
definition of a victim clearly spelled out. As many of us in the
House know from visitations from constituents, a victim is not
necessarily the person who received the abuse, the attempted
murder, the rape or whatever. A victim can be family members;
sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, siblings. In many cases
there can be lots of victims when these kinds of criminal actions
take place.
I would have thought the government would have been a little
clearer in the parameters of who it considered to be victims and
who it considered should fall under the Criminal Code in
reference to the rights given to victims.
1315
The other concern I have is that the committee, in recommending
that the legislation be presented to the House, also recommended
that there be amendments to the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act which would support what this victims rights bill is
attempting to do. It is difficult to deal with one and not deal
with the other at the same time.
We are faced with dealing with part of an answer to a problem,
rather than the entire answer which was recommended by the
committee, which was to make amendments to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and to install victims rights
legislation.
Until we deal with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
we will not know whether we have resolved some of the issues
because we will be dealing with them in isolation. This should
be going hand in glove to make sure that what the government is
attempting to do is in fact what the committee suggested the
government do in order to deal with the issue.
Another concern I have, and I would be the first to recognize
the difficulty with this given my responsibility, is that the
federal government is responsible for the Criminal Code. The
federal government is responsible for the legislation which sets
the parameters of criminal activity, what the penalties will be,
how they will be treated and the like. However, the provincial
governments are responsible for the administration of the
Criminal Code through their judicial processes.
I am a little concerned that there needs to be a closer working
relationship between the provinces and the federal government to
make sure that the changes in the Criminal Code are changes that
the provincial governments can accept and enact. I believe that
the committee which will be established might help with this,
that it will attempt to work with the provinces in the enacting
or the ability of the provinces to implement the legislation, but
I really feel from my experience that there needs to be far more
open communication between the provincial jurisdiction and the
federal jurisdiction before things are set in stone.
I would like to believe that the committee which will be
established will have the ability to work with the provinces, and
to get the provinces to work together, but I would have liked to
have seen a little more indication that the federal government
had already gone through that process in a much more meaningful
way before it produced legislation.
This legislation has been introduced into the House of Commons.
The process will allow the government to once again hear from
victims and from provinces as to whether they feel this
particular drafting of the legislation really deals with the
issue. I hope the government, through the committee, will be
open to hearing what the victims and their families, support
groups and community groups have to say. I hope they will listen
to what the provincial governments have to say with respect to
the administration of the legislation and that if there are
problems, if there are ways of amending the legislation so that
it will work better, then I hope the government will be open to
bringing those kinds of amendments and changes to the legislation
so that we end up with a statute that has meaningful application
in today's world.
1320
Those are some of the difficulties that I have with this
legislation, but I would like to give credit where credit is due.
The committee which dealt with this issue did a good job, I
believe, in making recommendations to the government. The
committee went out of its way to listen to victims rights groups
and other advocates to try to bring together in its
recommendations meaningful changes and meaningful recommendations
for legislation that the government could use to address the
problem.
What the committee has recommended and what the government has
included in Bill C-79 is that the victims are to be informed of
their right to prepare a victim impact statement at the time of
sentencing. One would think that is pretty common and that it is
already done. Surprisingly, it is not already done.
Yes, a victim impact statement can be presented in writing, but
there has never been an opportunity for the victim or the
victim's family to relate to a court the impact of the criminal
activity on themselves. To me it seems almost ridiculous that it
has taken so long in the development of our criminal system, our
court system and our judicial system for victims to be given this
right to express the result of the action. It is far past the
time that this recognition be granted. The government is to be
commended that it has finally seen the opportunity to make this
happen.
The government has given victims a choice. They can read the
victim impact statement in court. As I said, this was never a
choice which they had before.
It has also given victims of sexual assault or violent crime up
to the age of 18 years the right to be protected. They can be
protected from cross-examination by the offender. In other
words, an offender who is representing himself would not have the
right to attack and victimize, if you will, the victim for a
second time.
We might feel that does not happen very often, but I think we
might be surprised at how often it does happen. I was absolutely
appalled when there was a chance that Clifford Olson, whom we all
know about, might have an opportunity to cross-examine family
members on a section 745 hearing. It was mind-boggling that
somebody like that would even have the right to have personal
contact to cross-examine a victim.
I think we would be surprised at how often a victim is forced to
present themselves in our judicial system before their attacker
and be faced with feeling very intimidated and very vulnerable
for a second time.
It is interesting that this legislation brings up the issue of
police officers and judges considering the victim's safety in
bail decisions. How can it possibly be that this was not a
consideration before? How can it possibly be that the safety of
the victim was never a consideration? Once again I have to
commend the government for at least acknowledging that something
which seems so common sense finally sees the light of day in
legislation.
Another issue it presents is that judges are required to inform
the public of the possibility of a section 745 application for
early parole for those people who have received life sentences.
For those viewers who may not know what a section 745 application
is, it is when a convicted first degree murderer who has been
given a life sentence without eligibility for parole for 25 years
can apply for an early parole release after 15 years. It is
interesting that finally there is something in legislation which
says it has to be made public when somebody is making that
application.
1325
That brings me to the issue of why it should be made public. In
many cases a victim wants to make a statement during these
hearings. We have these people whose crimes were considered to
be violent, a crime of intent or a murder of intent. That is
what a first degree murder charge or conviction is. They want to
be let out after 15 years instead of facing at least 25 years.
It seems to me that one would assume that in a first degree
murder charge the families of the murdered individual would have
an opportunity to express to the court, in making the decision of
whether this individual should have early release, the hardship
which that criminal activity caused them. They have never had
that opportunity. Finally the victims will have an opportunity
to present victim impact statements at section 745 hearings.
That is important to an individual who has been confronted with
this kind of situation, who feels they can never leave behind the
criminal activity which destroyed their lives because somebody is
constantly appearing before a parole board looking for relief.
They were never given an opportunity to express their concern or
how their life changed because of the criminal act or murder.
Finally these individuals will be given that opportunity.
Then there is the protection of victims by the banning of the
publication of court transcriptions. That is a given. If a
victim has survived and wants to put it behind them, the last
thing they want is for the whole world to know what they suffered
and to have to relive it over and over.
There are some very valid and very good things that the
government has brought to this bill and has addressed through
this bill. However, it is sad that it did not go the full nine
yards by taking all of the recommendations of the committee, that
it did not provide a better definition of victim and that it did
not bring in amendments to the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act at the same time so we could deal with it in its
entirety.
I want to share with the House an individual's story. It is
from the local newspaper and is entitled “The Life Destroyed”.
A women is scooped off the street, shovelled into the cab of a
pickup truck, raped repeatedly by the passenger while the driver
taunts her to “make it good for my friend”.
Twenty minutes later, the vehicle stops. The woman is pushed
out, then tossed like a sack of potatoes onto the tailgate, where
the driver rapes her. The passenger plunges the knife into her
back, twists it, then pulls it out. Then he kicks her body down
a bank. At the bottom the body rolls into the cold water of the
river.
How could there be anything more horrible, more appalling?
“There is”, said the woman, “the Canadian justice system”.
That is a sorry statement that we should even have to address in
the House, but that is what this victim, who suffered what no one
of us could possibly imagine living through, who did not think
she would live through, had to address.
As appalling, odious and painful the crime, there was worse to
come.
The Canadian justice system.
“I was on the witness stand for seven hours. That was longer
than the rapes themselves. The court experience was the worst
experience I have ever had to go through in my life”.
Here is a young woman whose life was destroyed. She was 18 at
the time. She had a child. The child later went with the father
because mentally and physically she could not deal with the
situation. She is now a bi-polar depressant person. She has to
be on medication. She needs counselling. This is six, seven or
eight years later.
She goes on to say about one of the rapists:
I am angry because he is getting full parole. He gets to choose
what he gets and I have had to suffer for the past eight years.
1330
She does not understand why Lee has had the chance to get out of
jail. “I felt that he would be there for the full 12 years. I
hate Lee and Bennett”, the two individuals who raped her.
“They destroyed my life. I became a terrible mother and I was a
good mother before”.
This is an individual whose total life has been destroyed. One
of the individuals got 12 years and I believe the other got 18
years. Both of them are out on parole.
For every parole hearing she has to prepare herself mentally and
physically to once again address the issue and make statements,
to make sure these individuals have to remain accountable for
their actions. She is going through this time and time again.
While these two individuals get counselling and all the
necessities of life in prison, not necessarily the worst of the
lot, this individual is struggling to put her life back together
with little assistance from the government.
Her medication bills are $165 a month. She cannot afford to go
to counselling anymore because it is $80 an hour. Even though
this is making a terrible state of her life she has had to drop
the counselling. She says that on $10 an hour she just cannot
afford it anymore.
Another insult the justice system has hurled at her is that it
requires her, the victim of a crime, to undergo a criminal record
check before she is allowed in the room where Lee's hearing is to
take place.
One really has to wonder when it is the victim who is always
victimized again and again by our justice system. It is time to
let victims have closure, to move on and to restore the lives
that have been destroyed.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley for her comments. I acknowledge she is one of the
members I worked very closely with on these issues long before I
came to this place.
There is another case in her constituency that I find quite
troubling. A number of years ago a man murdered his wife, or
killed his wife. We cannot call him a murderer because he was
accused of manslaughter. He served part of his time. He got
five years. He was trying to have his kids visit him. These
kids are victims. They are his kids and he killed their mother.
He was trying to force them into having visits with him. Now the
word is that upon his release he is going to try to get custody.
I am sure she is aware of the case I am talking about. I wonder
if she has any comments on that issue.
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Surrey North for bringing up that issue. It is not one that is
easy to forget.
An individual murdered his wife and it was not a clean murder.
He tried to hide it. He tried to clean her up, put her back into
bed and pretend she died in the night even though she was
battered and bruised. He was convicted of manslaughter. As so
often happens we had plea bargaining. It was the easiest way to
get a conviction and so he got manslaughter with five years and
was out after putting in his required number of years. He
requested visitations with his children when he was still on
parole. The children had to go through tremendous difficulties,
counselling and the whole bit. The youngest child was still
nursing when the mother was killed.
Now the family that has taken over the care of these children
since he was charged and incarcerated is fighting in the courts
at great expense to keep custody of these children knowing the
psychological damage that has already happened to these children
and which would continue if they were to go back to their father.
It is an ongoing case where the victims have to go into the
court system over and over again to try to make sure justice is
served.
1335
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for many reasons to participate in
the debate on Bill C-79. The single most important reason is
because we would not be here today if it was not for the Reform
Party, for its vision and its pursuit and acknowledgement of
victims of crime in our criminal justice system.
Specifically the House owes thanks to the member for Surrey
North and the member for Langley—Abbotsford for their dogged
determination in forcing the government to acknowledge victims.
There is no doubt this government would have procrastinated in
the area of victims rights.
This initiative goes back a long way, in fact back to 1996. In
the last parliament the member for Langley—Abbotsford introduced
a victims bill of rights, an enlightened document. Its genesis
was that victims have rights and they should be acknowledged as a
fundamental right in our society. For too long, victims were the
forgotten element in an impersonal justice system. The member for
Langley—Abbotsford is to be commended for his tenacity and his
vision.
Following that initiative by the member for Langley—Abbotsford,
a Reform Party supply day motion was introduced, debated and
passed in 1996. It finally got a lethargic government motivated
to review and finally introduce the legislation we have before us
today. That took another three years. If it was not for the
continued pressure by Reform to get this issue before the
standing committee, who knows how long the government would have
delayed.
In October 1998 the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights tabled its report, “Victims' Rights - A Voice, Not A
Veto”. At this juncture was again the member for Surrey North
who was responsible for many of the recommendations in the report
and now for what we have before us today in Bill C-79.
In the fall of 1996 the former Minister of Justice promised to
move on the issue of victims rights. His promise never
materialized. Another broken covenant by this lethargic
government. The 35th Parliament came and went and no victims
rights legislation. On April 29, 1996 the former Minister of
Justice admitted something should be done to acknowledge victims
of crime. Talk is one thing; action is another. That justice
minister is now in health making more promises.
In June 1997 when the current Minister of Justice was sworn in
she too promised action. In fact she said that victims rights
were one of her top three priorities. Almost two years later we
see what kind of attention her promises and her priorities get.
Let us face it. Reform's fingerprints are all over Bill C-79.
Too bad the government did not see fit to complete the job and
include all of their commitments. Recommendations in this bill,
Reform's recommendations and the committee's recommendations,
will probably take at least another two or three years for this
minister.
As I just said, Bill C-79 is not complete. The justice
committee in its report called for changes to the Criminal Code
as well as the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The
latter was ignored in Bill C-79. Sadly, victims of crime will
have to wait for legislative initiatives in the area of
corrections. They will continue to have no right to participate
in release hearings, to be advised of escapes, temporary absences
or anything to do with corrections.
It is regrettable that the government can never complete the
job. It is as if it has a problem with acknowledging the total
picture or is just too small to give others credit for their
initiatives. The only ones who lose because of the stubbornness
of the government are the victims, as usual.
What do we get in Bill C-79 after four years of hard work on
behalf of the Reform Party and the standing committee made up of
members from all parties?
Victims will now be informed of their right to prepare a victim
impact statement at the time of sentencing. This is a
straightforward necessity which gives acknowledgement of the
feelings of victims, a pure Reform Party initiative.
Victims will have the choice to read the victim impact statement
in court, another Reform initiative. This is further
acknowledgement of the victim in this criminal justice system
that until now has abandoned them.
Bill C-79 will protect victims of sexual assault or violent
crime up to the age of 18 from personal cross-examination by
self-represented accused persons, a most logical and sensitive
way to treat the victim. After all, who is accused here?
1340
Bill C-79 will compel police officers and judges to consider the
victim's safety in all bail decisions. That would seem to me to
be something that should have been done a long time ago. The
victim's safety should be considered in all bail decisions. Until
now the victim's safety was a passing thought.
It is incredible how such obvious acknowledgements took so long
for the government to consider and change. These things would
not be changing today without the hard work of my colleagues in
the area of victims rights.
Judges will now be required to inform the public of the
possibility of section 745 applications for early parole for
those who receive life sentences. This is welcome, but we all
know what the ultimate position should be in the area of this
scandalous and pathetic section 745.
As well, Bill C-79 will allow victims the right to present
victim impact statements at section 745 hearings. Again this is
a move forward, but if it were not for this nonsensical and
insensitive section 745 to begin with, we would not need this in
the bill.
Bill C-79 will allow victims and witnesses with a mental or
physical disability the right to have a support person present
while giving testimony. Going to court is intimidating at the
best of times no matter what side of the law one is on. At least
this gives some acknowledgement to this ordeal, particularly for
the victim. It is a good move. Again, it is in this bill
because of pressure from my colleagues in the Reform Party over
the last few years.
Victims and witnesses will now have protection through the
banning of publication of their identity where it is necessary
for the proper administration of justice.
As I have said in the last few examples, there are some positive
initiatives in this bill and thankfully, acknowledgement of the
recommendations of the Reform Party in this four year ordeal to
get the government to move. It is unfortunate that it has taken
four years.
We have one concern. We plan to pursue the broadening of the
definition of victim.
The minister touts the policy centre for the victims of crime as
instrumental in a new strategy in acknowledging victims. She
contends that all federal policies and legislation will take into
consideration the views of victims of crime. We will hold her to
that. And we will. If it becomes another federal sinkhole of
rumination rather than action, we will not tolerate this
indignity on victims.
As members are aware, a victim surcharge is an additional
penalty imposed upon offenders at the time of sentencing. It is
collected by provincial and territorial governments and used to
provide programs, services and assistance to victims of crime
within their jurisdiction. Bill C-79 will make some changes to
the application of this surcharge. It will now be automatic to
ensure it is applied consistently to all offenders. That is
fair.
The new legislation will provide for mandatory minimum amounts.
The new charge will be 15% of any fine imposed on the offender.
If no fine is imposed, it will be $50 in the case of an offence
punishable by summary conviction and $100 in the case of an
offence punishable by indictment. Over and above that, an
increased surcharge at the discretion of the judge can now be
imposed in appropriate circumstances.
We have come a long way since 1996, but as I have said, not all
the way with regard to victims rights. It is regrettable the
government could not bring itself to complete all elements of the
all-party committee report. This is not the first time. This is
one of many bills that have come from the justice committee.
Another is the Young Offenders Act for 10 year olds and 11 year
olds. All parties in the committee requested it. They did not
get it. The committee had many meetings and hearings across
Canada. We did not get what the committee asked for. This is a
government run by bureaucrats, not by elected officials.
It seems a shame that we could not be here today having just
once completed something in this House that a committee of all
parties recommended. The Reform Party will accept the work to
date and will continue to work with the government to complete
the task. We will work hard to complete the task.
Victims deserve closure and Bill C-79 brings them at least a few
steps closer to that.
1345
The Reform Party and specifically two diligent and determined
members of my caucus can take solace today that their work
culminates in Bill C-79. I say congratulations to them for the
great work they have done, not only for our party but for this
parliament and for all Canadians.
I want to finish up by talking about an example. I was home
this past weekend and there was a story in the North Shore
News about a drug dealer who in February was sentenced to
three and a half years in jail. The person was described by the
crown prosecutor as a controlling mind who used six others to
take the heat from him while selling cocaine to an undercover
North Vancouver Mountie over 10 months. All together in this
case there were 13 cocaine transactions involving as much as two
kilograms of cocaine costing $80,000 in this crime perpetrated by
this Mr. Darmadi.
He was arrested in September 1997. He was released on bail on
February 9 and a B.C. Supreme Court justice sentenced Darmadi to
jail. On April 21, less than three months after his
incarceration in a federal jail, Darmadi will return to North
Vancouver to visit his parents on an eight hour escorted leave.
What about the victims of this gentleman, the people whom he got
involved in crime with him?
In a very short few months after receiving a three and a half
year sentence he is home visiting with his parents. Children and
young people visiting with their parents is a very nice and happy
thing but not for this type of individual. It galls me when I
see people like him, one of the most serious criminals in our
country, getting treated in this manner and yet victims of crime
do not have those same rights.
I talked earlier about some of the things that are not done in
the bill. Some of them are under provincial jurisdiction, for
instance plea bargaining. My hon. colleague used the case just a
while ago of somebody sentenced to manslaughter instead of murder
because of a plea bargain. I know that is a provincial matter,
but maybe we should be showing some leadership to the provinces
in the House by saying that plea bargains should only take place
where victims are concerned and victims should participate. They
would probably agree if they were able to sit down and go through
what happened, but we ignore victims and that is unfortunate.
In the area of corrections we moved to see changes with regard
to release hearings and being advised of escapees. We heard from
the minister that it was maybe the solicitor general's department
and he would bring in some legislation in those areas. They could
have been included in the bill. It seems strange to me that
after all the work we have gone through there is still nothing
which insists victims of crime be informed if somebody escapes
from jail, especially in cases where there has been violence or
threats have been made. There is nothing in the legislation
which allows that to happen.
After the committee has travelled across Canada and made
recommendations in all these areas, we in parliament should not
have to wait for another government bill somewhere down the line.
Most of all, victims should not have to wait for somewhere down
the line. When a violent offender escapes from jail his victims
should be notified right away by law.
When people involved in rape, murder and physical threats are
going to release hearings, the victims of those people should be
notified. That is not in the bill, and that is not helping
victims. What would be worse than the victim waking up and
reading in the paper that some vicious murderer or rapist just
got released on bail after serving a short period of time? The
victim should have known about it. There is nothing in the law
which says that has to happen. That is not right and that makes
the bill not good enough.
1350
We will vote for the bill because there are some positive
changes, but it does not encompass all the changes the committee
recommended and that is the weakness of the bill.
I assure all Canadians that Her Majesty's official opposition
and all its justice critics will keep on this issue to make sure
the government moves it forward as fast as it can.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
interesting to listen to the debate today. We are discussing the
impact crime has on people who are the victims of criminals and
criminal acts.
While my colleague was speaking I realized that pretty well
every speaker had said something about sentencing as well as the
rights of victims. Although the bill does not address the
question of sentencing, which is an entirely different matter, it
seems it is one of the areas in which victims often feel greatly
victimized because they lose so much.
A rape victim, the family of someone who is murdered, the family
of the person killed or severely injured by a drunken driver, all
these people are victims. It seems as if the person who
perpetrates the crime gets away with a substantially inadequate
sentence. In a way that gets into the realm of the rights of
victims to see that justice is done, to see that there is a
penalty commensurate with the act which has taken place.
Does my colleague, the critic of the justice department for our
party, have any insights into how it impacts on the rights of
victims when they are victimized by criminals?
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague's
question is one of the most important ones. Part of the process
involved in the youth criminal justice act was getting people in
the room together, the victims and the people who committed the
crime, to talk about what they did.
All members who have been in politics for any period of time and
have dealt with constituents will notice that whenever we get
involved in issues of crime and hurt we wonder how they get
closure and get on with their lives. Under the system we have
right now it is not easy for people to do that. They do not feel
they are part of what is going on. They do not feel they have
had their say or their chance to put forth what they think should
happen.
Sometimes if we involve people, as we are to do with the youth
criminal justice act, it works very well. It has been shown over
the ages that the more we can involve victims in the process, the
better they can come to some form of closure and get on with
their lives. It is very difficult, especially when someone in
the family is lost, when somebody is murdered or hit by a drunken
driver. How do they get over that? It is not easy, but at least
the victims could be part of the process.
It is not very difficult to make that happen. All of society
would be better. They could get on with their lives feeling a
little better. They will never feel whole again because of what
they have lost, but the fact that they can be part of the process
will make them feel they did the best they could for the person
who is gone instead of sitting on the outside and not being part
of the process.
The government did not do things in terms of parole hearings and
releases. My colleague has also raised sentencing. These are
issues the committee looked at. The majority of members would
agree these things should be in legislation. I talked earlier
about plea bargaining. I know a number of these things are
within provincial jurisdiction, but our country is not that big
with a little over 30 million. The Parliament of Canada could
make recommendations to the provincial governments that the
victims be notified of plea bargaining, sentencing, releases and
parole.
I do not think there is a member in the House who would not
agree, if somebody has escaped from jail, a murder, rapist or any
violent offender, that his victim should be notified. We would
all agree with that. It is not here and it is unfortunate
because it should be here.
It shows the arrogance of a government that does not listen to
its committees in the House of Commons.
