36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 233
CONTENTS
Friday, May 28, 1999
1000
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Estimates—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1005
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1010
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-79. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 2.
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 5
|
1015
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1040
1045
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1050
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1055
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Third Reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACK WELLS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NANOOSE BAY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1100
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LORD STRATHCONA HORSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE FAMILY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SCHOOL BUS SAFETY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ian Murray |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1105
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WINDSOR AND ESSEX COUNTY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Limoges |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PORT AUTHORITY BOARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RIDING OF BROME—MISSISQUOI
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BALKANS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1110
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PREMIER OF ONTARIO
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INDUSTRY CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GASOLINE PRICING
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLIC WORKS CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENTRE DE RECHERCHE EN INFECTIOLOGIE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1115
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1120
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1125
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1130
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAINTED BLOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
1135
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAINTED BLOOD
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1140
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RADIO-CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1145
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FINANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1150
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WATER CONTAMINATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DEVCO
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1155
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNIVERSITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1200
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | National Defence
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LAND CLAIM AGREEMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BRIDES
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1205
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Catterall |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Urban Native Housing
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Referendums
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Taxation
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Family
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1210
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Nuclear Weapons
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Child Pornography
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-79. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1225
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1240
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-64. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
1315
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 1
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1320
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1325
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1330
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-251. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions in amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 1 to 3
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendments
|
1345
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1400
1405
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
1410
1415
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment to Motion No. 2 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division on amendment to Motion No. 3 deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 233
![](/web/20061116193655im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 28, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
POINTS OF ORDER
ESTIMATES—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we begin
the day's proceedings I would like to rule on the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on
May 27, 1999 concerning the extension beyond the normal date of
expiration of the consideration of the main estimates referred to
the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities.
I wish to thank the hon. member for raising the matter and I
also want to acknowledge the contributions made by the hon.
member for Vancouver Island North and the hon. government House
leader.
For the benefit of all members and for the listening public, the
point of order raised deals with a specific aspect of the
business of supply. Supply is the process by which the
government asks parliament to appropriate the funds required to
meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already
approved by parliament.
On or before March 1 of the fiscal year that is coming to a
close the main estimates to cover the upcoming fiscal year for
every department of government are referred to specific standing
committees for scrutiny. Once that consideration is complete a
committee reports its estimates back to the House. Committees
that have not reported by May 31 are deemed to have done so. The
only exception to the May 31 deadline first implemented in 1986
is by virtue of Standing Order 81(4), which reads in part:
(a) not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the
Leader of the Opposition may give notice...of a motion to extend
consideration of the main estimates of a named department or
agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on
“Motions” on the last sitting day prior to May 31;
It is evident from the text I have just quoted that there are no
provisions in the standing orders to allow anyone other than the
Leader of the Opposition to propose this extension.
1005
Furthermore, the standing order does not require that such a
motion be proposed. The text is merely permissive.
I must acknowledge the ingenuity of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in suggesting that an analogous
situation exists in citation 924 of Beauchesne's sixth edition
which discusses the division of allotted days among opposition
parties. However, I must agree with the hon. government House
leader when he concludes, on the issue of extension, that the
standing orders leave the Speaker no discretionary power at all.
Thus, I cannot grant the hon. member's request to allow his
motion to proceed in the absence of a motion by the Leader of the
Opposition.
That being said, the challenge of making the supply process more
effective continues to bedevil many members of all parties. If
members have suggestions and concrete proposals that will enhance
the quality of the work of the House and its committees, then I
would encourage them to bring these ideas forward, notably to the
attention of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs which has the ongoing mandate for scrutiny of our
procedures and standing orders.
I thank the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for
bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate your ruling.
If I might, given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has
not availed himself of Standing Order 81(4), and as a result, all
opposition members, and I would suggest even members of the
government, cannot avail themselves of this extended period of
time for examination of the main estimates, I seek unanimous
consent, as House leader of the fifth party in the House, to
avail ourselves of that motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the Speaker's
ruling very clearly indicated, the standing orders are permissive
in that it is a responsibility which lies with the Leader of the
Opposition.
I will consult with the clerk on the request for unanimous
consent before I ask the question.
Even though the Speaker has just made the ruling that it is out
of order, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is
perfectly within his rights as a member to request the unanimous
consent of the House to proceed as he has suggested. Therefore,
the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has requested
the unanimous consent of the House that his motion stand in the
place of that of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1010
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-79, an act to
amend the Criminal Code (victims of crime) and another act in
consequence, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will
introduce the amendments as they are on the notice paper and
then, when it comes to reading the amendments to the House, we
will make the changes that have been requested.
There are five motions in amendment standing on the notice paper
for the report stage of Bill C-79, an act to amend the Criminal
Code (victims of crime) and another act in consequence.
[Translation]
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted
on as follows: a) Motions Nos. 1 and 4 will be voted on
separately; b) the vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motion
No. 5.
[English]
Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately.
I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to the House. I
will not be proposing Motion No. 4.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, would you please clarify
the status of Motion No. 3?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Motion No. 3 is part
of another grouping. When we get to that grouping we will deal
with Motion No. 3.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-79, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 33 on
page 14 with the following:
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-79, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 11
and 12 on page 15 with the following:
That Bill C-79 be amended by adding before line 17 on page 19
the following new clause:
“28.1 On the later of the day this Act comes into force and the
day Bill C-68 introduced in the first session of the thirty-sixth
Parliament and entitled An Act in respect of criminal justice for
young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts is assented to,
subsection 737(1) of the Criminal Code as enacted by section 20
of this Act is replaced by the following:
737. (1) Subject to subsection (5), an offender who is
convicted or discharged under section 730 of an offence under
this Act, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Youth
Criminal Justice Act shall pay a victim surcharge, in addition to
any other punishment imposed on the offender.”
1015
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak today to an issue of concern certainly to
the residents of Waterloo—Wellington, but also to the people of
Canada and all members of the House. It is the issue of
addressing the needs of victims of crime within the criminal
justice system.
Bill C-79 is an act to amend the Criminal Code (victims of
crime) and another act in consequence. It was tabled by the
Minister of Justice on April 15, 1999. The bill has been widely
supported by the public, by victim advocates, by service
providers and by members of all parties in the House.
The history of Bill C-79 predates its introduction in April. The
amendments to the Criminal Code were shaped by the work of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which thoroughly
reviewed the role of the victim in the criminal justice system.
It is important to note that the recommendations for Criminal
Code amendments were unanimous. These recommendations were based
on the submissions of victims of crime, victim advocates, victim
service providers and many others who were actively involved in
and knowledgeable about our criminal justice system.
These amendments demonstrate the commitment of the Government of
Canada to engage the people of Canada in discussions on important
issues. It also demonstrates how parliamentarians can work
together collaboratively to achieve shared goals and to work
together in the interests of all Canadians.
Over the past decade we have witnessed many improvements to the
criminal justice system to ease the burden of victims and
witnesses. Clearly there remains room for further improvement.
While laws, policies, programs and services are available,
Canadians are largely unaware of the current initiatives.
The standing committee, in its wisdom, in its review of the
victim's role in the criminal justice system, carefully examined
the current legislation of both the federal and provincial
governments before identifying gaps and recommending change. The
Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-79 build upon the existing
provisions regarding the victim impact statement, the victim
surcharge and the various provisions to make it easier for
victims and witnesses to provide their testimony.
The amendments also enact new provisions to address the concerns
of victims regarding their safety, to enhance and expand the
opportunities for their views to be considered and to encourage
the provision of information to victims.
Before highlighting the key provisions of Bill C-79, which I am
certain all members are familiar with, I would emphasize that the
Government of Canada regards a response to the needs and concerns
of victims of crime as an ongoing process. Bill C-79 amendments
are part of that process, not the beginning nor the end.
As I indicated, many initiatives have been taken to reform our
laws to improve the situation for victims of crime, including the
sentencing amendments in 1996 which required judges to consider
victim impact statements, and the amendments in 1997 to govern
the production of personal records of sex offence complaints and
complainants.
The government will continue to be responsive to the needs of
victims of crime. We will be looking to all members of the House
for their continued support for current and future initiatives.
Bill C-79 amendments will implement the unanimous
recommendations of the standing committee. They will improve the
existing provisions and enact new reforms. While these
amendments will enhance the voice of victims of crime in our
criminal justice system, they will not, I repeat, will not in any
way infringe on the rights of persons accused of crime.
1020
The provisions have been carefully drafted to ensure that all
rights are respected. Moreover, the preamble emphasizes that the
rights of both victims, witnesses and accused persons are to be
accommodated and to be reconciled where possible.
The amendments deal with several needs identified by victims:
the need to enhance the victim impact statement provisions; the
need to expand protection for victims and witnesses to facilitate
their participation in the process; the need to ensure 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 the need to revise
the victim surcharge provisions.
These are important changes and certainly worthy for the House
to note. The victim impact statement amendments further expand
the current regime which provides that the judge consider any
impact statement prepared at the time of sentencing the offender.
As a result of the amendments where the victim wants to read the
statement to the judge at the time of sentencing they shall be
permitted to do so. This opportunity to present their statement
will ensure victims that in addition to the requirement that the
statement be considered it will be listened to by the judge and
anyone else present in the courtroom at sentencing, including the
accused.
The amendments will also address a significant concern of
victims that they did not now know about the opportunity to make
an impact statement. I think that is also important in terms of
its change and what it represents.
The code will now require that the sentencing judge ask whether
the victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare and
submit a victim impact statement. The judge may adjourn the
sentencing hearing to permit a victim impact statement to be
prepared in appropriate circumstances.
I also want to point out that the victim surcharge provisions
will be significantly reformed to place the obligation to pay the
surcharge squarely on the offender as a consequence of
conviction. The amount of the surcharge will be fixed at a
mandatory minimum amount. The judge, however, will have the
discretion to impose an increased amount in appropriate
circumstances or to waive it completely where the offender
establishes that a payment of this additional penalty would cause
undue hardship.
The new surcharge regime will result in a significant increase
in the revenue available to provinces and the territories to help
victims. Moreover, the victim surcharge is a way for offenders
to account to victims of crime as a group and to acknowledge that
victims need assistance and services.
The amendments will also address the need for the victim's
safety to be taken into account when an accused person is being
released on bail. As a result of these amendments, the
responsible judicial officer, whether it is the officer in
charge, a justice of the peace or a judge, may then consider the
safety and security of the victim in any decision about an
accused's bail.
In addition, where an accused is released pending trial, the
judge must consider including as a condition of bail that the
accused abstain from any direct or indirect communication with
the victim. Any other condition necessary to ensure safety and
security of the victim can also be specified.
To address the difficulties faced by certain witnesses during
their testimony because of their age, disability, the nature of
their victimization, amendments have been included to do the
following: to extend to the victims of sexual or violent crime
up to 18 years of age protections which restrict personal
cross-examination by self-represented accused persons, by
providing for the appointment of counsel to conduct the
cross-examination. It also permits a victim or a witness with
mental or physical disability to have a support person present
while giving testimony. Finally, it permits a judge to restrict
publication of the identity of a wide range of victims or
witnesses where the victim establishes a need for the order and
where the judge considers it necessary for the proper
administration of justice.
This provision will codify the prevailing common law and
procedure as established by the Supreme Court of Canada and will
fully respect the need to balance the rights of the victim, the
accused and the public.
These amendments will significantly improve the experience of
victims of crime within the criminal justice system.
We know that our work is not over and that much more can be done
to encourage the expansion of services for victims, and to
encourage the provision of information to victims of crime and to
all Canadians about our criminal justice system, and to bring
forward necessary reforms where needed.
1025
Bill C-79 amendments are necessary and reasonable reforms. For
the 10 years that I sat on the Waterloo regional police service
as chairman, we very much valued the importance of victims and
the role they play in the criminal justice system.
I view these amendments to Bill C-79 as a great improvement in
this area, and I do so on behalf of the residents of
Waterloo—Wellington and all Canadians. I thank all hon. members
in the House for their support of these amendments and for their
concern for the victims of crime. This is a very important issue
that we must deal with expeditiously.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in the debate. I
noted the comments of the member opposite and I echo much of that
sentiment having worked in the court system as well. I know
there has been an ongoing need and a need that continues with
respect to the recognition of victims and the need to give them
the dignity they require after having been victimized.
Sadly, time and time again in the country there have been
occasions where victims have felt the wrath of the criminal in
the community in the first instance, and then once again felt
victimized by a system that was sometimes not sensitive to their
needs and their overwhelming feelings of loss after having been
victimized or preyed upon.
There is a great deal of positive impact that will be felt from
the implementation of Bill C-79. I had the pleasure of
participating in the round table that was referred to by the
member opposite. We had an incredible representation of
stakeholders from across the country from victims' groups. I am
very proud to say that from the province of Nova Scotia we had
tremendous participation, some might argue disproportionate
participation, but it speaks well to our justice system and the
sensitivity of my home province of Nova Scotia toward this need
and this problem.
The victim impact statement is a matter of law that has been
around for some time. It is, for those who might be unfamiliar
with the concept, an opportunity for a victim to speak directly
not only to the court but to those assembled and, perhaps most
importantly, to the offender. It is an opportunity for victims
to voice the feeling they might have encompassed as a result of
what the offender had done to them personally, to their property
or to a loved one. The expansion of the victim impact statement
in its use and in its utilization within the courtroom is a very
important step forward.
The knowledge that victims have of these processes that are
available to them is something that is equally important because
those tools, if not made familiar to victims, will not serve the
purpose for which they are set out.
Victim impact statements are a very important aspect of the
healing that has to take place subsequent to the commission of a
crime and subsequent to the often arduous process that victims
experience in the court. That includes the delay, the appeal,
and often the very rigorous cross-examination and rigorous
examination of circumstance that occurs in a courtroom. This is
part of our legal system. It is part of the need and necessity
to observe principles such as the presumption of innocence. Due
process has to run its course, but the victims are often left
feeling that this sterile process does not show enough compassion
to the pain, not only the external pain but the internal pain
that comes about as a result of criminal activity.
Through heightened awareness of the use of victim impact
statements and the necessity now of the codification of the
requirement that a judge inquire of the crown prosecutor, the
victim or their representative as to whether they have availed
themselves of a victim impact statement is an important step
forward. I do have some reservations as to the broad application
of this.
1030
That matter was also raised by provinces, particularly New
Brunswick. It brought forward a concern about the current
wording of the sections in Bill C-79 which requires that a judge
must make these inquiries of the prosecutor. It would be left
open to interpretation by the judge in all instances or cases
including victimless crime. I am speaking of a situation where
damage is done to public property or an impaired driving case,
which sadly still remain very prevalent in terms of the caseload
in the courts.
When we have the requirement or the necessity for a judge in
every instance, including victimless crimes, to make such an
inquiry, my submission to the justice department would be that
this will cause further delay because of the volume that exists
in the courts. Although it may seem momentary in a single case
that a judge makes this request or inquiry, when it is done time
and time again it will result in a massive amount of wasted court
time. Sadly we simply do not have the luxury to waste court time
in this day and age.
My amendment is aimed specifically at denoting in a very
straightforward way a suggestion to streamline this section that
a judge must make these inquiries when a victim exists. I
believe the language is such that it is made very clear.
Sadly we have seen time and time again legislation being drafted
in a cumbersome and onerous way and being left open to all sorts
of judicial and legislative interpretation that what is intended
in the legislation is often misdirected and often misinterpreted.
This does not serve the purpose the legislative drafters would
hope to accomplish. It certainly would not serve the purpose
that members of parliament who are involved in this process want
to accomplish. We need streamlined, tight legislation,
particularly in criminal law where there is a tremendous amount
of problems and a tremendous backlog in courts throughout the
land.
That is what lawyers do. Lawyers look for an interpretation
that would be advantageous to their clients. That is part of the
process. It will always be implicit in our legal system.
However, common sense is something that should prevail. I
believe it should begin at the very first instance, in the
drafting process.
I am suggesting that through this amendment we can accomplish
more because we can remove some of the delay that will flow from
this current section of Bill C-79.
To speak to the larger issue of the impact of the bill, we have
seen some very positive legislative initiatives which will touch
upon some of the shortcomings that have existed prior to this
time and will exist for some time until the actual implementation
of Bill C-79 takes place.
One of those initiatives has been mentioned. It involves the
use of victim fine surcharges. I have some reservations as to
the actual practical application. I hope the revenue that will
be generated by the application of victim fine surcharges will
find its way into the hands of victims who are feeling aggrieved.
We all know it will not be possible to put victims back into the
situation which existed prior to their victimization. We will not
be able to remove the bruises, to unviolate a sexual assault
victim. We will not be able to erase from their memories or
remove the injurious effects which flow from an assault.
At least with some monetary compensation there is an attempt and
a recognition. Oftentimes I would suggest strongly that it is
recognition victims are looking for, a respect from not only the
system but to some small degree perhaps from the accused, from
the offender. Monetary compensation for personal damage to
property or personal damage to clothing in some small way is a
recognition.
I hope the victim fine surcharge will be administered properly.
I hope it will not be used for administrative purposes as opposed
to the intent, which is to put money or compensation into the
pocket of the victim.
1035
I am very pleased to have been a part of the process that brings
us to this stage, the deliberations that took place in the
justice committee. I was very pleased to see the positive and
non-partisan approach taken by all members of the committee. That
is very apparent in the House today and we will see it again when
it comes time to vote on this legislative initiative.
I congratulate members of the committee. I have no reservation
in acknowledging the Minister of Justice and her commitment to
this issue. I must recognize as well the late Shaughnessy Cohen
as having played an integral part in getting this piece of
legislation to the point where we see it today. It is a very
fitting tribute to her memory that these implementations will be
coming about, to use the minister's words, in a timely fashion.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be quite brief and restrict my comments to the Group No. 1
amendments.
I have no problem with Motion No. 1 of my colleague from
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It simplifies the intent of the
section. I appreciate his foresight in addressing this issue. To
those of us with no legal training it seems rather
inconsequential, but I understand that the hon. member, with his
experience in the courts, knows how things can fall apart and why
one would want to propose this amendment. I certainly have no
problem with it.
As for Motion No. 2, we are adding the Young Offenders Act to
the list of statutes for which the victim surcharge will apply.
The reason for that is that the amendment follows Recommendation
No. 13 of the justice committee in its report “Victims' Rights:
A Voice, Not A Veto”. The committee actually reported and
recommended that victim fine surcharges should apply to young
offenders.
