36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 109
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 26, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-409. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Paddy Torsney |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1010
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Nudity
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Criminal Justice System
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1025
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1030
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1045
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1100
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1115
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1130
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
1145
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
1215
1220
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1235
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1240
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1255
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
1310
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
1315
1320
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1325
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1340
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Paradis |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BPS IMAGING
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JOAN CHALMERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA PENSION PLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Mercier |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JEAN HAMELIN
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CHRISTINE LAFORGE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Bernier |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FÉDÉRATION ACADIENNE DU QUÉBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BC MINE IN BLACK LAKE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CUSTOMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Judi Longfield |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ENVIRONMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Herron |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TOURISM
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SOCIÉTÉ DES ACADIENS ET ACADIENNES DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Louis Plamondon |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Comments During Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Criminal Justice System
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1515
1520
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1525
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1530
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1550
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1555
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1605
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1620
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1625
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen |
1640
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Sue Barnes |
1645
1650
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
1705
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Forseth |
1710
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
1715
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Louise Hardy |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Réal Ménard |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1730
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CONDITIONAL SENTENCING
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1735
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1800
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derek Lee |
1825
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1830
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hepatitis C
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1835
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Budget
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1840
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Aboriginal Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1845
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banks
|
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1850
![V](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 109
![](/web/20061116190434im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 26, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay
upon the table, pursuant to section 23(3) of the Auditor General
Act, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development to the House of Commons for the year
1998.
[Translation]
This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, the 1997 annual report of the Provost Marshal of the
Canadian Forces.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-409, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation
Act (letter that cannot be transmitted by post).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this private
member's bill, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
Once it is enacted it will ensure that Canada Post does not
deliver contests or prizes which instruct people to pay a fee in
order to claim their prize. An extraordinary amount of Canadians
are inadvertently subject to these fees and moneys are collected.
I think it is a consumer rip-off.
It would also instruct Canada Post not to deliver letters that
inadvertently display logos which mimic government logos on their
envelopes. This is again intended to confuse or rip-off Canadian
consumers. I think this is an important piece of legislation.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to deliver a petition to the
House from 665 petitioners from around British Columbia who are
asking parliament to revisit the issue of the hepatitis C
compensation package.
1010
The petitioners are asking that the House reflect on the
concerns of citizens of Canada and offer a fair, compassionate
and humane compensation package to all who received tainted
blood.
PUBLIC NUDITY
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to
present a petition from citizens of Prince George—Bulkley Valley
and also from Prince George—Peace River who are concerned about
the growing trend of explicit public nudity and the effect it is
having on children.
There are laws in Canada to protect our children against this
form of nudity in all media, but currently there are no laws
protecting our children in public places.
Therefore, the petitioners call on parliament to enact
legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically subsections
173 and 174, the indecent act and public nudity provisions, to
clearly state that a woman exposing nudity in a public place, her
breasts in particular, is an indecent act.
The petition is signed by several hundred petitioners from our
ridings.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition to amend the Young Offenders Act to
reflect a change in the character of young offenders by
increasing the maximum penalty for violent crimes, such as first
and second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter,
aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault and armed robbery,
to double the maximum penalty and to allow the publication of the
young offenders' names after a second indictable offence, to
lower the age limit which defines a young person to include only
those youth between the ages of 10 and 17 and, with violent
crimes, youth aged 15 or older should be transferred to adult
court.
I submit this petition signed by over 200 petitioners in and
around my constituency.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I,
too, would like to present a petition on behalf of the family of
Barb Danelesko and some 300 other constituents of mine. They ask
that the Young Offenders Act be changed to reflect the character
of young offenders by increasing the maximum penalties for
violent crimes, such as first and second degree murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual
assault and armed robbery, to double the current maximum
penalties and to allow the publication of young offenders' names
after a second indictable offence, to also lower the age limit
which defines a young person to include only those between the
ages of 10 to 17 and, with violent crimes, youth aged 15 or older
should be transferred to adult court.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition signed by people of Peterborough
and the surrounding area who note that police and firefighters
are required to place their lives at risk in the execution of
their duties. They point out that the employment benefits of
police and firefighters are often insufficient for the families
of those who are killed while on duty. They suggest that the
public mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed
in the line of duty.
Therefore these petitioners call upon parliament to establish a
fund known as the public safety officers compensation fund for
the benefit of families of public safety officers killed in the
line of duty.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.) moved:
That this House condemn the
government for the deplorable state of Canada's criminal justice
system, and the government's lack of concern for public safety,
as demonstrated by their refusal to: (a) strengthen the Young
Offenders Act; (b) abolish conditional sentencing for violent
offenders; and (c) introduce a Victims' Bill of Rights.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford.