1355
I read in the paper that one of our New Democrat colleagues is
leaving to go into provincial politics. I will not mention what
he said about his party because that would be unkind, but I will
mention what he said about parliament. I tend to agree with him
that the committees in the House are not working properly and
that members should be able to go to committee knowing they are
doing what is best for Canada from their point of view from
whatever region they live in.
I agree with that member that parliament is becoming more
irrelevant because of the dictatorial means of the government of
the day. There is too much power in the PMO. There is too much
control of what goes on in this place.
Members should be allowed to debate freely and openly and get
their points of view across. They should be able to go to a
committee, which they did, and talk about doing something with
the bill in the areas of sentencing, escapes and plea bargaining.
All those things were discussed in committee. Members from all
parties agreed. Yet there is not one mention of those items in
the bill. That is unfortunate. That has to change before
parliament changes for the better.
The Speaker: There are about four minutes left for
questions and comments, but I am going to table a report. I
thought we could do that and then get ready for Statements by
Members.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons,
Volume I, dated April 1999.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e) this document is deemed to
have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts.
As it is almost 2 p.m., with the agreement of members we will
proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANCER
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, April
is the Canadian Cancer Society campaign month. During the month
thousands of volunteers will be knocking on doors across the
country, trying to raise the millions of dollars needed for the
fight against cancer.
Through research, education, patient services and advocacy for a
healthy public policy, the Canadian Cancer Society in
collaboration with the National Cancer Institute of Canada is
fighting to eradicate cancer. Furthermore, dollars raised by the
Canadian Cancer Society are used to enhance the quality of life
of people living with cancer.
As virtually every Canadian knows, cancer takes thousands of
lives each year. Only through increased awareness and further
research will we see continued progress in the fight against
cancer.
When volunteers are at our doors this month, we should try to
think about how we and our families will be able to help in this
campaign. Those who have questions or need for updated
information on all aspects of cancer and cancer care can call
Cancer Information Services at 1-888-939-3333.
* * *
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general's neglect and mismanagement of the RCMP is
causing it to go bankrupt.
Officers are leaving the force for better paying jobs or are
going on stress leave due to the pressure of not having the
resources to fight crime. Frontline police are frustrated by
laws without teeth that are passed by the Liberal government.
Surrey, B.C., has the largest RCMP detachment. No wonder it is
hard to fight crime with at least 10% fewer officers and 20%
fewer vehicles. The RCMP knows that the Liberals will not walk
the walk when they are not even talking the talk about getting
tough on crime.
Despite repeated requests by the city of Surrey, the solicitor
general refuses to answer questions about how $36 million per
year is spent on RCMP service in Surrey. The city has been
forced to threaten the solicitor general with a lawsuit to get
the facts and figures. My constituents hold the Liberals
responsible and the solicitor general accountable for our local
RCMP service.
* * *
CANADA BOOK DAY
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this Friday, April 23, is
Canada Book Day, the largest single day celebration of reading
and book buying in Canada.
It is also a day to celebrate Canadian authors. Communities
throughout our country will participate in events, including book
giveaways, contests, award announcements, readings and author
signings.
1400
World Book Day was declared by UNESCO in 1995 and since then has
been celebrated all over the globe. Our contribution, Canada
Book Day, is organized by the Writers Trust of Canada, a national
charitable organization dedicated to the advancement and
nurturing of Canadian writers and writing.
The federal government supports Canada Book Day through the Book
Publishing Industry Development Program.
Books are windows into worlds, real and fictional, revealing our
souls, our fears and our aspirations. They challenge us to learn
about ourselves and to be better for it.
On Canada Book Day, I invite my constituents and all other
Canadians to read a book, share a book, or give a book to
someone. Spread the written word and celebrate Canada's literary
wealth.
* * *
ST. PAUL UNIVERSITY
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Sunday, St. Paul University in Ottawa, known for
its commitment to Catholic education, granted honorary doctorates
to four citizens of the world in Canada, Philippines and Germany:
Ms. Marjorie Hodgson, respected aboriginal leader who has worked
to support healing within aboriginal communities; Madame Labelle,
Chancellor of the University of Ottawa; Father Wilhelm Steckling,
Superior General of the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate;
and, Brother Andrew Gonzalez, President of the International
Federation of Catholic Universities and the Secretary of State
for Education, Culture and Sports of the Republic of the
Philippines.
As a Canadian member of Parliament of Filipino heritage, it
gives me a special sense of joy to see that two of the recipients
are from Canada and one from the Philippines. These honours are
a tribute to the recipients and therefore to the social value of
education. This is welcome news since Canada has placed
education as one of its national priorities.
When we salute the recipients, we show the abiding faith we have
in our students, youth—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
[Translation]
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on April 13 in this House, a member of the Bloc Quebecois stated
the following in response to my question “The member knows well
that the CLDs are replacing or complementing, with a broader
mandate, the existing economic councils, even those that existed
15 years ago”.
Resolution CE-022-09 at a meeting of the Abitibi—Témiscamingue
CRDAT on March 18 in Val d'Or provided “It is moved by Michel
Cliché and seconded by André Brunet that the CRDAT's discontent
with the Quebec government's handling of the distribution of the
additional funds to the CLDs be expressed to the Minister,
Jean-Pierre Jolivet, and that he be told the fact the regions
were not consulted is unacceptable”.
The Bloc Quebecois member should read the minutes of this
meeting, where it was said “the Government of Quebec ignored the
regions' approach and failed to ask the opinion of the CRD”.
That is blockage Quebecois of the CRD, 15 years later.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this week communities across Canada will be celebrating National
Volunteer Week. This week is set aside to thank and honour our
communities' unsung heroes, those people who donate time and
energy to help their fellow citizens and the causes they believe
in.
Every day volunteers take time from their work, their leisure
and their home life to volunteer their talents and energies to
solve problems in their communities. They come from all walks of
life and from all ages. They share in common their citizenship
and commitment to improving the quality of life in their
community.
In observing National Volunteer Week, I encourage all members of
the House to join with all communities across Canada in thanking
the volunteers, Canada's greatest natural resource.
* * *
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this side of the House would also like to honour and
acknowledge the countless efforts of millions of Canadian
volunteers. From St. John's to Vancouver, volunteers help to
build and shape our communities and neighbourhoods. It is during
this week we need to publicly honour and thank volunteers for
their commitment, compassion and generosity.
Canada has more than 7.5 million volunteers who contribute to
society in positive and significant ways. These contributions
occur not only in times of crisis, but in the important day to
day lives of many people. They work as health care aides,
coaches, referees, tour guides, board members, mentors,
researchers and search and rescue team members. It is this
dedicated effort and support from volunteers of all ages and
backgrounds that we as Canadians need to honour and appreciate.
Now is the time to acknowledge and pay tribute to these
exceptional Canadians who donate their precious time to causes
they believe in. These volunteers help to define what it truly
means to be a Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
BILINGUALISM
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would draw
to your attention another example of the application of the two
official languages in this country.
only.
1405
I recently received a 78 page publication from the Department of
Veterans Affairs, on media coverage of the 55th anniversary of
the Battle of the Atlantic. While the title appeared in both
official languages, 61 pages were in English and only a page and
a half were in French. What a fine proportion.
However, the arrogance does not stop there. Declaration 31 on
the 55th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic, which I made
in the House on June 3, 1988 in French, appeared in this
document in English only.
QuebecKers agree with Mr. Bouchard and his government.
The defence of French and of the culture of our people cannot be
left to a unitarian and centralizing federal government.
* * *
[English]
MEADOWVALE THEATRE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April 1 marked the 10th anniversary of Mississauga's Meadowvale
Theatre. Since opening its doors on April 1, 1989, Meadowvale
Theatre has hosted nearly 750,000 artists, technicians and
audience members.
From professional theatre productions to concerts, seminars and
conventions, classes in mime, puppetry and circus crafts, co-op
programs in technical theatre and theatre management, the
Meadowvale Theatre provides a tremendous variety of events for my
community.
I want to congratulate the Meadowvale Theatre of Mississauga as
it celebrates its 10th anniversary. I also want to thank all of
those people who have worked and volunteered to make it so
successful.
* * *
CFB CALGARY
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals do not have to go to Calgary to find out why westerners
feel alienated. I can tell them right here.
CFB Calgary has been closed. Its land can help address the
educational, social and health concerns of Calgarians. However,
this land is earmarked for sale to private developers for top
dollars.
Mount Royal College needs land to expand. This government has
refused Mount Royal's request.
Our veterans desperately need a hospital in Calgary. These are
the men and women who have defended our nation. Sadly, the land
that was set aside for this hospital is in the process of being
sold to private developers.
Habitat for Humanity, a charitable organization, builds low cost
housing for young Canadian families. It is interested in
securing some affordable land. CFB Calgary would have been an
ideal location.
The Prime Minister can still intervene. Calgarians plead to him
to please do so.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
celebrate National Volunteer Week, I am pleased to draw
attention to the considerable contribution made by Canada's
volunteers, particularly those in my riding of
Pierrefonds—Dollard.
Volunteers' presence is everywhere: in hospitals, in food banks,
in schools, in amateur sport, in human rights organizations, in
seniors' centres, and in youth programs.
Volunteers give of themselves, and their unpaid efforts, their
ongoing presence within our community, their solidarity, merit
our consideration.
In this National Volunteer Week, let us pay tribute to these
exceptional Canadians who give unselfishly of themselves to the
causes they believe in. As we are all aware, volunteers open
doors to a better world.
My congratulations, and more importantly my thanks, to all those
who volunteer.
* * *
[English]
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs tabled the
government's response to the report of the foreign affairs
committee on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
While we welcome the government's call for an update of NATO's
nuclear policy, it has failed to urge NATO to adopt a clear
policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.
The government has also rejected the committee's strong and
unanimous demand that Canada say no to burning MOX fuel in this
country.
While we must work with Russia and the U.S. to address the
problem of surplus fissile material, Canada must not become a
nuclear waste dump for the world.
New Democrats urge the government to say no to MOX fuel in
Canada and yes to a NATO policy of no first use of nuclear
weapons.
As Physicians for Global Survival recently urged, let us give
our children and grandchildren a world free of the terror of
nuclear weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
comments on the debates addressing citizenship that went on at
the Bloc Quebecois general assembly this past weekend, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made a number of
statements.
“It is an evil thing to require this exercise of
people” he said. He went on to state: “Canada as a whole is a
small nation, an uncertain nation, one whose identity has never
been assured. It holds tight to that identity. That is
something that must always be kept in mind”.
1410
The minister is once again demonstrating that the Liberal
government is refusing to recognize the existence of the Quebec
nation and people.
By what intellectual sleight of hand can he justify allowing
Canada the right to reflect on its identity, but not Quebec?
What even more despicable is that the minister is seeking to
again pass the sovereignty project off as ethnic. He wants to
conceal the fact that it is open to all Quebeckers of all
origins, and that more and more of them are coming on side.
* * *
BLOC QUEBECOIS
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must inform you that from 1993 to 1997 a non-Canadian
sat in this House.
I am referring to the Bloc Quebecois member, Roger Pomerleau,
who represented the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies for four
years, and who said last week in Rivière-du-Loup that he is not a
Canadian and is insulted that he is being treated like one.
We have seen the trouble the Bloc Quebecois has defining who is
a Quebecker and who is not, which is rather troubling for a party
that wants Quebec to separate. We also know that, for these
folks, it is not possible to be a Canadian and a Quebecker at one
and the same time, contrary to what most Quebeckers think.
Could we know how many non-Canadians there are in the Bloc
Quebecois right now? Are the leader and the House leader of the
Bloc Quebecois as insulted to be considered Canadians as the
fellow the people of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies did not re-elect
four years ago?
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, for more than 60 years the Canadian Cancer Society has
tried to eradicate cancer and sought to better the lives of
people living with cancer.
The Canadian Cancer Society is the single largest funder of
cancer research in Canada and provides support to thousands of
the best scientists across Canada who are working on research
that continues to prevent cancer, change treatment methods and
improve patient survival rates.
The victories and the fight against cancer is not over. In 1998
129,200 Canadians were diagnosed with cancer and 62,700 died from
cancer.
Please join me in wishing the Canadian Cancer Society and its
volunteers success in fundraising activities during the April
campaign month.
* * *
NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to recognize that this
is National Organ Donor Week in Canada. Unfortunately, there is
a critical shortage of donated organs in Canada.
British Columbia is working towards reversing this trend by
having established a B.C. Transplant Society. This society
co-ordinates all aspects of organ donations, including related
health issues. The B.C. Transplant Society is a success story
and, I believe, a model in the future establishment of a national
organ donor program.
* * *
NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is Organ Donor Week. Sadly, Canada has one of the
worst organ donor rates in the entire developed world. This year
alone 150 Canadians will die while waiting for a transplant. Some
will be children, some will be adults and many will die
unnecessarily.
We can change all of that. The following are some suggestions
that the Minister of Health can employ today: First, create a
national organ registry of potential recipients, link this
registry up with hospitals across the country and have a registry
of intended donors; second, that there be a form on every
patient's chart so a person can be asked to be a donor and have
their wishes express to their family; third, have an organ
procurement co-ordinator in every hospital; fourth, that a pool
of funds be available for transplantation; and, fifth, require
that all deaths be reported to the national registry.
During Organ Donor Week, I implore every Canadian across the
country to sign up, be an organ donor and save a life.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for the Treasury Board is in for the fight
of his life if he thinks he is going to grab $30 billion from the
surplus of the public service pension plan.
The government may have succeeded in stealing $25 billion from
the unemployed workers in the EI fund—
The Speaker: Oral Questions. The hon. member for Calgary
Northeast.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
before I get to my question I want to remind the House of a
saying often repeated during the second world war: “Loose lips
sink ships”.
All members of the House need to be cognizant of the fact that
what we discuss here can have an effect on the safety of our
troops overseas. In other words, some questions are better asked
in private.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. The
bombing campaign has been going on now for several weeks and the
financial cost to the allies is enormous. The Americans are
calling for more than $6 billion in new money to finance their
side of the operation.
Has the defence minister asked cabinet for more money to finance
the Canadian effort in Yugoslavia?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be additional funds that I
will seek, but the cost to this point in time in terms of the
Canadian forces is approximately $32 million in incremental costs
going back to the first deployment of the CF-18s. However, there
will be additional costs and there are efforts being put together
now to get those numbers ready for members of the House.
I also want to indicate that I appreciate the comments of the
hon. member with respect to the well-being of our troops.
Interestingly enough, I received some additional comments from
citizens, for example, of Calgary. This is addressed to the hon.
member for Compton—Stanstead, the Conservative defence critic.
He addresses the member by saying:
Your comments regarding soldiers in Kosovo are very dangerous and
damaging to any ground troops that are undercover in that war.
He said:
The Speaker: We have had the opening question and
statement and now we have to tighten up a bit. The hon. member
for Calgary Northeast.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has repeatedly assured us that there will be
enough money for the Canadian forces to carry out their mission
in Yugoslavia; however, it often does not provide enough details
for any assurance and the estimates do not predict war.
Could the Minister of National Defence tell the House how much
the mission is expected to cost Canada and how much more new
money is being set aside for our troops?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are provisions for funds for
special missions whether they be the kind of mission we are in
now or other peacekeeping missions. However, when we run out of
those funds then we have to seek additional funds for that
purpose.
As I think I indicated in answer to the previous question, the
costs are not of an unreasonable nature at this point in
time—those are the incremental costs—but certainly if
additional funds are needed then these matters will be discussed
in cabinet.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with 18 CF-18 fighters now in Aviano there will be an increased
strain on both ground crews and particularly our pilots.
The situation in the Canadian forces is that there is a shortage
of fighter pilots. With half of the combat-ready pilots now
situated in Aviano, what measures is the defence minister taking
to ensure that our borders at home are protected? After all, one
never knows when there is a Korean missile flying from Korea over
to Compton—Stanstead.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a quote which
originated with the member for Compton—Stanstead.
We are endeavouring to add to our pool of qualified pilots, both
jet fighter pilots and pilots of other aircraft that we have.
We are bearing in mind that they need to be kept for other
purposes, such as the commitments we have to NORAD, as well as
other training obligations. We are bearing that in mind in terms
of the deployment of our jet pilots into this theatre in Aviano.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government's high tax policies are forcing normally
law-abiding Canadians to look for a way out. Today the auditor
general revealed that the underground economy accounts for $12
billion in lost revenues per year.
A growing number of Canadians are doing everything they can to
avoid the taxman. The government's answer is more taxes and more
tax collectors.
1420
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Why can
the government not see the real source of the problem? Why can
it not see that high taxes are driving Canadians south of the
border and into the black market?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to meet with
the auditor general in regard to his report.
Of course, when the auditor general talks about the underground
economy he is talking about both federal and provincial revenues.
We have a voluntary compliance system. We have one of the
highest rates of voluntary compliance. Ninety-five per cent of
Canadians pay their fair share of taxes. We also have an
enforcement program which has resulted in $5 billion.
The auditor general said that we have a balanced approach which
ensures and encourages voluntary compliance, but at the same time
we have a strong enforcement system, and that is—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general said that the government has an approach
which simply is not working and that the federal treasury is
losing $12 billion a year. Again the government's solution is to
hire more tax cops.
Let us look at the facts. The auditor general said that in 1994
a poll showed that 58% of Canadians would accept an offer to
evade taxes when buying goods or services. In a poll taken last
year that figure had grown to 73%. Fully three out of four
Canadians said they would be prepared to evade.
Instead of hiring more tax cops to intimidate Canadian
taxpayers, why does the government not find the real solution to
the problem and provide Canadians with tax relief?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual this member and his party speak
out of both sides of their mouths. Members opposite stand in
this House to say that we collect too many taxes, that we have
too much revenue, and now they are saying we are not collecting
enough taxes.
What we have is a balanced approach to ensure that we provide
better service to Canadians and that we provide access to
Canadians to improve voluntary compliance.
This is a government that reduced taxes by $16.5 billion. We do
not just speak about it, we do it.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the issue of
sending ground troops to Kosovo would be discussed next Friday
at the meeting of NATO leaders in Washington.
With the Americans mobilizing troops and equipment, and the
British Prime Minister and NATO's secretary general talking
openly about the possibility of a ground war, we can assume that
the Prime Minister of Canada will present Canada's position in
Washington.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us today what position
the Prime Minister will defend on behalf of Canada in Washington
this weekend?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I did not say yesterday, and I ask
the hon. member to look at the transcript, that NATO summit
leaders would be discussing ground troops. I said that there
will be meetings at which they will be able to discuss a wide
variety of options for the future. It is up to the leaders to
determine what the nature of those discussions will be.
At this point in time the position of the Canadian government is
as it has been, that we will only support ground troops as part
of a peacekeeping force to implement a peace agreement. That was
the decision taken by NATO. That was the decision taken by the
Canadian government.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister himself said today that this issue could be
raised by all NATO leaders during their discussions. So it
could come up.
It is perhaps time that the government stopped giving evasive
answers. We have more information about the intentions of the
United States, Great Britain and Germany.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit how ridiculous Canada
looks when it says that the question of sending ground troops is
a hypothetical one here in parliament, while the Prime Minister
himself says in a media scrum that it could come up during the
Washington meeting and that it would therefore not necessarily
be hypothetical?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is ridiculous is the hon.
member's question. That is all that is ridiculous.
What will take place during the summit meeting will be that the
leaders will be examining the whole question of the present
engagement in Kosovo, what can be done to help bring the refugees
back, what can be done to help preserve their rights, what can be
done to find a peace agreement and what can be done to support
negotiations. Those are the key issues that leaders will be
discussing; what are those kinds of options. One does not go in
with a set position.
I know from the point of view of the Bloc Quebecois that they
like to have nice rigid positions before anything is decided.
1425
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
a problem, a real problem.
We are more familiar with the position of the United States, the
United Kingdom and France than we are with that of the
Government of Canada, which is seated right across the floor
from us in this House.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unless the
government goes to Washington on Friday to receive their orders,
would it not be to its advantage to gain support for its
position on the German peace plan and the sending of ground
forces to Kosovo with a vote in this House?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been no decision by the USA or Great Britain
on a change to the NATO position.
All options will be discussed, particularly the option of
negotiation and the option for planning stability and
reconstruction in the Balkan region. There will be extensive
discussions among the leaders of the NATO countries.
The priority is to seek a solution to the crisis in the Balkans,
not the Bloc Quebecois position on a vote.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
refusing to hold a vote in the House, the Liberals are going
against what they themselves demanded of the Conservative
government in 1991: a vote in the House.
We are fed up with being poorly informed by this government.
Does the problem not lie basically with the fact that the
government is being directed by a Prime Minister, a Minister of
Foreign Affairs, and a Minister of National Defence who are
incapable of getting their act together, and who lack
transparency?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what is instructive is that during the early part of
the 1990s parliament was not even convened until two months after
the ships were sent. We said it would be nice for parliament to
at least be reconvened by the Conservatives. That was the
position we took.
It seems to me that the hon. member is now indicating that his
party is changing its position. It is now reneging on its
commitment to support Canadian troops in trying to bring about a
redress of the grievances in Kosovo. Why do you not speak up?
Why do you not fess up to what your position is?
The Speaker: I ask hon. members to please address their
remarks through the Chair.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
NATO meets on Friday in Washington to discuss strategy on
Kosovo. Military options will be considered, but diplomatic
avenues must be pursued as well. Canada must use this
opportunity to push for a diplomatic solution to the humanitarian
crisis in Kosovo.
My question is simple. What specific diplomatic initiatives
will Canada put on the table at the NATO summit?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been promoting a diplomatic solution from
the very beginning of the crisis in Kosovo.
Unfortunately, we finally came to the situation where the
Milosevic regime refused any adherence to the fundamental rule of
law or any kind of agreement whatsoever. Therefore, we had to
opt for the enforcement of that rule of law and the protection of
the innocent lives of people.
What we will be supporting at Washington is the continuation of
allowing us to use every opportunity to support the initiatives
of the secretary general, the NATO council and the leaders of
Russia, who are all seeking to find a solution.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
just heard from the foreign affairs minister that Canada will do
very little to take real leadership.
The foreign affairs minister said yesterday that to be a leader
in nuclear disarmament Canada has to assume some
responsibilities. The NATO summit in Washington gives Canada a
clear opportunity to provide that leadership.
Will Canada accept its responsibilities by urging that NATO
abandon its first use nuclear policy?
1430
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member of the third party probably
knows, we tabled in the House—
An hon. member: Fourth party.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy: The fourth party. I gave her a
promotion.