The federal-provincial-territorial working group also
recommended permitting the surcharge against young offenders.
Alberta, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario are on record
as supporting victim surcharges applying to young offenders.
Young offenders create victims in similar ways as adult
criminals do. A victim is a victim is a victim, regardless of
who is the perpetrator of the offence. As such, young offenders
should be held responsible to provide assistance to the victims
of crime in a similar fashion as adults do.
During the 1994-95 fiscal year there was a total of 4,472 cases
across Canada whereby a fine was the most significant disposition
by the youth court. The vast majority of these fines were
between $50 and $500. If these young offenders can pay those
fines, a minimum surcharge scheme as laid out in Bill C-79 should
not prove to be any great problem for them.
Motion No. 5 merely applies the same line of reasoning to the
proposed youth criminal justice act, if it ever in fact sees the
light of day.
I will finish my comments there. I will have more to say at
third reading on the main body of my thoughts on this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
not support the amendments brought forward by the Reform Party,
but we will support the one brought forward by the House leader
for the Progressive Conservative Party. We are generally in
favour of this bill because we think it gives victims of crime
the increased protection they need, particularly in the case of
sexual offences.
We know that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights have worked constantly in a spirit of
co-operation on this issue. I think we must give them credit for
that.
Crime has been a concern of mine for a long time. It is an issue
of great interest to me as the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.
1040
Members will certainly recall that, in 1995, I tabled a bill
that was called, wrongly perhaps, an anti-gang bill, when in fact
it was an anti-mafia bill.
There are different levels of crime. There are lower levels of
crime, which exist within the communities and for which we, on
this side of the House, have always thought the rehabilitation
process was possible.
Then there are higher levels of crime, which require more
drastic measures.
We think that one of the ways to reduce crime would be to
withdraw the $1,000 bill from circulation, a proposal the member
for Charlesbourg himself has on several occasions made to the
House. Canada is the only country with a $1,000 denomination
and we know who benefits.
If we were to conduct a test and ask how many members in the
House had $1,000 bills in their possession, I think the answer
would be very few, with the notable exception of yourself, Mr.
Speaker.
An hon. member: The Minister of Finance.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps the Minister of Finance, someone is
telling me.
The reason we will not be able to support the Reform Party
amendments is not because we are against the principle of victim
fine surcharges.
On the contrary. We know that they are a feature of the
Criminal Code and that they are also used in connection with
certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,
but we do not see any need to extend the principle to the Young
Offenders Act, as the Reform Party would like.
Just now, our colleague rose and reminded us that young
offenders can create victims. That is very true. A criminal
act remains a criminal act. However, we believe that resources and
hope must be put into rehabilitation. Sentencing someone who is
14, 15 or 16 years of age is not the same as sentencing someone
who is 40 and who has risen through the ranks in the underworld.
These are two very different situations.
As regards the victim surcharge, we believe that, in the case of
young offenders, there is a requirement that would not be met
because of a lack of financial resources.
We must never forget that there are a number of prerequisites
for organized crime to flourish. These are the conditions that
we as legislators must take into consideration. The fact that
criminality is most prevalent in large cities is no coincidence.
At least three conditions must be present for organized crime to
exist. First, organized crime emerges in places where there are
communications facilities. Highway, port and airport networks
are necessary, because organized crime members must be in
contact with various continents and countries. Organized crime
is very much a global reality.
There is a second prerequisite.
Organized crime exists in highly bureaucratized states. It
cannot flourish in third world countries. Some types of crime
exist in these countries, but we cannot talk about organized
crime as we know it in the United States, Australia, Canada and
other developed countries.
Organized crime needs a bureaucratic system with charters to
make it possible for criminals to invoke a number of rights.
An hon. member: And for victims.
Mr. Réal Ménard: And for victims. We must also talk about this
side of the issue.
The third condition for organized crime to flourish is, of
course, the degree of wealth in a society.
In conclusion, we support the amendment proposed by the
Progressive Conservative Party. We also support the bill,
because we believe that greater protection ought to be afforded
to victims, particularly victims of crime. However, we cannot
support Motions Nos. 2 and 5, or the amendments proposed by the
Reform Party.
1045
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-79 at report stage.
I commend the member for Surrey North for the leadership he has
taken to ensure that victims have a right and a say within our
justice system. They have been ignored for too long. As the
member is often prone to say, victims need a voice, not a veto
which is unfortunately what has happened.
I want to focus on Motion No. 2. It deals with the issue of
victim surcharges. This is innovative. Not only will it help
victims, but it will also help those who have committed offences.
Essentially it asks that a young offender who has been convicted
of a crime provide restitution to the victims. Why is this
important? For one thing from a victim's perspective, too often
victims have been ignored in our criminal justice system. They
have been shunted to the side. I could give countless examples
of victims who have received less help than the criminals who
have committed the offences.
There are countless cases of children who have been abused,
women and men who have been raped, people who have been
assaulted. They have sustained long term ongoing devastating
psychological trauma from what they have endured, yet after all
is said and done within the justice system, the criminals have
received more help than the victims. That simply is not fair.
My colleague from Surrey North is trying to add some balance and
fairness so that victims get the help they require through our
system. It also places the onus upon the criminal. If a person
commits an offence, they will pay a price not only to society,
but also to the victim. There are some innovative ways of doing
this.
In my province of British Columbia there are some innovative
ways in which the convicted person can, if the victim is in
agreement, pay restitution directly to the victim. The convicted
person can also say that he or she is sorry and pay some visible
and vocal emotional restitution to the victim.
The benefit is it enables the victim to understand that the
person who has been convicted is genuinely sorry. It also has
been found to diminish the number of times the convicted person
commits future offences. In other words, it breaks the cycle of
crime and punishment we have found in our society. So often it
goes around and around in a circle.
Motion No. 2 is very important from a restitution perspective.
It is important to give victims rights. It is important from the
convicted person's perspective to show that if a person commits
an offence, there will be a penalty to pay. In the long term it
has been shown to decrease the amount of times the person
reoffends. It decreases the reoffence rate. It also decreases
the costs to the taxpayer in that it diverts the convicted person
from the expensive incarceration in juvenile institutions. It
costs $95,000 a year for a juvenile to be incarcerated in an
institution.
If we could divert those convicted to do other things such as
making restitution to the victim and society and working for
society as part of the penalty, then the criminal would actually
learn some very useful skills. It would be beneficial to the
criminal from a societal perspective, from a professional
perspective and would decrease the number of times the criminal
would reoffend in the future.
It is a win-win situation. We applaud this motion and support
it. We look forward to speaking again at the third reading stage
of Bill C-79.
1050
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough seeks to amend
Bill C-79, in particular the proposed section 722.2, which is
found in clause 18.
This section in issue will require the judge before sentencing
to ask the prosecutor, a victim or any person representing a
victim whether the victim has been advised of the opportunity to
prepare a victim impact statement. This provision is exactly
what the standing committee unanimously recommended. It is based
on concerns raised by victims and victim advocates, and these are
persons and organizations with strong roots in and around my
hometown of Hamilton, that victims often do not know about the
opportunity to make a victim impact statement.
The hon. member's motion would reword the provision so that the
judge would make this inquiry only where the victim exists. Let
us be clear about this, only where the victim exists. I plead
with the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to think
through the purpose of this amendment.
Surely where there is no victim, the judge will not waste his or
her time asking whether the victim has been advised of the
opportunity to make a victim impact statement. For example, in
sentencing an accused for impaired driving where no one is
injured, there is no property loss, no victim other than society,
the judge would not make this inquiry. Clearly there would be no
victim impact statement where there is no victim.
By inserting the words “where the victim exists” we are
suggesting that for example in the case of a murder where the
victim is deceased the survivors would not be considered as
victims in order to make a victim impact statement. While I do
not think this is really the hon. member's intention, this would
be the result of this particular amendment.
The family members of homicide victims are indeed victims in
their own right and the Criminal Code recognizes them as victims
for the purpose of submitting victim impact statements. The
proposed amendment would only cause confusion and concern among
surviving family members that they would be denied both
information and the opportunity to prepare a victim impact
statement.
Whatever the purpose of this amendment is, let us be clear, it
is not necessary. The Criminal Code does not define victim.
Rather Bill C-79 clarifies that victim includes the victim of an
alleged offence. Common sense and understanding dictate who is a
victim. Where there is no victim of an offence, there will be no
need or obligation on the judge to inquire whether the victim has
been informed.
If this motion is intended to restrict the obligation on judges
to make this inquiry for only certain crimes or certain types of
victims, it does not achieve its objective.
The amendment clearly cannot be supported. One, it does not
reflect what the standing committee recommended unanimously. Two,
it does not reflect what victims of crime and victim service
providers have told us. Three and maybe most important, it does
not achieve any valid purpose and it will cause confusion in the
interpretation of this provision ultimately at the expense of
victims of crime. I am certain that the hon. member does not want
to see that happen.
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
Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
defeated.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
1055
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The next question is
on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare Motion No.
2 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 5 defeated.
(Motion No. 2 negatived)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is one motion
in Group No. 2, Motion No. 3, standing on the notice paper. I
have been advised that the member for Surrey North does not wish
to proceed with the motion. Is this correct?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried. When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next
sitting of the House?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will
find there is consent in the House to proceed to third reading.
We could resume the debate after question period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The deputy
whip has asked for the unanimous consent of
the House to proceed to third reading. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third time
and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will return to the debate
after Oral Question Period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
JACK WELLS
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an institution was buried in Winnipeg
yesterday. Cactus Jack Wells, a voice in Winnipeg sportscasting
for 58 years, died Monday at the age of 88. His death ended a
remarkable relationship between the famed sportscaster and his
audience.
He called himself a true and unbiased reporter but he was the
first to admit he often did not get his facts straight. And oh
how he could flub names that were difficult to pronounce. But
that did not matter to his legion of fans. They loved him for
what he was, a larger than life personality who brought fun and
joy and a whole lot of colour to his work.
One of his buddies, John Robertson, said, “I defy anyone not to
smile when he came on the air or when they met him”.
Jack Wells was truly one of a kind and a Winnipeg treasure. He
will be long remembered and greatly missed. He leaves his wife,
Flicka and three children. To them I extend sincere condolences.
* * *
NANOOSE BAY
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for years the government has bragged
about its improved relations with the provinces, but actions
speak much louder than words. Let us examine the recent actions
in British Columbia.
Two years ago when the B.C. government announced that it would
not be renewing the lease for Nanoose Bay, the federal government
immediately launched a lawsuit against the province. However,
when the federal government found it did not have a legal leg to
stand on, it quietly dropped the lawsuit and finally started
negotiations two months ago.
1100
After three weeks of negotiations both parties signed an
understanding on May 5, but less than 10 days later the federal
government proceeded with expropriation.
The B.C. government may have made a dumb decision on this issue,
but if dumb decisions lead to expropriation, then this Liberal
government would have been expropriated years ago.
* * *
LORD STRATHCONA HORSE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday one of Canada's proudest regiments celebrated its rich
history. The Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) marked
Strathcona Day, the anniversary of its crossing of the Melfa
River during the Italian campaign of 1944.
The western based regiment's illustrious history began during
the Boer War under the command of Sam Steele, the famous
policeman of the Klondike Gold Rush. In fact, Canada's first
Victoria Cross of the Boer War was awarded to Strathcona Sergeant
Arthur Richardson.
The regiment served with distinction in the Great War before
trading its horses for tanks in the second world war. Their
successful crossing of the Melfa River was an important
contribution to allied success in Italy.
Now based in Edmonton, the Strathconas have also served in
Holland, Korea, the Sinai, Cyprus and Bosnia. The regiment is
now deploying to Kosovo where they will once again serve Canada
in the international community.
I am sure all members of the House join me in wishing them God
speed as they head once again to the Balkans.
* * *
MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in a partnership with Wyeth-Ayerst and universities, the Medical
Research Council announced recently the funding of four
professional clinical research chairs in women's health.
They are some of the largest endowed clinical research chairs in
Canada. I congratulate the Medical Research Council and its
partners for the groundbreaking research they are setting in
motion.
These chairs will facilitate or lead multidisciplinary
approaches to study the critical issues in women's health,
stimulate research and develop standards for clinical excellence
in the study of women's health issues and champion women's health
as a field of medical research.
One of those chairs will go to Dr. Harriet MacMillan. She is an
associate professor in psychiatry and pediatrics at McMaster
University in Hamilton.
Dr. MacMillan is a fine example of the excellence and innovation
that exists in the scientific community in Hamilton and indeed
right across the Canada.
* * *
THE FAMILY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the supreme
court M. v H. decision this week is another example of an
unelected, unaccountable body redefining the family, the
cornerstone of Canadian society.
The Liberals are totally abdicating their responsibility. Why
do they not engage in a debate in the House and with the Canadian
people on this important issue?
The Reform Party stands alone in this place to defend the
family. We stand alone in defending the definition of marriage
as the union of a man and a women.
I long for the day when only elected, accountable
representatives of the people can change the definition of the
family. I long for the day when this totally unprincipled
Liberal government is replaced by a governing party which will
make these decisions by a free vote, reflecting the will of the
people.
Canadians are sick and tired of judge-made law. They are sick
and tired of this vapid, cowardly Liberal government.
* * *
SCHOOL BUS SAFETY
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Tuesday morning this week my younger daughter was waiting for her
school bus to take her to Huntley Centennial School in Carp. The
bus never arrived.
We learned later that a truck had crashed into the school bus,
the driver of the truck had died and several students had been
airlifted to hospital.
Among those students was 11 year old Sandrine Craig. On
Wednesday we heard the painful news that Sandrine had died as a
result of her injuries. Her fellow students and the teachers at
Huntley Centennial are grief stricken and our whole community is
mourning the loss of this high-spirited young girl.
The tragedy was compounded by the death of the driver of the
truck, Mr. Walter Kavanagh of Stittsville. Mr. Kavanagh was well
known and highly regarded throughout the Ottawa valley as an
honest businessman and tireless volunteer.
I want the families of Sandrine Craig and Walter Kavanagh to
know that many, many people share their grief. These were two
people who, in the time they had with us, brought joy to those
fortunate enough to have known them.
One student, Katie Milliken, remains in hospital with serious
injuries. Our thoughts and prayers are also with her and her
family as we hope for a full recovery.
Our sympathy goes out to all who have been touched by this
tragedy.
* * *
[Translation]
ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, like many
Quebecers, it was with much pride and emotion that I watched the
space shuttle Discovery head skyward yesterday with Quebec's
first female astronaut, Julie Payette, on board.
Space has fed the imaginations of many adolescents. Like many
others, I dreamed of seeing a launch.
By taking her place on board Discovery, the astronaut from
Quebec is not just realizing her dream, but is ensuring that her
name will go down in history.
Over the next ten days Julie will help to assemble the
international space station.
1105
Yesterday morning, I relived the strong emotions I felt 17 years
ago, on June 27, 1982, when I had the opportunity of being at
the Kennedy Space Centre for the launch of the fourth Columbia
mission.
Bravo Julie. All of Quebec is behind her and our thoughts are
with her in this adventure which transforms imagination into
reality.
* * *
[English]
WINDSOR AND ESSEX COUNTY
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to tell everyone a little about Windsor and Essex
county. We are the automotive capital of Canada and the
birthplace of Hiram Walker's and Canadian Club whiskey that has
made Canadian distillers respected the world over.
We boast the busiest border crossing in North America and enjoy
a larger GNP than seven of Canada's provinces.
Casino Windsor has not only turned into one of the area's
largest employers, it is also Canada's biggest tourist
attraction.
Visitors can enjoy a “Two Nation Vacation”, by taking the 10
minute drive across our friendly border. Visitors can experience
major league sports or world class arts and entertainment and
easily return to Canada for an evening stroll in our lovely
riverfront parks or a meal in one of our numerous and delightful
restaurants and bistros.
I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that we welcome
visitors from all over to join us in Windsor and Essex County for
a vacation they will not forget even if they do not win big at
the casino.
* * *
PORT AUTHORITY BOARDS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, patronage appointments to the new port authorities are
getting completely out of hand. We are not naive on this side of
the House. We do expect a little bit of this stuff. However,
there must surely be somebody out there, who is not a Liberal,
who could chair one of the new port authorities. He does not
have to be a well known Liberal operator like Mel Woodward or
Merv Russell for example.
I have a news flash. Patrick Wong, former member of the Fraser
River Harbour Commission and an executive of the B.C. Liberal
Party, has been appointed to the Fraser River Port Authority
Board and is now the chairman. In 1996 and 1997 he and his
accounting firm donated $5,380 to the Liberal Party.
The creation of new port authorities was supposed to take
politics out of the ports, but the slimy dance continues.
* * *
[Translation]
RIDING OF BROME—MISSISQUOI
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, big
things are happening in Brome—Missisquoi.
In the last election campaign, I made a commitment to promote
cross-border shopping in our area by our American neighbours. A
new magazine, The Shopper, will be distributed in Vermont twice
a month to encourage shoppers to come to Brome—Missisquoi.
Vermont, which is located right next to my riding, offers a
highly attractive market for our businesses. I thank Economic
Development Canada for its contribution to this extraordinary
project.
Congratulations to all the people in Magog, Bromont, Farnham,
Bedford and Knowlton who have made this shopping guide possible.
It will be launched officially at the end of this month.
Welcome to all the U.S. shoppers who will be coming into our
area. Welcome to Brome-Missisquoi, fellow Americans.
* * *
[English]
THE BALKANS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
humanitarian crisis in the Balkans has escalated to the breaking
point. In recent days the Yugoslav army has stepped up its
cleansing activities and ethnic Albanians are again flocking to
seek refuge in neighbouring countries.
I have just returned from Macedonia where as many as 10,000
people a
day, 500 people per hour, are flooding across the border and into
refugee camps that are already bursting at the seams. Imagine a
fenced gravel compound no bigger than the parking lot of a
shopping centre housing 30,000 people or more with no cooking
facilities, the barest of sanitation and as many as 20 people to
a tent.
The very old and the very young are already at risk from the
extreme heat of the summers in that region and relief workers are
even more concerned at the prospects this winter.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is calling for
donor countries to host many more of these refugees in a
humanitarian evacuation program. Canada is hosting 5,000
currently. There is an urgent need in the Balkans to do much
more. I believe we could double or triple our commitment.
* * *
1110
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we now
have the first portrait of the agro-environmental situation on
Quebec farms.