Today's supply day motion is aimed at strengthening Canada's
criminal justice system. Canadians have lost faith in our
justice system because it caters to criminals and it ignores
victims.
The Liberal government has mismanaged our justice system so
badly that the protection of society is not its primary purpose.
The Liberal purpose for the justice system is the quick release
of offenders and the protection of their rights. The justice
system has become a revolving door for criminals. They go into
prison knowing they will only serve a fraction of their sentences
before being released, free to pursue their criminal activities.
1015
The solicitor general, the minister in charge of prisons, said
in January that he wants more low risk, non-violent offenders on
the streets. Let us examine exactly what the Liberals consider
to be non-violent, low risk offenders. Rapists and pedophiles
have been released into many communities thanks to this Liberal
government's conditional sentencing program. Conditional
sentencing means offenders serve their time in the community
subject to certain parole style conditions. The Liberals treat
these despicable members of our society as upstanding citizens
whom they consider to be low risk and not deserving of jail time.
On May 19 the Globe and Mail featured a story in which a
Windsor woman was in a grocery store and ran into the man who was
convicted of raping her. The man had been sentenced only a few
weeks earlier and was given 18 months of house arrest. A 63-year
old Kelowna man sexually assaulted his niece and received a
conditional sentence. Two Montreal rapists received conditional
sentences. The list goes on and on.
On December 8, 1997 the justice minister stated in this House:
“We agree in principle that conditional sentencing is working
well”. Working well for whom? It works great for the
criminals, that is for sure. But there you have it. The
Liberals are most concerned with criminal rights. The Liberal
focus is on what is best for the criminals, not on what is best
for society. The previous justice minister, now the discredited
health minister, agreed to a victims bill of rights over two
years ago and we are still waiting. Victims are still waiting
and still nothing from the justice department.
The justice committee spent almost a year travelling across the
country, consulting and hearing testimony on proposed reforms to
the Young Offenders Act. It tabled a comprehensive report in
April 1997. The Liberals have had that report for over a year
but what has the minister done? Did she bring in legislation?
No. Did she introduce tough new measures to deal with young
thugs? No. Did she display a keen interest in taking on youth
crime and defeating it? No. Instead, over a year later the
justice minister released a glossy discussion paper complete with
a colourful logo. She calls it a strategy paper but what it
amounts to is more stalling and more delays in reforming the
flawed Young Offenders Act.
I speak about the Young Offenders Act as a representative of a
province that is all too familiar with the problem of youth
crime. Saskatchewan has the highest rate of youth crime in the
country on a per capita basis. Regina and Saskatoon are ranked
first and third among Canadian cities when it comes to break and
enters, most committed by teens.
Carol Wright of North Battleford was so sickened by the Young
Offenders Act that she created a petition signed by 70,000
people. And what is the justice minister's response? What does
the justice minister offer Ms. Wright and other residents of
Saskatchewan plagued by youth crime? The minister released a
pamphlet entitled “Canada's Youth Justice Renewal Strategy”
which is coloured and designed like a fancy promotion piece.
Typical Liberals, do nothing, just discuss, release a paper,
discuss some more, study it, have a report.
How much longer do Canadians have to wait? How much longer does
our safety have to be compromised before this government will
act? How much longer must Canadians live in fear of walking down
the streets in their own communities and in their own
neighbourhoods? The minister's colourful PR package does nothing
to make our streets safer or to address the concerns Canadians
have about youth crime.
The minister's proposals leave too much discretion in the hands
of judges. We have seen where that has led with conditional
sentencing. In typical Liberal fashion it is left up to a judge
to decide whether names should be published and whether a violent
young offender should face an adult sentence. So-called special
sentencing options will also be left to the discretion of judges.
Rather than ensuring young offenders face stiff sentences and
penalties by entrenching them in legislation, the minister wants
to leave everything to the whims of judges. Clearly leaving too
much power in the hands of judges is not the way to proceed.
1020
That type of open ended discretion has led to the mess we are in
today where young offenders who murder and rob are given slap on
the wrist sentences.
The minister states that adult sentences will be given to those
who display a pattern of violent behaviour. What kind of
pattern? How many offences make a pattern? None of this is
explained so I assume this also would be left to the discretion
of a judge.
The minister is also vague about non-violent offences. Is break
and enter going to be considered non-violent? What about drug
trafficking? Will these youths be sentenced to community work?
Do we want burglars and drug pushers serving community sentences
in our neighbourhood?
I do not want to waste the time of this House with a detailed
analysis of the minister's strategy paper because it simply
continues the consultations, the discussions and the debate that
have raged over the Young Offenders Act for years.
Now all we get is a smoke and mirrors strategy paper from the
Liberals to make it appear as though they are serious about
cracking down on crime.