We tabled in the House a very exhaustive paper on Canada's
intentions and objectives in seeking nuclear disarmament. We
fully agreed with the all-party committee that recommended we
bring forward for review the ways in which NATO can use its
opportunities for disarmament and arms control. That is the
position we are taking. I think it is a position that will be
accepted.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister advise us whether in the last two weeks we have
had any CF personnel on the ground in any capacity in Yugoslavia?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. I said yesterday
that there have not been any troops on the ground in Kosovo or
Yugoslavia. I am not prepared to go beyond that for the security
of our personnel.
The hon. member received a letter, of which I have a copy, from
a citizen who said “When CF personnel go in harm's way it is the
responsibility of all Canadians to do everything possible to
ensure they are supported and protected to the maximum possible
extent. In most instances, that includes keeping your mouth
shut”.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
Jane's Defence Weekly, the most respected defence
publication in the world, has the headline “Special forces
involvement confirmed”. The electronic Telegraph has been
reporting SAS involvement in Kosovo since April 11. The
Yugoslavians know from the targets being destroyed that NATO's
special forces are operating on the ground. We also read today
in the London Times that if CF personnel are not operating
in theatre, then how can their lives be at risk?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. member to put his
question.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, it is very straightforward.
If CF personnel are not operating in theatre, then how are we
putting their lives at risk?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful of what we talk
about in terms of our strategic involvement in the area of the
Balkans now and in—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. We wanted to hear the question and we
did. We will hear the answer.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, we have CF
personnel in Aviano working as part of the air campaign. We do
have people in Macedonia and Albania who are trying to help the
refugees. Tens of thousands of refugees are pouring over the
border every day because of the terrible atrocities being
committed on them by the Milosevic government. That is why we
are over there. We are over there to help those people, to
return to them their human rights, their dignity and their right
to live in peace and security in Kosovo. That is why we are over
there.
Why can we not have the support of that party in doing what
Canadians want us to do?
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general reported today that 4.5% of the gross domestic
product is underground and that Revenue Canada hired 1,200 new
auditors to find it and tax it. The Minister of Finance may
think that more tax collectors make his bottom line look better,
but what effect does he think that these tax cops will have on
the bottom line of Canadian families? Why does he have a policy
of squeezing more taxes out of Canadians rather than a policy of
giving some taxes back?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have $16.5
billion in tax relief.
In terms of the underground economy there are many estimates as
to what its size is. The auditor general has one estimate. What
the auditor general has said though, and I hope the member will
read it, is that what Revenue Canada is doing now is to have a
balanced approach to ensure there is social marketing to make
Canadians aware of their responsibility. All Canadians want to
pay their fair share of taxes. We are confident that they do
that.
We are looking at methods to ensure we give proper service to
Canadians to—
1435
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. Albert.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, he
may call it a balanced approach but when he squeezes $40 billion
more out of Canadian taxpayers since this government took office,
I do not call that a balanced approach at all. That is why
Canadians have been driven underground and are being driven out
of this country. They cannot make a living here and pay the
taxes too. Instead of adding more tax cops, why will the minister
not cut taxes and do it now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let there be no doubt the government's revenues are up.
They are up because there are a million and a half Canadians who
are working, more than were working before. They are up because
corporate profitability is up. They are up because our exports
are up. Our revenues are up because Canada's economy is up. That
is why.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the
current Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, a member on these benches, and the
two of them rose in the House to demand a vote from Brian
Mulroney before troops were sent to Iraq.
Seven years later, they are in the government. Why did they
change their point of view?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as with most subjects, the Bloc Quebecois distorts
what has been said. What we said back then was that it was
important for parliament to be involved in making these
decisions. Since 1993 when we came in, every single initiative
the government has taken in which we have had troops committed
overseas has been the subject of a debate in this parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it can be
checked, it is in the House of Commons Debates, and I challenge
the minister to prove what he has just said.
That is the absolute truth. They demanded a vote, and today, in
power, they have changed their position.
I have a question for them. Do they consider it decent, in
front of the people of Canada, for the Prime Minister to decide
to use a talk show this evening to speak to the people rather
than answer questions in the House, as is his duty?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know this will come as helpful information to the
hon. member. We have organized a major briefing this afternoon
for all members in front of the committee to get the full
information of what is going on in Kosovo.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, while the minister of taxes defends his high tax
policies, 150 of Canada's largest companies are saying enough is
enough.
The Business Council on National Issues told this government
today that unless taxes come down, businesses are heading south.
That is happening already. Clearly Canadian Beverages recently
pulled the plug to go to the U.S. because according to its
president the tax situation in this country is too tough to make
a buck. Is this minister proud of the high tax policies that have
made Clearly Canadian clearly American?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the BCNI said was that taxes should be brought down
over a period of time in a way that would not threaten to put the
country back into deficit. At the same time it said that there
should be investments in research and development, education and
all of those things that would give us a productive society. In
short, the BCNI has essentially said that the slash and burn
policies of the Reform Party are not going to build a productive
society.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have seen no commitment from this government to
reduce taxes at all. The finance minister has actually raised
taxes over the past six years. Canadians are paying much more.
That is why we have younger Canadians going to the U.S. and not
staying. The talent is not staying in this country. Yesterday
it was Nortel. Today we read that Newbridge cannot keep its
talented employees here because they are paying too much in high
taxes.
I would like the minister of taxes to stand in this House and
tell these 150 companies why he thinks high taxes are helping
their bottom lines.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party sets up straw men. The fact is nobody
thinks high taxes help the bottom line. That is why, as the
Minister of National Revenue said—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1440
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to
keep their voices low. I do not want to name members. Please
keep your voices low.
The hon. Minister of Finance will answer the question, if he so
pleases.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
why do we not simply look at the facts.
Fact, $16.5 billion of tax cuts over the next 36 months. Fact,
the child tax benefit, $1.8 billion going to help low and modest
income families. Fact, the most generous research and development
grants in the country. Fact, technology partnerships that are
going to help a number of our major industries. Fact, the lowest
corporate rate for small business of any of the major
industrialized countries.
Those are the facts. That is what this government has done.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Human Resources Development took refuge behind the
Gautrin resolution, using it as an excuse for his refusal to
move on the millennium scholarship issue.
This resolution calls for negotiations to be held government to
government, leading to legislative amendments, and avoiding any
duplication.
Instead of playing the wise guy, will the Minister of Human
Resources Development admit that he is the one not complying
with the Gautrin resolution by refusing, for no real reason, to
negotiate with Minister Legault, who is there in Quebec City
waiting for him?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that the Bloc Quebecois is
taking refuge behind the “government to government” referred to
in the Gautrin resolution. There was government to government
negotiation, which failed, I regret to say.
What I would like to see is for all of us to put the welfare of
Quebec students first, the people who are entitled to loans and
bursaries. I would like to see ministers like Messrs Landry and
Legault quit intimidating the prominent Canadians who are
seeking to help Canadian students, despite the bunch in the Bloc
Quebecois.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if he wants to
talk about the students, fine, we will.
Yesterday, the president of the FEUQ said “The federal
government...is hiding behind the foundation legislation to
refuse to negotiate an arrangement”. The problem is not in
Quebec City, it is here in Ottawa, with the Minister of
Finance.
What is holding the Minister of Human Resources Development back
from assuming his responsibilities and going to negotiate with
François Legault in Quebec City?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a resolution was passed
unanimously in the Quebec National Assembly which gives us
precisely the criteria the National Assembly supposedly wants.
The foundation's legislative mandate allows it to accommodate
the motion adopted by the Quebec National Assembly.
I believe we must work constructively toward helping Quebec
students to obtain more funding for their studies.
* * *
[English]
TRADE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is a crisis brewing in our backyard and once again the
government seems to be paralyzed.
The United States has stripped Canada of its favoured nation
status on defence contracts. Is it not shameful that the
minister of trade did not even know of this impending action
which threatens thousands of Canadian jobs? Why was the minister
caught off guard when $5 billion is at stake?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have been in very active discussions with
authorities in the United States government over the past several
months.
Unfortunately on Friday it gazetted regulations that will change
the special exemption for Canadian defence industries. In
reaction I have written to the Secretary of State. I intend to
take up the matter with Madeleine Albright when I meet with her
on Friday.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is obvious that the minister of trade was asleep at the switch
when $5 billion worth of trade was at stake.
Now we have the Minister of Foreign Affairs off to Washington to
try to repair the damage.
1445
How did the government allow $5 billion worth of business to
slip away?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has matters confused. As
the Minister of Foreign Affairs I am responsible for questions of
allowing export permits on defence related matters. Therefore it
falls within my responsibility.
We work very closely with the Minister for International Trade
and the officials on the trade side. In fact they have been part
of the negotiations. What I am saying at this point in time is
that we regret the decision taken by the United States
government. We think it works against the interest of both
Canadian and U.S. industries. We will take up the matter
directly with the secretary of state on Friday.
* * *
[Translation]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an effort to
cover up its disastrous management of the groundfish stocks, the
government established the Atlantic groundfish strategy.
According to the auditor general, the Department of Human
Resources Development failed miserably and spent $150 million on
ill-defined programs.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the face of this monstrous disaster, for which the federal
government is totally responsible, how can we fail to conclude
that the Liberals tried to buy the silence of the fishers by
spending millions of dollars any which way?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the
Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the help given fishers in eastern
Canada, including eastern Quebec. I find it rather lamentable
that the Bloc Quebecois is criticizing us today for setting up
an emergency aid program for our fishers in the midst of crisis.
I would—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.
* * *
[English]
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my office in Kitchener gets many inquiries about the Canadian
pension plan.
Several months ago a panel of actuaries was retained to examine
Mr. Michael Hafeman's report which stated that CPP was safe and
secure. Could the Minister of Finance advise the House what
these actuaries have determined about the Canada pension plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Kitchener Centre has had a long interest
in the safety and security of the Canada pension plan and will be
pleased to learn that the review panel fully supports Mr.
Hafeman's conclusions.
While differing on some details, the panel shares the view that
Mr. Hafeman's report was prepared according to the best
professional standards and concluded, most importantly, that the
Canada pension plan was indeed sustainable for the long term.
On behalf of all Canadians we would like to thank Mr. Hafeman
and the review panel.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, those
fluffy questions just warm my heart.
Scowlitz Band Chief John Pennier, three times convicted of
sexual assault, is back as chief four months after being released
from jail. Now he is scheduled to be back in court in May on
three more assault charges. Women who have testified against him
are threatened, intimidated and denied band funds.
The band members have petitioned Indian affairs to remove the
convicted sex offender. They fear for themselves, their families
and their children. So far as we know the minister has done
nothing. What has she done? When will she act?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the
accusations made against the chief of Scowlitz. In fact it is
before the courts and at this point it is inappropriate to
comment further on the issue.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
person was convicted; please remember that he was convicted. When
he was released from jail he then entered back in as chief.
Because of loopholes in the Indian Act and because he has a big
family, it is possible for that to happen, and the minister knows
it.
Band members are frightened and they are worried sick. When
will the minister stand up for decency and do what is right, or
is it okay with her that a serial sex offender is able to be
chief of a band and intimidate their people?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not comment
particularly on this case but I do want to say that the chiefs
and council of every first nation have to be accountable to those
men and women who elect them.
It is part of the democratic process and I would ask the hon.
member to understand this.
* * *
1450
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has just
released his most damning report to date on the operations of the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
This evening the House of Commons will vote on Bill C-27, an
agreement to conserve and manage the fish stocks outside our 200
mile limit. Yet the auditor general said, although parliamentary
procedure will not let me show the map, that we do not have the
capability or enforcement possibilities to contain our shellfish
industry within our 200 mile limit.
How does the government expect to enforce the agreement on the
high seas when we do not have the capability to monitor the
fishery within our own 200 mile limit?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the
auditor general's report and its constructive criticism.
I think the member knows full well that the standing committee
on fisheries made similar recommendations. The Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the minister have been moving ahead in
that regard. In fact this year we have increased the number of
enforcement officers to start to deal with that concern.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately in 1997 the former
minister who was in the House ignored the advice of four
different people and opened up the turbot fishery in
Newfoundland.
Now the current minister is also ignoring advice from his
department's observer reports. The auditor general is hinting to
us that the environment is absolutely ripe for a total collapse
of the shellfish industry in Atlantic Canada.
We have seen the movie cod one. Do not let us see the movie
shellfish two. It will be disastrous for Atlantic Canadians. It
will be disastrous for the taxpayers of the country.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows full well that the minister has been moving ahead in this
area.
As I already mentioned we increased the number of enforcement
officers. He has put in place a plan to double egg production
for lobster by 2001.
The hon. member opposite was one of the ones to complain about
those measures. The minister is moving ahead. He is taking the
advice of not only the standing committee. He is consulting with
the fishing community and he is doing the right thing.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, through
you, I would like to tell the Minister of National Defence that,
because of his arrogance and his lack of information or
consultation, because of what you did, you have lost the war,
the war of diplomacy and democracy right here in Canada.
I hope, sir, that you will understand—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will address his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, through you, will the minister
answer the question put to him by the member for
Compton—Stanstead with a yes or a no? Could he simply tell the
House whether or not the Canadian army has special operation
forces in the Balkans? Or is it a national security issue?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of National Defence.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the people from the fifth party
are hallucinating. I have the two articles that the defence
critic cited from earlier in his question to me in terms of our
involvement. Neither one of them mentions the Canadian forces at
all.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, you
see, he has still not answered the question.
It is now one month since we have been at war, and there has
been no real debate, no real information session. It is a war
of improvization. We have gone from 6 planes to 18, and perhaps
more. One month of war, no information, no consultation, no
vote.
Can the minister tell us whether the information we raised
yesterday falls into the category of national security, yes or
no? Can he answer? It is easy. Is it, or is it not, a
national security issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
where was the hon. member during the last few weeks and months?
There was consultation after consultation.
We consulted the House on these issues more than any other
government under similar conditions. We were transparent,
consulted and provided the necessary information.
We will fulfil our obligation to the Canadian public, unlike the
party to which the hon. member belongs.
* * *
1455
[English]
AIR SAFETY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the
Minister of Transport tell the House if his department has made
good on his commitment to air safety in reference to his
declaration of February 1988 to ensure appropriate levels of
aircraft firefighting and emergency response services for the
flying public?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we have started discussions
on proposed amendments to the Canadian aviation regulations that
will ensure a better level of emergency response at smaller
airports across the country.
These regulatory changes are part of a comprehensive review of
all emergency response measures at Canada's airports, because the
federal government is absolutely committed to flight safety for
all Canadians.
* * *
CODE OF ETHICS
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since 1995 the Prime Minister has told
the House and all Canadians that he has a ministerial code of
ethics to which his cabinet has to adhere. Unfortunately,
despite all the requests, he has never made it public. We have
asked him a number of times.
I would like to ask a question of the government and the cabinet
members, any one of them. Does it not embarrass them that their
boss has a code of ethics for them that he is afraid to make
public?
Will the cabinet members ask their boss as soon as possible to
table it in the House and end all the—
The Speaker: The hon. government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it appears that the hon. member
and his party must have run out of questions at 2.55 p.m. today
in the House of Commons in order to ask something like that.
The Prime Minister is obviously quite free to consult with his
colleagues in cabinet whatever way he wishes. The conflict of
interest code is a public document. The blue book, as it is
sometimes referred to, is a document that is well known to all
Canadians.
If the hon. member cannot get one, I will endeavour to ask
someone to go to the Library of Parliament to get a copy for him.
* * *
[Translation]
FISHERIES
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in his report tabled today, the auditor general
says that the problems in the management of Atlantic groundfish
are now appearing in the management of shellfish in the same
region.
How does the government explain that the Atlantic groundfish
management disaster, for which it was responsible, is now about
to repeat itself with shellfish? Did the government not learn
its lesson?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned
earlier, the minister has been very proactive in terms of the
shellfish industry to ensure the same thing does not happen there
as has happened in the groundfish industry.
As I also mentioned earlier, he has put in measures to double
egg production in all the lobster fishing areas. Those measures
are being monitored and if improvements need to be made they will
be made. As well he has increased the enforcement measures.
The minister is moving to ensure, learning the lessons of the
past from what previous governments have done, there is a strong
sound future for shellfish.
* * *
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday I asked a question about a government job posting which
says that only persons residing within a 500 kilometre radius of
Ottawa can apply. In other words, western Canadians need not
apply or Atlantic Canadians or northern Canadians, for that
matter.
If one of my kids were qualified and willing to relocate, he or
she deserves the right to apply and be considered for that job.
Somebody should tell that to the Liberal task force on western
alienation.
Will the minister tell us today that he will open the
competition for all federal government jobs to all Canadians who
wish to apply?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Public Service Commission does not discriminate in terms of
jobs. However it has rules for its own competitions. Some of
these rules, which have been judged to be quite constitutional by
the supreme court, reduce the cost of these competitions.
These are the rules that are in question. The Public Service
Commission intends to put these rules into effect, provided that
they are not discriminatory, and we are told they are not.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, a
foreign affairs committee called a plan to burn weapons grade
plutonium in Canada totally infeasible.
A recent U.S. environmental assessment on the project stated
activities conducted in Canada would be the sole responsibility
of the Canadian government.
1500
Given Canada's poor record on enforcement as pointed out by the
environment committee last year and that superficial screenings
account for 99% of Canada's environmental assessment as pointed
out by the auditor general, what assurances can the Minister of
the Environment provide that the decision to burn U.S. and
Russian weapons plutonium will be environmentally safe and secure
for all Canadians?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we received no request to participate in the MOX
program. We have not yet conducted any feasibility testing that
would come within the licence of the Chalk River laboratory. If
we were to proceed, there would be full, open and transparent
proceedings under relevant federal and provincial law with
respect to the protection of the environment, health and safety.
We would also ensure that there is no subsidization involved on
the part of Canada and that the process, if it is to go forward
at all many years into the future is conducted with complete
safety in Canada.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services.
[Translation]
We have heard about a message circulating on the Internet
suggesting that Canada Post and the government want to impose a
5¢ tax on every message sent electronically in this
country.
[English]
We in this House know that bill 602P does not exist. However, I
would like to know if the government is contemplating policy
changes which could impose levies like that.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me tell the
House that the story that has been running on the Internet
concerning Canada Post and electronic mail is false. Yes, Canada
Post is testing an electronic mail system with Cebra Inc. It is
not ready yet. When it is ready I will announce it, and any post
mail box will be free of charge for every citizen.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege in regard to the leaked government response
to the committee report on nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade tabled in this House yesterday after
question period.
As you are aware, reports destined to be tabled in this House
are confidential until tabled. Yesterday before question period
I was asked to respond to the government's response by three
different journalists, one of whom had the report at noon, a full
three hours before it was tabled in this House.
1505
Since I had not seen the response, I waited until it was tabled
in the House. After it was tabled I had to wait over an hour and
a half to receive a copy. Journalists had copies of this report
as early as noon yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I have done a number of items of research which I
can make available if you require them.
It is common knowledge that leaked committee reports are in
contempt of parliament. I would argue that leaked responses to
committee reports are also in contempt of the House. Since the
government was responding to a request of the Standing Committee
on Foreign Affairs and International Trade pursuant to the
provisions of Standing Order 109, it was not at liberty to leak
the information before it was tabled in parliament.
This action by the government demonstrates its total lack of
respect for parliamentary systems. This leak represents a new low
for this government, I believe.
It was not that long ago that the Minister for International
Trade announced the creation of a Canada-China parliamentary
association before the House had created such an association. We
have other examples as well which I could list. The Speaker
ruled on some of these that it was a mockery of the parliamentary
system. Once again the government is making a mockery of
parliament by tabling a report in the media that had been
requested by the parliamentary committee.
I believe the government by leaking the response to the foreign
affairs committee deliberately diminished the respect due to
parliament and parliamentarians. It is no wonder there is a
growing dissension among the ranks of the Liberal caucus who also
indicated disgust in this matter.
A government, if it is to survive, must respect parliament and
parliamentarians. It must respect its authority and grant its
members dignity. Mr. Speaker, the government has offended both
the authority and dignity of the House and the authority and
dignity of members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Trade.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter be a prima facie
question of privilege.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the same point of privilege. You indicated that you
were going to hear a point of order and that point of order would
have been from me. It was basically about the same matter.
I think there are really two questions here. There is the
question of the leaking of the government's response prior to the
tabling of it in the House of Commons, which I think is
reprehensible, shows contempt for parliament, and flies in the
face of what I hoped was a growing consensus that there would not
be the leaking of documents either in the form of committee
reports or in this case in the form of government responses to
committee reports.
My initial intention was to rise on a point of order having to
do with the fact that the government, the minister's staff and
others, whoever, were distributing copies of the government's
response to journalists. They had them available outside, I am
told, and we in the House could not get a copy until an hour
after it was tabled. What kind of system is this where members
of parliament are deliberately in a premeditated way kept from
having copies of a report that is being made available to the
media by the government?
If the government had not made it available and we all had to
wait an hour, that is fair ball. We all could have commented in
the dark. But the fact is that the government itself was
distributing copies of the government's response to the committee
report and did not have the decency to put some in the opposition
lobby so that opposition members could see it. We asked our
people to try to get a copy of the report, but oh no, we would
have to wait to get it from the House; we would not get it from
the government.
This is at the same time as we have to listen to this sort of
pious rhetoric day after day about how government members want to
take parliament into their confidence, they want to have another
take note debate, they want to show respect for parliament and on
and on. We just have to give them a little opening and their
real attitude toward parliament shows up like a blinding light.
That is the fact that they hold this place in contempt and have
actually brought shame on themselves, not on parliament, by the
way they conducted themselves yesterday.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have heard the very forceful
representations from the House leader of the New Democratic Party
as well as from the hon. member of the Reform Party.
If it did occur that way, I will endeavour to rectify any damage
that was done.
My understanding is that when the document was tabled in the
House of Commons, yes, a few extra copies were left in the
government lobby. Perhaps they could have been split evenly to
ensure there were some in the opposition lobby as well. If that
occurred, I will verify to ensure that it does not reoccur.
1510
There is the additional proposition someone has raised to the
effect that some were actually distributed to members of the
media before the tabling of it, which is a different issue
altogether.
I suppose the former is a matter of courtesy and that should be
addressed as well. The latter accusation, if I can refer to it
that way, made in the House of Commons is to the effect that what
is a cabinet document was leaked before it was tabled in the
House. That is far more serious. If that occurred, I will
verify that as well.
It is not the intention, I am sure, of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, as he indicated to me a little while ago, to do anything
to cause a slight. I hope it did not happen and that this is not
the case. In any event, I will report to the House personally on
this matter because I consider it serious as well.