The participation rate of 88%, representing 20,360 operations,
makes it an extensive and valuable survey. This project, an
initiative of the Union des producteurs agricoles made possible
through the co-operation of many partners, is a first in Quebec
and in North America.
The high rate of participation by farmers is an indication of
their wish to help protect the environment and to make changes
in their daily practices.
The next step will be to analyse the data collected and produce
regional and sectoral portraits, which will give us a baseline
and help identify future priorities.
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the agricultural
sector and all stakeholders in Quebec's agri-food sector on this
initiative aimed at building a healthy environment for
sustainable growth.
* * *
PREMIER OF ONTARIO
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with an election campaign in full swing, Ontario's premier, Mike
Harris, says that Franco-Ontarians in the Ottawa region are
living in the past in their efforts to keep the Montfort
hospital open.
This is the same Mr. Harris I ran across in Montreal during
Quebec's last referendum. He was there to show that he cared
about Quebec's francophones. Today he is bent on destroying the
only French language teaching hospital in his province.
This is a strange way of promoting the future of Franco-Ontarians
and Canadian unity.
* * *
[English]
INDUSTRY CANADA
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, HRDC is not the only department running afoul of the
information commissioner. For over three years Industry Canada
has refused to explain why it ignored its own published rules in
the awarding of digital PCS licences.
One of the unsuccessful bidders, TeleZone Inc. of Toronto, tried
to find answers through the Access to Information Act. Industry
Canada's stonewalling led the information commissioner to
conclude that the department had wrongfully denied TeleZone's
request for information.
Consequently, the Federal Court of Canada is now reviewing the
industry minister's refusal to act upon the recommendations of
the information commissioner.
Meanwhile TeleZone has launched a $250 million civil lawsuit
against the Government of Canada which will no doubt result in
lengthy litigation.
If PCS licensing decisions in 1995 can bear public scrutiny, why
is the Minister of Industry refusing to listen to the information
commissioner? Is there a political angle? Will taxpayers be
left holding the bag for Liberal incompetence again and again?
* * *
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
constituents of mine are contacting me to complain about gasoline
prices and their wild fluctuations in our region.
Earlier this month, the people of Ottawa went to bed with
gasoline retailing at 46.9 cents a litre. The next morning when
they woke up pretty well every station was retailing gasoline at
57.9 cents a litre, an increase of 11 cents overnight.
Good morning, Ottawa, compliments of your favourite retail or
wholesale gas company.
What on earth could possibly happen during the night to cause
all gasoline retailers in this region to increase overnight their
prices in the same amounts? With examples such as this one, how
can one not think that they are on the losing end of unsavoury
practices?
My constituents and I would be curious to hear the explanations
of the gasoline retailers or the large gasoline companies. How do
they explain these overnight massive increases?
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS CANADA
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca Public Works
Canada, through this Liberal government, is ripping off the
taxpayers of Esquimalt.
Public Works has deliberately changed the values of government
lands causing them to be undervalued deliberately. This is
causing a great deal of problems in my riding. They are saying
that CFB Esquimalt is going to be closing in three years. That
is news to everyone but the people in my riding.
This has resulted in an increase in municipal taxes of 8% within
one year by virtue of the government yanking away grants in lieu
of taxes, which it did within a couple of months. This is
grossly unfair. It has resulted in an 8% increase in municipal
taxes. The municipality cannot balance its budget in that period
of time.
The feds need to give the municipalities at least a one year
notice. It needs to value the land fairly on the basis of what
the B.C. assessment has done and stop trying to rip off the
taxpayer in another way.
* * *
[Translation]
CENTRE DE RECHERCHE EN INFECTIOLOGIE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw attention to the excellent work done by the Quebec
research team under Dr. Michel Bergeron, the director of the
microbiology division, and the Centre de recherche en
infectiologie at Laval University.
Through recent discoveries, such as DNA based tests permitting
the identification of bacteria in under an hour instead of 48
hours, we have entered a new age in medicine.
We are therefore now able to process in record time and very
precisely a vast number of analyses and create new, very specific
tests.
1115
By way of example, in veterinary medicine they are now able to
identify very quickly the bacteria causing mastitis in cows, do
transgenic tests and xenogeneic grafts. In the near future, a
standard kit that will quickly indicate whether an infection is
of a bacterial origin will be one of the instruments
developed by this team.
Congratulations to all the researchers and to the directors of
the Centre de recherche en infectiologie at Laval University, a
real jewel in international medicine.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, evidence
continues to pour in that Canadians are getting to keep less and
less of their hard earned income. Today Statistics Canada says
once again this year that their take home pay has been reduced
because the finance minister continues to gouge more and more tax
dollars out of their pockets.
It is even worse when we compare it to an American family. The
average Canadian family takes home $28,000 less than its American
counterpart. Why does the finance minister think that he has the
right to demand more from Canadian families than ever before?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again one might ask the Reform Party member to quote
from the entire study.
It also showed that average hourly earnings for employees is up
1.4% from last March. It showed that employment increased this
March as employers added 38,000 additional workers to their
payrolls. I would suggest that the whole study be examined.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wish we could get some good news from that, but regardless of
those facts average families get to take home less money than
they did a year ago. Their savings accounts are cleaned out.
They are cashing in their RRSPs. They do not get to take home as
much money as they used to.
The president of the chamber of commerce says that politicians
have a keen interest in muddying the debate on tax relief just to
justify their increased spending. That is what the finance
minister is doing.
Why do the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance think the
money of Canadian families is better off in the government
coffers than in their own pockets to look after their own
families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in his preamble the hon. member said that Canadians want
some good news. Well, let us give them good news.
Retail sales in the month of March were up 1.1%. Nominal
merchandise exports are up. The fact is our trade surplus is up.
The OECD expects Canada to have the second highest growth in 1999
and the highest growth of all G-7 countries in the year 2000.
I will go on, but I know you may cut me off, Mr. Speaker.
Manufacturing shipments were up 2% in March. There is a whole
list of good news and that is a—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Fraser Valley.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, are
the statistics not warming the heart of the statistician over
there?
The fact is when average families pick up their paycheques and
look at the bottom line, they say that although statistics mean a
lot they get less money this year than they had last year under
this tax and spend Liberal government. That is what it amounts
to. That is the bottom line. Families spend more on taxes than
they do on food, clothing and shelter combined under this
government's system.
Why does the government not understand that it needs to give tax
relief to these families, that it needs to give it now, and that
those statistics do not mean a pinch of snuff compared to what
families see as their bottom line on every paycheque?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am certainly glad the hon. member said a pinch of
snuff after what we have heard this week.
Unfortunately the member is quoting from outdated statistics,
those that began during the period of recession in the nineties—
Mr. Chuck Strahl: They released them today.
Hon. Paul Martin: No, no. Today's statistics in terms of
today's numbers are very different. As an example, consider
individual income. Personal disposable income growth
strengthened to 3.5% from only 1.1% in the first quarter.
The fact is there was a decline in the early part of the
nineties when the Tories, the Reform Party's friends, were in
power. However, in the last year and a half it has stabilized.
Personal incomes are now up. The personal disposable income left
in people's pockets is now up. The fact is that we have turned
it around.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians regret this week's military skirmish in Kashmir, just
one year after the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. When I
accompanied the secretary of state to the region last week,
Pakistan asked Canada to mediate. Indian authorities asked for
our participation in trade talks between these two countries to
start relieving the tension.
Why will the government not exercise leadership and respond to
what these officials have asked Canada to do? Why is it sitting
on its hands?
1120
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a clear contradiction in what the hon.
member just asked. He admitted that he had accompanied the
secretary of state for Asian affairs who is directly engaging the
India and Pakistan governments.
He says that we are not doing anything. The hon. member was
part of an engagement program that the Canadian government
initiated last week.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Pakistani officials told me they would welcome Canada's
participation in mediating. Indian officials complained because
the government has been turning its back on them for one year.
They have not had any contacts with the government or this
country.
The government imposed sanctions. It froze ministerial contact
and it has turned its back on them since the nuclear tests. What
is the government doing to relieve tension? What is it doing
instead of doing nothing? What did it do in one year?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I suppose the definition of doing nothing is sending
the hon. member over to India and Pakistan. I happen to place
more value, however, on the initiatives of the hon. gentleman and
on the other initiatives we have taken on.
I remind the hon. member of something very important. Just
about one year ago, India and Pakistan both engaged in nuclear
tests which broke the fundamental principles of nuclear
non-proliferation.
As part of the G-8 membership, which includes all major
countries and where Canada has taken a lead against
non-proliferation, it was up to us to try to tell India and
Pakistan that they should not be testing nuclear weapons and
helping the spread of those horrible weapons.
* * *
[Translation]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we learned this
morning that the Americans are reacting rather curiously to the
allegedly extraordinary agreement the Minister of Canadian
Heritage negotiated with them on magazines.
In fact, they claim, according to a senior official in the
American government, that publishers will have to have access to
the Canadian government's subsidy program.
How does the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain, barely two
days after announcing the Americans had agreed to honour the
agreement without problem and without further action, the abrupt
change in the American point of view? Is it not that she and her
colleague in international trade had assumed that what they
wanted was reality?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am confident that the American government will not
react, because it has in fact put this promise in writing to
Canada with respect to this agreement.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not only has
the minister given up a large part of the Canadian advertising
base to American publishers, but, what is more, they are now
threatening to take us to the WTO if they do not get access to
the Canadian subsidy program.
Has the Minister of Canadian Heritage not started singing her
own praises too early in light of the weak results of her
brilliant negotiation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Americans did sign the agreement.
[English]
This agreement is called the WTO agreement on subsidies and
countervailing measures. The Americans signed that agreement and
I expect that they intend to respect it.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we find it very hard to understand why the Minister of Canadian
Heritage is so excited about the agreement reached regarding the
magazine issue, considering that Canadian publishers are
disappointed while their American counterparts are elated.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage claim that the
Americans backed down from anything on this issue, since the
Washington Post sees the agreement as a precedent that could be
useful in the campaign led by the United States to eliminate
every barrier to trade in the cultural industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member read the article
in the Washington Post, but it says that, for the first time in
the history of the United States, the Americans have
acknowledged that culture can be treated differently.
What the article says is totally contrary to what the hon.
member is claiming in this House.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not seem to realize that
she and her Liberal colleagues are the only ones who are elated
in Canada.
When she looks at the reality, does the minister not get the
impression that the saying “she has been hoisted with her own
petard” perfectly describes the situation in which she finds
herself, with all the resulting negative impact for the Canadian
publishing industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, I would ask the hon. member to think about what
he supposedly read in yesterday's edition of the Washington
Post.
That newspaper clearly says that, for the first time in the
history of the United States, the Americans agreed that culture
should be treated differently than other trade issues.
1125
We have always said that one of the great gains made in this
agreement is that, for the first time in history, culture is
recognized as being different from any other type of trade.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Kosovar refugees continue to flood across the border into
Macedonia. The camps are bursting at the seams. Conditions are
terrible and the humanitarian crisis is threatening to turn into
a humanitarian tragedy.
To relieve the pressure on the camps and the entire region, the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees is asking donor countries to
escalate the evacuation program, the airlift out of the area.
Canada has provided sanctuary for 5,000.
Will the government commit to providing sanctuary for a greater
number of Kosovar refugees, doubling or even tripling the current
level?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I had occasion last week to meet directly with Mrs.
Ogata, UN High Commissioner for Refugees. At that time I
specifically asked if she would like Canada to accept more
refugees. She said no, that she would like to see Canada help in
terms of the ongoing resettlement program in the region and in
terms of reinforcing the ongoing work in the camps.
I can report to the hon. member that in direct discussions with
the high commissioner she did not request that. In fact she said
at this point in time she would rather have us look at alternate
ways of helping in the camps in Macedonia and Albania.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as
recently as Wednesday a parliamentary delegation from the House
met with the program director of the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees in Macedonia. The message then was an urgent need to
escalate the evacuation program.
Another situation arises. Those refugees who are settled here
or have sanctuary in this country are faced the prospect that if
they choose to become landed immigrants they will be charged a
head tax, a $975 landing fee.
The government has indicated it may waive that landing fee for
Kosovar refugees. Will it commit to abolishing the racist head
tax completely for all new Canadians who seek refuge in this
country?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be
clear. There is no head tax in Canada. The hon. member opposite
trivializes a dark period of this country's history when a head
tax was used to keep people out based on race, ethnicity and
religion.
Having learned from history, we now have one of the best and
most generous refugee immigration policies in the world. The
hon. member opposite should applaud that and recognize that.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the atrocious Airbus investigation makes the Canadian
justice system the laughing stock of the international community.
The government continues to waste millions of taxpayers dollars
on an investigation where the supposed prime suspect has not even
been interviewed. The Liberals continue to find money for this
investigation by cutting the RCMP, limiting the fight against
organized crime and importation of drugs.
How can the Liberal government call itself accountable as it
sits back and allows a foreign country to embark on an unlawful
exercise of search and seizure when it knows full well that the
exercise is not permitted under Canadian law?
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only cases that I am aware of
where the legislative branch tells the judicial branch what to
do are in banana republics. I do not think Canada qualifies as a
banana republic.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this debacle continues and the Department of Justice
continues its attempts to cover its tracks in what could go down
in history as the biggest political witch hunt of all time. It
is an international embarrassment.
While the astronomical costs of this ridiculous, ill-founded
investigation and litigation continue to mount, the Minister of
Justice sits idly by, as did her predecessor.
When will the government cease and desist in its malicious and
vindictive obsession to besmirch a former prime minister, from
whom it plagiarized most of his policy initiatives?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Conservative Party may have interfered with police
investigations. That may have been its approach. I do not know
if it was, but in any event it is not our approach. We do not
intend to have political interference with arm's length police
investigations.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last chief of defence staff warned the government
that the Canadian forces was undermanned, underequipped and not
able to fight a war.
The current chief of defence staff is warning the government
that our forces are stretched to the limit and that we are unable
to increase our personnel in the Kosovo mission. The Minister of
National Defence, however, is saying that he is still prepared to
commit troops to the former Yugoslavia.
Why is the defence minister ignoring the advice of his own chief
of defence staff and the last chief of defence staff in wanting
to send more troops to the former Yugoslavia?
1130
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in his press conference the chief of defence
staff was asked this question: “Is it possible to increase our
contribution to the peace force in the Balkans without cutting
elsewhere and do we have the appropriate type of equipment?”
His answer was as follows: “The answer is yes to both of your
questions”.
I think the hon. member misunderstood what the chief of defence
staff actually said.
Obviously we have made no decisions as yet on expanding our
participation in the peace implementation force. If we want to
make such a decision we will obviously have to take into account
the financial resources required and the advice of General Baril
as to the most appropriate use of the men and women in our
Canadian armed forces.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I suggest that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister look at
the auditor general's report which excoriated the government for
underfunding the military.
If the government continues to underfund the military, what it
will do is compromise the lives of the brave men and women who
are in Yugoslavia right now and the ones who may go there in the
future. From the Griffon helicopter to the Coyote armoured personnel
carrier, the equipment is not good enough to protect our troops.
I ask again the hon. Deputy Prime Minister, will the government
send troops to the former Yugoslavia when our troops may be
putting their lives in danger through the government's actions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat, we have made no decision to expand our
existing commitment to the peace implementation force. If there
is such a decision, obviously it will be based on providing
appropriate resources, financial and otherwise, to our men and
women in the Canadian armed forces.
What we should have from the Reform Party is a vote of
confidence in the skill and professionalism of our troops,
instead of trying to undermine them by these unnecessary
questions.
* * *
[Translation]
TAINTED BLOOD
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when questioned yesterday about his apparent conflict of
interest in the tainted blood matter, the Minister of Finance
hid behind the ethics counsellor so as not to answer our
questions.
The ethics counsellor responds solely to the Prime Minister,
however, and not to this House.
My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Is this sudden desire of the Minister of Finance to consult the
ethics counsellor not simply a pretext to buy some time until
the end of the session, to put a lid on this because it is
somewhat of an embarrassment to the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
is no embarrassment.
The ethics counsellor has already looked at this matter after
the NDP asked a question about a week ago. I myself have spoken
to him and indicated my great interest in having him look at the
situation.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the members of this House do not have access to the ethics
counsellor, in light of the good faith shown by the Minister of
Finance, can the minister commit right now, out of a concern for
transparency, to make public the entire report of the ethics
counsellor concerning his apparent conflict of interest in the
tainted blood matter?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the matter is being looked into by the ethics
counsellor. The release of his report is a matter for the ethics
counsellor and the Prime Minister. I am sure they will carry out
their duties in the most appropriate and complete way.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this has been quite a week. We have a government claiming it won
the trade war. That is a rather premature claim. We are not out
of the woods yet, and we all know that.
What we witnessed this past week was a face-saving exercise for
the heritage minister. The fact is that she was the one who
created this mess. Now even the Americans want a subsidy.
How much will this face-saving exercise cost the taxpayers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the hon. member in examining this
dossier would understand that the fight around Canadian magazines
is a fight that has existed in this country for many years.
In fact, Bill C-55 was passed through the cabinet and will be
amended and passed through the House as a result of the WTO
decision which preceded my term as minister.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party was the only party standing up for Canadian jobs
over this mess.
1135
It is time for a reality check. The government went to bat for
the magazine publishing industry over this bill and at the same
time it excluded the advertising sector. Is that fair?
What kind of deal was struck with the magazine publishers and
how much will this cost the taxpayer?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my only comment would be, thank God the Reform Party
was not doing our negotiations.
* * *
[Translation]
TAINTED BLOOD
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance is still maintaining that he does not recall
discussing the Red Cross's contract with Connaught, a subsidiary
of the Canada Development Corporation, on whose board of
directors he sat at the time. However the minister's name
appears at the end of the CDC's 1984 annual report.
Does the minister still stand by his statement that he does not
recall discussing blood, Connaught, and its contract with the
Red Cross when he was a CDC board member?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
stand fully by the position I have stated this week and last
week in the House.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
refresh the minister's memory.
The CDC's 1984 annual report mentions the expiry of a Connaught
contract with the Red Cross representing 14% of its sales. An
annual report always mentions the year's highlights, as well as
being approved by the board of directors.
Does this not shoot the minister's defence all to pieces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no.
The member should read the report. The report mentions all the
activities of the CDC, including Connaught, which was a
subsidiary, but a subsidiary with its own board of directors.