Let us look at what others are saying about the minister's
paper. The attorney general of Ontario said: “I do not think
beyond a couple of things that it really deals in a comprehensive
way with the concerns that Ontarians have expressed over and over
again”.
The justice minister from Alberta said: “From what I am hearing
from Albertans every day, this will not fit the bill”. It will
not fit the bill because this strategy is not about the
protection of society. It is not about anything. It is just hot
air, more talk and more debate.
Since the Young Offenders Act was introduced in 1984, the
justice department has operated in a social engineering fashion
and look at what it has got us. People are afraid to walk the
streets at night. Violent crime by youth is at an all time high
and some cities are contemplating curfews for teens.
The Liberal way is the wrong way and this new strategy paper
does absolutely nothing to steer the youth justice system off the
wrong path.
The guiding principle of the justice system should be the
protection of society. The rights of criminals should be
secondary. The maximum age for the Young Offenders Act should be
lowered to 15 years for all offences and the minimum age for the
Young Offenders Act should be lowered to 10 years in order to get
young offenders into the system early.
We need truth in sentencing and the names of all convicted
violent offenders should be made public regardless of whether
they were convicted in adult or youth court.
There should be parental responsibility for their children's
actions. The minister speaks of parents paying court costs but
their responsibility should go beyond that in cases where it can
be demonstrated that parents were negligent.
We also need to promote personal responsibility. Individuals
must be responsible for their own actions. The Liberals believe
that our environment is responsible for criminal behaviour. They
believe individuals have no personal obligation whatsoever. Blame
it on TV, blame it on alcohol, blame it on the humidity, the
alignment of the stars and planets, whatever, but do not feel you
are personally responsible. That is the message being delivered
to criminals by this Liberal government, but that is the wrong
message. Criminals must be held accountable for their actions.
The types of changes that Canadians wanted to see are not
mentioned in the minister's new glossy package, but then this
government has not done anything with respect to bringing our
justice system into line with the views of Canadians.
They want to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. The Liberals
bring forward this meaningless paper. They want truth in
sentencing. The Liberals established conditional sentencing
where rapists and pedophiles are released into society, into our
communities.
Canadians want a victims bill of rights. The Liberals continue
to champion the rights of criminals. I therefore urge all
members of the House to speak in support of today's supply day
motion.
To speak against it, someone must either be a Liberal or they
must have an extremely warped sense of justice. I guess those
are really one and the same.
This Reform motion reflects the opinion of average Canadian
citizens and I know many members will want to support the
objectives of this motion when they speak in favour of safer
streets, safer communities and a more effective, functional
criminal justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what the Reform Party member had to say on
this and my question is a very simple one.
1025
Does he agree that, whether with respect to youth or the entire
penal system, there are also two solitudes in Canada when it
comes to the issue of crime? There is our attitude in Quebec
with regard to the entire penal system, young offenders, parole,
rehabilitation, and reintegration into society, and the attitude
of the other solitude further west in Canada on these same
issues.
Since the member was so interested in the Young Offenders Act, I
wish to point out that the 66th convention of ACFAS was held
during the week of May 14.
This important meeting of specialists, political scientists,
criminologists, and those working in the sector is held annually
in Quebec to examine all aspects of crime. I will read the
conclusion and I would like the Reform member to tell me whether
or not he agrees that there are two irreconcilable solitudes in
Canada, not just with respect to crime but with respect to other
matters as well, and that we will never be able to see eye to
eye.
This conclusion says “The federal proposals to amend the Young
Offenders Act that were released Tuesday by the Minister of
Justice reveal a growing gap between the approach to crime in
Quebec and that in English Canada, particularly in the West”.
This was the view expressed by Quebec researchers during the
symposium on politics and social management. They conclude as
follows “There are two irreconcilable solitudes; that of western
Canada, among others, and that of Quebec”.
Will the hon. member at least admit that there is an
increasingly wide chasm between Quebec and the rest of Canada?
If so, what does he propose to prevent this chasm between the
two Canadian solitudes from growing even wider?
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide any
specific explanation as to why youth crime is higher in
Saskatchewan than in Quebec, in fact higher than anywhere else in
the country.
The Reform Party has proposed a three step plan to deal with
young offenders. The first step involves early intervention and
prevention. The second is community based sentences for
non-violent, non-serious crimes. The third is what I focused
most of my discussion on, getting tough and having effective and
harsh penalties to deal with repeat violent offenders who are not
start getting the message currently.
We had a town hall meeting recently in Saskatoon. Advocates of
the current system's remaining as it is were there and there was
a young offender there who had committed repeat violent crimes
over a period of five years. His opinion was “see, now I'm
better”, but if our Young Offenders Act were working and
effective, his first offence would have been his last. That is
the type of justice system we need to prevent people from getting
into patterns of repeat criminal behaviour.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on
the opposition from the Bloc in Quebec. I applaud the system of
youth justice in Quebec because it is well integrated. But I also
want to say very strongly and emphatically that whereas the loyal
opposition talks about plans in town halls and stridently
critiques, in London, Ontario last week I opened the Sonier
Centre, together with many of the community partners.