I have done my best around here and I think all hon. members and
all my colleagues in cabinet will know as well have done things
in a manner that encourages the co-operation of all hon. members
in the House. Hopefully my efforts in that regard will continue
to be noted as such.
I will report to the hon. member as well as to the House on this
matter.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I think it is now eight or nine times I have been up in the House
on leaked documents and the government proceeding to notify the
public and members of the House do not even know what they are
talking about.
I hear comments from the government House leader like
“endeavour to rectify” and “ensure that it does not reoccur”.
That is what we hear time and time again. We have sent the
matter of leaked reports to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs and the leak report has been leaked. I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, it was not this person who leaked it.
When politicians are leaking these things and taking
irresponsible action as far as notifying the press before we get
them, what has to happen is that the Speaker himself has to make
some rulings.
I would suggest that two things occur here. First, we should
make it somehow in the House so that it takes two-thirds of the
members of a committee to vote to go in camera. I think that
would help the situation after looking at it seriously for some
time now. I also think that some action should be taken in
situations such as described here today. There has to be some
concrete action, not a referral to a committee but something more
tangible, if we can get down to whether or not in fact the press
had copies of that document ahead of the members.
I might remind the Speaker that on June 13, 1991 when the
current Minister of Foreign Affairs was in opposition he
sponsored a supply motion in the House which read:
That this House affirm that ministers are individually and
collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the
activities of government including the management and conduct of
the public service—
It goes on and on and on. The intent of the motion was to say
that the ministers are responsible, even if their employees make
a mistake.
I am at the point now where the topic of leaked reports quite
frankly is not even of interest to bring it up in the House of
Commons because nothing is getting done. I for one am not the
least bit concerned about sharing documents from committees with
the public. It seems like there is a rush for public knowledge
and what happens is the first person to the media gets the hit.
That is unfortunately what we have degraded to in the House. It
is very unfortunate indeed.
I hope sincerely, Mr. Speaker, if we cannot deal with it as
members of the House of Commons, that you will deal with it.
1515
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to belabour this point. I think that
the previous two opposition members, the House leader for the New
Democratic Party, as well as the Reform Party, quite succinctly
put forward the case. However, I want to add the concerns of my
party's members that we seem to be spinning our wheels on the
issue of disclosure of documents, even prior to other members of
the House of Commons having an opportunity to review them in any
depth.
The government House leader has given his assurance, as he has
in the past, that he wants to deal with this in a straightforward
way and that he will do his best, but that does not seem to be
working. It does not seem to be enough.
I implore upon you, in your capacity as Speaker of the House, to
put forward some substantive action that will deter this type of
behaviour because it really does degrade this parliament and
individual members of the House when we see this happening time
and time again with very little reprisal.
I am afraid that is what it is going to take. There is going to
have to be some serious intervention on the part of the Speaker,
or on the part of a committee, where there is some sanction that
is handed down and a message that is given and received before
this type of behaviour is going to be stopped.
One would hope that members of parliament, members of the House
of Commons, would respect that, but it does not seem to be enough
to date, so I simply add those humble remarks.
The Speaker: I believe this is the ninth time I am
responding to the hon. opposition House leader who has intervened
on the topic of leaked documents.
There are two points to be considered. In fact, there are more
than two points and I will deal with them as they occurred.
The hon. member for Red Deer in his intervention did not mention
the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I was listening and he did not
do so. However, the government House leader mentioned
specifically the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was mentioned again by
the House leader for the opposition.
There are at least two points that I want to deal with. The
first perhaps is a matter of courtesy. The hon. member for Red
Deer did not have a copy in the House when it was presented to
the House. Perhaps these things happen. However, I would hope
that matters of courtesy would be extended to all hon. members.
As the hon. government House leader said, there may have been
copies here. If government members received copies, then there
were copies here and the question is straightforward. It is
courtesy, but it is a bit of professionalism also that they
should have been in the opposition lobbies.
Time and time again we come back and say this should be done.
This will be done. This will be done, and we have gone far
enough.
1520
The second thing is more important, which is that what was
alleged here today is that there is a cabinet document which was
released before it was supposed to have been released or tabled
in the House. That is my understanding.
We have the hon. government House leader saying that he is going
to come back with a report on this. Either he will or the
Minister of External Affairs will, but I would like to have this
report brought to the House tomorrow and I want to deal with it
at that time. We cannot keep going around in circles.
I understand that the committee on procedure is going to table
its report. We gave it this problem and the report is supposed
to be tabled either late this week or perhaps next week.
In the meantime, we have to deal with what we have on our plate
here. I look forward with great interest to what the government
House leader or the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to say about
the alleged giving out of papers to the media outside the House
when our own members did not have them.
With your agreement, I am going to hold off on a decision, but I
will take it up again tomorrow.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act
in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to join my hon. colleague's in debate on Bill C-79,
which deals with victims of crime.
I have an outstanding constituency assistant in my Duncan office
by the name of Inge Clausen. In 1981 Inge and her husband Sven
had something happen to them that no one in this country should
ever have to go through. Their 18 year old daughter was
murdered. Today, if she had lived, she would be 33 years of age.
Inge and Sven have gone through the emotional anguish of being
victims; victims who have very little real way to express their
frustration, their anger and their hurt. They are victims who
have experienced the gamut of emotions, wondering what could have
been if this terrible event had never occurred.
Yes, their daughter's murderer was eventually sentenced to life
imprisonment with no chance of parole for 15 years. Even though
he has not applied for parole, because of section 745 of the
Criminal Code Inge and Sven go through the everyday anguish of
wondering if this madman will suddenly get out of prison and
possibly reoffend.
Inge Clausen is an activist. She cares passionately about
issues that affect this country. She did not sit in her grief
and do nothing. In 1981 she started an organization called
Citizens United for Safety and Justice. For many years she
campaigned for the kind of legislation that has been introduced
in the House today.
The Reform Party, of which she was a member, had forcefully
placed the issue on the national agenda. However, by 1997 there
was little government action. Inge grew tired of the fight that
her government would really do something about victims rights and
she resigned from her position in the organization that she had
created.
1525
She had sixteen long years of remembering, of anguish, of lack
of support from the various governments of the day. That is what
victims of crime have had to go through in this country for far
too long.
When a crime is committed, all law-abiding, peace-loving
citizens are victims. It is just that some of us are more
victims than others.
I have heard from members of my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan
for far too long on this very issue. Canadians have felt that
their judicial system has looked solely at the criminal. Too
little time and energy has been spent in speaking with and
listening to the victims of crime.
Victims of crime are often double victims. They are the victims
of the initial crime and, as the wheels of justice move ever so
slowly, they often feel that they have become victims of the
system. They become victims of the system when they feel that
their rights are ignored while the accused has his or her rights
upheld. The victims feel that they have no right to speak out,
no protection under the law, no protection from the injustices
which have been placed upon them. They become victims in the
courtrooms and on witness stands all across the nation.
This legislation is long in coming. My hon. colleagues have
worked long and hard to bring this issue before the government.
It has taken far too long to bring the government's attention to
this matter. I thank all hon. members for the work they have
done on this most important piece of legislation. I congratulate
the Minister of Justice for finally bringing this legislation to
the House.
However, it is important for us to recognize that although this
is a government bill, it has come about due to the relentless
pressure which the Reform Party has placed upon the government on
this matter. It is unfortunate, indeed, that it has taken this
long to produce the legislation. However, the legislation has
made some strides. I believe it could have and should have gone
a lot further in a number of areas. It is a start, but there is
much more that needs to be done.
I recall the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford coming to a
rally in Nanaimo during the previous parliament. I do not recall
the exact number of people who were in attendance, but that large
auditorium was packed to standing room only. What was the topic?
The victims bill of rights. My hon. colleague spoke
passionately, just as he did earlier today. Time after time the
overflow crowd clapped and cheered with their agreement. The
constituents of Nanaimo—Cowichan are certainly very concerned
about this issue and will welcome this legislation.
I would also like to thank the hon. member for Surrey North for
the work he has done. His story is the story of a victim and he
has spoken clearly and eloquently on this matter. My thanks go
to him. He is a man of courage and he is a man of action.
For a long time victims have felt alienated by our justice
system. They have every right to feel this way. Until now the
system has aimed all of its resources toward the accused. In the
meantime, we have to remember that the victim was innocent of any
alleged crime. The victim did not ask to be raped, murdered,
injured, robbed or violated, yet in many cases the penalty placed
upon them is greater than the sentence passed on the accused by
the justice system.
There is no feeling like the violation a victim feels. For
those who have had their homes broken into, the feeling is one of
personal violation.
They feel they have been dirtied by a criminal act. How much
more violated does the person feel who has been personally
attacked?
1530
Today's society in Canada is filled with victims. Right now in
the city of Victoria, British Columbia, family members of Reena
Virk are living through their own personal hell as they listen to
witnesses in the prosecution of the murder of their daughter. No
matter how efficient the justice system is nothing will ever
bring back their daughter. My sympathies go out to them. I have
not walked in their shoes but I think I know how they feel.
More recently in Nanaimo a young man was returning home from a
hockey game. As he drove under an underpass a 40 pound rock
crashed through the windshield of his car. Kevin Holmes, only 21
years of age, was left with a fractured skull, five missing teeth
and a broken collar bone. He had to undergo facial
reconstruction and doctors had to open up his skull to look for
damage and bruising. That was a senseless act of violence.
Kevin Holmes did not even know the perpetrator and yet Kevin
Holmes has become a victim of crime. Reena Virk's parents and
her family are victims of a senseless crime. These people
deserve justice also.
As has been previously stated, the bill was far too long in
coming. The need is not a new one. This need was brought to the
attention of members of the House of Commons during past
parliaments. The previous justice minister for instance stated
in 1996:
Although steps have been made toward progress in recent years,
they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to be done.
Indeed there still remains a great deal to be done. When the
current justice minister was sworn in, in 1997, victims rights
were listed as one of her top three priorities. It has taken two
years for this response. I repeat that I am grateful for this,
but in the words of her predecessor there remains a great deal to
be done.
I am not a lawyer. I have never been a police officer, but I
have been a pastor and counsellor for over 30 years. During my
time as a pastor and counsellor I met with countless people. Some
of those people had been victims of various different crimes.
Listening and working with these people were never easy. Their
faces and their lives were literally filled with pain. Every day
of their lives they remembered what had gone on in the past.
What these people are looking for is peace, peace within their
souls. It is not easy to find peace in this world of ours. We
need to bring all our resources as Canadians, emotional, physical
and spiritual, to help victims of crime finally come to terms
with what has happened to them.
There are some things we need in the House that must come only
by taking the partisanship out of it. Sometimes we need to go
well beyond party politics. There is no doubt in my mind that
society is not perfect. Far from it. Nor is the House perfect.
However I would like to think there are some matters we can
jointly come together on and resolve for the betterment of all
Canadians, not just for scoring political points.
I believe that this is one of those important matters. I plead
with the House that as the bill goes beyond this point and into
committee it will not disappear from the political agenda.
1535
Let us all resolve as members of parliament to make the bill
stronger and better. Let us assure that victims of all crimes
can look to their parliament, to their government and to this
legislation to know that their concerns and their needs are heard
loudly and clearly.
In conclusion, I appeal to all members of the House to work
toward making the bill stronger and workable. I appeal to all
members to ensure that it is dealt with as soon as possible. Let
us not let another 16 years pass so that people like Inge and
Sven Clausen continue in their concerns and anguish because
victims rights have not been taken care of. It is too late for
many victims of the past. However it is not too late for the
victims of today and tomorrow.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there has been a lot of debate today in the House on
this topic. There has been a lot of debate on a particular
question, as well as many others, which has been made raised a
number of times. I am referring to the definition of victim as
set out in Bill C-79.
Would my colleague indicate whether or not he agrees with the
definition spelled out in Bill C-79? Or, does he think it is too
restrictive and does not include enough people in the category of
victim?
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, when
a crime is committed every Canadian becomes somewhat a victim.
When our standards of behaviour and morality and our laws are
violated by anyone we all become victims in some sense.
Unfortunately there are people who become more of a victim than
others: the people against whom these crimes have been committed
directly. I am concerned about the definition of a victim in the
legislation being somewhat restrictive. As it continues in
committee stage and we bring together some witnesses and other
Canadians have a chance to participate in this dialogue from a
democratic standpoint, I hope we will see that definition
broadened. I agree with the hon. member that it is too
restrictive at this point.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to join in the debate on
Bill C-79, the victims rights bill.
At the outset I would like to do something I am not very
accustomed to doing, and that is to give some accolades to the
government on this legislation. I see some shocked looks on the
other side.
Periodically when I travel throughout the huge, wonderful and
beautiful riding of Prince George—Peace River there is a
perception that opposition parties always oppose. Some of my
constituents are quite surprised to learn that the Reform Party
is the official opposition.
If we look back at the legislation the government has introduced
over the past five and a half year since Reform has been in the
Chamber in any numbers, the Reform Party has supported the
legislation about half the time. It is somewhat surprising for
Canadians to learn of that because their attention is always
drawn to those times when we are in direct opposition to the
government and speak out quite clearly, loudly and volubly in our
opposition, stating our case as to why we feel the government is
on the wrong track or perhaps does not go far enough.
It is a bit of a unique situation for me to stand in my place
today and say well done. It is an important first step. I am
pleased that the government has responded. It was certainly not
in a timely manner, but it has finally brought forward the
legislation.
1540
Most important, I would like to take this opportunity to applaud
the victims and the victims rights groups which have sprung up
from coast to coast to coast in Canada over the past number of
years because citizens themselves have seen the need for this
type of legislation. They have seen the need for legislation and
laws that go well beyond what Bill C-79 does. They have seen the
need to make some of the changes we see today.
I appreciate as well some of the comments made earlier in the
debate when Liberals rose in their places and actually recognized
Reform and the work we had done in promoting the issue of victims
rights. A number of Liberal members that spoke during the debate
referred to my colleagues from Langley—Abbotsford and from
Surrey North and the work they have done over the last number of
years in pushing forward the issue of victims rights and the need
to make some very substantive changes to the way in which the
courts handle the issue.
I will touch briefly on the bill and then I will use some of my
remaining time looking at a couple of areas where I feel the
government could go a lot further in recognizing victims and the
importance of bringing forward legislation and programs to
address their needs.
What does the bill do that we are debating today? As outlined
by a number of speakers from both sides of the House earlier,
victims are now to be informed of their right to prepare a victim
impact statement at the time of sentencing. That is an important
step.
Victims will have the choice to read a victim impact statement
in court. They will have the right to present victim impact
statements at section 745 hearings.
Victims and witnesses will have protection through the banning
of publication of their identities where it is necessary or where
the courts feel it is necessary for the proper administration of
justice.
Judges will be required to inform the public of the possibility
of section 745 application toward early parole for those who
receive life sentences. This is another very important step that
has been missing from the present day legislation. At the moment
there is not a requirement on the part of judges to alert the
public that certain convicted murderers may be getting out under
section 745; in other words under the faint hope clause, early
parole. Police officers and judges will consider victims safety
in all bail decisions.
This change in Bill C-79 makes so much sense that one might
remark on why it would not have been there previously. That
would be an excellent question and certainly, I am sure, a
question that many Canadians would ask. Why was the
consideration of victim safety not written into the law
previously in the case of individuals getting out on bail?
As I said at the outset, as far as it goes Bill C-79 is an
important step forward and one that I am pleased to see is
supported by all parties in the House. I hope that it will
receive speedy passage.
I would like to touch on a couple of other issues of importance
to me personally, and indeed important to a lot of Canadians from
coast to coast. The first I would like to talk briefly about is
conditional sentencing.
On many occasions in the past number of years Reform members
have risen in their places and spoken to the issue of conditional
sentencing. It was contained in the old Bill C-41 in the last
parliament. Reform and other critics, and indeed a lot of people
out in the real world, raised many concerns about Bill C-41. One
concern was that conditional sentencing may be used in cases
where it would be inappropriate, in cases of violence.
At the time Bill C-41 was being debated we raised those
concerns, as did others, and basically government members
pooh-poohed them. They said not to worry, that even though some
of those crimes were not specifically exempted from conditional
sentencing we would never see the day when that would happen.
Conditional sentencing is meant for very minor crimes, such as a
first time offender who puts some graffiti on an overpass, or a
first time shoplifter. We all know that young people, in their
exuberance, might sometimes be led astray and do something
foolish or stupid. I am sure many people in the Chamber, if they
reflect back far enough, will remember doing some silly things
when they were young.
1545
There is certainly a place for conditional sentencing where,
instead of people going to jail for specific crimes and being
incarcerated, they would be let out under certain conditions.
However, it was never intended that it be used in cases of
violence. Certainly that is something that Reform has brought to
the attention of the government time and time again.
Conditional sentencing under Bill C-41 became law in September
1996 and was to be used as a tool by the judges. Unfortunately,
the very concerns that we and others have expressed during debate
came to fruition when judges started using conditional sentencing
in cases of violence. The list runs into the hundreds and indeed
thousands of cases where, I believe, the vast majority of
Canadians feel very strongly, as Reform does, that it is being
used inappropriately by judges.
I recently commissioned a national poll to see what people were
thinking on the issue of conditional sentencing. As the deputy
justice critic, one of the roles I have with the Reform Party, I
have been handed the task of trying to continue to raise the
issue of conditional sentencing with the government. As part of
that role, I wanted to see what the thinking of Canadian people
themselves were in a national poll.
I asked three questions. The first was: “As you may know,
judges are currently allowed to grant a form of conditional
sentence where those convicted are given the opportunity to serve
part of their sentence at home instead of in jail. Do you favour
or oppose this practice?” This is pretty straightforward. The
poll found that 23% of Canadians favoured the practice of
conditional sentencing, 59% opposed it and 18% were uncertain.
The second question in the poll was: “Do you think that those
convicted of violent offences, such as manslaughter, kidnapping,
drug trafficking, assault or rape, should be eligible for a
conditional sentence?” The people who felt that would be
appropriate in some cases were: yes, 13%; no, 84%; uncertain,
3%. Canadians very clearly had their minds made up on this
second question. They can distinguish between right and wrong.
They can distinguish between where the punishment should match
the crime. They do believe that in those cases of violence and
drug trafficking that the individual should do jail time.
The third question was: “Would you support or oppose changes
to the conditional sentencing rules that would make those
convicted of violent crimes ineligible for a conditional
sentence?” Seventy-one per cent of Canadians supported
ineligible, 21% were opposed and 8% were uncertain.
Again, the vast majority of Canadians, some 71%, feel it is
right for the government to initiate changes, belatedly I would
add, to this legislation and basically plug the loophole it
created with Bill C-41.
As deputy justice critic, I am obviously going to continue to
push this issue and mount a concerted campaign to get the
government to see the error of its ways and initiate this change
that is obviously supported by the majority of Canadians.
I know the Reform Party is always accused of dredging up the
most horrific examples when we talk about justice issues, but in
order for Canadians to understand the issue a bit better, I will
cite a couple of the thousands of cases since September 1996, two
and a half years ago, where conditional sentencing has, in my
opinion, been used very inappropriately.
1550
The first case I will talk about very briefly is the Paul
Gervais case in Orleans, not far from here. He received a
certain amount of local media attention.
I, along with one of my colleagues from Calgary, personally met
with six of the young men who were involved with this. Mr.
Gervais plead guilty to sexual assault charges involving nine
young men. When I met with the victims, they told me they felt
they had not only been victimized by Mr. Gervais, but that they
had been revictimized by a system that let them down. I had a
tough couple of hours meeting with those young victims. They
really questioned the benefit in them coming forward and
ultimately having their so-called day in court only to find that
Mr. Gervais received a conditional sentence.
I know one of my hon. colleagues just prior to my speaking
remarked about that. Victims feel that they are victimized
twice: first, by the criminal and the crime; and second, by the
so-called justice system, or as some have taken to calling it,
the injustice system in the country.
I would suggest that the conditions of Mr. Gervais' sentence
were ridiculous. He did not have to serve a day in jail. He is
under the supervision of his wife and yet this is the very person
who was aware that he had a previous conviction over 20 years ago
for molestation of boys. She knowingly allowed him to have young
boys working with him in his shop. Yet this is the person to
whom the judge, in his infinite wisdom, turned Mr. Gervais over
to, saying “Okay, instead of sending you to jail, we will send
you home with certain conditions. One is that your family must
be responsible for you”. They obviously failed in that
responsibility before or these young boys would not have preyed
upon.
An 11 o'clock curfew for Mr. Gervais was put in place. He must
be home by 11 o'clock at night. When one looks at the case, all
his offences against these young boys occurred during business
hours at his shop. What possible good will an 11 o'clock curfew
do? That particular case is being appealed.
However, when I was asked by these young victims and by
reporters about the case, my position was that it should not be
up to the victims to try to lobby and pressure the crown counsel
to appeal something that should never be in place to begin with.
Why should the victims have to lobby the prosecutor to appeal the
judge's decision in the sentence and to try to get an appropriate
sentence so the individual can be sent to jail where he belongs?
I raised a second case in the House as early as October 1996. It
was one of the first cases brought to my attention of the
inappropriate use of conditional sentencing. It involved a young
mother in my riding. I cannot identify her because she still
lives in fear for her safety and her life. She was sexually
assaulted in her own home by a former spouse. The fellow drove
in a drunken state to the town where she resides, broke into her
home and raped her on the kitchen floor with the children home at
the time.
To begin with, she thought that because the individual was a
former spouse there was not even any point in her bringing this
to the attention of the RCMP. That is how much faith she had in
the justice system and, as I relate the details, the House will
find out why.
Originally she charged her former spouse with common assault
causing bodily damage. It was only later that she decided to
actually charge him with sexual assault.
In the judge's ruling, he said: “In this case, I do not
believe the evidence of the accused, nor am I left in any doubt
by it”. He found the accused guilty. Obviously there was ample
evidence to support the woman's story that she was indeed
sexually assaulted and raped in her own home.
1555
The judge went on to say, in making his judgment:
I think that while society might have an interest in sending
(Mr. X) to jail, it seems to me that the victim and her children
might be better served by (Mr. X) serving his sentence in the community
and continuing to pay child support.
Imagine that. Imagine the sense the victim had. And we are
here today to discuss victims rights. Imagine what was going
through her mind when she learned of the judge's ruling.
The next case does not deal with conditional sentencing but with
another issue I feel very strongly about and on which something
has to be done. This was a very tough issue for me to deal with.