It should also be mentioned that the CDC mainly focussed on
mining, chemicals, and the provision of services to companies. The
involvement of Life Sciences, Connaught's parent company, was
truly minimal in the overall picture. In fact, CDC did not own
100% of its assets.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
ACOA has been noted for handing out its largesse to losers. It
picks losers very carefully. Now we have an example of a
bankrupt recipient coming back for a refill. Heritage Woodworks,
an ACOA beneficiary in Eastport, Newfoundland, went belly up a
few years ago. Now its offspring, Heritage Manufacturing,
operating out of the same building, with the same machinery—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
An hon. member: He was not done yet.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): According to the
timer I have, the hon. member was over his 35 seconds. I will
double check with the clerk.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know
that the two companies are not related. The former company did
go bankrupt, but the new company has all new people. It just
happens to be in the same building. All new people are running a
new company and the member should know that. Perhaps he should
learn a few more details before he asks a question.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no legitimate financial institution would even consider
giving a refill to a company that has already stiffed it once.
When will this minister take some responsibility? When will he
decide that the taxpayers' money should be guarded and not handed
out to friends of the government?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a number
of accusations which are totally wrong. When a firm gets changed
over to another, brand new firm, I do not think the policy of the
Reform Party would be to tear down the building. I am sure the
member does not want that to happen. This is a new company, with
new management, a new business plan and new products to make
things happen for the Atlantic provinces. We want to create more
jobs in the Atlantic provinces under new management.
* * *
1140
[Translation]
RADIO-CANADA
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the CRTC wants to force Radio-Canada to reduce
its advertising revenues.
However, the vice-president of the CBC's French network clearly
said that any reduction in advertising revenues without
equivalent compensation from the government would necessarily
result in a loss of services to the public.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Considering that the government has already significantly
reduced its subsidies to Radio-Canada, will it now let the CRTC
deprive that network of its separate revenues without
compensation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when one looks at what the public expects from
Radio-Canada, one realizes that there is a consensus on the
quality of radio programming.
There is currently no advertising on the radio. Therefore, why
does the hon. member claim that the quality of the programming
is dependent on advertising revenues? I do not agree with that
claim.
* * *
[English]
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
This week the minister used Canadian Bride as an example
of a magazine that calls itself Canadian but contains very little
Canadian content. The National Post, the Financial
Post and the Ottawa Citizen all attacked the minister,
saying there is no such magazine. This proves how little the
minister knows about Canadian magazines.
Who is right, the people at Conrad Black's newspapers or the
minister?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have never accused the National Post of
letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Yesterday it said “There is no such magazine as Canadian
Bride”. I have here a copy of the magazine that does not
exist. The magazine that does not exist asks readers who have
questions about Canadian Bride to direct their questions to
its office in New York City.
With the consent of the House, after question period I would be
very happy to table a copy of this non-existent magazine.
* * *
CUSTOMS ACT
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1996 the government passed an order in council to close a
loophole in the Customs Act that led to the acquittal of David
Sawatzky for exporting his own wheat into the U.S. without a
wheat board export permit.
Crown prosecutor Clyde Bond categorically stated that the crown
would have to appeal the decision in order to prosecute the other
100-plus farmers for the same violation. The government lost
that appeal.
Why is this government still prosecuting these 100-plus farmers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to be certain of the facts as alleged by the hon.
gentleman I would need to check the course of the various legal
proceedings.
I can assure the hon. gentleman that this government in no way
interferes in the appropriate administration of justice. That is
entirely an arm's length process and is administered without any
involvement by me or any other minister of this government.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows very well that I am not asking him to
comment on individual cases. I am asking him whether the crown
prosecutor is above the law. If not, why is he still prosecuting
these farmers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would care to give me the
specifics of the cases he is referring to I will refer them to
the Minister of Justice for a complete answer.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, two
days ago the heritage minister said “For the first time in
history the U.S. has recognized our right to promote Canadian
content”.
The minister insists this means majority Canadian content.
Today's Inside U.S. Trade quotes the written agreement as
stating “a substantial level of original editorial content”.
Which is it? Was the minister's parliamentary secretary just
confused yesterday when he said that the deal specified majority
content? If not, will the minister table that signed agreement
with the U.S. along with that bride magazine in the House
today?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the regulations that accompany the package that was
distributed yesterday, the draft regulations, specify majority
Canadian content.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has told Canadians that the U.S. has agreed not to
pursue Canada in any trade forum for any measures Canada takes
that are part of this deal to assist Canadian industry. Today we
find out that not only does the U.S. not agree with this
interpretation, but her pal, the Minister for International
Trade, disagrees with her.
Now U.S. trade officials and publishers say that they have the
right to access any subsidies Canada makes available to our
publishers.
How does this minister intend to stand up for Canada on this
one?
1145
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to underscore a comment that was
written not in a Canadian newspaper but in the Washington
Post yesterday when it said in a line story:
—for the first time the United States was forced to accept the
principle that, even in a free trade environment, foreign
countries could take steps to limit access to their markets by
American firms in an effort to protect the viability of local
culture, in this case the Canadian magazine industry—
That precedent could eventually come into play as the United
States continues its campaign to tear down barriers—
This is a first not only for Canada but it is a first in
international agreements. The U.S. should respect the agreement
that it signed on subsidies and countervailing duties which
specifically denies national treatment in the area of subsidies.
It is as simple as that.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture has acknowledged that there is a disaster
taking place in southwestern Manitoba. We have much too much
water, two million acres are in jeopardy of not being planted and
the possibility of a $400 million loss in the economy in the
area.
In 1998 the government rightfully put forward a compensation
package for farmers during the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.
Can the minister tell me please what kind of compensation package
will be put forward for disaster assistance in Manitoba and
Saskatchewan?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we assisted producers in Manitoba at that
time as well. They were assisted through the disaster funding
assistance agreement with the provinces which, if requested by
the provinces, deals with the loss of assets.
In this case I am certainly not happy with the fact that there
is that much land which is being flooded. Hopefully the weather
will clear in order to allow the farmers to seed as much of that
as possible.
I will be having discussions as early as today with the minister
in Manitoba to discuss how we can assist through existing
programs to help those farmers.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's comments about assistance. An emergency
request was made by the province of Manitoba just yesterday to
the PMRA to have aerial spraying take place as opposed to land
spraying because obviously they cannot get on the land.
My question is for the Minister of Health. What is his
department prepared to do to help these farmers who in fact may
get some of those acres planted but they need an emergency
registration?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member was kind enough to raise this issue with me yesterday
directly. After our conversation I learned that the application
will be considered on its merits.
As the member knows the PMRA has to balance public safety and
environmental concerns against the needs of producers and
growers. We will do the very best we can and the agency will
respond as soon as possible.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you
may know, there is no international standard for public
accounting. When the Government of Canada issues its financial
statement, tangible assets such as properties are not included in
the balance sheet.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House if he is concerned
about the lack of standards? Would he support the efforts of the
public accounts committee in this area?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, given the hon. member's great experience in this area,
he is fully aware that transparency in financial statements by
governments and indeed by private sector corporations is
essential if we are going to have a sound international system.
As a result of this, consistent accounting standards have to be
consistently applied. Therefore we certainly support the role of
the public accounts committee in this area and certainly support
the efforts of the hon. member in this area.
I am delighted to see that the International Accounting
Standards Committee is going to report on this very soon, but
this is something in which Canada will certainly take a lead.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once
again Canadians are outraged by the ease with which our laws
allow people to escape accountability for their actions.
Bert Stone killed his wife because she insulted him. Yesterday
the supreme court upheld his lenient sentence and in effect
accepted his provocation defence. A discussion paper on this
issue was distributed a year ago. The Stone case was not the
first and others have occurred since.
The provocation defence is archaic. Canadians want it
eliminated entirely or at the very least severely restricted in
its use and they want some action now. Will the Minister of
Justice act immediately to put a stop to these travesties?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify for the hon.
member that the Supreme Court of Canada in Stone as I understand
it did not deal with the defence of provocation. However the hon.
member is right that we are consulting on the defence of
provocation as well as the defence of self-defence. I hope to be
able to release the results of those consultations and proposals
for changes to the law in the coming months.
* * *
1150
[Translation]
WATER CONTAMINATION
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
the third time that I rise in this House to talk about the
terrible problem of water contamination by the Department of
Transport around the beaches of Sept-Îles.
The Secretary of State for Economic Development for the Regions
of Quebec came and promised residents of Sept-Îles that the
Minister of Transport would meet them.
My question is for the Minister of Transport.
Considering that mothers must wash their babies with bottled
water, does the government not realize that mere talking is no
longer enough and that immediate action is required to repair
the damage it has caused?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, water
contamination in Sept-Îles is a very important issue into which
our government is looking.
I will relay the hon. member's question to the secretary of
state responsible for economic development and to the Minister
of Transport, to see if they can provide him with a more
detailed reply.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN GRAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knows that the Canadian
Grain Commission has existed for decades to serve prairie grain
farmers. Now however the commission is running a $10 million
deficit and many farmers are concerned that on-site grain
inspection will be a victim of this financial shortfall. Farmers
fear cost cutting would do real harm to Canada's excellent
reputation as an exporter of top-notch grains.
Given all that, could the minister assure all Canadians that our
reputation as a world class supplier of grain will never be
compromised?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will definitely assure Canadian farmers
as well as those in the international community who buy our
excellent product that our reputation will be maintained.
The Canadian Grain Commission is having some stress financially,
I agree. It has carried out a thorough set of consultations. My
officials and I are meeting with the commission. Any changes and
improvements that are made will in no way, shape or form
jeopardize the quality of its work.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Northside Futures Group states that since 1968 a 25 cent per
tonne royalty has been set aside on every tonne of coal mined by
Devco. These moneys were set aside to benefit workers upon
eventual closure of the mine.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. What has
happened to these millions of dollars? Were these millions of
dollars included in the package offered to the Devco miners?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the specific point the hon. gentleman
refers to, I will have to double check that proposition to
determine exactly the truth of that matter.
I can assure him that all factors were very carefully taken into
account by the government in arranging the final package with
respect to the Devco situation. It includes very generous
provisions with respect to human resources issues as well as a
further package for regional economic development to find
alternatives in the area.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the past year farmers in my riding of Bruce—Grey have
suffered a tremendous reduction in their incomes due to drought.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has secured $900
million from the Government of Canada. Can the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food inform the House as to what the current
negotiations are with the provinces? When and how quickly will
that money flow to the farmers in my riding?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a goodly number of farmers have already
applied. Certainly one of the challenges we had was getting
agreements with all of the provinces so that both the federal and
provincial portions of the money could flow in all of the
provinces.
Today I have signed all of the federal and provincial
agreements. They are being sent to the provinces. I assume that
they will all sign them very quickly so that now in all provinces
both the interim portions for the provincial and the federal
moneys will flow to the farmers.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is preparing
ratification legislation for the Nisga'a treaty. She knows full
well that the Gitanyow and Gitksan band in northern B.C. have
claimed essentially the same territory that the Nisga'a are
receiving under this treaty, 84% of the same territory. By
ratifying this treaty now, the minister is giving the impression
that she is taking sides with the Nisga'a.
Does not the minister have a fiduciary obligation to the
Gitanyow and Gitksan as well as the Nisga'a and is it not
irresponsible to proceed with ratification until this very
serious question has been addressed?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Government of Canada is clearly aware of the negotiations and
the claims by the Gitanyow to the northern portion of the land
claimed by the Nisga'a. We are currently in negotiations with
the respective parties.
1155
I was in British Columbia last week to meet with our negotiators
and the Nisga'a. I raised these particular questions and we are
satisfied that an agreement will be worked out to the
satisfaction of all parties.
* * *
[Translation]
UNIVERSITIES
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs appeared to be showing
some remorse at belonging to a government that, over two
mandates, will have cut more than $33 billion from transfer
payments to the provinces, in particular to university funding.
Can we have the intergovernmental affairs minister's assurance
that his crusade within cabinet to help the universities will
not lead to a new program along the lines of the millennium
scholarship program, with all of its attendant problems, but
will instead use the more normal channel of transfer payments to
the provinces?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 the federal government deficit was $42 billion,
and all the provinces had deficits.
Today the Government of Canada is in the position of having a
surplus, as are all provinces, with the exception of Ontario,
which has opted for lowering taxes more quickly.
We have the possibility of helping our universities. The
future of the country depends on it. This is a very important
issue, as everyone realizes.
Last year it was important to do something for health, and now
it will be important to look at what we can do for the
universities. A fair bit has already been done, particularly in
the field of research, and particularly in Quebec, which
receives 28% of R and D spending for universities.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
Liberal government is like a gang of schoolyard bullies shaking
down Canadians every day for their lunch money. Twenty-six
billion from the employment insurance fund, thirty billion swiped
from the public service pension funds. Many of the public
servants who have had their pensions raided are the same ones who
have been fighting almost 15 years for pay equity.
I have a very simple question for the President of the Treasury
Board. Now that he has taken $30 billion from the pension funds
of these employees, would it be too much trouble to give a
fraction of that back in pay equity?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very glad to underline that the taxpayers are going to get
back the $30 billion that rightfully belongs to them.
The civil servants in the process have had their rights and
their benefits not only guaranteed by law, not only confirmed for
the future, but also increased. What I hear from quite a number
of civil servants is that they are happy to see that the
government has made its pension plan clear, secure and permanent,
that it has guaranteed and increased their benefits and that the
$30 billion is going back to those to whom it belongs, the
taxpayers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
oysters are presently being exported to Europe and stored for
sale. The European Union is now asking area specific oysters to
be sold on a same day basis. This would be a blatant non-tariff
trade barrier and could spread to other shellfish. What is the
minister of fisheries doing to ensure a continued European market
for Canadian oysters and all other Canadian shellfish?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of
fisheries is always very interested in securing markets for
fishermen and in ensuring that we have a good quality product. He
will continue to do that and to ensure the Europeans abide by all
trade agreements.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
constituents are impatiently waiting for their tax refunds. Can
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
inform this House of whether the PSAC strike developed a backlog
in the processing of the 1991 T1 income tax returns and when
Canadians can expect their own money back?
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over 20 million T1
income tax returns have been received by Revenue Canada since the
beginning of the 1999 filing season. Over 16 million returns have
been processed to date. As of May 20, 10.4 million Canadians had
received income tax refunds totalling over $11.2 billion. Those
Canadians who used either e-file or telefile and who asked
Revenue Canada to deposit their funds directly received them
within two weeks. It is anticipated that all returns filed by
April 30 will be processed by mid-June.
* * *
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian spy agency CSIS has come under criticism on several
instances over the past few months, yet the inspector general
position, the watchdog who oversees CSIS, has been left vacant
for over a year. When will the government fill this post so
Canadians can see that CSIS is not left to do just what it
pleases?
1200
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the inspector general is
appointed by the governor in council. The governor in council
will make a decision in due course.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage has, in a sort of a way, just
confirmed that the government is preparing to leave the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation at the mercy of the constraints imposed
by the CRTC, which may well seriously compromise production
quality.
How could the minister claim that a cut in revenues will not
mean a cut in quality, whereas Michèle Fortin, vice-president of
the CBC's French network, who knows television, claims exactly
the opposite?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that the hon. member does not want me to
intervene with the CRTC.
The role of the CRTC is to regulate on, in a quasi-judicial
fashion, decisions regarding broadcast licence renewals. I hope
that she will respect this quasi-judicial process.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in light of reports this morning that confirm, or
seem to confirm the government's intention to send a
significantly larger force of ground troops to the Balkan region,
will there be any indication from the government House leader, or
from the government to the House, when parliament will be
debating this decision and when there will be a vote on the
commitment of further troops prior to the House recessing for the
summer?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order. Therefore, we will not be addressing it as such.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
LAND CLAIM AGREEMENTS
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour
to table, in both official languages, copies of the following
three reports: the 1995-96 and 1996-97 annual review of the
implementation of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement; the 1997-98
annual report of the implementation committee on the Gwich'in
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement; and finally, the 1997-98
annual report of the implementation committee on the Sahtu Dene
and Metis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BRIDES
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of the cover page of
Canadian Brides, the non-existent magazine.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Canadian Heritage has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to
table the non-existent magazine. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1205
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 75th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
selection of votable items.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 92, this report is deemed concurred
in on tabling.
HEALTH
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of
the Standing Committee on Health on the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.
[English]
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, March 1,
1999, your committee has considered Votes Nos. 1, 5, 10, 15, 20
and 25 under health of the main estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 2000, and reports the same.
A copy of the relevant minutes of proceedings and meetings Nos.
82 to 85 is tabled. It is respectfully submitted by the Chair
on behalf of all committee members.
* * *
PETITIONS
URBAN NATIVE HOUSING
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present petitions on
behalf of the urban native housing groups within Ontario and a
number of people who are in urban native housing who are
extremely concerned over the government's devolution of urban
native housing to the province.
The petitioners want to bring attention to the fact that the
government is reneging on its fiduciary responsibility to
aboriginal people.
REFERENDUMS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to present three
petitions. The first petition is from my constituents and others
in British Columbia.
Because of poor decision making by the government, which often
disrupts the peaceful nature of Canadian society and financially
encumbers the average Canadian, the petitioners call upon
parliament to enact legislation that gives voting Canadian
citizens a citizen initiative referendum system by which they can
vote on major issues that may affect the well-being of the
nation.
MARRIAGE
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the definition of
marriage.
The petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation, such as
Bill C-225, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only
be entered between a single male and a single female.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my third petition concerns the Nisga'a
treaty which has been proposed and supported by the provincial
and federal governments.
The petitioners pray and request parliament to reject the
Nisga'a treaty as it may divide Canadians forever. I honourably
submit these petition on behalf of my constituents.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to present a petition that requests parliament support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention that will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, they just
keep pouring in. I have another 60 names on a petition that says
that the government should take action on providing fair tax
benefits for families who chose to have one of the parents stay
at home and raise their own children instead of having others
raise them.
THE FAMILY
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the next
petition has to do with divorce and access to parents and
grandparents.
The petitioners, mostly from my riding, are asking that the
access be increased.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the last
petition I am presenting is from petitioners mainly in my riding
but also from Edmonton, a suburb of Sherwood Park.
Forty-one petitioners are asking for parliament to enact
legislation to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
It is a very fine petition and I am proud to present it.
1210
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition from many
hundreds of Canadians in my riding who are concerned about the
continuing threat that is posed by nuclear weapons, both to the
health and survival of human civilization and to the global
environment.