It involved spousal abuse to the point where the young woman in
question was beaten senseless and left in a vegetative state,
which she is still in today. I have had some conversations with
her mother. As a parent, I can only imagine the private hell
this family endures every day as they try to care for Mary-Lynne
Miller of Dawson Creek.
Her common-law husband, Brad Neuman, despite a previous history
of fraud, forgery, assault, impaired driving and of previously
assaulting Ms. Miller with a knife, for which he served six
months in jail, he assaulted her again and left her in a
vegetative state. However, because he threw himself on the mercy
of the court and cried some crocodile tears, he was only
sentenced to four years with parole eligibility after two. He
received four years for effectively murdering this young woman.
For all intents and purposes, although she is still technically
alive, she is in a vegetative state.
I will briefly refer to a couple of things I believe the
government can do to correct some of these problems. I put
forward Motion No. 577 which stated:
That in the opinion of this House, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights be instructed, in accordance with
Standing Order 68(4)(b), to prepare and bring in a bill to
prevent the use of conditional sentencing in cases where someone
is convicted of a dangerous crime including: murder,
manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug trafficking, sexual
assault, and all other classifications of assault including child
and spousal abuse.
This is a vitally important first step. Within the next couple
of weeks I should be introducing a private member's bill in the
House which will follow up on that motion and show how exempting
those crimes from the use of conditional sentencing can be
accomplished in legislation.
The other thing I did as recently as yesterday was introduce
private member's Bill C-494 in the House which would bring a
current program that does not have official status under the
witness protection program.
I could go on at great length about the need for more reform on
victim rights, but I see I have run out of time.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
interested in what the hon. member is telling us today because it
is so germane to the subject at hand. I would like to hear what
he wanted to say before his time ran out.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from
Elk Island for giving me the opportunity to perhaps try to finish
my presentation.
I will give a few quick statistics about the issue of spousal
assault and domestic violence.
1600
According to Statistics Canada, tragically there were about 75
spousal homicides in 1997. Eight out of 10 victims of spousal
homicide were women who were killed by a current or ex-husband.
Over 60 women died in 1997 at the hands of their past or current
spouse. That is what those hard statistics mean.
Spousal killings are often preceded by a history of violence.
Between 1991 and 1996 police officers were aware of previous
domestic violence between the victim and the suspect in over half
of all spousal homicides, 56%. Homicides involving family
members totalled 4,193.
There is an existing program to try and help those people where
their lives are most in jeopardy, especially women. There is an
ad hoc program by the Department of Human Resources Development
and Revenue Canada which I support. But it does not have a
legislative mandate and it does not have funding.
I would like to quote from an article that was in the Vancouver
Province on Sunday, January 31, 1999.
In 1992, two federal government employees started New Identities
for humanitarian reasons, said Liliane Binette, a spokeswoman for
Human Resources Development Canada.
“It's a very special process within HRDC and Revenue Canada to
assist victims in real life-threatening situations wishing to
establish new identities,” she said.
While it's not an official program, a handful of staff in
provincial government vital statistics branches, police
departments, and women's shelters know who to contact when they
come across an extreme case of family violence...It's kept
secret to protect the women and the staff who handle the cases,
and to prevent against the possible abuse of the process by
people trying to escape creditors.
Because it isn't publicized or official, there is no formal
application process, explained Binette. They take only those
women who are referred to them by police and shelters; women
whose situations have landed them in hospitals, shelters and
police interview rooms many, many times.
Revenue Canada ensures their income tax history and child tax
benefits follow them into their new lives without linking them to
their past names; and HRDC provides them with a new social
insurance number and transfers their pension benefits.
The people who work on New Identities hope it will soon get
official program status and some money.
That is the purpose of my private member's Bill C-494. Its
purpose is to try to give that very important program, which I
certainly applaud and the initiative of the two employees, some
official status and start to firmly address the issue of spousal
abuse in the more horrendous cases at least.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly share some of the views that were raised by the hon.
member from the Reform Party. We certainly know his ongoing
concern for conditional sentencing. I have two questions for the
member.
Should the member not be looking at the fact that the Minister
of Justice has asked the justice committee to study this issue?
Should he not be helping the members of his party who sit on the
justice committee to ensure that the justice committee does not
have 100 private members' motions before it so that the committee
does not have to deal with the private members' motions before it
deals with conditional sentencing?
I encourage the hon. member to help the committee expedite the
work in terms of arriving at conditional sentencing and making
some recommendations to the minister in terms of conditional
sentencing and to bring amendments forward.
The second question I have for the hon. member has to do with
family violence. It was rather interesting that the member
talked about statistics. Does the member know how many of those
women were killed by guns used by their spouses? His party did
not support the gun control legislation. When the member does
bring those statistics forward, he should be talking about the
type of violence that women face in society. The member should be
supporting the government on initiatives such as gun control.
* * *
[Translation]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise very
briefly on a point of order. There have been discussions
between the House leaders of all parties and I seek the
unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That Motion M-73, introduced on September 23, 1997 by Ms. Venne,
the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, be now recorded in the
name of Mr. Laurin, the member for Joliette.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
1605
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Resulting from conversations with the same House leaders, I
wonder if you would seek unanimous consent that the divisions on
the supply proceedings deferred from April 19, 1999 be taken up
this day immediately after the division on Motion P-31.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House agree to
the suggestion of the chief government whip?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-79, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act
in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
across the way for her two comments.
First was her comment to let the justice committee to which the
justice minister has referred this matter do its work. I refer
her to the case of her colleague from Mississauga East who had
private members' legislation referred to the justice committee
only to have it completely trashed and torn apart by her
colleagues and treated with total disdain. I do not have a lot
of faith, nor do Canadians, in the committee operation of the
government. That might deal with the issue of letting the
committee handle it rather than trying to handle it in the House.
With respect to the second issue she referred to, I would like
to touch on what the courts said about conditional sentencing. In
August 1997 the B.C. Court of Appeal stated “If parliament had
intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under
section 742.1, it could have done so in clear language”. Even
the courts are saying that the government should get off its duff
and change the law to exclude those types of crimes from
conditional sentencing.
The last issue she raised was that because of the incidents of
domestic violence and the amount of women who are killed by
former spouses, we should support gun control. The reality is
that her government's gun control legislation, the registering of
guns, will do absolutely nothing. I cannot use unparliamentary
language and I get pretty worked up about gun control, but it
will do nothing to prevent those types of deaths.
There are things her government can do to help prevent those
types of deaths. I have outlined one and that is to give these
women the protection they need under the Witness Protection
Program Act.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to represent the people of Elk Island in today's debate.
It is a very solemn debate. We are talking about issues of life
and death. We are talking about families that are grieved
because they have been victims of crime. Their children and
loved ones have been hurt or murdered. We also need to think of
those who are family members of the persons who perpetrate the
crimes. I do not know whether many people have thought of it
this way.
I will not mention specific cases but there have been a number
of really difficult criminal acts committed in Canada over the
last number of years, even since I was first elected in 1993. One
of the most grievous ones was the young man, whose name I do not
want to put into my mouth, who used the young girls he captured
as sex toys and then found his ultimate pleasure by watching them
die and videotaping it. Many of us know him as Paul. It was
dastardly, unbelievable and totally unacceptable.
People have come to our parliamentary committee and have made
presentations to say that they want some greater involvement.
They want their rights protected when the law deals with the
perpetrators of these crimes.
I know there is a balance to be reached here. Some of these
families struggled for years in their search for closure.
1610
I think of a young family in Winnipeg whose daughter was
murdered in winter. They did not find her for a number of weeks.
When they did, she was in an abandoned shed. She had been
strangled and left there in the cold. The murderer has never
been found. How that family has dealt with that is actually the
subject of the book Have you seen Candace? I remember being
grieved about that murder because my brother-in-law knew the
family and spoke about it.
I think of other situations where people do unspeakable things,
some so heinous that we do not want to even speak about them.
There are other things as well that people do which are illegal.
This is a day of celebration in the House for an accomplishment.
There has been a little bit of a debate about whether or not
this issue would be on the table here today were it not for the
fact that the official opposition, and in our position as third
party in the previous parliament, has been relentless in bringing
this issue forward. All governments prior to this one had never
thought it an issue important enough to bring to this place.
The very fact that it appears we now have near unanimity among
all parliamentarians from all of the different parties to support
this bill should give us cause to celebrate. It is an advance we
are making on behalf of all of the hurting innocent victims of
crime.
The Reform Party to which I belong is now 10 years old. One of
the things that attracted me to the Reform Party was its
statement of principles. One of them in justice which grabbed my
attention was the fact that in principle, the expedition of the
judicial system should be that of giving priority to the
protection of the lives, the property and the well-being of
law-abiding citizens.
If I may be permitted to quote, and I know one of my colleagues
was called on using a prop earlier today, so I am going to be
very careful to hold this book so the camera cannot pick it up.
No one can see the cover of the blue book from which I am
reading:
The Reform Party supports a judicial system which places the
punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens
and their property ahead of all other objectives.
That is real novel, but it is what happened when our party in
its formation listened to what we so affectionately call the
grassroots. Ordinary Canadians told us the administration of
justice in this system is skewed in that the victims are dead
last in terms of what concern is expressed by the justice system
and the government.
My colleagues earlier today have reiterated the cases where the
perpetrator of the crime has all kinds of counselling and help
available while the victims of the crime have to pay for it
themselves. In many cases they cannot afford it and have to go
without. Those are the kinds of things we need to correct if we
want to call ourselves a civilized law-abiding country.
I am very happy this is happening here today. It is a step in
the right direction. It is one which is long overdue, 10, 20, 30
years overdue.
I am very proud to be a part of the process which has made this
happen.
1615
Item C in our blue book, which again I will hold very carefully
as I read from it, states that the Reform Party supports granting
victims of crime official standing in court and parole hearings,
and requiring courts and parole boards to review victim impact
statements before sentencing. To the greatest extent possible
victims should be compensated by offenders for financial loss
resulting from criminal acts.
One of the items in that part of our blue book will be adopted
if the bill is passed, and we anticipate that it will be, and
that is the use of victim impact statements. I am very grateful
that I have never had the experience of being the victim of a
severe crime. I have been the victim of minor crimes, but no
major crimes. I cannot imagine the feelings and the emotions
that families go through when they deal with serious crimes.
There is no doubt in my mind that the action we are taking today
of providing for impact statements and allowing victims to make
the decision themselves as to whether someone will read it into
the record of the court or whether they will present it
themselves is a tremendous step forward. Many people who are
victims of crime will testify to the fact that they feel left
out. Their son or daughter is gone, has been murdered, abused or
injured, and during the court proceedings they are relegated to
strictly spectator status. With this bill they will finally be
heard. Their story can be told. It can be entered into the
record.
I know there are some judicial purists, maybe even some in the
House—and I will be careful in which direction I direct my gaze
when I say this—who would say “We ought not to be making
judicial decisions based upon emotions; they should be based on
facts”. That is certainly true. I do not believe that people
should be convicted of crimes of which they are innocent simply
because the crowd in the town thinks they have the right
perpetrator and because of the high emotions of the time they say
that the accused is guilty and they have their revenge. Of
course we do not want that.
That is not what this talks about. The actual determination of
the guilt or innocence of the person who is accused takes place
before the victim impact statements are entered into the record.
It is proposed that this be done at the time of sentencing so
that the judge can take into account what the actual impact has
been on the victims of this criminal act. I think it is a very
great step forward.
With respect to the second point, we also think that victims
should be compensated by offenders. This is one area in which I
think we should do a great deal. As far as I know, it is not in
Bill C-79. I may be wrong, since I am not an expert on this, but
from the notes that I have gathered the question of compensation
for non-violent crimes is not included.
I want to share a little knowledge that I have in dealing with
young offenders, people who perform what we call petty crimes,
but which to the victims are pretty serious. I am talking about
things like breaking and entering, robberies, sometimes
vandalism.
1620
We should place into law the principle of restitution. There is
nothing more effective for a young person or any other person who
has committed a crime to come to grips with and accept
responsibility for what he or she has done than to have them sit
down across the table from the person they have victimized, look
them in the eye and say “Yes, I did it”.
I have talked to people who have worked in the so-called
restitution area with young offenders. When young people realize
how they have offended someone else, who at the time was a
faceless non-entity but is now a real person, it can very often
turn their lives around. They realize that what they did was
wrong. They accept responsibility for it and they make some kind
of a deal so they can provide restitution.
I do not know if this is the time for me to make a public
confession of my criminal life. I suppose I should tell the
House about the one thing I did. Maybe there were two, but I can
only remember one. It was definitely questionable, but it was an
important turning point in my life.
I was a youngster of probably 10 or 11 years old. We lived out
in the country in Saskatchewan. We had some people living on our
yard whom my family had sponsored to come over from the old
country. They were called displaced persons at that time. Some
thought that was a derogatory term. I always thought it was a
badge of honour, since they were survivors of some very difficult
circumstances.
There were about three or four of us young fellows. I think I
was the youngest of the group. We went for a little bicycle ride
out in the country and we came across an abandoned farmyard. I
do not know who started it. I do not think it was me. However,
there was an empty farmhouse and there was gravel on the road.
Gravel contains little rocks and little boys like to throw little
rocks. Much to my regret, when we left the yard there was not a
single window left intact in that house.
My father is a very wise man. He found out about it. Even
though this happened decades ago, it is as vivid as if it
happened yesterday. My dad said to me “We shall have to go and
talk to Mr. Sawatsky about this”. He was the man who owned the
property.
Dad and I went. I do not know what the other guys who were
involved did, but I was involved. I will not say that my father
made me, but he told me “When we go there this is what you will
do”. We practised it. When we got into the yard I had to look
Mr. Sawatsky square in the eye and say to him “I am the one who
broke your windows. I am sorry and I want you to forgive me. We
will replace the windows and I will pay for them”.
That lesson I value highly. I thank my father for doing that
for me when I needed it. Who knows, maybe he steered me away on
that day from a life of crime. If one starts there, who knows
what will come next. Forcing me to go face to face with the
person whom I had wronged to ask forgiveness, admitting that I
had done wrong and offering restitution, was exactly the right
solution.
I wish we had more dads who would do that with their boys, and
maybe their daughters. We understand that there are now more and
more young girls who are getting involved in some of these
crimes. I wish there were more dads who would do that with their
boys; steer them in the right direction, teach them what is right
and what is wrong, and show them how to solve it when they do
something like that.
I wish that Bill C-79 would also include the principle of
restitution as a way of dealing with crime.
In this bill we are dealing mostly with victims of severe crime,
and there is no way to restore a person's life.
1625
I think of the guys in Edmonton who a punched the eyes out of
one of their victims. There is no way that young man's vision
can be restored. He is blind for life. His eyes are gone. There
is no restitution available. There has to be punishment for
them.
However, for the smaller crimes, especially those committed by
young fellows who are bored, we need to have those individuals
face up to their responsibilities.
Perhaps I have a slightly novel approach to this. As many
people have said, we need to look at the prevention of crime. I
believe that starts when a youngster is approximately two days
old and continues through their lifetime, through adolescence
right up to adulthood. I believe that we should build morality
into our young people. Sometimes I hear, especially from the
Liberals and the NDP, that poverty causes crime. I do not buy
that.
When I was young we were very poor. We did not think of robbing
other people and getting into crime because we were poor. I know
that we need to do everything we can to alleviate poverty. There
is no doubt about it. I am not arguing that. However, I will
not concede to a person that being less well off than someone
else gives them the justification for crime, any more than it
does for me and my children because we have neighbours who are a
lot richer than we are. That just does not wash.
We need to get down to some really solid principles. I am glad
for the principles of justice which are contained in the Reform
Party document. There is a whole list of them. I read only two.
I would encourage all members of the House to get hold of the
blue book policies of the Reform Party and read them. They make
eminently great sense. That is one of the things that drew me to
this party and that is why I am so very happy to be part of this
process today because we are making progress.
I congratulate all members for what I expect will be unanimous
support.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Elk Island
has worked in education with young people for 35 years.
He will know, I am sure, that the young people who commit
serious crimes in or outside Sherwood Park are very small in
number. In Millwoods, the member will perhaps be interested to
know, there were apparently 17 persons, a year or so ago, who
committed most of the serious crime.
Could he give us the benefit of his advice as to what he would
do with that tiny minority in Millwoods? They are almost all
young men. What would he do to the young men in his constituency
who commit so much of the serious crime in Sherwood Park? As
well, does he think that drugs are the cause of much of the
crime?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is a very broad question
which allows me to go off in almost any direction. I would
reiterate that, first, we need to make sure our young people are
taught a system of morality which holds up and is consistent. We
have a moral void with all of this moral relativism in our
society.
I also worked for many years on a board which ran a camp for
young people, children and families. It was a great experience
to get outdoors and go camping with these young people. When I
worked there I was young myself. I am now getting on, by a few
more years.
I believe that those are very important issues.
We have many volunteers in my riding who work with young people
in sports programs, camping programs and all of those things. I
think that prevention is absolutely mandatory.
1630
We have to kick that into high gear. We have flagged on it. Our
families are struggling. Many of them are in conflict because of
high taxation. Both parents have to work even though they would
choose not to if they did not have to. As a result our families
are not as strong as they ought to be.
With respect to those who actually commit the crime, what do we
do with them after? As I have said, we ought to hold them
personally responsible, certainly if they are involved in things
like trafficking in drugs which often happens. This is one of
the motivators of crime. Many of our young people get hooked on
different kinds of drugs. Because the people from whom they get
the drugs are not about to donate them, they go about financing
it by break and enters and all sorts of things.
This is perhaps a novel way of handling them, but I would get
them out into the woods. I would take them out to a camp; I
really would. I am not talking necessarily of a strict boot camp
but there would be some discipline. These young people would
have to learn that there is an authority structure to which they
have to submit themselves. Otherwise we have chaos in the
country. We are all subject to authority. They too are subject
to authority. The faster they learn that, the better off they
will be and the better off we will all be.
I would provide work experience. I know of a person who does
this in his work with Manitoba justice. They actually bring
young offenders to a place where they are under their care and
keeping 24 hours a day. They provide work for these young men.
They are chopping firewood. They get to do things that are
useful. It gives them a sense of accomplishment. They actually
work for their food. It is a great way of steering them away
from the crime they have entered into.
In all cases there is not a perfect success rate, but they have
at least as high a success rate as the ones who simply go to
prison and learn from the pros.
We would do well in the justice systems in the different
provinces if we expand the use of smaller groups such as that. It
probably would not cost as much as running our prisons and we
would have a much higher degree of success.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Elk Island made reference in his comments to a young
girl who went missing a number of years ago. It turned out that
she had been murdered in Winnipeg. The young girl's name was
Candace and a book was written about her. I would like to
acknowledge the mother who actually wrote that book, Wilma
Derksen.
Wilma has been very active in the last number of years dealing
with victims of crime and in the whole restorative justice
process. Coincidentally, and I know we are not supposed to use
props, I received in the mail today the publication by her
organization dealing with victims and reconciliation.
I would like the member's comments and thoughts on restorative
justice and victim-offender reconciliation, especially in cases
of less serious crimes where the offenders come face to face with
their victims and get to understand who their victims are.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think this works best at a
younger age. At the beginning of my speech I said that the
training of a young person to be a law-abiding citizen begins at
age two days. Maybe we waited too long, but I think it is a
lifelong thing.
I remember seeing a poster many years ago of a tree with one
branch that was really crooked. The tree was beautiful except
for that one branch and the caption read “As the twig is bent,
so grows the child”. When we talk about restorative justice, I
think the example I used from my own life illustrated that. I
believe we have to captivate young people as early as possible.
If we train them throughout life, both by word and by example in
the family, in the school and in the church, to be moral, to put
the needs of others ahead of their own and to be unselfish they
will not grow up to be criminals. If they do make their own
decisions later, the earlier the better to catch them and provide
the opportunity for restorative justice, for restitution, for
facing their victims and for giving them some solid role models
to follow at that stage. I am absolutely convinced that is the
way to reduce it, but I do not think we will ever get away from
it entirely with human nature having a bit of a bad streak in it.
1635
I reiterate there are some who progress despite all efforts into
more and more serious crime. When an individual is found to be
incorrigible we have an obligation, as stated in the principles
of the Reform Party, to protect law-abiding citizens. If there
is one who just will not obey the rules and who is doing worse
and worse things to other people, to their person and to their
property, we have to use that part of the law which restrains the
evil doer.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the members for Surrey North and
Langley—Abbotsford for the leadership they have shown for so
long on the issues of victims rights and justice. My hope is
that the government will listen to the many eloquent suggestions
they have been putting forth for a long time and that it will
employ them.
Perhaps Bill C-79 is an example of the failure of the government
to listen to what the opposition has been saying for so long.
Many years ago the Liberals, not the current group but the
previous group, decided to make a change in the way they dealt
with justice. Their view was that no longer would the justice
system be primarily responsible for or have as its primary goal
the protection of innocent civilians. According to the Liberal
government of late seventies-early eighties the primary role of
the justice system was the rehabilitation of criminals. We want
to change that around.
We in the Reform Party believe the primary role of the justice
system is to protect innocent Canadians from being victimized.
That is not to say we want to ignore those who commit crimes. Far
from it. The member for Elk Island eloquently mentioned the need
for early prevention from the time a person is born.
I would suggest we need to work before that for some very
pragmatic reasons. How do we do this? We are dealing with Bill
C-79 and the issue of victims rights. Victims have rights and
for too long those rights have been pushed down by a system that
supports the rights of the condemned over the rights of the
victims.
There are good parts in Bill C-79. There are parts about the
right of the victim to put forward a victim impact statement and
very importantly for the victim to have choice of whether or not
to say it or to introduce it as a piece of paper. We applaud
that as it is something the Reform Party has been pushing for,
for a very long time.
We also want to see a way in which victims can know things about
when the person who violated them is getting out of jail, where
the person is going, and what conditions are being placed on the
person. To my knowledge that simply is not happening right now.
Imagine rape victims finding out by chance or down the line that
the person who violated them has been let out of jail. They do
not know where the person is or where that person is going. They
look over their shoulders hoping and praying the person is not
after them.
This is the reality of the lives of many people who have been
victimized and the government needs to change it. It needed to
change it yesterday but having failed to do that it needs to
change it now. Many times my colleagues, as well as members of
the Liberal government and members of the other political
parties, have presented constructive solutions to change this
gross inequality in our justice system.