The petitioners request that parliament support the immediate
initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international
convention which will set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a second
petition signed by many Canadians with respect to the concept of
marriage as being the voluntary union of a single, unmarried male
and a single, unmarried female.
The petitioners urge that parliament enact legislation such as
Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 400
Manitobans who pray that parliament will take the necessary
measures to ensure that the possession of child pornography
remains a serious criminal offence.
The petitioners pray that federal police forces be directed to
give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our
children.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we will answer
Questions Nos. 204, 207 and 228.
.[Text]
Question No. 204—Mr. Eric Lowther:
With respect to Chapter 17—National Parole Board—of the 1994
report of the Auditor General of Canada: (a) what measures of
performance has the National Parole Board, NPB, adopted, as
recommended in paragraph 17.68 of the above report; (b) has the
NPB developed any of the performance measures suggested by the
auditor general in paragraph 17.65 of the above report, and
specifically, has the NPB developed any performance measures
which can indicate; (i) recidivism rates for the first year after
release; (ii) recidivism rates by type of revocation; (iii)
recidivism rates by category of offender; (iv) recidivism rates
by region; (v) recidivism rates for cases where the NPB releases
an offender though the Correctional Service has not recommended
release; (vi) the number of violent crimes committed while
offenders are on release; (vii) the number of successful
completions of release; and (c) if any of the above performance
measurements were not developed, please state the reasons why
they have not been developed?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor general of Canada, Lib.):
The National Parole Board has responded to Chapter 17 of the 1994
report of the Auditor General of Canada regarding performance
measurement as follows:
(a) The National Parole Board has established a performance
measurement regime to ensure that management has the information
required to monitor and assess its performance. The key
component of this regime over the last three years has been the
annual statistics package. This package provides detailed
information on the performance of the board's conditional release
and pardons and clemency programs over a five year period. As
well, this package currently includes over 650 tables of
statistical information on everything from crime in Canada and
offender population to more specific information on parole grant
rates, parole and statutory release success rates and charges for
serious offences. This information is also included in other
publications such as the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics'
annual report on adult correctional services in Canada and the
Department of the Solicitor General Canada's annual statistical
overview on corrections and conditional release. The board is
developing a new statistical information retrieval system, SIRS,
which is scheduled to be available on the Intranet by the fall of
1999. In addition to the annual statistics package, the board
also produces two yearly performance monitoring reports that
identify developing trends and possible areas for improvement.
(b) The National Parole Board has developed most of the
performance measures suggested in paragraph 17.65 of the 1994
report of the auditor general. Specifically, the board now
measures:
(i) See (c) (i).
(ii) Recidivism rates by type of revocation;
The success tables present the information based on the four
ways that conditional release supervision periods end;
Successful completion—releases in which the offender remains
under supervision in the community from release date to the end
of the period of supervision—warrant expiry date for full parole
and statutory release;
Revocations for breach of conditions—these revocations have been
defined as positive interventions to reduce risk to the community
in that the offender is removed from the community to prevent
recidivism;
Revocation with non-violent offence—any conditional release that
results in revocation for a new non-violent offence—recidivism;
Revocation with violent offence—any conditional release that
results in revocation for a new violent offence—recidivism.
(iii) Recidivism rate by category of offender.
(iv) Recidivism rate by region.
(v) See (c) (v).
(vi) Violent crimes committed while offenders are on release—the
board measures charges for serious offences by offence type, for
example, murder, sexual assault, major assault, robbery, et cetera,
by release type—day parole, full parole or statutory
release—and by region.
(c) (i) The board does not specifically measure the recidivism
rate for the first year after release. An inter-departmental
committee is currently working to develop a recidivism rate
formula based on the date of release, which would not be limited
by the warrant expiry date. This rate would provide information
on recidivism for any number of years after release, for example,
one year, five years, ten years after release, et cetera,
including post-warrant expiry recidivism. Once developed, the
new recidivism rate should provide better information on the
success of treatment and reintegration programs and on the
overall performance of the correctional system.
(v) The board does not measures the recidivism rate for cases
where the board releases an offender though the Correctional
Service has not recommended release. While the Correctional
Service recommendation is an important part of all conditional
release reviews, board members make independent decisions, based
on the risk factors presented by the offender during the review,
and the board's performance measurement regime provides
information on the quality of these decisions. That said, the
board does monitor how often board decisions are in concordance
with the CSC recommendation. This measure is called the
concordance rate.
Question No. 207—Mr. Yvon Godin:
With respect to the employment insurance fund: (a) what was the
accumulated surplus in the fund as of December 31, 1998; (b)
has this surplus been used for purposes other than paying
employment insurance benefits; (c) if so, how much of the
accumulated surplus has been used to fund the debt and the
deficit; and (d) what government programs have been funded out
of the surplus and how much of the surplus has gone to each of
these programs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): (a) The accumulated surplus in the
employment insurance, EI, account as of December 31, 1998 was
$19,042 billion.
(b) The balance in the EI account can only be applied to the
payment of EI benefits, employment benefits and support measures
and administration costs as authorized under the EI act.
(c) The EI account is consolidated with the central accounts of
the Government of Canada. Any EI surpluses or deficits are
included in the overall balance of operations for the government
and thus in its annual deficit or surplus as well as in its
accumulated debt.
(d) As noted in (b) above, programs other than employment
insurance cannot be funded out of the EI account. The cumulative
EI surplus is temporarily available to the federal government
for any other use, but the government credits the EI account with
interest in the interim.
Question No. 228—Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien:
With regard to the shutdown of operations at La Nationale mine
in the Thetford Mines, Quebec, area in November 1985; (a) what
kind of assistance was granted to the workers affected by the
closure; (b) what was the name of the program put in place;
(c) what was the amount of money put into the program by the
federal government; and (d) what conditions did the workers
have to meet in order to benefit from the program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): The former Department of Canada Employment
and Immigration Commission provided assistance to affected
workers of La Nationale mine in Thetford Mines through the former
labour adjustment benefit, LAB program. The successor to LAB was
the program for older workers adjustment, POWA, program, which
came into effect on January 1, 1988.
The LAB program legislation became effective on May 1, 1982. The
purpose of LAB was to assist Canadians in four industries within
21 designated regions by providing workers with adjustment
benefits. Benefits were and are paid through the employment
insurance payment systems. Benefits were provided to laid off
workers at the following mines: La Nationale, Bell, Carrie
Canadian and Lac D'Amiante.
A total of 3,751 workers were accepted under the LAB program who
have been paid a total of $105,778,923 as of September 30, 1998.
In order to qualify for benefits, an individual had to:
(1) be at least 54 years of age on the effective date of layoff;
(2) be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident of Canada;
(3) have been employed in a generally designated industry or
industries for at least 10 of the 15 years preceeding the layoff,
and have been paid for at least 1,000 hours of employment in each
of those years;
(4) have claimed or exhausted all employment insurance benefits;
and
(5) have no present prospects of employment or have accepted
employment with earnings less than average weekly insurable
earnings prior to layoff.
In cases of financial hardship, benefits could be payable to
individuals whose age plus years of service, as previously
defined, equaled 80 or more.
In order to assure that benefits were maintained, in the spirit
of a last resort income maintenance measure, the Canada
employment centres, CECs undertook to review the recipients'
circumstances at least every six months to re-examine their
prospects for employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked the hon. member
earlier today if he could report on the status of Question No.
232. Could I have a report on the status of that question?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked
if that question was to be answered before a possible adjournment
in June. The answer to that is yes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
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 third time and passed.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to
once again reinforce some of the aspects of these amendments that
we believe will enhance the justice system in the country.
Bill C-79 amendments will enhance and expand the opportunities
for victims of crime to make a victim impact statement and will
address the manner in which the statement can be made.
When determining the appropriate sentence to impose on an
offender, the judge takes into account a range of considerations
related to both the particular offender and to the offence, and
is guided by the purposes and principles of sentencing set out in
the code and the penalties set out in the code, including any
applicable mandatory minimum.
The victim impact statement must be considered by the sentencing
judge along with all other relevant information. The statement
is a description of the harm done or the loss suffered by the
victim. In other words, the impact from their personal point of
view.
Bill C-79 makes several important changes to the impact
statement provisions. For example, the amendments will make it
clear that it is the victim's choice whether to read his or her
victim impact statement. Note that the current code provisions
require the judge to consider the written victim impact statement
which has been prepared and filed.
1215
This will continue to be the case. In other words, when a
victim does not choose to present the statement orally, the judge
will still be required to consider the written statement. It is
always the victim's choice whether to prepare a victim impact
statement and some may not wish to do so.
There may be situations where the victim seeks to present his or
her statement in another manner, for example by video or audio
tape or through a third person. In these situations the judge
will determine if that type of presentation is appropriate.
The amendments will also require that a judge make inquiries
after a determination of guilt and before sentencing as to
whether a victim has been informed of the opportunity to prepare
a victim impact statement. In most cases the judge will direct
the inquiry to the crown attorney, who should be aware of the
prevailing policy in the jurisdiction for advising victims about
victim impact statements. For example, in some jurisdictions the
police may provide a card to all victims they come into contact
with which refers victims to victim witness services and/or which
refers to the victim impact statement program, or the crown may
have a notation in the file that the victim has indeed been
advised.
The amendment is intended to provide one last check on the
information a victim should have received. The ability to
prepare and submit a victim impact statement is of little benefit
to a victim if the victim is not aware of these provisions. We
note that it is always the victim's choice whether to prepare an
impact statement. Some victims will be advised of the
opportunity and may choose not to prepare such a statement.
However, the choice cannot be made without adequate information.
In some cases an adjournment may be necessary to permit the
victim to be notified and a statement prepared. The amendments
will specifically authorize such adjournments.
Victim impact statements will also be available to victims where
the offender is found not criminally responsible for the offence
committed. Currently, when an accused person is found not
criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, there is no
opportunity for the victim to describe the impact of the offence.
This is because a mentally disordered accused is not sentenced
because they are not criminally responsible.
The current victim impact provisions only apply at sentencing
proceedings. The reality, though, is that victims of mentally
disordered offenders are victims of crime and should have a
similar opportunity to describe the impact. The amendments will
therefore provide that, following a verdict of not criminally
responsible on account of a mental disorder, a victim may prepare
and file a statement. The statement will be considered by the
court or by the Criminal Code Review Board when making the
initial disposition regarding the mentally disordered accused.
The Criminal Code includes a complete part dealing with mentally
disordered offenders and sets out criteria for making
dispositions. The victim impact statement shall be considered in
the context of those criteria and, in the case where a
conditional discharge is appropriate, the statement shall be
considered in determining the appropriate conditions.
Another significant development that has emerged from the
growing acceptance of the principle that offenders should
acknowledge the harm done to victims and the community is the
emergence of community impact statements. Community impact
statements, although not legislated, are gaining acceptance as a
means by which the community has a voice in the criminal justice
system. This concept grew out of the increasing acceptance of
victim impact statements as a valid and worthwhile role for
victims to play at sentencing proceedings.
The amendments to enhance victim involvement at sentencing
through the victim impact statement recognize that crime has an
impact on real people. Community involvement in crime
prevention, victim advocacy and, as mentioned, community impact
statements demonstrate that the people of Canada are committed to
improving the justice system. Bill C-79 demonstrates that the
government shares that commitment.
1220
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed a pleasure for me to speak to this bill today. After
years of frustration on the part of victims of crime all across
Canada, after years of promises, after years of pressure from the
Reform Party and after repeated failure of the government to
properly address its supposed priority of the issue of victims
rights, we appear to be on the home stretch.
We are now at third reading and hopefully we will be voting on
Bill C-79 before the government decides to break for the summer
recess. Hopefully this legislation will pass from this place to
the other place, which hopefully again will give it a high
priority and pass it in relatively short order.
As I have stated, victims have been waiting for years for the
formalization of legislated rights for their interests. As I
have also stated, we are almost there, but each and every day
that Canadians are deprived of the effect of this legislation
means that victims are continuing to be deprived of specified
rights. Each and every day victims are continuing to be
disregarded and abused by our justice system. It is a travesty
that victims of crime are further victimized by the very system
supposedly designed to bring and maintain justice in this
country. Until effective rights are provided we will continue to
witness instances of further injustice.
I will not be critical of the entire process. I acknowledge and
I appreciate the work of my colleagues on the justice committee.
While we do not always see eye to eye, we did recognize and
accept the necessity to expeditiously prepare the committee
report entitled “Victims Rights'—A Voice, Not a Veto” which
formed the basis of this legislation.
The report and the subsequent legislation are a tribute to
Shaughnessy Cohen who chaired the committee and created the
spirit of co-operation to achieve this objective. I must add
that I first met Shaughnessy long before I was elected to this
place, at a time not long after my family became unwilling
participants in the criminal justice system. Although we
differed on some things, I hold nothing but the deepest respect
for Shaughnessy's compassion and her commitment toward this
issue. The committee expedited the process once Bill C-79 was
passed at second reading and referred for review.
I would also be remiss if I did not thank all witnesses who
appeared before the committee and the individuals and
organizations that provided written submissions.
I would also like to thank all those individuals who
participated in the national forum on victims' roles in the
criminal justice system held in Ottawa in June 1998. All of
those individuals and organizations were invaluable in helping
the committee to form a consensus on many of the shortcomings
which exist in our justice process with respect to victims of
crime.
So that the Liberal government does not get too complacent, I
will move back to the area of criticism on the shortcomings of
this legislation.
First, as stated previously, it is unfortunate that the
government did not see fit to address the recommendations of the
justice committee concerning amendments to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act. A number of important rights for
victims need to be addressed in the area of corrections and
parole. This has not been done and there is little indication
that the issue is on the government's immediate agenda. It is
difficult to understand why it has to be continually pressured
and pushed into amending our laws to provide for the interests
and rights of victims of crime.
The government has used the excuse that the justice committee is
currently undertaking a review of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act. That is just a red herring. There is absolutely
nothing to deter the government from incorporating changes to the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act within Bill C-79.
As a result, one must ask whether victims rights are really a
priority to the government. The government only did what it had
to do. The government had to respond to the committee report,
but it did so no more than it had to. For some unfathomable
reason it has decided to put off victims rights in the
corrections and parole fields until another day, another year, or
possibly even another decade. Hopefully it will at least be a
millennium project. This delay is most unfortunate.
Second, this legislation fails to apply the victim fine
surcharge to the Young Offenders Act. Why? I certainly do not
know. The justice committee report recommended that young
offenders be included within the victim fine surcharge scheme.
The federal-provincial-territorial working group recommended
permitting surcharge orders against young offenders. Alberta,
Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Ontario are on written record
as supporting victim fine surcharges for young offenders.
However, the government chooses to ignore all of this strong
support.
1225
During fiscal year 1994-95 there were a total of 4,472 cases
across Canada where a fine was the most significant disposition
by our youth courts. Some 87% of these fines were between $50
and $500. Surely, if these young offenders can pay these fines,
they can pay the minimal surcharge as laid out in Bill C-79.
Young offenders create victims in the same way as adults. It is
indeed puzzling why the government seems to feel that young
offenders should not be held to the same level of responsibility
toward providing assistance to the victims of their crimes as
anybody else. It is no wonder that Canadians are losing faith in
our justice system.
A third aspect that I wish to discuss happens to involve the
highly inflammatory issue of subsection 745.6, the faint hope
clause. Once again the government is amending section 745.
Instead of scrapping it entirely, it continues to tinker with the
provision of our law that appears to be only acceptable to
murderers and members of the Liberal Party.
I will admit that the provisions in Bill C-79 improve this
situation somewhat. Clause 21 finally forces the justice process
to be a little more honest or upfront with victims and the
Canadian public. Judges will be required to pronounce at the
time of sentencing that a sentence of imprisonment for life may
not necessarily be just that. Now everybody in the courtroom at
sentencing will know that, in the case of first degree murder,
the supposedly mandatory 25 years before parole eligibility could
be significantly reduced at a time in the future when everybody
but the family members have forgotten about the crime.
Why does this government continue to try to make essentially a
silk purse out of a sow's ear? Subsection 745.6 is bad law,
plain and simple, but instead of scrapping it altogether, every
year or two the government tinkers with it some more in an
attempt to make it more palatable to Canadians.
Just a couple of years ago, with Bill C-45, the government
changed this section in an attempt to limit and restrict multiple
murderers from benefiting from this faint hope provision. Now,
in Bill C-79, after some 20-odd years, it has decided that the
practice of telling Canadians that murderers are sentenced to
life imprisonment with no chance of parole for 25 years has not
been entirely upfront. Victims will now at least be informed of
subsection 745.6 which permits early parole for our most serious
offenders. However, anyway we cut it, it is still bad law.
I will now take a few moments to sum up this legislation. It is
a good start, but it is just that, a good start. Our justice
system falls over backward to ensure and protect all the rights
of all our criminals and that is fine. It sets Canada apart from
most other countries of the world and reflects the fairness and
equity of our society. Having said that, we can also say that we
have been woefully negligent in ensuring and protecting the
rights of the victims of crime. We have been too quick to use
the excuse of the division of powers between the federal
government and the provinces to rationalize these deficiencies.
Hopefully Bill C-79 will see the beginning of co-operation
between the two levels of government so that victims of crime do
not continue to fall through the cracks.
As I have indicated, I am disappointed with the government for
its failure to address the justice committee's recommendations
concerning the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. With a
little intestinal fortitude the government could have easily
incorporated those recommendations within this legislation. As a
member of the official opposition I will continue to pressure the
government to fulfil its promises in this regard.
The government's failure to include young offenders within the
victim fine surcharge scheme makes absolutely no sense. The
government appears to view victims of young offender crime as
being somewhat less significant than other victims.
The faint hope clause still lives. The tinkering continues but
the primary problem still remains. Hopefully one of these days
the government will get tired of skating around the issue and
will instead send it off to the scrap heap where it belongs.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join in this debate at third reading on Bill C-79, an
act to amend the Criminal Code respecting victims of crime.
There is no question that the loss and financial hardship
suffered by victims of violent crime can be crushing. Often
insurance, unemployment, pension or welfare plans, or court
ordered restitution or damages are unavailable.
I want to mention that in 1970 Manitoba's New Democrats
introduced one of Canada's first victim compensation programs and
it has been considered one of Canada's fairest. However, victims
of crime have looked to the federal government to further ensure
that their rights be recognized.
1230
This bill and the amendments are without question supported and
have been requested for some time by victims of crime as well as
the large majority of Canadians. It is my hope as well as that
of my caucus colleagues that the Minister of Justice along with
her government do not delay in implementing this bill as they
have done with so many others.