1640
We also believe in the concept of restitution, that those who
have committed a crime should do restitution to those who are
victims. That would send a very clear message to the criminal
that he or she we will have to pay the victim and society many
times over the cost of the crime. The concept of restorative
justice is a good one and one that we will support the government
in pursuing when and if it chooses to do it.
The concept of protection of victims too is important. Right
now we have a justice system that sentences people to a certain
amount of time. Do the people serve that time? No, they do not.
Not even for first degree murder do they serve the full sentence
they are given. For everything but first degree murder people
can be eligible for parole after serving one-sixth of their
sentence. They are condemned, convicted of a serious offence
such as attempted murder or rape, sentenced to 12 years, serve 2
years and released on parole.
What kind of message does that send to the criminal element? It
says if they commit a crime they can get away with a minimal
penalty. If we look at the two years that can be served in jail,
the person who has been victimized will be paying the penalty of
that and suffering long after two years are over. They will pay
the price of their victimization long after the person who
committed the crime is out on the street. What can we do? My
colleagues have mentioned many constructive suggestions.
I will talk for a moment about the offender because therein lies
a number of failures but also a number of opportunities to engage
in some proactive issues. When I worked in jails I found that
many of the people there had unfortunately not had treatment. The
resources were not there to treat the underlying problems of why
they were in jail in the first place. Their drug abuse and
psychiatric and psychological problems were not being treated.
As a result we see a door that goes around and around with
people being convicted, let out and convicted again. We do not
break the cycle of crime, punishment and incarceration that
condemns many people to a life that we would not want. I would
argue that they do not want it either.
There are things we can do. I draw the attention of the
minister to the fact that the people who are doing the
psychiatric treatment and educational training are not getting
the support they require.
Furthermore there is not an obligation on the part of criminals
to engage in the activities that will prevent them from
reoffending. They are essential but they are optional. We need
to make it absolutely mandatory that if criminals ignore the
required treatment for them to break the cycle of crime,
punishment and incarceration, five-sixths of their sentences is
not automatically removed on the basis of good behaviour to which
they have not been committed.
We need a system where people will have their sentences reduced
for good behaviour if they engage in good behaviour and not
because it is automatic. They have to engage in the treatment
required, the educational options to be employable when released,
and the drug training and drug treatment programs that are
necessary for them to break the cycle that contributed to their
being in jail in the first place. Then they can have time
knocked off for good behaviour, say a third of the sentence.
For heaven's sake, five-sixths of their sentence should not be
knocked off just to have a revolving door and turf people out of
jail because there is not enough room. If there is not enough
room and a person is a danger to society, I guess we will have to
build more prisons.
We also have to divide the prison population up into two groups:
violent and non-violent. There is no way non-violent
individuals, those who are not career criminals, should be stuck
in with the violent criminals. Those who are not career
criminals who made a mistake should have other options for
serving their time. As I mentioned before, restitution is one of
them. Treatment is another option that they have to engage in.
Hopefully when they get out they will have kicked the drug habit,
had the psychiatric help they required and be employable and
functional members of society.
Only then can we save our system a lot of money and also save
other people from being victimized in the future.
1645
We also need to look at the police. We saw recently a report
from the exiting chief commissioner of police in Vancouver who
lamented very clearly the fact that we have created a revolving
door in our justice system. He despaired not only for himself,
but more important for the men and women in uniform who serve and
protect our communities. The police are being demoralized in
part because they do not have the support of the justice system.
The justice system is not giving the penalty that is appropriate
for the offence. As a result, the police wonder why they are
putting all their work and effort into getting a conviction when
the justice system is not giving the penalty. Many career
criminals think it is a joke for obvious reasons. That has to
change.
We have to support the police as they support us and that
includes that the justice system attach the penalty that fits the
crime. If you commit a violent offence, if you are a repeat
offender, then you are going to meet the full force of the law.
For others, there are different options.
The RCMP do not have the resources to do the job. They had to
close down their training facility. They do not have the money
for overtime to engage in the prosecution. They do not have the
helicopters they require. They cannot even fix their patrol cars
because there is not enough money. How can we have a justice
system when we cannot support it?
Justice does not come unless we have a police force to support
it. If we do not have a police force, then we approach anarchy.
Nobody in the House, no law-abiding citizen in the country wants
anarchy.
The hands of the police are tied on how to deal with organized
crime. Organized crime is massive in this country. The police
lament that the government has not given them the legislative
tools to deal with organized crime, which has a huge penalty for
our entire country. We need to do that. We need to give police
those tools.
Let us look at what has happened historically in the amount of
time that is required to achieve a conviction. The amount of
work police officers have to put in is far greater than what they
had to do 10 years ago because of the hoops and the loops the
government has put in their way. We do not want sloppy police
work, but we want to give the police the ability to do their job.
Why put in numerous unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles?
I challenge the Minister of Justice to look at the justice
system, look at the hoops the police have to go through. Remove
the unnecessary hoops and keep those that are necessary for the
rule of law to be upheld.
My colleague from Elk Island articulated the issue of prevention
very clearly. A few weeks ago I was working as a physician and I
came across a patient I had seen in the past. She was one of
three girls I had treated in the past. She was the last one that
I had seen recently.
She was 13 years old when she was put on the street by her
mother to prostitute to get the money to pay for her mother's
drug abuse habit. I was quite surprised that she was alive. I
did not expect her to be alive because I had seen her a few years
ago. She came into where I was working with track marks up both
arms, some were infected and some were not.
The life she has been living is remarkable. It is a life that
nobody in the House would want for anybody. She has been
engaging in a great deal prostitution in part to support her
mother's drug habit, but also to support her own. Like many
other drug abusers she is spending between $200 and $500 a day on
drugs.
I asked how she was getting the money when she was unemployed.
Prostitution and other criminal activities such as break and
enter is the price society pays.
1650
This situation did not materialize for this little girl as a 13
year old. She came from a tragic environment. I had met her two
other friends a few years ago. I saw treated them in jail. They
were 14 and 15 years old at the time. They had already been on
the streets prostituting for a while. They were IV drug abusers.
After examining them both I told them they would not see their
19th birthday. They laughed and giggled and said they did not
really care because they were having fun. I was wrong.
I was reading the newspaper a couple of years after and one of
the girls had been found dead on the side of a lonely road,
murdered while engaging in another trick. A year after that I
found her friend. I was walking through a pediatric ward and I
saw her there. She had had a massive stroke in her teenage years
from shooting up with IV cocaine. This is not uncommon.
If we examine the history of these girls and many of the people
in jails, both adults and juveniles, we see a history oftentimes
marred by improper nutrition, violent sexual abuse, and the
witnessing of violence.
In up to 50% of the cases in adult jails, many of the people
suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects. It
is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in our country
today. It is a silent epidemic.
The average IQ of these people is 68. They have a great deal of
difficulty with cognitive functions and basic processing in their
brain. When they attend school they cannot function properly
because their brain is irreversibly damaged. There is no going
back. They become isolated within school and act up. They engage
in behaviour that puts them at the periphery of society. As they
get older they often but not always engage in illegal activities.
Then they end up in front of our justice system.
What if we could prevent that? What if we could prevent that
person from having brain damage? We can and need to do it. We
must do it. No longer can the epidemic of fetal alcohol syndrome
be buried under the carpet and considered as something that
affects people out there. It involves whole communities.
I remember flying in a chopper last year to an aboriginal
reserve to do a clinic. I would venture to say that perhaps 25%
of the people I saw were suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome or
fetal alcohol effects. One-quarter of the people on the reserve
had it. That is a guess but that is approximately the number of
people I saw.
These people can never engage in being cognitive, interactive
people in society. It is very difficult for them to do that.
How do we prevent it?
The Minister of Labour and her husband started the Moncton
Headstart Program in 1972. It was a leader in its field.
Essentially they wondered how they could prevent children from
running afoul of the law. How could they make them the best
citizens possible? How could they change the course of their
lives from what their parents had, which perhaps had been a life
of crime, a life of poverty? How could they put them on a level
playing field with others?
Essentially they worked with prevention. The parents and the
children were brought together to strengthen the bond. Bad
parents were taught how to be good parents. They were taught
simple things such as disciplining a child. They were taught
proper nutrition and the fact that a can of coke and a bag of
potato chips is not good nutrition. The parents were taught how
to engage in proper discipline, how to set boundaries, how to be
a good parent.
We recently saw reports in the newspapers about studies that had
been done. These studies looked at 1,600 random samplings of
parents. Nearly 70% of those parents did not know the basics of
good parenting. Seventy per cent across a wide spectrum of
socioeconomic groups did not know how to be good parents. This
may seem subtle but the impact on the future of our society can
be dramatic.
The Moncton Headstart Program has been profoundly effective at
reducing teenage crime rates, teen pregnancies and keeping kids
in school longer with less dependence on welfare. There is a $6
to $7 saving for every dollar invested.
1655
The same held true in the Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti,
Michigan and the Hawaii headstart program. The Hawaii headstart
program used trained volunteers to work with families and saw a
99% drop in child abuse rates. The findings in Moncton were shown
again in the Michigan program which has a 30 year track record of
early intervention.
We have been trying to get the human resources development
subcommittee to deal with this issue. It is studying children at
risk right now. Let us look at implementing a national headstart
program using existing resources. Have the feds take the
leadership role by working with the provinces to prevent these
things from occurring. There is a track record of prevention.
There are pragmatic doable solutions which we can employ now.
What a great thing if the House could do that for the children of
this country. We can and must do it for all the children.
I asked that the House pass a motion calling for a national
headstart program last year. I implore the minister to work with
her provincial counterparts to deal with this. I implore the
subcommittee chairman to deal with this.
Together we will be able to build a program, not just for the
poor at risk, but for all parents. This cuts across
socioeconomic grounds. Even children from affluent
neighbourhoods and affluent households who are latchkey kids and
who do not have appropriate parenting need the love, care and
security that all children require. As we all know money and
material things are no substitute for love, care and security and
a secure home.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I salute the member on his
intervention. There was not a word that he said that I disagreed
with. In fact I enthusiastically support everything he said as I
am sure many members around the House do.
Not so long ago a doctor in Edmonton told me he feels that about
15% of the babies born in one of our Edmonton hospitals will be
essentially unemployable because of fetal alcohol syndrome. Would
a national headstart program deal with that or would the member
see separate ways of trying to deal with the scourge of fetal
alcohol syndrome?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, although the secretary of
state is responsible for Africa and Latin America, he has written
many extremely articulate and informative articles and has been a
leader in the House on the issue of early prevention. He
deserves a great deal of credit. I have tried to use many of his
ideas because they are just plain good. They are great ideas. I
thank him for his long term involvement in this issue. He has
been a true national leader on this issue.
The secretary of state's intervention is good. The solutions
that have been employed in Alberta can be lessons to be learned
and employed across the country. Much of that has been used in
other headstart programs.
I am hoping that this will be a national program. I envision
that three sections can be used.
The first is to use the medical community at time zero. All
women go to their doctors during the course of their pregnancy.
This would be an ideal opportunity to address prevention for FAS,
nutritional aspects and others.
The second is to use the trained volunteer model which is used
so successfully in Hawaii. It usually involves women who are
good parents and who can act as mentors to families at risk and
other families. They can teach people how to be good parents.
We have seen the need for that in our country.
Last, we could use the schools from kindergarten to grade two
like the example used by the Minister of Labour in her Moncton
Headstart Program. We can bring parents and children into the
schools to learn the basics of parenting and the importance
child-parent interaction.
1700
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the member who spoke eloquently and made some
good points. There is one area in which I need some
clarification.
He spoke compellingly about the head start program. We know
that in the head start program there is discretion. He said that
there is no financial cut-off. For example, one cannot turn away
children from affluent communities because oftentimes they need
guidance.
The hon. member spoke compellingly about his role as a
physician, about three girls who came to see him, about his
treatment of patients, which requires discretion, and certainly
the discretion of a good physician to be able to examine his or
her patients and come to a conclusion about what is the best
treatment.
I think he would feel, as would most practitioners, that it
would be wrong to legislate what a physician has to do. For
example, when prescribing drugs, that they must or must not
prescribe certain drugs, depending upon how they see the case.
The member talked about parole eligibility. I know that he
wanted to be clear on this. He said that an individual who is
sentenced to 12 years only serves two. I think what he meant was
that they have eligibility for parole at the end of one-sixth of
their sentence, which is different from saying that they would be
released. They are eligible to apply to a board which would
exercise its discretion in determining whether that offender has
changed or met certain requirements; the same discretion that he
would exercise as a physician or the same discretion that those
who run the head start program would exercise.
Surely he agrees that the parole board should have that same
discretion to make those judgment calls.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the parole board
must have that discretion.
If a person commits a crime and is sentenced, being eligible for
parole after serving only one-sixth of their sentence is, in my
view, far too little. That contributes to the lack of confidence
that our police forces have in the ability of the justice system
to support them.
I am not saying that we should toss people in jail and throw
away the key. As I mentioned in my speech there are two groups,
violent and non-violent. Perhaps I should say violent, career
criminals and non-violent, non-career criminals. I think they
should be treated very differently.
What I am saying is that a sentence should be reduced on the
basis of a person's ability to meet requirements such as the
treatment of drug addiction, obtaining psychiatric help or
demonstrating appropriate behaviour within the context of the
institution in which they are incarcerated. If they fulfill
those requirements, then the parole board would be able to
exercise its good judgment in determining whether that person
should or should not be released.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much
support the comments of my hon. friend opposite in terms of
prevention. Of course, prevention costs money and I hope he
garners the support of his colleagues to undertake a major
program across this country. I think we would save money in the
end.
With respect to the issue of prevention, as we were debating
this bill in the House today I noticed that at Columbine High
School in Denver, Colorado, 20 students had been shot and the
people doing the shooting still have not been apprehended.
There are many other examples in the United States, and of
course the tragic example we have in Canada of what happened at
the École Polytechnique in 1989.
Keeping in mind the emphasis on prevention that the member was
talking about, surely he would want to support, as CAVEAT has
asked us to do, as well as victims' groups, gun control
legislation.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on that issue.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will briefly answer
three questions.
The first question concerns prevention. We can use existing
resources to engage in prevention. There is a smattering of
organizations across the country which are engaging in
prevention. If the minister would ask her provincial
counterparts to come to the table, tell her what is working and
what is not, toss out what is not working and keep what is, that
would force the provinces to rationalize their programs.
1705
As the member mentioned, it costs $95,000 a year for a youth to
be incarcerated and $60,000 for an adult.
On the issue of gun control, the Reform Party is firmly in
favour of good gun control laws. We are in favour of the
firearms acquisition certificate. We are in favour of having
checks on people. We are in favour of having a delay period. We
are in favour of a course, which gun lobby groups are in favour
of.
What we are not in favour of is gun control legislation that
will cost money and not have an effect. On that point, it is the
gun registry that will do just that.
We have to be very careful that if we are going to put money
into a program we ensure that the money we are putting in, with
the limited resources we have, will have more effect than where
we are taking it from. It is called economic cost. If we are
going to put money into gun registration, we had better be
certain that the registry is going to make our streets safer,
save people's lives and save money.
The fact is that gun registries do not work. The government is
now finding this out. The Reform Party has said for a long time
that the millions of dollars that are being put into the gun
registry could be better spent on something else. I had this
conversation with members opposite.
Over the last 20 years the number of people who have been killed
with legal handguns is five per year. Should we spend $50
million, $100 million or $200 million to save five lives, when if
we move it out of the justice system to somewhere else it could
cost a hundred or two hundred lives because of rapists who are
allowed to walk and murderers who are not arrested?
That is the reason we oppose it. It is not because we are
against the registry, it is not because we are in the back pocket
of the gun lobbyists, but because we want, like the government,
to have the safest country possible. That is why we are opposed
to it. However, we are in favour of the good gun control rules
that we have in Canada.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on behalf of my riding of Edmonton East
to victims rights.
I wish to compliment the minister on the comments she made in
the press conference which clearly gave recognition to the Reform
Party for its efforts in pursuing changes to address victims
rights. I extend congratulations to my colleagues from Surrey
North and Langley—Abbotsford. I also want to thank the minister
for her very frank statement that this is not the end of victims
rights reform but just the beginning, as we all explore better
ways to address the issues and concerns.
It is with this in mind that I wish to speak about serious
concerns of victims and potential victims of a recent heinous
phenomenon, home invasions. Does this bill address the concerns
of these victims? Not nearly enough. It contains only very
minor rejigging of procedure. While the bill is desirable, it
falls short of real reform to address the concerns of these
victims, let alone being a serious deterrent.
It is a sad commentary on our society when police must advise us
never to open our doors unless we can see who is knocking and
unless we know who that person is. As the police reported in one
Canadian home invasion, the victim made that one mistake. He
opened the door because he could not see who it was through the
peephole.
Anyone at any time can be the victim of a home invasion. The
elderly are described as the victims of choice.
There have been at least seven home invasions in Edmonton so far
in 1999, resulting in serious injuries. There were only 10 in
all of last year. They terrorize the occupants and expose them
to the traumatic experience of forced entry with the intent to
hold the occupants hostage. People are the target of home
invasions. Victims are tortured into giving up property.
In committee the Reform Party, with the support of other
opposition parties, asked the federal government to study this
growing problem as it affects citizens in what should be their
safest place, their home.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South said that the idea was silly
and not worthy of government concern.
1710
I would fully support any study that would help to ensure the
safety of Canadians in their own homes. I would also remind the
hon. member for Winnipeg South that one recent home invasion I
read about took place in his own riding.
Police say that we can combat home invasions by knowing our
neighbours. Since most home invaders are caught due to phone
tips, much more is needed now and not later.
The Criminal Code needs to be amended to provide tougher
sentences for people involved in home invasions, and even better,
to create an entirely new offence of home invasion.
At present most home invaders are charged with breaking and
entering. Convicted offenders often do not go to jail. Multiple
charges associated with home invasion are plea bargained away or
have sentences concurrently served with other charges. In short,
no additional punishment is given for home invasion.
Exceptional crimes require exceptional measures. We must raise
the price of home invasion to properly reflect the heinous nature
of the crime.
A while ago in Edmonton three young offenders broke into the home
of victim Barb Danelesko and knifed her to death.
While the seven home invasions this year have yet to result in
any deaths, I consider that luck more than anything. Home
invasions are typically brutal and intrusive like no other crime,
with hostage taking lasting for hours at a time.
There have been at least seven home invasions in Edmonton so far
in 1999. In January a 55 year old victim was hospitalized with a
gash to his head.
In January, on an Edmonton Sunday afternoon, masked gunmen
charged through an unlocked back door of a home looking for
drugs. They took money. The police called it home robbery
rather than home invasion, although I cannot see the difference,
and neither do many of the police officers who say that home
invasion should be a separate offence under the Criminal Code in
order to track the magnitude of the problem.
In February of this year an Edmonton family was victimized and
terrorized, tied up, and their home was ransacked by two gunmen.
In February another Edmonton family was held hostage in their
home for 16 hours.
In March an Edmonton victim was cut on the hand and head when he
struggled with armed robbers committing a home invasion. In that
case police are looking for three suspects in their late teens to
early twenties.
In March, in Camrose, police arrested two youths, aged 16 and
17, in connection with the home invasion of a 69 year old victim
the previous December. In her own home the woman was knocked to
the ground, her face bruised by a masked intruder who broke in
and stole various items. Robbers do not wear masks if they
expect nobody to be home.
In Vancouver police believe that since 1995 two or three people
have been responsible for the invasion of 31 homes occupied by
the elderly, with 13 or almost half of these home invasions
occurring in the last four months. During one of these home
invasions a 79 year old victim was murdered.
In Melfort, Saskatchewan an 80 year old victim died subsequent
to a home invasion on Christmas Eve, 1998. The man was beaten
and tied after answering his front door and lay on his living
room floor for 18 hours before being discovered. Because he died
two months after the home invasion, police decided that the
beating did not contribute to his death. The home invader, 29
years old, remains charged only with robbery and unlawful
confinement. That is so even though it is accepted that trauma
from any assault, particularly if experienced by an elderly
victim, has long lasting affects.
In Merritt, B.C. an 80 year old victim was murdered in 1998
during the course of a home invasion by an 18 year old who is now
charged with first degree murder. The victim had his hands and
feet bound and was forced to lie on his bed. He was covered by a
chest of drawers and his walker.
Near Lac La Biche a mother and daughter found themselves fleeing
into the freezing cold after two strangers kicked in the door of
their farmhouse at 2.30 in the morning. The daughter suffered
from frostbite on her feet.
In Winnipeg this March a 17 year old victim was working at home
on his computer. In the early afternoon a stranger knocked and
three youths appeared shortly afterwards through the unlocked
rear door, cut the telephone cord, tied the youth up, put a knife
to his throat and fled with a small amount of money and
jewellery.
1715
The B.C. government has offered a reward for information leading
to the arrest and conviction of home invaders in Vancouver. The
reward has recently been increased to $100,000. The Vancouver
police department has formed a specialized home invasion police
task force which has been given a blank cheque for whatever
equipment and resources it requires. In March the attorney
general of British Columbia appointed a specialized prosecutor
just to deal with home invasions.
Last week there was an unbelievably horrendous home invasion,
brutal beating and robbery of a 79 year old decorated World War
II veteran, Robert Delaney, and his 78 year old wife Betty. Mr.
Delaney is currently hospitalized in Halifax in critical
condition as a result of the attack. The victims were attacked
in their home, allegedly by 20 year olds and one 14 year old who
have been arrested and charged.
The courts must take a hard line on home invasions. Mr. Delaney
is a veteran of the famed Black Watch of Montreal and was
decorated by the government at war's end for outstanding acts of
bravery.
This Halifax home invasion came during the same week that
Canada's World War I valour at Vimy Ridge was being commemorated
in the House of Commons. Veterans who have fought and died for
our freedom are now confronted with violent and lawless youth,
the products of years of disrespect for history and country, as
their aggressors.
Canada's education system has done an abysmal job of educating
youth about the contributions of our war veterans. Canada's
veterans ought not be targets of crime but rather be highly
regarded and respected. This proud World War II veteran survived
the wrath of Nazi Germany but he might not survive the cowardly
attack by Canada's young criminals hiding behind antiquated
laws and a void of victims rights.
I commend Alberta Justice Minister Jon Havelock who has been an
advocate of reforming the process used to pick our supreme court
judges. He is right in saying that they should not be picked
based on their relationship with the Prime Minister. I will
focus on Mr. Havelock's comments on home invasions. He could not
have said it better: “Breaking and entering a residential home
is not just a property offence”.
He addressed the heinous nature of this crime within the Alberta
legislature and has noted that his counterparts in Manitoba and
Ontario have done the same. All of them are calling for action
from the justice minister. So too am I.
We can only speculate as to why home invasions are becoming more
commonplace, but for the criminals there are some comparable
advantages. As opposed to an act of assault and robbery in a
shopping mall, the criminal has hours instead of minutes to
commit the crime. The criminal is concealed from others behind
closed doors. The crime's punishment under the present justice
system is no different whether it is in the home or in the mall.
Commonly sentences are served concurrently, not consecutively.
Home invasions are a particularly loathsome act of cowardliness
generally targeting the very young, very old and the weak in a
diabolically sinister fashion. Perpetrators first determine if
the people are at home, plan an assault to gain entry and take
hostage of the victims. Generally physical abuse and torment of
the victims are involved along with a robbery and wanton
destruction of the home's contents. All of this takes place
behind the closed door of somebody's home, their sanctity from the
evils of the street.
The institution of victims rights goes hand in hand with
criminal justice system reforms. While victims rights are an
after the fact privilege long overdue, fully implemented they
would impact crime and the prevention of crime. Much more is
needed in terms of both victims rights and reform of the justice
system.
As we speak news is tragically unfolding in Denver, Colorado, as
the United States is facing its legacy of ineffective laws that
fail to control violence among others. A school invasion is
taking place by armed youths. An armed assault is being made and
students are being held hostage. Many deaths have occurred.
Hundreds of direct and indirect victims have just been created
and the event is still not under control.
1720
Victims rights and criminal reform are not just a Canadian
problem but a global problem. Canada could do well by leading
the way. This is the challenge of the future. The bill is the
beginning of victims rights and deserves to be supported for
that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak to the bill today. I too would like to
give credit to the two Reform members, the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford and the hon. member for Surrey North, for all
the work they have done in leading up to the legislation being
presented.
As others have already said, the legislation will not go nearly
as far as it should in terms of providing victims their rights.
To demonstrate that, I want to read one of the most touching
letters I have ever received from a constituent. This person was
the victim of a heinous crime. I will read as much of this
letter as I can and use it to demonstrate that there are still
some huge gaps in legislation that must be filled to deal with
situations such as this one.
This letter is from Linda Ryan of Lloydminister, Alberta, and I
received it about a year ago. She wrote:
I am writing this letter in regard to the parole hearing of Jack
Edgar. I am aware that Jack will receive a copy of this letter.
I am asking that the parole board members take my letter and the
enclosed documents into consideration in making a decision
regarding Jack's application for parole.
I will just interject by saying that this woman desperately
wanted to make a verbal petition to the parole board not to allow
Jack Edgar to be released on parole. She went on to write:
On August 18, 1985 Jack Edgar murdered my mother and my aunt and
that act changed my life forever. That act began my life
sentence of fear, grief and betrayal. This man was my
stepfather. A man who portrayed a caring, loving father,
grandfather, uncle and son-in-law. Although in hindsight, I can
see the cracks in his facade.
She goes on to talk about the impact of this murder committed by
her stepfather against her mother and the impact on her daughter.
In part she wrote:
It was a very long time before my little girl began to heal.
She, too, carries a life sentence of grief and fear and betrayal.
My children have missed so much. They had a right to all the
love these two special people had to give them. My heart aches
for the part of my children's lives they are missing. They also
had a right to a mom who was not incapacitated by grief and to a
family that was whole. It has taken a great deal of courage to
survive this and make a life for my family. I have struggled to
regain my optimism in life, to trust people and my ability to
judge character; to maintain a sense of humour. I have done this
for my children, for my mom and for my aunt. They would want
this, as these are qualities they instilled in me.
The letter was written to the head of the parole board who was
to hear the parole hearing which may have released Jack Edgar,
the person who murdered her mother and aunt. She continued:
I know I can't predict what Jack will do, no one can, perhaps not
even Jack himself. I do know I cannot live my life and raise my
children with “what if's”. I cannot imagine being able to stay
here in my home, near my family if Jack is released. I have not
slept through an entire night since Nellie Taylor called to tell
me he is applying for parole. The thought of him being released
terrifies me. I live each and every day with what he did to
them, their terror, their helplessness. That is enough. I
should not have to live in fear of what he may do next. Releasing
Jack is a violation of my right to safety.
My fears are real and grounded and shared by many.
1725
She goes on to list people who are also terrified at the thought
of this person being paroled and who would see it as extremely
important to have a say at the parole hearing. She wrote:
Money, power and position were always crucial to Jack, for his
sense of self-worth. If Jack is released, there will be no
money, no power, no position. The “important” people will no
longer be there for him. He is a convicted double murderer. I
fear he is a man with little to lose.
For the sake of time I will omit parts of what she had to say. I
want to read a bit more about what she feels about this person
that she desperately wants to remain in jail, this person who
killed her mother and her aunt. She continued:
There is, however, another side to Jack Edgar which no one can
predict.
In the paragraph before she talked about Jack and the impression
he had left on people in the prison. She indicated:
I know from reading letters from the prison that Jack is highly
regarded and is viewed to have many good qualities. This does
not surprise me as Jack is a highly polished con artist and he
has a way of gaining people's trust.
There is however another side to Jack Edgar which no one can
predict. It enabled him to slaughter my Mom and my Aunt while
they sobbed on their hands and knees. He did this with no regard
for their lives, no regard for the agony he would cause for their
families. His needs came first and he did not care who he
destroyed to get what he wanted. This side of Jack is still
there. He was 57 years old when he committed the murders and his
character was cemented.
Over the years, in my conversations with the National Parole
Board, I know that Jack has never taken any responsibility nor
has he shown any remorse for the brutal murders of my Mom and my
Aunt. I believe that Jack's recent admittance of “some”
responsibility for the murders is directly related to his desire
to obtain his freedom. I think Jack is a man with little
conscience and his only remorse is for himself and his situation.
I realize that nothing will ever bring my Mom and my Aunt back,
but a mere 6.5 years each of the loss of Jack's freedom is an
insult to their memory.
I am asking that you deny parole for Jack, for the safety of
myself, my family—
Then she named some other people. She continued:
Those are some excerpts from a letter which unfortunately is in
a file of about a dozen victims of extremely serious crime from
whom I have heard.
The question is whether the bill we are debating today will in
any way do anything to provide what this woman, a victim of a
heinous crime, wants. She wants to be able to go to a parole
hearing and to say what is in her heart, what she feels and what
she lives with every day, so that she can put some kind of
closure to the whole situation. She wants to feel safe in
knowing that this person will probably never be released. That
is what she wants. She wants to be able to read that impact
statement herself at a parole hearing.
Unfortunately the legislation does not provide for that. It
does nothing to provide for that. There is some word that
legislation will be coming to deal with corrections and
conditional release. That of course would deal with this issue,
but it would make sense that it should be in place before this
legislation is debated.
Let us make sure this is only considered by the government to be
the first step. Let us carry forth and do a lot more to help
victims of crime.
1730
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
I request that you ask for the consent of the House to see the
clock as 5.29 p.m., so that the member who was speaking may take
his seat and we may proceed to the taking of the division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard the
suggestion of the deputy government whip. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CODE OF ETHICS
The House resumed from April 13 consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order made
Tuesday, April 13, the House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on Motion No. P-31 under Private
Members' Business.
Call in the members.
1755
And the bells having rung:
The Speaker: This first vote, is on a private member's motion.
We are going to take the vote as we usually do for Private
Members' Business. The mover of this motion is on my left, the
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. He will be the first
to vote. Those in favour of the motion on my left, starting with
the last row to the first row will vote and those on my right in
favour of the motion from the last row to the first row will
vote. Then we will do the same for those who are opposed.
1805
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 119
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 149
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—THE BALKANS
The House resumed from April 19 consideration of the motion and
of the amendment.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the
business of supply.
1815
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
| Brien
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 101
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 166
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1830
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 119
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 146
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
* * *
INCOME TAX AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998
The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-72, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to implement
measures that are consequential on changes to the Canada-U.S. Tax
Convention (1980) and to amend the Income Tax Conventions
Interpretation Act, the Old Age Security Act, the War Veterans
Allowance Act and certain acts related to the Income Tax Act, be
read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April
15, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the amendment to the motion at the second
reading stage of Bill C-72.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting nay to the amendment.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party members
present this evening, because it is such an excellent amendment,
will be supporting the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members, with
the exception of the member for Laval Centre, who unfortunately
had to be away, are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote yes on this amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party present will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
constituents of York South—Weston, I would vote yes on this
motion.
Mr. Gary Pillitteri: Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded
as voting no on this motion with my government.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Blaikie
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Konrad
| Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Williams – 61
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Longfield
| Loubier
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Perron
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 204
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment defeated.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe that you would find consent to have the question put on
the main motion for second reading of Bill C-72 immediately.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
this evening will be voting no to this motion.
1835
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present this
evening vote no on the main motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party present will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston, I would vote no to the main
motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Canuel
| Caplan
| Cardin
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fournier
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor
| West) Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
|
Lastewka
| Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| Loubier
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mercier
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Sauvageau
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 186
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Anders
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goldring
| Grewal
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lill
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams
– 79
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
[Translation]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed from April 15 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 15, 1999,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of
Bill C-71.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent that those members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberal members voting yea, with the exception of the
member for Windsor West, who has had to leave.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
this evening will be voting no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are opposed to this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present in the
House this evening vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party are against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will make it unanimous
on the part of the opposition and vote no.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 146
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 118
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION ACT
The House resumed from April 16 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
and the Canada Shipping Act to enable Canada to implement the
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982
Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and other international
fisheries treaties or arrangements, be read the third time and
passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, April 16,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded
division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-27.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present
this evening will be voting nay on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive
Conservative Party vote yes on this motion.
1840
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would vote no on behalf
of my constituents.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Davies
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
| Marchi
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Jacques
| St - Julien
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 181
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Cadman
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 83
|
PAIRED
Members
Anderson
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It
being 6.43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-403, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
(lead sinkers and lead jigs), be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to rise today to
address my private member's bill on the prohibition of lead
sinkers and jigs for use in Canadian waters, namely Bill C-403.
I offer my sincere thanks to the Minister of the Environment.
Over the past number of weeks, she has made her staff and her
department available for numerous consultations on how best to
address this issue. For that I say, thanks.
I should also make mention that although the government has made
significant strides toward the elimination of lead sinkers, the
minister has assured me that her efforts will be increased in
order to address this serious environmental concern.
I also offer my sincere appreciation to a few other individuals,
namely Mr. John Phillips and Mr. Rob Anderson. These two
individuals have dedicated enormous amounts of time in trying to
raise the profile of this issue to many Canadians. If it were
not for their efforts this issue would simply not be before the
House today. I believe Canadians owe Mr. Phillips and Mr.
Anderson a debt of gratitude for this.
1845
I would also like to thank the people who took the time to
assist me and advise me on the most effective ways to achieve the
desired outcome, that being the eventual elimination of lead in
our Canadian waters. Specifically I cite some names.
Mr. Craig Ritchie from the publication Real Fishing
offered many positive suggestions regarding my efforts toward
ensuring a successful outcome. Although he was critical of the
original language that still stands today within the bill, he did
offer many sound ideas for consideration.
I am confident that those who chose to offer positive criticisms
as well as advice will be very pleased to see the direction this
Liberal government will take in dealing with this issue.
This bill is certainly not the first time it has been
recommended that the minister take the necessary steps to
eliminate lead sinkers from Canadian waters. In May 1997 the
standing committee on the environment recommended that the
minister initiate a regulatory action to prohibit the import, the
sale, the manufacture and the use of lead sinkers and jigs that
are equal to or less than 2.5 centimetres in dimension. My bill
falls in line with this.
At this time I would like to share some startling facts as well
as some potential and actual impacts regarding the use of lead
sinkers.
There is an estimated annual 500 tonnes of lead fishing sinkers
and jigs lost in Canadian waters every year. This represents
millions upon millions of individual sinkers and jigs that are
lying at the bottom of Canadian lakes and rivers. This can no
longer go unchecked.
The potential impacts are as severe as they are broad. The fact
is that lead sinkers are deemed to be a highly toxic substance.
This is irrefutable. The fact is lead sinkers are killing our
waterfowl. This fact is also irrefutable.
There are also many other areas where lead sinkers may be having
serious implications. Sadly there has not been enough science
based research done in these areas to fully prove the negative
impacts at this time. Some of these areas that require much more
research and focus are the impact on various fish species after
ingestion has occurred.
I would also suggest that there are very few fishers in Canada
that have not lost a lead weight or a lead lure to a fish that is
determined not to be caught. Common sense must tell us that if a
fish is ingesting lead sinkers and further that lead sinkers are
a toxic substance, then there must be negative consequences to
the fish.
I am convinced that if we present a science based case to the
anglers in this country as to the negative impacts on the fish
population as well as other areas, they will be more than happy
to source out and use alternatives that are presently available.
Make no mistake, there are alternatives available.
We must not overlook the fact that some of the greatest
environmentalists we have in this country are sports anglers.
They have proven time and time again their unwavering commitment
to our natural resources through fishery stocking programs, to
river bed clean-ups to building fish ladders. Their commitment
has been unequalled. It is for this reason I am confident that if
science demonstrates a negative impact on fish populations as it
has demonstrated on waterfowl, our anglers will not simply
follow our direction, our anglers will lead the way.
Let me address some of the many areas where lead has been and in
fact continues to be removed from human contact. An example is
lead based paints. For years there was no question as to the use
of lead based paint. It was applied to almost every home and
office wall in the country. However, once we identified lead as
a toxic substance we quickly moved to have lead based paints
banned from sale in order to protect ourselves from the obvious
health threats.
Again we as concerned parents also support the removal of lead
pipes from many of our older institutions, including many of our
school buildings. These actions demonstrate our concern for
ourselves and much more important, our children, who may be
ingesting water travelling through lead pipes.
I have very fond memories of fishing with my father, with my
friends and my sons over the past number of years. I think back
to the days of fishing out in Georgian Bay. Many boats, many
anglers gathered around for the excellent fishing available in
Georgian Bay. We would watch the fishermen and the anglers and
almost without exception when rejigging the lines they would put
the line in the split shot and bite down on it.
1850
The very same day as we watched the people handle those lead
split shots and the bell sinkers, as they rejigged the line and
threw it back over the boat, what did they do? They reached into
their lunch box, grabbed their sandwich and ate it. Sometimes it
merely takes the issue of receiving a higher profile for us to
recognize the consequences of our actions. If this bill does
nothing more than that, I will consider it a success.
During the time I spent drafting the private member's bill, I
intentionally kept the bill as simple and straightforward as
possible. The goal is very simple: the elimination of lead
sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters. However, knowing the
profile the issue would receive, I knew that there would be many
opportunities available for worthwhile amendments and alternative
suggestions on how to best combat this problem.
To this end this initiative has been very successful. There
have been some very good suggestions and amendments brought
forward to me by other members of parliament as well as by
constituents from across the country. People are starting to buy
into the theory that lead is bad and they should no longer be
using it for fishing when there are viable alternatives
available.
Following the first presentation of my bill it became blatantly
obvious that the only way to truly impact the use of lead sinkers
was through community buy-in based on sound research and factual
education. It is to this end I have had the assurance of the
minister that a strategy such as this will be embarked upon
immediately.
There have been other positive suggestions that have come
forward. Considering we live in a time where we label products
such as cleaners, varnishes, chemicals and even cigarettes, would
it not make sense to consider labelling lead sinkers that are
sitting on the shelves or that are going on the shelves today as
to the potential impacts of the handling of those things? Once
again this is the type of strategy that falls in line with
education and communication rather than a strict enforcement
policy brought forward immediately.
I want to clearly state that the intent of this bill is not to
create division but rather to create an environment of
co-operation. It is in this light that the Minister of the
Environment and the Liberal government should commend themselves
for attempting to secure that type of co-operation.
There are other possible ideas to consider when looking at the
elimination of lead sinkers. For instance, consideration should
be given to investigate a possible gradual implementation which
in turn would not create undue hardship on retailers, as well as
the cottage industry, that presently derive benefits from the
said product. We should also investigate a buy back program, as
well as possible tax incentives in order to create a more
competitive environment when considering alternatives.
As I said, make no mistake, there are viable alternatives out
there. As a Liberal government, some of the positive steps that
we can take when striving for positive solutions to a negative
situation are things that should be dealt with immediately.
I would like to take a minute to speak about some of the
research that has been completed on this particular issue with
regard to the impact of lead sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters.
There are those who will challenge any and all research
completed on any particular issue if it does not conform to their
way of thinking. This is not a bad thing. Any fact based
position must be able to stand the test of challenge.
However, whether one agrees completely with the findings of
research or suggests that it may require more investigation and
provide greater detail, common sense must dictate that there is
some measure of substance to the findings with regard to the
definite impact on waterfowl. If we accept that in principle
there is a devastating impact or that there is an impact to
waterfowl then I think what we will find is unanimous support in
the House to move forward and attempt to deal with this very
serious situation.
While we accept the fact that many of our various species of
waterfowl are not on the endangered species list, we must not
detract from our focus of eliminating a hazardous substance that
clearly represents a dangerous impact not only on waterfowl but
on the fish population and yes, on people as well.
1855
I ask the House to work with the Minister of the Environment and
our government to implement a research based education program.
This will ensure communities fact based information which I
believe in turn will result in the partnering and the elimination
of hundreds of tonnes of lead being deposited into what we
recognize as one of the cleanest and most pristine water systems
in the world.
I again want to offer my thanks to my seconder as well as the
Minister of the Environment and many of the colleagues on both
sides of the House that have taken the time to contact me and
offer their suggestions, their ideas and in some cases their
criticisms on how we should be moving forward with this. Once
again I will make mention that I consider it a success that we
have raised that kind of interest in the House and all across
this country.
We are depositing hundreds of millions of lead sinkers and jigs
in our Canadian waterways every year. If we accept the fact that
lead is a toxic substance, that it is having an impact on
waterfowl, once science based research is done I am sure it will
demonstrate it is having an impact on fish populations, and we
have certainly demonstrated that it has a very negative impact on
humankind. I am sure we will be able to draw a consensus that we
have to stop this and stop it as soon as possible.
On that note I thank my hon. colleagues who are staying around
to offer comments on this issue that is very close to my heart.
I am more than happy to listen to their addresses.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak to Private Member's Bill C-403, an act
that would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to
prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale and offering for sale
and in certain circumstances the possession of lead sinkers and
jigs.
The member for Simcoe—Grey is to be commended for bringing such
an important environmental issue to the forefront. The issue of
lead poisoning in our environment is an important concern and
something for all Canadians and all levels of government to be
aware of.
The lead poisoning in our environment has become a widespread
problem due to historically extensive and varied use of lead. Its
low melting point, its malleability, ease of processing and low
cost have resulted in its use in a wide range of applications.
It has been used in solder, plumbing pipes, paints, pottery
glazes, crystal ware, gasoline, hunting shot and fishing sinkers
and jigs.
However, through the years as our science improved, more has
been discovered about lead's intrinsically high toxicity and the
adverse effects it can have on our environment. Although science
has known about the toxicity of lead and the potential it has for
poisoning wildlife since the turn of the century, it has been a
long process from scientific discovery to government regulatory
action.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s the Canadian Wildlife Service
expressed significant concern over the lead poisoning of
waterfowl from lead shot ingestion. This initial concern did not
translate into extensive research and study until the late 1980s
when the United States announced its intention to completely ban
the use of lead shot in waterfowl hunting by 1991.
The announcement of this ban initiated a series of studies by
the Canadian Wildlife Service that determined that there was
insufficient evidence to justify a national ban. However, since
that time, extensive research has been conducted by the Canadian
Wildlife Service and others on several fronts which has led to a
reassessment of this earlier decision and has instigated federal
government regulatory action.
Lead sinkers and jigs are used primarily by fresh water sports
fishermen. These products are quite popular due to their ease of
use, widespread availability and inexpensive cost. The most
common sinker used is the split shot sinker which the member
explained, which in the United States accounts for almost half of
the total sinker production. I dread to think of how many of
those I have bitten down on in my life.
Across Canada it is estimated that over five million Canadians
take part in recreational fishing activities, buying nearly 560
tonnes of lead in the form of lead sinkers. Virtually all of
this lead is destined for the bottom of Canada's lakes and
rivers. When a lead sinker is lost, it settles on the bottom of
the body of water where it can be ingested by waterfowl.
Many ducks and other birds get their food by digging in the mud
at the bottom of a lake or river. The birds ingest small stones
called grit to grind up their food and cannot differentiate
between a sinker of 50 grams or less and a small pebble.
1900
A fish eating water bird such as the common loon may also be
attracted to bait on a fishing hook. Often times loons will
swallow the hook and sinker when it is still attached to the
line. The birds may also eat fish that have swallowed a sinker.
Once a bird swallows a lead sinker it will become very sick and
often will die. Because lead sinkers are relatively large,
larger than lead hunting shot, it often takes only one sinker to
kill a bird.
The Canadian Wildlife Service has determined that lead sinker
ingestion is probably the most frequent cause of lead poisoning
in species such as the common loon, poisoning up to 30,000 loons
annually.
Many of these loons will quickly die and their lead contaminated
carcasses are eaten by predators, leading to further secondary
poisoning. In response to this growing problem governments have
slowly but surely begun to take action. In Great Britain the use
of lead sinkers was prohibited in 1987 as a response to the
deaths of thousands of mute swans. In the U.S. lead sinkers have
been banned in some national parks and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency is pursuing further regulatory action.
In its 1995 report entitled “It's About Our Health! Towards
Pollution Prevention”, the Standing Committee on the Environment
and Sustainable Development recommended that the federal
government take action under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act to regulate lead sinkers and jigs by prohibiting
the import, sale, manufacture and use of lead sinkers and jigs by
May 31, 1997.
Although Environment Canada did use the Migratory Birds
Convention Act to control the use of lead shot in certain areas
of the country, it did not adopt the recommendations of the
committee and prohibit the nation-wide use of lead sinkers and
jigs.
The most recent action taken by the federal government was on
September 17, 1997 when the wildlife area regulations pursuant to
the Canada Wildlife Act were amended to prohibit the possession
of any lead sinker or jig weighing less than 50 grams in national
wildlife areas where sport fishing is authorized through permit
or notice.