The justice committee has recommended credible changes on this
bill. With regard to the delays by the justice department I want
to note that the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on
custody and access has made important and credible
recommendations and it is unconscionable that the Minister of
Justice has made the statement outright that it will take three
years before there is any kind of implementation of those
recommendations.
It is time the Minister of Justice recognized that Canadians no
longer have faith in our justice system. The defence of
provocation that came up in the discussions earlier today is
another issue that is on the block for the Minister of Justice to
look at. We can only wonder how long it is going to take for
action in that area.
I want to summarize the amendments to ensure that Canadians
really know what this bill entails. They provide that all
offenders must pay a victim surcharge of a fixed minimum amount
except where the offender establishes undue hardship and provide
for increased amounts to be imposed in appropriate circumstances.
This will increase provincial and territorial revenues to allow
them to improve services currently provided to victims.
It is absolutely important that the provinces follow along in
this light. What has happened since the Conservative government
in the province of Manitoba took office some years back, it has
literally gutted the dollars that have gone into the program. As
well its failure to follow through on collecting the fines has
left that program terribly short of the funds it needs to provide
victims with the services that should be there.
The amendments ensure that victims are informed of their
opportunity to prepare a victim impact statement at the time of
sentencing. This seems pretty straightforward but it is one of
those things that so often is failed to be followed through on, a
simple statement of letting the victim know.
Amendments also ensure the victims have the choice to read the
victim impact statement aloud. They require the impact
statements to be considered by courts and review boards following
a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of a mental
disorder. They extend to victims of sexual or violent crime up
to age 18 protections that restrict personal cross-examinations
by self-represented accused persons. There is no question that
this is a very important amendment. We have seen numerous
instances where the victim is once again victimized by their
perpetrator and they have to go through the anguish all over
again.
Police officers and judges will be required to consider the
victim's safety in all bail orders. That is extremely important.
The amendments clarify that at court proceedings to determine
whether an offender who is sentenced to life should have his or
her parole eligibility reduced, the information provided by the
victim may be oral or written at the option of the victim. This
allows them the opportunity not to be victimized again.
Another amendment would allow victims and witnesses with a
mental or physical disability to have a support person while
giving testimony. This is something a lot of Canadians thought
automatically happened but that has not been the case.
The amendments will make it easier for victims and witnesses to
participate in trials by permitting the judge to ban publication
of their identity where it is necessary for the administration of
justice.
My party supports the overall intention of this legislation as
it will give victims and witnesses of crime a much greater role
in the criminal justice system and will increase safeguards of
protection. While that is very important, it is also important
for us that it will not infringe on the rights of the accused to
have a fair trial. We are convinced that these amendments in the
legislation will not infringe on those rights.
With that in mind and with the number of comments that have been
made here today, I think it is extremely important that we follow
through on this legislation. We must also be vigilant in
ensuring that the Minister of Justice, her department and this
government as a whole do not continually shirk their duty to the
people of Canada and put in place laws that truly reflect and
represent all Canadians.
1235
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate and to
follow the remarks of the hon. member. She obviously has a great
deal of insight into this issue.
It is fair to say it is a very significant and timely issue when
we are speaking of victims rights. Sadly our news is often
filled with tragedies involving victims. I speak of most
recently the Kosovars who find themselves displaced because of an
extremely cruel and malicious government. I speak of the victims
in the Littleton, Colorado tragedy and those in Taber, Alberta. I
speak of victims like Sheldon Kennedy. I speak of victims like
those in the Toronto Maple Leaf Gardens scandal.
Our news is often filled with heart-wrenching tragedies that
surround victims and their lives. There is certainly a
highlighted need for legislative initiatives that address these
types of issues.
As is stated in the report itself and in its title which is
quite appropriately “A Voice, Not a Veto”, victims are not
looking to upset the balance that has to exist and the implicit
degree of fairness that the scales of justice represent. The
victims are not looking for an ability to overturn the rights of
presumption of innocence or in any way to offset the entire
justice system in terms of how they deal with an accused person
in the first instance.
There is a need however that victims have to seek recognition
and at times retribution from those who prey upon them. I feel
this legislation moves forward but does not go as far as it
possibly could or should. However it takes a significant step
forward and there is that recognition that is ever present and
ever important in our justice system.
We have seen in many instances the prosecution of cases that
take a tremendous amount of time. Delay is often described as
the deadliest form of denial. Victims need to have an assurance
that justice will be done in a timely fashion and in such a way
that they feel the state has intervened appropriately and in a
way that is compassionate and understanding not only of the
strict, sanitized, sterile legal necessities, but of those humane
aspects that are involved in criminal activity and victimization.
There is a need to give that assurance and the legislation makes
strides in that direction.
The Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports this
legislation. We were active in the round table that took place
last summer. We were active at the committee with respect to the
study of this legislation. Numerous witnesses gave their
testimony in a very forthright and succinct way. They cried out
for change and cried out for a law that will perhaps streamline
our justice system.
There is the ever present need to get away from lengthy
bureaucratic and sometimes cumbersome language that pollutes our
Criminal Code and much of the legislation we deal with
particularly when it comes to matters of criminal justice.
Because of the lengthy delays that are often involved, justice in
the end is denied if it is not brought forward.
That is what members of the opposition and members of the
Progressive Conservative Party were trying to do when amendments
were moved this morning. I resent in some way the suggestion
that it was anything other than a sincere attempt to improve this
legislation. There was no disingenuous intent whatsoever in
trying to define the language that will eventually be in the
hands of the courts and the prosecution and the defence. It was
simply an attempt to simplify and to put a more succinct
definition forward when it comes to the implementation of some of
the changes we will see as a result of Bill C-79.
There is one other glaring omission that I have to point out
with respect to Bill C-79. It is the refusal of the Minister of
Justice and the government itself to acknowledge the need for a
victims ombudsman office. The office would be modelled on that
of the correctional investigator.
I find it more than perverse that we have an office budgeted for
the sole needs and protection and furtherance of criminals who
are currently paying their debt to society incarcerated behind
bars. I am not saying they do not need that protection at times,
but we do not have a similar office set up for those who are
victimized by those same individuals who are currently
incarcerated. I find that an affront to everything that is true
about our justice system.
1240
There has been some discussion about the need for this and
although I believe the Minister of Justice does have some
sensitivity and fairness to this and although I believe the late
Shaughnessy Cohen also supported the government's moving in this
direction, we have not reached that point. I believe it was a
missed opportunity under this legislation.
Politicians sometimes get bogged down with the legalities and
politics of an issue and forget the human side. As an overall
statement it is fair to say that the debates surrounding this
legislation both in committee and here on the floor of the House
of Commons have been fairly non-partisan in nature.
Bill C-79 is an attempt to give recognition to and to change and
enhance some of the current laws, particularly when it comes to
issues such as victim impact statements. As has been previously
enunciated by other members, these statements are a very
important part of the healing process and a part of the codified
recognition victims play in a courtroom. It is an opportunity
for them to speak directly to the judge, to all present, and
equally important, to the accused. At the end of the day when a
conviction has been rendered on the perpetrator in the matter, it
is an attempt for the victim in some small way to put into words
what the victim's ordeal has been. I suspect that for many this
is a very important part of the healing process.
With all of that said, there are other problems in the justice
system we are currently aware of that impact directly on victims.
Some of those problems stem from areas outside of this
particular legislative scheme.
I am speaking now of the difficulty within Correctional Service
Canada. We know a very dangerous and insidious plan has been put
forward and perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. I am talking
about the 50% release plan that was dreamed up by some genius to
see that 50% of the current inmate population is released back
into society by next year.
It is a very dangerous thing when quotas are put in place and
targets are put forward. One would suspect this to override the
existing legislative safeguards, the existing criteria to be met
in the decision on whether a person will be released from
incarceration, particularly when one looks at the degree of
violence and often the lengthy accumulation of a violent record
that it takes for a person to eventually be found incarcerated in
a federal institution.
I realize that is somewhat outside the gamut or the scope of
what we are discussing today but it is something I find to be
extremely alarming. It impacts on victims. We know the victim's
plight does not end after a conviction has been rendered. It
does not end after the person who has preyed upon the victim has
been incarcerated. It continues.
Unfortunately there is an unbreakable link between a victim and
the person who has perpetrated violence or some form of an
injustice upon them. That link remains. It is not one the
victim asked for or certainly desired but it is there and it is
often lifelong and life altering.
Victims are spouses, children, parents, siblings and those not
only affected in a direct physical way by the violence but the
members of a family who are often left suffering in the wake of a
direct attack on a loved one. They can also benefit from victims
services and improvements in legislation that can impact directly
on the delivery of victims services.
I refer to my comments about the need for a victims ombudsman
office where direct information could be disseminated to victims,
to those persons in need of information. It has been pointed out
time and time again that one of the real downfalls of our justice
system is our inability to get this information into the hands of
those who need it most and those who wish to be informed and
those who wish to be forewarned of the release of a person from
incarceration.
With proper amendments, improvements could be made to this bill.
However because of the need to bring it forward with the steps
that have been taken, the Conservative Party will be supporting
this bill when it comes to a vote in the House.
Our party certainly supports the entrenching of the victim
surcharge that will be brought about as a result of this
legislation.
The fact that there will be financial compensation will never
fully compensate a person for a crime that has been perpetrated,
but it will at least be some recognition that a crime has been
committed which has impacted upon a person. Although it does not
compensate for the emotional and sometimes physical harm, it is a
recognition that there is a loss. Sometimes a dollar figure will
not be adequate but at least it is a recognition.
1245
It is the hope of the Conservative Party, in fact I suggest the
hope of all members, that this money will not be eaten up or
misdirected in terms of cumbersome administration, but that the
legislation will ensure that the money is in the hands and the
pockets of those directly affected by criminal activity.
There is much to talk about in the area of victims and victims
rights and the ability to bring victims into a system that is
often very insensitive and sometimes very sterile when it comes
to the approach taken to those who are most directly affected.
However, in the interest of balance and the interest of
protecting the integrity of the system, one has to be very leery
of putting too much in motion. I am sometimes reticent to say
that because this is a very emotional issue.
We heard testimony time and time again before the committee from
victims themselves, from parents, and from those affected by the
perpetration of crime. There is no denying that it is a very
emotional issue. However, in the courtroom there is an attempt
to sometimes remove or ignore the emotion in the interest of
getting to the truth of the matter and moving a case through the
court in perhaps a more timely fashion.
I would not say the bill was the brain child of any one
particular person or any one party, but Shaughnessy Cohen's name
is very closely associated with this government initiative, and
rightly so. She worked as a crown prosecutor in the city of
Windsor and was obviously an advocate of victims. It is very
important that her name be inextricably attached to this
legislative initiative.
The position of my party with respect to victims has been
unwavering. In 1997 the election platform of the Conservative
Party proposed the creation of a victims charter of rights. This
is again not a new initiative, not something that one party can
claim ownership of, but it is a recognition that certain
inalienable rights have to be entrenched in our law to ensure
that victims are protected.
There are very positive aspects of the bill with respect to the
publication of the name of a victim or witness. Those
initiatives are there for the protection of identity. They make
very clear that victims oftentimes are in great jeopardy if their
names are known publicly or published through some form of media.
Protection and the ability to put into the hands of the court the
tools to protect those whose names if published would be
vulnerable is a very important initiative.
There is a great deal of jargon associated with the practice of
law. Victims need information, particularly in matters such as
parole ineligibility or eligibility and court proceedings. There
is a significant effort now to ensure that the victim is given
basic information on where they sit in a courtroom, what the
proceedings mean, and what certain references and legal terms
mean.
Victims services throughout the provinces will be enhanced by
some of the initiatives in Bill C-79. In the constituency of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in my home province of Nova
Scotia there are those who are currently involved in victims
services. There are working very diligently and will be very
thankful for this legislation. I am speaking of individuals like
Judy Whitman, Coreen Popowich and many others involved in the
furthering of victims rights.
This evening in Nova Scotia I am attending a fundraising event
for the Tearmann society located in New Glasgow. It is a home
for battered women. Once again I will be very pleased to bring
word on the bill moving forward through the House in the fashion
we have seen.
I do not have any further negative comments to make other than
the fact that the legislation before us today is long overdue.
The provinces have some concerns with respect to the consultation
process, but we understand like others and like those who have
spoken previously that any step forward is seen as a positive
step.
It is something that we do not intend in any way to hinder. We
are trying to move it forward as quickly as possible.
1250
Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario have increased the funding to
victims services. If there is any other shortcoming it would be
that the government has not necessarily provided the significant
resources required for the implementation of some of the programs
that will stem from the legislation. As well, the federal
government should now be perhaps looking specifically at funding
some of these programs and avoiding duplication with the
provinces, which is again something that all of us would be very
reticent if we did not point it out.
The Young Offenders Act has been revised and the new youth
criminal justice act will be coming into effect at some point, I
suspect in the fall of the coming year. It is very important
that there be an attempt made to ensure that these two pieces of
legislation work in unison. I am speaking now of the areas of
victims services and their administration and the costs
associated with victims who are preyed upon by violent youth.
Sadly, without getting into a long diatribe about the new youth
criminal justice system, I am reticent to say that much of the
need that has been identified time and time again in the
shortcomings of the old youth justice act will not be met by the
new legislation.
With respect to victim surcharges and with respect to the
identification and protection of victims, these legislative
initiatives will attach to the new youth criminal justice system
and must be viewed in a positive light.
We have heard a number of graphic examples not only in the House
but through the media. At committee level we have heard horror
stories about individuals who were crying out for the attention
and protection of this place through legislation: the courts that
inevitably interpret and decide much of the law and our law
enforcement agencies and our frontline workers like children's
aid and social services, those tasked with the very weighty and
sometimes extremely difficult task of delivering services. It is
somewhat sad that we do not see a greater emphasis and a greater
amount of priority placed on individuals on the frontline and in
the trenches of the administration of laws such as Bill C-79.
To its credit the government has brought forward the legislation
through the co-operation of members of the House and members of
the committee. There are very positive initiatives that come
from it. I know that victims advocates and victims themselves
will be benefiting from the legislation when it becomes
incorporated.
The Conservative Party of Canada continues in its commitment to
furthering the rights of victims, to furthering the rights of
those who are downtrodden in our justice system generally and are
looking for positive change, in a non-partisan fashion.
I congratulate all those who have been involved in moving the
legislation forward. We look forward to continued attempts to
bring forward these types of positive initiatives. I caution the
government that if this is not happening, through the diligence
of this party we will try to bring these matters forward to
ensure that Canadians get the protection they need, deserve and
should expect from their government.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and in fact all
Canadians to speak to Bill C-79, the government's proposal to
change the Criminal Code to accommodate the rights of victims of
crime.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca who is also equally keen to speak to the
bill.
The victims bill of rights only came about because of the
pressure and input of all members of the Reform Party. In the
last parliament the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford pursued a
victims bill of rights.
A Reform supply day motion was successfully passed in 1996 to
cause the government to review and introduce legislation to
improve federal laws to consider and recognize the rights of
victims of crime. The hon. member for Surrey North was also
responsible for many of the committee recommendations.
1255
The bill does not go far enough. It is not what Canadians
wanted. Obviously victims were not a priority to the Liberal
government of the 36th parliament. The justice minister listed
victims rights as one of her three top priorities, but despite
that she has been stalling any action under the pretext of timely
fashion.
Any time we ask her to take any action, or she is supposed to
take any action, she has been using the excuse that she will be
doing it in a timely fashion. I do not know how long the victims
can wait for her timely fashion while the minister is sitting on
her hands doing nothing.
Even though the bill does not go far enough we will take it. It
is not what Canadians wanted but still we will take it. At least
it is a start. The bill has not been changed since it was
introduced by the government. Up until now it has yet to accept
any amendments to the bill.
The government has dug in its heels and said the bill includes
all the rights it is prepared to grant the victims of crime. That
is not enough. We will continue to talk to the government until
it places the rights of victims above the rights of the criminals
in our criminal justice system.
The government has not done enough. Let us see what the
government has not done in the bill. It has not incorporated
changes to the corrections and parole systems which are quite
important. Victims will still not have the right to participate
in release hearings, be advised of escapes from custody,
temporary absences and other important information that a victim
of crime, particularly violent crime, would want to know in order
to remain safe.
What about the people who have had to appear as a witness in a
prosecution that resulted in a jail term for the guilty party?
Let us say that an elderly person testifies that a certain person
was the one who robbed him or her at knifepoint. Would that
Canadian not be very concerned about when the aggressor is out of
jail? Maybe the accuser would be afraid and would appreciate
being alerted to the fact that the person who assaulted him or
her was now out of jail.
Let us imagine that. Maybe the accused even threatened the
accuser at the trail. We should protect the victim. It is not
so difficult, as the amendments proposed by my colleague from
Surrey North have demonstrated. Let us see some of the
initiatives included in Bill C-79.
Victims are to be informed of their right to prepare a victim
impact statement at the time of sentencing. That is good.
Victims will have the choice to read the victim impact statement
in court. Victims of sexual assault or violent crime up to the
age of 18 years are to be protected from personal
cross-examination by self-represented accused persons.
Another initiative included in Bill C-79 is that police officers
and judges are to consider the safety of victims in all bail
decisions.
These are some of the initiatives in the bill. There are some
more that I will not elaborate on but probably I could mention
one or two. Judges are required to inform the public of the
possibility of section 745 applications for early parole for
those who receive life sentences. I understand in private
members' hour today we will be talking about consecutive
sentencing. I will elaborate more then.
Victims and witnesses will have protection through banning
publication of their identity where it is necessary for the
proper administration of justice.
1300
Some of the concerns have been taken care of in this bill.
However, we are concerned about the definition of victims within
the Criminal Code. We intend to pursue broadening the
definition.
There is room for improvement. There is room for amendment. At
least this is a step forward by the government in recognizing the
rights of victims.
In conclusion, the government has done only half the job in
looking out for the victims of crime. However, I will support
this bill in the end and I will limit my comments so that I do
not delay its passing one more minute.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what initiatives does my colleague feel can be taken to
ensure that victims have a greater say within our justice system?
Does he feel the federal government should move away from
focusing on the rehabilitation of criminals to protecting
innocent civilians?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question. There is a broad outlook of issues which are not
included in this bill.
Particularly, the government has not incorporated changes to the
corrections and parole system, as I mentioned. Also the victims
will not have the right to participate in the release hearings.
That is very important because there is information on temporary
absences and other important information that a victim of crime,
particularly violent crime, would want to know in order to remain
safe.
There are a whole host of issues which I believe this bill
should have included, but I am glad that it is a step forward.
We will take the view that at least we are stepping ahead and
this is a step forward toward achieving what we want to achieve.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague allowing me to share his
time.
Again I would like to compliment the hon. member for Surrey
North on all the hard work that he and my colleagues have done in
trying to change the justice system to make it a more realistic,
pragmatic and effective justice system to ensure that there will
be a balance: those people who are a danger to society will be
dealt with strongly and forcefully so they will not be able to
victimize innocent civilians again and new initiatives can be
utilized to prevent crime from occurring. That is something in
which my colleagues and members of other political parties have
been taking a leadership role. I hope that one day the
government will listen.
Bill C-79 has some very important points in it in terms of
ensuring that victims have rights. It ensures that we will be
able to make a change to reverse what a Liberal government did
some years ago. I want to bring to the attention of members that
in the early 1980s the justice minister of the then Liberal
government said “From now on we are going to change our justice
system from one of protecting society to one of rehabilitating
the criminal”. As a result, we have seen the faith of the
public and the police forces in the system substantially eroded.
It is our job to change that; not to do it in a grossly punitive
and blind fashion, but to do it in a manner which strikes the
balance that I spoke of earlier.
We have to ensure that victims have a greater role within the
justice system than the convicted. In many cases we have seen
convicted criminals who have greater access to social programs,
rehabilitation and care than the people they victimized. I can
tell members of some tragic cases of families, adults and
children who have been victimized and left out in the cold alone
with little or no help, while the person who victimized them
receives the lion's share of the help.
1305
We believe that should change. The first priority of the
justice system should be the protection of innocent civilians.
The second priority should be to ensure that those who have been
victimized are taken care of and get the help which they require.
The third priority should be to ensure that rehabilitation takes
place so that we can break the cycle of crime, punishment and
incarceration that we have been unsuccessful in accomplishing in
so many unfortunate cases.
The other side of the coin is how we deal with people who are in
the justice system now and what we can do to prevent these
situations from occurring. I draw the attention of the House to
the National Crime Prevention Council. This council was enacted
by edict from the justice department. It has done excellent work
in looking at ways in which we can prevent crime. I want to
outline a pragmatic way of doing it, which is to implement a
national headstart program.
This program was in a motion that was passed in the House last
year. The motion was based upon existing programs that work,
such as the Hawaii healthy start program, the Ypsilanti Perry
preschool program and the Moncton headstart program which the
Minister of Labour and her husband took a leadership role in
constructing in 1974.
These programs are modelled under the premise that if we can
ensure that children have in the first eight years of life their
basic needs met, then those children have a greater chance of
developing a normal psyche than those who are subjected to child
abuse, violence or more subtle negative factors such as improper
parenting.
If we ensure that children have their basic needs met, if we
also ensure that parents have the parenting skills to be able to
do the job, to raise their children in a well defined system with
boundaries and good discipline, where their children are in a
caring, loving and secure environment and where they have proper
nutrition, then those children have the greatest opportunity of
being well adjusted, productive, integrated members of society.
That is the model and the basis of the three programs that I
mentioned. Do they work? Let us take a look.
In the Hawaii healthy start program the child abuse rate dropped
99%. What they did was very innovative, which I think we can do
in our country. They brought mentors, women who had children and
good parenting skills, and they linked them up with parents who
had children at risk. By engaging in this mentoring program, by
developing a trusting and secure relationship with these
families, we saw a 99% reduction in child abuse, massive drops in
drug abuse rates and an improvement in the socioeconomic welfare
of these families. It was a huge saving for the taxpayer.
In the Perry preschool program, which has been in existence for
some 30 years, there has been a $6 saving for every $1 invested.
There has been a 50% reduction in youth crime. There has been a
40% reduction in teen pregnancy, which, as we know, unfortunately
is usually a one-way route to poverty for both the mom and the
baby. We have seen children stay in school longer, with less
dependence on welfare, which again results in savings to the
taxpayer of $6 for every $1 invested.
The Moncton headstart program, which the Minister of Labour
championed with her husband, has shown similar effects. All
three of these programs are based on the premise that if we work
with parents and families, if we ensure that their basic needs
are met and if we encourage them and teach them how to do this
for their children, we have a better, more integrated, safer and
productive society because individuals are able to develop their
psyches in a normal fashion.
It is not a guarantee that this is going to happen by any
stretch of the imagination, but the cold, hard facts prove that
headstart works. If this government is serious about preventing
crime, it can do this.
I am calling for over 70 groups in the country to put pressure
on the federal government to enact a national headstart program
using existing resources. We can use the medical community at
time zero, because every pregnant woman goes to the doctor to
have prenatal exams, and then we can address issues such as drug
abuse. Hopefully by doing that we can prevent the devastating
effects that fetal alcohol syndrome have on our society.
1310
Secondly, we could use the mentoring programs in the middle
years, from the time the child is born until about age four, and
then use the school system between the ages of four and eight.
The Moncton program was ideal in that it brought parents into
the school system. Parents came to the classroom once a week to
learn basic essentials, such as proper discipline, setting
boundaries and proper nutrition. They would learn that a bag of
chips and Coca Cola is not dinner and is bad for the child.
That is what we are asking the federal government to do. That
is what we are pushing for. We started a massive campaign last
week to push the government to pursue this. It is a win-win
situation for everybody.
I will digress a little on the issue of victims. As we said
before, victims need rights. Victims need to be appropriately
represented within the justice system. They do not at the
present time have official status. My colleague from British
Columbia, our House leader, has put forth a victims bill of
rights that would entrench the rights of the victim. I hope the
government pursues this because it is an act of fairness.
I also want to ensure that the government listens very clearly
to us to ensure that victims get the care which they require
because they are not getting it now. They are being excluded
from the social services that they need to patch up the sometimes
extraordinary damage that has been inflicted upon them through
assault, rape, battery, abuse and so on.
We have an opportunity to truly put balance into the justice
system. I hope the government takes it. I also hope that it
listens to our judiciary. I hope it listens to the police
departments who are saying very clearly, as the police chief from
Vancouver said as a parting shot before he left, that we have a
revolving door justice system. Criminals come into the justice
system who have made some serious errors. Some of the hardest
criminals go into the system and are tossed out the other end as
quickly as they came in. Justice is not being served.
If we separate those high risk criminals who are dangerous to
society and put the full force of the law against them, we will
be saving people's lives. If we take the rest who are low risk
people and try diversionary tactics, diversionary methods through
the justice system, if we try alternative methods to ensure that
they pay back and engage in restitution with their victims and
society, we will have a chance of building a safer, fairer
society for all.
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 third time and passed)
* * *
CANADA TRAVELLING EXHIBITIONS INDEMNIFICATION ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-64, an act to
establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions,
as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is one
motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report
stage of Bill C-64, an act to establish an indemnification
program for travelling exhibitions.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.
[English]
I shall propose Motion No. 1 to the House.
1315
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Hon. Stéphane Dion (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage)
moved:
That Bill C-64, in Clause 5.1, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 28 and 29 on page 3 with the following:
“Act, be reviewed by the parliamentary committee that may be
designated or”
(b) by replacing lines 36 and 37 on page 3 with the following:
“within any further time that may be authorized, submit a report
to”
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-64 at report stage. I am
very disappointed the government has put forth an amendment to
the bill. The official opposition certainly cannot support it
and therefore I would like to move an amendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting after the word
“committee” the words “of the elected House”.
I know that time is of the essence so I will be brief. We
believe this act should be reviewed by a House of Commons
committee and not by just any committee of either House. The
authority to legislate for the people of Canada rests with this
House and not the other place.
I really do not have a lot to say about the bill. We have
debated it in depth at committee stage. If my memory serves me
right, my understanding coming out of committee was that all
parties agreed with the unamended Bill C-64. Bill C-64 is
important and necessary. It certainly will encourage the travel
of historical exhibits around the country.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment as
moved by the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River is in order.
Debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, the bill without any
amendment is certainly a first step. There is a lot of agreement
with that statement. Hopefully the legislation is not written in
stone and that changes can be made down the road.
The amendments put forth by the government have slowed the
process down considerably. As the opposition we want to see the
bill pass all stages before the summer recess and will certainly
support it in its unamended form.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-64, an act to establish an
indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, at report
stage.
This program will save museums several hundreds of thousands of
dollars in insurance. The Bloc Quebecois supports the bill in
principle, but regrets that the amendments it suggested were
rejected.
In fact, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the idea of supporting
museums by relieving them of some of the financial burdens they
face.
1320
In passing, I might mention that, right now in Quebec, from May
16 to 30, there is a festival focusing on Quebec's museums
called Musées en fête. Today's topic is therefore very apt.
I would like to point out, as my colleagues did earlier, that
Canada already had an indemnification program for exhibits. It
was introduced in 1985 and eliminated in 1995 under program
review.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that the motion moved by the party
in power provides the federal government with a propaganda
opportunity. The assessment criteria for indemnification
agreements set out in the bill include the educational and
professional quality of the exhibition, as well as the significance and
relevance to Canadians of the exhibition's theme and contents.
These two criteria are purely subjective. As a member of the
Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I wish to cite an
extract from the testimony by Michel Perron, CEO of the Société
des musées québécois, on this topic.
At the committee's May 11 hearing, which I attended as a member,
Mr. Perron said as follows:
Should it be necessary, we suggest that peer committees be used
to help the minister decide and make the most appropriate choice.
The energy required to set up a travelling exhibition, the costs
involved, the impact for visibility of the institutions involved
means that the museums already exercise a great deal of judgment
in making decisions relating to public interest, intellectual
value and ethical considerations before getting involved in such
projects.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with Mr. Perron. Museum
curators are competent people with good judgment. Unlike the
minister, they are not out to propagandize. One of the finest
examples of good management is the arts council.
The Bloc Quebecois is also opposed to the motion proposed by
the government which involves the Senate in a parliamentary
committee.
We are, however, in agreement with the opposition amendment to
the motion, because it is along the lines of what we
ourselves want.
People from the community are needed here, including the museum
curators. In connection with the other place, incidentally, the
1991 auditor general's report made 27 recommendations for
corrections to the way the other place operates.
Like our colleagues across the way, we want to see this bill go
through as quickly as possible, because its economic
repercussions, for the arts community, among others, are huge.
In my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, there are several
really interesting museums. I take this opportunity to
congratulate their administrators on the highly professional job
they are doing. I encourage people to visit these museums.
In the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois we tried
to include the small museums, so that there would be a greater
selection of museums with more modest insurance risks.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-64 in
principle, but against the motion proposed by the government.
We are in favour of the amendment to the motion by the
opposition, because we do not believe that the Senate ought to
play this role for all of the reasons I have already set out.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise before the House to discuss proposed amendments
to Bill C-64, the Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification
Act.
I speak to these amendments on behalf of our heritage critic,
the member for West Nova, and on behalf of museums in Nova
Scotia, many of which are in the riding I am fortunate enough to
represent: Ross Farm Museum, small museums like DesBrisay Museum
in Bridgewater and the Fisheries Museum of the Atlantic in
Lunenburg.
As we discuss these amendments to Bill C-64 let us keep in mind
the importance of this piece of legislation to our museum
community. Let us focus some attention on the reasons why the
legislation has become so necessary.
Ever since the Liberal government discontinued its cost sharing
insurance arrangements with our Canadian museums, curators across
the country have been calling for some kind of federal government
assistance to help offset the huge costs associated with insuring
travelling exhibitions.
What is the indemnification for travelling exhibitions? In
essence, it means that the Canadian government will assume all
financial risks for damages to contents contained within
travelling exhibitions. Not only will this indemnification
program relieve some of the financial burden that is affecting
most of Canada's museums, but it will help them to negotiate the
loan of other prestigious foreign exhibitions.
1325
In 1972 the initial budget for the museum assistance program
hovered at around $8 million per year. By the early 1990s the
budget was increased to a maximum of $15 million, despite a
Canadian Museum Association recommendation for a budget of $25
million annually.
Last year the Liberal government reduced this amount to a paltry
$6.5 million, leaving the museum industry reeling to find
alternative financial resources. The Minister of Canadian
Heritage has since announced subsequent increases to the MAP of
$2 million and $1 million respectively, putting the 1999 budget
at $9.4 million.
This amount does not come close to responding to the grave
concerns expressed by museum representatives. As it now stands
our museum directors barely have the resources necessary to
maintain present exhibits, let alone to expand their collections.
Museums are more than just an historic account of time and place
in Canadian history. Museums contribute enormously to our local
economy. According to Mr. Robert Janes, president and chief
executive officer of the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, Alberta,
museums in Canada contribute $1 billion annually to the gross
domestic product which includes 35,000 jobs, directly and
indirectly, as well as $650 million in labour income. These
figures suggest that this cultural industry is a very significant
contributor to Canada's economy.
The Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act could be a
very effective tool in helping Canadian museums bring in more
attractive exhibitions, enticing a greater participation from
both Canadian and foreign audiences.
Already current statistics indicate that over 55 million
visitors a year enter Canada's approximately 2,000 museums. This
is a very impressive number of visitors. The credit for this
success belongs to our dedicated museum staff along with the over
50,000 volunteers who devote their time and energy toward helping
maintain an important element of Canadian history.
As I mentioned previously, the bill responds to certain needs
within our museum industry. Therefore I believe we should
proceed with the passing of this piece of legislation as quickly
as possible. The proposed amendments will not weaken the bill
but instead will open the door to greater participation and
greater input from all parliamentarians.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, if
you will permit me, and merely thank the hon. members who took
part in the review of this bill, particularly the hon. member
for Dauphin—Swan River, the hon. member for Longueuil, the hon.
member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, the hon. member for
Dartmouth, and the hon. member for West Nova.
I sincerely thank them for their co-operation throughout the
review of this bill.
[English]
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 amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May
31, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1330
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-251, an act to
amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act (cumulative sentences), as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There are three motions
in amendment on the notice paper for report stage of Bill C-251,
an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences).
[English]
Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted on as
follows. The vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 2 and
3.
[Translation]
I will now submit Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.
[English]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-251, in the title, be amended by restoring the title
thereof as follows:
“An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences)”
That Bill C-251, in Clause 1, be amended by restoring Clause 1
thereof as follows:
“1. Section 271 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding
the following after subsection (1):
(2) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under
subsection (1) shall be served consecutively to any other
punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of
the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to
which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed
on the person for an offence under subsection (1).”
That Bill C-251, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2
thereof as follows:
“2. Section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) The portion of a sentence of imprisonment for life
that a person who has been convicted of first degree murder or
second degree murder must serve before the person may be released
on full parole is, subject to subsection (2.2), that provided for
in section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code and, in addition,
where the person is under another sentence of imprisonment in
respect of another offence arising out of the same event or
series of events or under any other sentence at the time the
sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on the person, the
lesser of one third of any other sentence of imprisonment and
seven years.
(2.2) Where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment
for life for first degree murder or second degree murder after
being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life in respect of
another first degree murder or second degree murder not arising
out of the same event or series of events, the portion of the
sentence that the person must serve before the person may be
released on full parole is that provided for in section 745 or
745.1 of the Criminal Code and shall be added to the portion of
the sentence that the person must serve under that section in
respect of the other conviction for first degree murder or second
degree murder.”
She said: Mr. Speaker, today I rise to restore a private
member's bill that seeks consecutive sentencing for multiple
murderers and rapists.
For months and years I have been working with colleagues from
all parties to demonstrate to parliament and to the public at
large exactly how our rampant system of concurrent sentencing
deprives Canadians of justice.
1335
We know that 90% of Canadians polled by Pollara last year agreed
that multiple murderers and multiple rapists should receive
consecutive rather than concurrent sentencing. I believe that
Canadians support consecutive sentencing because Canadians think
that every victim should receive some measure of justice and that
every victim should count in the sentencing equation where rape
or murder is involved.
It is because of those victims and the many, many families of
victims I have met over three years that I have chosen not to
accept the dismissal of Bill C-251 by any committee or
subcommittee without a final vote in the House of Commons.
I have also been encouraged by the continuous support of so many
members who have shown that they care most about the impact of
laws on victims and families. They have proven that it is
possible for members from all sides of the House to put
partisanship aside and work together to achieve a real
improvement in our justice system.
I must also thank the many members of my own party who have gone
to great lengths to support this initiative in the House and in
caucus. Without their efforts this bill would have died long
ago.
I have listened carefully to the advice of my colleagues who
support the bill but I have also listened just as carefully to
colleagues who do not support my bill. I have listened and I
have learned that there is indeed a virtual consensus among MPs
on one point, that being that the current system of automatic
concurrent sentences for murder and virtually automatic
concurrent sentencing for rape is wrong and must be changed.
What remains is a debate on the extent of judicial discretion. I
have heard colleagues say that they are not against consecutive
sentencing but they are against mandatory consecutive sentencing,
that they want to let judges decide what sentence should be
imposed.
As all members well know, judges have no discretion to impose
consecutive sentencing for murder. A concurrent sentence must
always apply no matter what the circumstance. So we have no
judicial discretion in the courts today on this point. The law
is that the second murder victim does not count regardless of
what a judge may think.
I believe that the second murder or sexual assault victim should
always count. We should not continue to send a message to
multiple murderers and rapists that the number of victims does
not matter. That is wrong and dangerous.
However, in my estimation, our priority must be to change the
current system and its mandatory bulk rate for murder to provide
at least for a judge to be able to impose consecutive sentencing
for murder, something that they cannot do right now. I have
agreed to support an amendment to my bill to provide the judicial
discretion sought by my colleagues.
The amendment submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville will
provide full judicial discretion as to whether a concurrent or
consecutive sentence should apply for murder. This will give a
judge the latitude to give the next Paul Bernardo a sentence that
denies him parole for 25 years for the first murder and up to 25
years for the second murder.
The alternative is to maintain the current system where multiple
murderers face not even the possibility of an incremental
sentence for additional murders. The status quo is not
acceptable to the majority of Canadians
In terms of sexual assault, even the most prolific multiple
rapist of the 1990s received concurrent sentences. These
discounts were given because concurrent sentencing has become the
norm from which judges are shy to deviate. A second amendment to
my bill also submitted by the member for Leeds—Grenville
proposes to maintain judicial discretion but present consecutive
sentencing as the standard.