This amendment was similar to the amendment made to the national
parks fishing regulations made under the authority of the
National Parks Act. These regulations also ban the use or
possession of any lead sinker or jig containing more than 1% lead
by content in any national park in Canada.
Canada has also implemented regulations that will prohibit the
use of lead shot when hunting for migratory birds pursuant to the
authority granted under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
It appears to me that the federal government has been cautious
about regulating the lead content of hunting shot and fishing
tackle because of its concern about jurisdictional authority, and
rightfully so. To date the government has only used legislation
that is explicitly federal in nature. The National Parks Act,
the Canada Wildlife Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act
are all pieces of legislation that clearly authorize federal
government intervention.
Although the bill has been deemed non-votable, I urge the hon.
member for Simcoe—Grey to be cautious in his approach in the
future. The Constitution Act, 1867, and the subsequent amendment
made in 1982 do not clearly define all areas of provincial and
federal jurisdiction over the environment and its conservation.
Since the Constitution does not clearly define all areas of
jurisdiction, any regulatory action based on an unclear area of
jurisdiction will likely be met with stiff opposition from the
provinces.
Although the Supreme Court of Canada has constitutionally upheld
the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as an exercise of
parliament's power over criminal law, the federal government
would be wise to move with caution on this issue, lest it intrude
on areas of provincial domain.
Although the hon. member brings forward a very important issue
and makes a compelling case for federal government regulation, my
party and I cannot support him in this quest.
The Reform Party is committed to decentralization of federal
authority and supports the restraint of the legislative powers of
the federal executive and the Prime Minister's cabinet.
Legislative authority should rest with the level of government
that is able to govern most effectively in each area, with a bias
toward decentralization in cases of uncertainty.
In the principles and policies of the Reform Party contained in
the 1999 blue book it is stated that the Reform Party supports
the principle that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction
over, among other things, sport fishing. Since it is clear that
the target of the bill is Canada's sport fishing community, I
cannot support it as it stands.
I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Simcoe—Grey for
his admirable initiative. Canada's environment is best served
when individual Canadians make personal commitments to
conservation and protection, and I urge him to continue his
vigilance.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-403, An Act to amend the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (lead sinkers and lead
jigs).
1905
I must remind this House that Bill C-32 on environmental
protection is at report stage. The process at committee stage
was quite long and hard in order to not add further amendments
to the bill.
The Bloc Quebecois voted against Bill C-32, which contains many
gaps in the recognition of provincial jurisdiction, in the poor
translation of the bill's clauses from English into French and
by the lack of consistency in the amendments brought in
committee.
To get back to Bill C-403, I think the intent of the member for
Simcoe—Grey is legitimate and laudable, because one of the main
problems involving lead sinkers and jigs is the poisoning of the
loons, black ducks, brent geese, snow geese and other waterfowl
that swallow them.
Most of the lead sinkers and jigs will end up one day or another
in the fishing areas, along shore lines, rocky areas and docks
on lakes, ponds or streams. These fishing areas are often used
for reproduction and feeding by the waterfowl.
An estimated 500 tonnes of this fishing tackle accumulates
annually in Canadian waters. According to various studies,
between 17% and 56% of loons die from the effects of lead
fishing tackle.
Lead sinkers and jigs are often lost when fishing lines become
tangled and break. These objects sink and when birds swallow
them they often become very sick and sometimes die. Swallowing
just one of these objects is enough to kill an aquatic bird.
The problem is as follows. When a bird ingests lead sinkers and
jigs, they can remain stuck in its gizzard, a muscular stomach
which enables it to break down food. In doing so, the gizzard
also breaks down fishing tackle, decomposing it into tiny
particles. The acid present in the gizzard dissolves these
particles and the lead then passes into the bird's bloodstream.
The dissolved lead is then carried throughout the organism and
ends up in bones and vital organs.
When it decomposes in the environment, lead can contaminate soil
and water. For example, on certain skeet shooting ranges, the
soil contains enough lead to be considered dangerous waste.
Decades may pass before the lead shot and weights decompose in
the environment.
A speedy remedy is therefore necessary against this practice
that is harmful to aquatic fauna.
Is it helpful to recall that approximately 50 to 60 million
birds are potential targets for this kind of contamination?
Lead sinkers and jigs are used exclusively by anglers. These
are the users that must be targeted if this hazard is to be
eliminated. A well-orchestrated public awareness campaign could
be effective in resolving part of the problem.
Possible solutions could include persuading fishers to switch to
other materials, such as tin, bismuth, steel, or a special
mastic. These materials are not toxic to birds. In addition,
lead poisoning of loons and other aquatic fowl must be reduced
by cutting back on the volume of lead tackle sold and used. One
solution would be to introduce regulations that would
simultaneously increase the availability, sale and use of
non-toxic substitutes.
Provincial, territorial or federal legislation is becoming
essential in order to gradually eliminate small lead sinkers and
jigs of 500 grams or less for sports fishing.
1910
The introduction of public education programs could be
considered to publicize non-toxic substitutes and suggest methods
of recovering, eliminating or recycling lead products.
It is true that the substitutes now available cost more, but
they would increase total average annual fishing costs by 1% to
2% at most.
Very tough and effective regulations are needed to eliminate
this problem of lead contaminating our waterways.
Since 1997, federal regulations have been in force in national
reserves and parks. If these regulations are to be extended to
other sectors, provincial governments have a responsibility to
try to limit the presence of lead in waterways.
The federal government must respect provincial jurisdictions so
as not to again interfere in matters that do not concern it. We
are obviously not questioning the legitimacy of the bill
introduced by the member for Simcoe—Grey, but we are not
convinced that including it in the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act is the best approach.
We in the Bloc Quebecois think that there are various solutions
to this threat to fauna that has gone on for too long.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to the bill on behalf of my caucus and
specifically on behalf of our environmental spokesperson, my hon.
colleague from Churchill River in Saskatchewan.
I thank the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing the hazards of
lead sinker and jig use to the attention of the House. He is
quite correct that giving it focus at this level should create
greater concern and moves to deter and ban the use of such
products. I acknowledge that the bill has not been deemed
votable and therefore will not see the results that it so
desired. I was somewhat disappointed that he was willing to let
the government bureaucracy run its course without a much greater
fight. When it goes through the government bureaucracy that in
many cases means no action and ultimately no concrete results.
Rather than getting into a number of the facts we have listened
to this evening, I do not think there is any question from what
we have heard that there is a problem with the use of lead in a
number of products when they continue through the food chain,
going through fish and birds and then on to humans, something
that has not been mentioned this evening unless I missed it.
There are consequences for animals and fish but they also travel
through the food chain.
Let us get on with encouraging anglers to use other products and
let us be clear there are other products. Bismuth and high
density plastic products are available so it is not as if there
is not something there. I recognize that anglers may see a
minimal increase in cost and that some anglers prefer to make
their own sinkers and jigs. In the whole context the hazards
outweigh the benefits and we should be going to the other
products.
I do not need a lengthy study to convince me of the hazards. I
do not think we have to go through that whole process again with
fish. When we see that a substance causes cancer in rats, do we
try the product on humans or on other animals to see if it will
cause cancer as well? I do not think so. Countless studies
prove lead is a deadly toxic substance. As indicated previously,
it has been removed from paint and other products including
gasoline.
It is in the form of gasoline that I personally saw adults,
young children and infants affected. Gas sniffing was a serious
problem in some northern Manitoba communities. When lead was a
gas additive the consequences were very apparent. A good number
of members may not have seen four year old children die as a
result of gas sniffing, all as a result of the lead in the gas.
I do not need to be convinced. I would encourage the committee
to continue its review of this matter and encourage the
environment minister to proceed with a ban of lead products. I
am not willing to get caught up in the federal-provincial issue.
I would find it hard to believe that provincial governments would
not accept this as an environmental hazard and see it in the same
light. I hope we pursue a ban at the federal level.
1915
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this evening's
debate on Bill C-403, sponsored by the member for Simcoe—Grey
and seconded by the member for York North.
I think the debate which he has brought forward is indeed very
constructive and I would like to state that I support the intent
of his bill, although if this were a votable motion we would
likely not support it and I would like to expand on our reasons
for doing so.
The motion brought forward is indeed very constructive. The
hon. member points out that this issue falls under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, legislation which we initiated back
in 1988, which is enduring a very long review in committee. We
have been doing a clause by clause examination of it since late
October. The reason we would not support this bill is because
there are other venues available to address the issue which he
has brought forth.
As the hon. member has pointed out, and I believe my colleagues
have mentioned, an estimated 500 tonnes of lead fishing sinkers
and jigs or tackle are lost in the waters of Canadian rivers,
lakes and ponds each year. That 500 tonnes ends up in the food
chain of numerous species, namely waterfowl and fish, and can
ultimately be absorbed by human beings. Therefore, this issue is
indeed hazardous to human health.
Scientists have estimated that between 17% and 56% of the deaths
of all waterfowl, particularly loons, are related to lead tackle,
jigs and sinkers which are deposited within our lakes and rivers.
I would also like to point out that a single lead sinker or jig
can poison a loon. It will ultimately get into its digestive
system and in short order the bird is incapable of flying and
experiences a loss of balance. Ultimately a species could be
extirpated from a given area, endangered or become a species at
risk because of sports fishermen.
I would like to point out that sports fishermen are likely the
most environmentally conscious citizens who exist in this
country. I know that in my riding of Fundy—Royal, the Sussex
Fish and Game Association and the Hammond River Angling
Association has done enormous things in terms of restoring fish
habitat along the Kennebecasis River and along the Hammond River.
This has been done on a volunteer basis and, indeed, they should
be applauded for it.
We are now seeing trout species returning to our area. We are
now seeing Atlantic salmon returning to these rivers. The sports
fishermen want to do the right thing from an environmental
perspective.
On March 1 I wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
outlining my understanding that under section 43(e) of the
Fisheries Act his department has the power to make regulations
respecting the use of fishing gear and equipment.
Since the government already has the power to resolve this
preventable situation, I urged the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans to consider banning this harmful tool in Canada.
This debate is indeed very constructive. The member for
Simcoe—Grey is really doing a positive thing here in terms of
advancing this issue.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is sadly sidelined at the
moment due to an accident. I know he will be returning to the
House in a number of weeks. Perhaps he is looking over some
things to read. I would suggest that the hon. member send the
fisheries minister a fax or a note saying that when he does
return to the House of Commons, and we welcome his return, this
is something he could do under section 43(e) of the Fisheries
Act, as opposed to doing it under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act. It is a regulation that actually could be made.
This is not unprecedented. In 1987 the United Kingdom banned
lead tackle due to the fact that they had lost a number of mute
swans. This was the corrective action which they took.
1920
The federal government has banned lead fishing tackle on federal
lands, which is a positive thing. However, fish do not
necessarily know whether they are in federal or provincial
waters.
This reminds me of what the environment department is discussing
with respect to the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act. It
is willing to protect an animal if it is on federal lands, but if
the animal steps off federal lands it will not necessarily
protect core habitat. If it is the right thing to do within our
international parks, it is the right thing to do throughout the
country.
This is an environmental initiative on which I believe we should
move forward. It is long overdue. We should take our time. We
should ensure that we phase in this legislation from a regulatory
perspective because there are a number of fishermen who own lead
sinkers and there are retailers who have already made an
investment in them. We have to ensure that we do this in a very
prudent way.
As my colleague from the Reform Party has pointed out, who I
consider to be a friend of mine, more often than not regulations
made in Ottawa actually infringe upon provincial rights. The
more often we can get the delivery of a government service closer
to the people, the better. Therefore, I concur with doing things
on a provincial basis rather than a federal basis.
In this case, in terms of the protection of the environment, I
believe that the federal government has a role to play and that
banning it under section 43(e) of the Fisheries Act would be a
step in the right direction.
I am encouraging the government to make an amendment to the
regulations to make it an environmental initiative. It should do
that because it is now in the sixth year of its mandate and it
has yet to pass one piece of environmental legislation, except
for the MMT bill, which cost Canadian taxpayers $16.5 million
because it did not ban that substance under the CEPA.
This is environmental legislation which it could implement,
which would have a positive effect on fish, waterfowl and
ultimately human health.
I compliment the member for Simcoe—Grey for bringing this
debate forward. I encourage him to write that letter to the
fisheries minister to ensure that it will be done under section
43.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to stand in the House to address members who are here
on the issue of second reading of Bill C-403, which seeks to
eliminate the use of lead sinkers and jigs in fishing.
Bill C-403 proposes that the Canada Environmental Protection
Act, known as the CEPA, be amended to prohibit the import,
manufacture, sale and use of lead fishing sinkers and jigs
weighing 50 grams or less because species have died from lead
poisoning through ingestion of these sinkers and jigs.
I support the intent of this initiative and I am pleased that
attention is being drawn to the impact which lead sinkers and
jigs have on our wildlife. Parliamentarians and the Canadian
public have reason to be concerned. All of us need to pay
attention to the effect our activities as anglers or hunters,
hikers or bird watchers have on our cherished wildlife.
Lead, as many people have mentioned, has long been acknowledged
as an environmental and health problem for humans and wildlife
and is listed as a toxic substance under the current CEPA. The
federal government, along with other levels of government, has
been successful in reducing lead from our environment through
initiatives like those which remove lead from gasoline and
household products such as paint.
Bill C-403 focuses our attention on the fact that the
recreational use of lead has become one of the leading sources of
lead in the environment.
1925
This bill raises the profile of the problem of lead fishing
sinkers and jigs and their impact on wildlife, particularly, as
members have mentioned, the loon.
As we have heard from a very detailed discussion by several
members, the problem occurs when water birds ingest fishing
sinkers and jigs during feeding, either when they mistake them
for food or grit or when they consume lost bait fish with lines
still attached. The ingestion of a single lead sinker or a
lead-headed jig is sufficient to expose a loon or other bird to a
lethal dose of lead. Ingestion of lead sinkers and jigs has been
found to cause mortality in common loons, swans and other
waterfowl.
The current CEPA has the authority to make a regulation that
would accomplish the objective which Bill C-403 sets out.
Success in achieving the results advocated in Bill C-403 depends
first on obtaining the support of those Canadians on whom the
proposed legislation would have the greatest impact. As such,
consultations are needed to build consensus on the appropriate
ways to prevent the death of birds caused by these sinkers.
We need to ensure that Canadians have an appreciation for the
scope of the problem and an idea of the possible solutions. It
is important that people understand what science is telling us
and agree on the appropriate course of action. Let me be clear:
this approach has never failed this government. Consulting
Canadians, building consensus and taking action, developing the
support of anglers who use lead sinkers and jigs, of
manufacturers, distributors and retailers who make lead sinkers
and jigs available, and of the provinces and territories who
manage recreational fishing are essential to the effective
implementation of the action. Non-toxic types of fishing sinkers
and jigs must become the norm.
Action is needed. To that end, the Minister of the Environment
is planning to write to her provincial colleagues and will raise
this issue with them at the next Wildlife Ministers' Council of
Canada. The meeting is scheduled for this fall. Her objective
is to work with our partners to establish a voluntary
co-operative program founded on education and building public
awareness on the needless destruction caused by these products.
By including education and awareness activities in partnership
with the provinces and territories, angling organizations,
manufacturers and retailers, we truly will have a positive effect
over the long term.
Lead shot used in hunting has also been shown to be hazardous to
wildlife, particularly waterfowl. That is why the federal
government phased in a ban on lead shot used for hunting.
Beginning in 1991 Canada banned the use of lead shot in hot spots
across the country, places where lead shot poisoning of waterfowl
was known to be a problem. These areas were mostly in eastern
Canada. In addition, a province-wide ban was introduced in
British Columbia.
In the intervening years the Minister of the Environment banned
the use of lead shot for hunting in national wildlife areas and
for hunting most migratory birds in and around wetlands. A full
national ban comes into effect this fall.
This phased-in approach is working well and is a solid model for
the reduction of lead fishing sinkers and jigs.
I should emphasize an earlier point. It is the government's
position that these phased-in regulatory approaches have been
most effective when coupled with education and awareness
activities.
In addition, all members will be pleased to know that we have
already made some headway in reducing the use of lead fishing
sinkers and jigs. In 1997, under the Canada Wildlife Act, the
current Minister of the Environment banned possession of lead
fishing sinkers and jigs weighing less than 50 grams in national
wildlife areas. In the same year, under the National Parks Act,
Heritage Canada prohibited the use or possession of lead sinkers
and jigs weighing less than 50 grams while fishing in national
parks. Together these restrictions are estimated to have reduced
lead sinkers and jigs deposited by 4 tonnes to 5 tonnes annually.
Environment Canada has also actively supported independent
collection programs for lead sinkers and jigs that have been
instituted by several organizations in Ontario, including the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the Bay of Quinte Remedial
Action Plan and the Hamilton Regional Conservation Authority. To
date these programs have netted more than 770 kilograms of lead
sinkers and jigs from anglers participating in exchanges around
the Great Lakes.
These volunteer organizations and individuals have been highly
successful and are deserving of our praise and thanks. The
success of their programs can be attributed to the dedicated
volunteers and the inclusion of anglers themselves in the design
and implementation of the plan.
1930
In addition to the efforts of Environment Canada, Parks Canada
has initiated education programs and collection sites at many of
Canada's national parks. Collection program co-ordinators report
that the education exchange approach is an effective model to
raising public awareness of the issue and is very well received
by the angling community.
The success of this type of initiative has allowed the
government to move ahead on reducing lead in the environment. The
government intends to continue to be active in addressing the
harm done by these lead sinkers and jigs. As always, we are
using scientific research as the basis for our actions.
We know that an estimated 388 to 559 tonnes of lead in the form
of lead sinkers and jigs may be lost in Canadian waters annually
by the approximately 5.5 million anglers who participate in
recreational fishing each year. This represents about 12% of all
lead releases to the environment.
With regard to Canada's loon population, it has been estimated
that between 250,000 and 500,000 common loons are breeding in
Canada and that overall the loon population is not in decline. A
variety of environmental contaminants including acid rain,
mercury and lead have had an impact on the common loon. However,
the relative influence of these and other stressors such as
disease, predation and severe weather on the health of loon
populations is still unclear.
We do know that lead poisoning has an impact on wildlife,
particularly water birds like loons. We do know that in
locations where recreational angling occurs, lead sinker or jig
ingestion causes adult loon mortality and is one of the leading
causes of death for loons in these areas. In fact, 59 of the 217
dead birds examined over the past 10 years died from lead
poisoning.
Individual Canadians have helped Environment Canada in
developing the science in this field. Data currently available
depended largely on the volunteer co-operation of cottagers,
anglers and boaters who came across a carcass and notified the
appropriate provincial and federal wildlife agency. We will
continue to rely on their help in gathering evidence that will
help us refine our understanding of the various threats to our
water birds. Canadians play an important role.
Help from the Canadian public, and anglers and industry
specifically, is also needed if we are to eliminate the use of
lead sinkers and jigs. Education and awareness building programs
backed up by good science will ensure Canadians support our
actions in preserving the environment for all.
It is the government's intention to consult with manufacturers
and retailers of fishing sinkers and jigs to help ensure that
alternative products are available which are comparable in price
and performance to those made of lead. We will consult with the
anglers on the effectiveness of non-lead sinkers and jigs for
fishing. We always have the possibility of regulation when it is
appropriate. The government believes this course of action will
in the end achieve the objective of Bill C-403 by building
support for key stakeholders.
In closing, the member for Simcoe—Grey has brought the
attention of all members of the House to the lead fishing sinker
and jig problem. His interest and continued action in the
environment are most commendable. I am sure his constituents
must be very proud of his accomplishments.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly want to offer my appreciation to my colleagues who have
taken the time out this evening to speak to something that I feel
is a critical and significant issue for the federal government to
deal with. To the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment I offer my sincere appreciation not just for tonight
but for the information that she has shared back and forth with
me over the past number of weeks.
I made some notes as I was listening to the presenters from the
various parties this evening. The fact of the matter is that we
all want the same desired result. It is just that the means
appear to be somewhat different.
There was some talk of constitutionality and whether it would be
upheld. When I started out on this process with my private
member's bill, one of the first things I did was forward it to
the House legal advisers for their opinion. They gave it a
thumbs up from a constitutionality standpoint if in fact there
were any challenges.
1935
With respect to a couple of my colleagues passing responsibility
down to provincial ministries or regional governments, I would
not and could not support that. I believe the environment is a
federal responsibility. Whether it be through regulatory process
or through education and buy-in programs, the environment is a
responsibility for all Canadians and not simply one sector within
the country. To detract from that we would in turn be doing a
disservice to the various regions in the country that did not
identify this as a necessary priority.
One of the things I found as I was chatting with constituents in
my riding, as well as from the phone calls I received, was that
it was difficult for people to appreciate the size and scope of
the problem because they are so small. As they hold a half a
dozen split-shots or bell sinkers in their hand they ask what is
the big deal. As many of my well informed colleagues have
identified this evening, we are talking about 500 tonnes per
year.
I was doing some quick math and thinking to myself how best to
describe it other than stating that we would have to line up
2,000 half ton trucks in a row, loaded to capacity, in order to
accommodate the amount of lead sinkers and jigs that are dumped
into Canadian waters and rivers every year. That is the best
example to typify the problem we are dealing with and the type of
buy-in.
There has been concern from my Conservative colleague as to
which particular section or ministry should be enforcing this
endeavour. Once again I bow to the Minister of Environment and
suggest that this is within her purview and not necessarily that
of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Regardless of what enforcement regime we put in place, the
eventual elimination of lead sinkers and jigs in Canadian waters
can only be successful if we have Canadians buying into it. All
the regulations, all the authorities, everything we put in place
can only be successful if we embark on a good education program,
if we have good fact based research in place and we concentrate
our efforts.
It is my hope that tonight's debate and the sharing of
information, as well as the work that has been done over the past
several months, will only heighten the level of awareness on this
issue.
I am proud to have the opportunity as the member of parliament
for Simcoe—Grey to bring forward an initiative that two people
within in my riding started four or five years ago. It gives me
an overwhelming sense of pride to be able to share a message with
all Canadians that one or two people can make a difference. If
people have concerns regarding the environment or any other
matter, they should bring them forward because there is an
opportunity to make change.
I am convinced that through the commitment of the Ministry of
Environment, the Minister of Environment, the parliamentary
secretary and all other parties that have spoken this evening
that there is a common desire and goal. I have no doubt in my
mind that whether it is in the short or the long term lead
sinkers and jigs will be eliminated from Canadian waters.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.
It being 7.39 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.39 p.m.)