1340
Under this provision judges must provide oral and written
reasons based on a set of criteria as to why they offered
concurrent rather than consecutive sentences in a particular
case. I believe this is a significant and positive change from
the current law and one which will provide more justice for women
and children who fall victim to sexual predators in this country.
With these amendments, Bill C-251 boils down to one single
question. Do members of this House support the status quo of
automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple murderers and
virtually automatic concurrent sentences for all multiple sex
offenders?
I ask members to end the hopelessness of that injustice and the
anguish it causes to the victims and the families of victims. I
ask members to look on the amended Bill C-251 as a measured
advance toward fairness and proportionality in sentencing with
all the safeguards that complete judicial discretion can offer.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank my colleague for the tremendous amount of work she
has done on this bill. Although she spoke very eloquently on the
emotional side of this issue, I am going to speak on the
technical side and it will not be quite as interesting.
I want to move the following amendments. I move, seconded by
the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough:
That Motion No. 2 be amended by replacing subsection (2) with the
following:
Sentences to be served consecutively
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a sentence imposed on a
person for an offence under subsection (1) shall be served
consecutively to any other sentence for an offence under
subsection (1) or section 272 or 273 to which the person is
subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an
offence under subsection (1), unless the judge who sentences the
person is satisfied that the serving of that sentence
consecutively would be inconsistent with the principles of
sentencing contained in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal
Code, in which case the judge may order that the sentence be
served concurrently.
Factors to be considered
(3) In deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2)
the court shall have regard to:
(a) the nature of the offence;
(b) the circumstances
surrounding the commission of the offence;
(c) the degree of
physical or emotional harm suffered by the victim arising from
the commission of the offence;
(d) whether the offender abused a
position of trust, power or authority in the commission of the
offence;
(e) the criminal record of the offender; and
(f) the
attitude of the offender respecting the offence committed by the
offender.
Reasons
(4) Where the court makes an order under subsection (3), the
court shall give both oral and written reasons for that order.
That Motion No. 3 be amended by replacing subsection (2.2) with
the following:
Subsequent murder conviction
(2.2) Subject to subsections (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5), where a
judge sentences a person to a term of imprisonment for life for
first degree murder or second degree murder and the person is at
the time the sentence is imposed, subject to a sentence of
imprisonment for life for another first degree murder or second
degree murder, the judge may order that the person shall, in
addition to the parole ineligibility period referred to in
section 745 or 745.1 of the Criminal Code to which the person is
subject in respect of the conviction for the other first degree
murder or second degree murder or the remaining portion of that
period, as the case may be, serve on the expiry of that period or
remaining portion of that period, a further period not exceeding
twenty-five years in respect of the first degree murder or second
degree murder for which the judge is sentencing the person.
Further periods to be served consecutively
(2.3) Where a person is required to serve more than one further
parole ineligibility period referred to in subsection (2.2), the
periods shall be served consecutively, but in no case shall total
period of parole ineligibility exceed 50 years.
Factors
(2.4) In deciding whether to order a further period of parole
ineligibility under (2.2) and in deciding the length of that
period, the sentencing judge shall have regard to whether the
total period of parole ineligibility would adequately denounce
the murder and whether it would adequately acknowledge the harm
done to the victim.
Reasons
(2.5) Where the court does not make an order under subsection
(2.3), the court shall, orally and in writing, explain why it did
not make that order.
I think the amendments bring in the judicial discretion that was
one of the hurdles to this bill. Hopefully members will find
that they adequately bring balance to this bill and that they can
support them.
1345
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Debate is on the
amendment.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bill C-251 calls for anyone convicted of sexual assault to serve
that sentence consecutively to any other sentence. It also calls
for consecutive parole ineligibility periods for those who commit
multiple or serial murders.
The current discretion judges have to impose consecutive
sentences for sex offenders is unacceptable. Consecutive
sentences for these offences should be mandatory. One of my
motions in the House as a new member of parliament was along the
same lines as Bill C-251.
My motion M-23 calls for the House to provide that in cases
where an accused person is convicted of multiple criminal
offences, that person should receive consecutive sentences. My
motion at that time was even broader and tougher than the scope
of Bill C-251.
We on this side of the House have been calling for truth in
sentencing for many years. Without truth in sentencing we lose
confidence in our criminal justice system, and the justice
minister admitted that in this House.
Bernardo brutally killed two people. Clifford Olson committed
multiple murders. We feel that these individuals should serve
multiple consecutive sentences. Justice must be done and seen to
be done.
Today with the passage of this bill, criminals would know that
when they commit crimes they will serve the time. We must hold
criminals accountable and punish them for all the crimes they
commit. We must make a difference in the punishment for one
murder versus more than one murder.
We should all support the bill for at least it is a start. It
is a long way from providing sufficient protection within our
communities.
We should be looking through the lens of issues and not through
the lens of political stripes. We should support any member of
the House when he or she is doing the right thing. On this side
of the House we are allowed to do that and we expect the same
courtesy from the government side as well.
Today, I was pleased to swap my speaking spot with the hon.
Liberal member so he could move the amendment on this important
bill.
My will end my comments now because my constituents of Surrey
Central do not want to hold this bill up for one more minute. The
people who elected me to represent them in the House want me to
do everything I can to get tough on crime. We believe that
consecutive sentences for consecutive crimes is very fair. If
they do the crime, they will do the time.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. I am
also very pleased to support the efforts of the hon. member who
moved this particular motion and who has been so diligent in her
pursuit of this particular issue. Her perseverance is certainly
noted by Canadians, by victims and by those who work closely in
the justice system.
There are a number of quick facts that I want to bring to the
attention of members present and the Canadian public with respect
to the effects of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing.
After being convicted of a savage and sadistic murder of three
teenage girls in the 1990s, Mr. Bernardo was sentenced to receive
three concurrent life sentences.
This individual, although subject to dangerous offender
provisions, under the old sections could apply for judicial
review of his sentence in the year 2008. He would be eligible
for day release in the year 2015, after taking three lives.
1350
Clifford Olson is currently serving 11 concurrent life
sentences. He will not spend one extra day in jail than if he
had taken only one life.
Pedophile John Roby had been convicted of 35 counts of sexually
abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn
that, after being convicted to 27 counts of sexual assault on
children, Mr. Roby was sentenced to a two year prison term. After
several other victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal,
in its wisdom, did increase the sentence but only to five years.
In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with
three counts of first degree murder and he will be eligible for
parole after 15 years under the old faint hope clause, again, an
abominable section of our Criminal Code.
In 1977 there were 296,737 violent crimes committed in Canada.
Included in that number were 581 homicides. These are telling
statistics. Just imagine if these murderers realized that they
could continue to take lives of victims without any fear of a
stronger punishment, which is the current situation. Parliament
is ultimately encouraging, as the hon. member has repeated time
and time again, volume discounts with respect to the most high
end, most serious and heinous crimes in the country.
To that end, the perception is what is sometimes most important,
the feeling among the criminal element that the justice system
will not react in an appropriate and proportional way.
In 1994 a top Italian judge made this commentary on Canada's
justice system. He stated that Canada is becoming a haven for
organized crime due largely to Canada's lenient judicial system.
Bill C-251 passed second reading by a vote of 81 to 3 in the
House. This is an overwhelming majority with respect to a piece
of legislation such as this. This particular bill then proceeded
on to the justice committee where it was gutted by the Liberal
majority on that committee. I would suggest that this is an
affront to parliament because certainly this shows a lack of
respect for the original will that was passed in the House.
The Department of the Solicitor General has released statistics
that show that a released child molester who targets male victims
had a 77% recidivism rate. For 100 of those largely repeat
offenders who are released that is 77 more young lives that could
be shattered as a result of repeat offences.
This particular debate taking place today is the third
incarnation of what have been many years of diligent effort and
perseverance on the part of my hon. colleague from Mississauga
East. The House has displayed in the past a lack of courage to
approach this type of legislation. The House can be assured that
it will be proposed again and again unless the House fulfils its
responsibilities to the victims of repeat offenders.
Many critics of the bill will look south of the border, point to
the United States and say that consecutive sentences do not
reduce crime. However, many will also recognize, including the
hon. member opposite, that crime rates will go down with respect
to the perpetration of crime by those specific individuals who
would be sentenced to longer periods of incarceration if the bill
were to pass.
Canada's obligation is to ensure the protection of its citizens
first and foremost. The rudimentary principles of justice
dictate that a judge take into consideration issues such as
general and specific deterrents. Reformation and rehabilitation,
of course, always play a part of it. Deterrents and denunciation
is often whispered in the halls of justice. It is not something
that individuals seem quick to discuss. However, the protection
of the public is the primary duty and obligation of those tasked
with enforcement of law in the country.
The rate of violent crime has increased by an average of 4%
every year from 1978 to 1993. It is now 400% higher in the
country than it was in the 1960s. There has, however, been a
slight decline of 3% between 1993 and 1994. According to
victimization studies undertaken by Statistics Canada, in 1993
24% of all adult Canadians were victims of at least one criminal
act within the preceding 12 months. Canadians are 50% more
likely than Europeans and 500% more likely than Japanese to be
victims of burglary, assault, sexual offences or robbery.
This comes from Statistics Canada, 1993, CCJS, Juristat,
Vol. 14, No. 17, 1994 edition.
1355
According to a 1996 Pollara survey which was conducted
independently by the hon. member for Mississauga East, 90% of
Canadians support this legislative initiative in some
incarnation. That number also includes the support of the
Canadian Police Association, the victims resource centre
spokesman Steve Sullivan and other interested groups.
The entire issue of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing has
received a great deal of debate in this place. The principle is
quite simple. There are very strict guidelines that direct
judges in the country currently with respect to the imposition of
sentencing. Proportionality is something that must always be
kept in mind. Judges do not have a cookie cutter approach when
they are faced with the imposition of a sentence.
The hon. member in this legislation has increased discretion on
the part of a judge. A judge is not mandated by this legislation
to impose a consecutive sentence; a judge is however in extremely
aggravated circumstances in a situation at the high end of
violence with repeat connotations of sexual assault or violence.
In those instances why would we hesitate to put into the hands of
a judge the discretion to respond in a more appropriate and
proportionate fashion? Why would we shirk that responsibility?
The hon. member has brought this matter forward. She has been
extremely patient with her own government in putting water with
the wine when it came to amendments to this bill. She does have
the support of many on the opposition side and I suggest many on
the government side. She has also expressed quite fairly and
accurately in her statements here today that this is a matter
that should be put to a vote.
The democratic will should be expressed on an issue of such
great importance. A vote would be the expression of the
democratic will of parliament. Without it, it will not reflect
the democratic will of the people of Canada.
Concurrent sentences ignore the individuality and the pain and
violation that is suffered by victims of crime. A specific
recognition of each crime, of each victim is what this
legislation seeks to achieve. Violence must be met by the state
with strength. This bill allows the state to respond
appropriately in very limited circumstances where high end
violence is at the centre of the court proceedings.
That is what this bill seeks to do. It puts greater discretion
forward. Why would we not want to put the trust in the hands of
our judiciary to exercise that discretion appropriately? We are
infinitely aware in this place of the checks and balances and the
safeguards that do exist with respect to courts of appeal and the
Supreme Court of Canada. Let us not miss this opportunity today
to bring this legislation to a point where a vote will occur,
where the expression of the people of Canada will be heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this bill has some extremely
important human implications.
I would like to begin by reading a very short quote from a brief
presented to the committee studying Bill C-251. It says, in
substance:
[English]
“We cannot rely exclusively on the sentence in finding just the
right number of years to satisfy what can never be satisfied
fully and certainly not in a courtroom or a penitentiary. No
number of years, be they 25, 50 or 150 or more can return a loved
one nor restore innocence”.
[Translation]
This quote is from the Church Council on Justice and
Corrections.
Having said that, the amendments we are discussing today came
along very late, and we could have done with a little more time
to examine them in depth in order to make informed decisions.
I would prefer to speak, if I may, of the underlying principles
that guide me, as well as of certain myths that need to be done
away with. Then at the end I shall indicate my support or
non-support of this bill.
1400
First of all, let us deal with the myths. We often hear it said
that life sentences are not life sentences. This is false. A
life sentence means that the inmate will never again be free in
his entire lifetime.
There is much reference made to the Bernardo and Olson cases.
People seem to forget that there have already been amendments
made to the Criminal Code to deal with this type of problem.
Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code does not authorize a judicial
review for such cases.
Obviously, the present Criminal Code allows judges to impose
consecutive sentences. They have that latitude.
Judges already take recidivism into account. Do they take it
sufficiently into account? Should they accord more
importance to it? Are there messages that should be sent? All
this is possible, but, technically, these tools are already in
the hands of the judiciary.
Another popular myth is that the Canadian justice system is not
very tough. Our justice system is the toughest, after the
United States, of all comparable nations. I am thinking of
France, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, and so on. We have the
second toughest justice system of all these countries.
For example, the average time someone sentenced to life spends
incarcerated—meaning behind bars—is over 28 years. This puts us
second behind the United States.
I am not passing a value judgment. I am not saying that this is
good or bad. I am merely pointing out the facts. This is how
it is.
In the United States, mandatory consecutive sentencing is not
working. Like me, members have probably read the article in
Time magazine. This was not for sex-related crimes. It was for
drugs in particular. The principle was the same.
[English]
The title in question is “A get tough policy that failed”.
Mandatory sentencing was once America's law and order panacea.
Here is why it is not working.
[Translation]
I am pleased to see that the amendments proposed today include a
return to judicial discretion and a departure from this kind of
automatism. I would like to explain why I think this is
important.
First, I will speak to judicial discretion. Canada's first
Criminal Code, in 1892, already gave judges discretionary power.
This power still exists today. I am referring to section
718.3(4) of the Criminal Code.
Judges must give reasons for their decisions.
This means that the public has access to the reasons on which
the judge based his or her decision whether or not to impose
consecutive sentences. It is important to maintain judiciary
discretion because, if judges do not want to do it, it will be
done by the crown attorneys, who are not required to make their
reasons public. Therefore, it is important that judiciary
discretion be maintained.
Automatic sentences would be more or less like having the
sentence determined by a computer. A person would feed all the data
regarding the circumstances of a crime into the computer and it
would indicate what sentence must be imposed. That is why I am
against automatic sentences. I believe an amendment was put
forward to change that. I am looking forward to reviewing it in
detail.
Before deciding whether I will support this new version,
I will need to make sure that nothing will get in the way of
judiciary discretion.
I will need to make sure that nothing in this bill will
perpetuate the myths I mentioned a few moments ago.
1405
I will need to make sure that this bill is consistent with the
charter as well as with the decisions already handed down by the
supreme court with regard to offences to which this bill
applies.
In short, I will need to make sure that this bill is consistent
and that it is fair to victims while recognizing the fact that
justice does not mean revenge, but correction and justice.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank the member for Mississauga East for bringing such an
important question to the attention of parliament.
I believe
that parliamentarians should thank her for the way she
introduced the debate and presented things. I am extremely happy
to say that our colleague did so very subtly and with all the
delicacy such questions require.
There is one thing in my career as member of parliament that I
will never forget. It was an event that occurred in 1995 in
Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, a few feet from my office, when a 13-year
old child was killed as the result of an explosion in a car
bombing.
I agree with the parliamentary secretary, who said the last
thing we need as parliamentarians in considering these issues is
to be revengeful or bitter. I do not think that was the case
with our colleague when she introduced the bill before us.
She is right to remind us that there are provisions in the
Criminal Code—and I am thinking specifically of section
718.3—containing guidelines for the imposition of cumulative
sentences.
However, I would like those watching us today to understand we
are discussing a private member's bill. It is the prerogative of
all members of the House of Commons to initiate debates on
issues of concern to their voters.
I hope we have this debate.
I have not yet decided whether I will vote in favour or against
the bill, but I can tell the member that I am very moved by her
arguments. I have in fact asked for a meeting with her in her
office next week so we may discuss matters further, and I do not
exclude the possibility of supporting her initiative.
I belong to a political party that believes fundamentally in the
value of rehabilitation. Clearly, the Bloc Quebecois, its
justice critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, and all those
in the Bloc caucus believe in rehabilitation.
There are times in life when inappropriate behaviour occurs and
petty criminals commit offences that must be sanctioned,
but at the same time we want the legislator to put resources at
the disposal of people who, through a community involvement that
begins with the assistance provided by health care professionals,
will firmly embark on a rehabilitation process.
I also realize, as the hon. member for Mississauga East pointed
out, that there are people for whom rehabilitation will not
work. Rehabilitation is not an option in the case of serial
killers or rapists.
I am grateful to the hon. member for Mississauga East for
reminding us that her bill applies only to a very small
percentage of criminals. I believe she said 1%.
Still, it is important to hold this debate, because when some
individuals in a community destroy the lives of others through
their actions we have a right to expect the judiciary, the
various courts of law, including the supreme court, to make fair
rulings.
1410
My understanding is that, with her bill, the hon. member seeks
to provide greater flexibility to the courts and the judges so
that when they deem it appropriate they will have the power to
issue a verdict commensurate with the offence that was
committed.
I know that my party will discuss these issues. Again, I am
grateful to the hon. member for assuming her role of
parliamentarian and making us aware of these important issues. I
can assure her that all Bloc Quebecois members will give
very objective and serious consideration to her bill.
As for what happens later, I am certain that, as a parliamentary
team, we will be the most respectful of her intentions and the
most respectful of what we are as a party, which is to say a
party that is well aware that there is an extremely small number
of people for whom rehabilitation does not make any sense. They
represent perhaps 1% of those who are criminalized.
It is therefore important that judges be able to take this into
account in their verdicts.
We will at all times remind others, as the member for
Bertier—Montcalm has done, as all of my colleagues who are taking
part in the proceedings of the standing committee on justice
have done, that the great challenge we face is also to make
ourselves available, to call on this parliament and on
provincial legislatures to allocate resources for those who
stand to benefit from rehabilitation.
In the second hour of debate we will again be able to take a
look at this bill.
Again, we are deeply indebted to the member for taking her
parliamentary duties so seriously.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will first put the
question on the amendment of the member for Leeds—Grenville to
Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the member for Mississauga
East and following that I will put the question on the amendment
of the member for Leeds—Grenville to Motion No. 3 standing in
the name of the member for Mississauga East.
The question is on the amendment to Motion No. 2. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
yeas have it.
1415
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May
31, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
We will now proceed to Motion No. 3. The question is on the
amendment to Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May
31, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.
It being 2.18 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.18 p.m.)