We are not at the planning stage. We are at the implementation
stage. That implementation in my city involves crime prevention.
It involves getting a collaboration between boards of education,
early intervention to prevent children leaving school. It
involves getting neighbourhood watch and the St. Leonard society,
youth justice circles.
We can talk and critique but really what matters is action, and
action starts in communities.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member
on her community initiatives to deal with the problem of youth
crime.
I wish the justice minister would take some initiatives at the
federal level.
1030
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the Reform Party supply day motion
today. It addresses a number of issues that are very near and
dear to my heart, in particular the Young Offenders Act, victims
rights and conditional sentences. I can speak to any of these
points for a full day and still have more to say about them.
At the moment I want to concentrate on the issue of victims
rights. I want to relate a situation, one of many in my riding,
that I am very concerned about. With regard to the once proud
Canadian criminal justice system which today is basically a legal
industry, I am asking people who are listening and watching this
debate to take out a pen or pencil and a piece of paper and write
down some of the dates I am about to give. It will give everyone
a good idea of what the legal industry is all about, a legal
industry that is perpetrated by a government so mired down in
legalese and legal phrases that it has forgotten the basics of
what we are all about, that is victims rights.
In 1994 I began working with victims groups across the country
in developing a national victims bill of rights. In the latter
part of 1995 the Reform Party adopted the proposals in the
national victims bill of rights and included its blue book
platform at our assembly.
In 1996 at the height of this issue my colleagues and I brought
the proposals into the House on April 29. The then justice
minister, the now woefully inept health minister, stood in the
House just before me in debate and agreed to it. He said that we
needed a national victims' bill of rights and that it should be
sent to committee. And there it sits. That is unfortunate.
I want to talk about an individual and give everyone listening
an idea of what a victim goes through in society today. This is
about one of these characters. His name is Clinton Dale McNutt.
In 1995 at age 19 McNutt's adult criminal record began. He was
driving with over .08 and was convicted of mischief, refusal to
provide a sample and uttering a forged document. That can
happen. Maybe we should intervene. Maybe we should look at it.
What happened five years later? He was sentenced in 1990 to
eight years for attempted murder. During a domestic dispute
McNutt shot his brother-in-law in the abdomen and his wife's
sister in the back of the head. Both survived. After a plea
bargaining arrangement—and this is where the victims rights bill
comes into play—McNutt pleaded guilty to one charge for that
damage.
In January 1995 McNutt was granted day parole at Sumas Community
Correctional Centre. This is the day care of all day cares for
criminals. There are no fences, no guards and no security
system. Criminals can venture out in the community of Abbotsford
during the day, do what they please and go back at night to
sleep. There have been four rapes by residents of Sumas centre
in the last two years.
In July 1995 McNutt had day parole at Sumas centre but his day
parole was revoked. He was found intoxicated at the centre,
which is no surprise as booze and drugs come into Sumas all day
long. The correction centre says that is the kind of risk faced
in Abbotsford, British Columbia.
On October 18, 1996, McNutt was again granted day parole at
Sumas centre for a second time. He was back into day care again
so that we could look after this boy.
On April 14, 1997, not too long ago, McNutt was charged by the
Abbotsford police with indecent assault causing bodily harm.
1035
He is accused currently—I like the word accused—of leaving the
Sumas day care centre and attacking the corrections volunteer
whom he had met at the centre. The female victim required
hospitalization. Even the workers are not very safe from this
guy.
What happened after April 14? This is what should be noted.
This is what that indecent assault victim is going through like
many victims in our country today.
On April 25, 1997, disclosure court was adjourned. On May 23
the discovery was adjourned. On June 24 disclosure court was
adjourned. On July 15 disclosure court was held. On July 29 a
judicial interim release hearing was held. November 7 was the
preliminary hearing. He pleaded guilty. We must keep this in
mind. He is now guilty of indecent assault. He said “Yes, I
did it”.
On December 2 sentencing was adjourned. On January 21
sentencing was adjourned. On January 29 sentencing was
adjourned. On February 16 sentencing was adjourned to obtain a
psychiatric report. That was after four adjournments.
Judge W. Field struck down the guilty plea and ordered himself
removed from the bench after all this. He deemed a possible
conflict of interest since the judge's former law partner
defended McNutt in the attempted murder case when Field was a
defence lawyer.
We have to piece this together and think about it. Suddenly the
judge says, after adjournment after adjournment, that his law
partner defended him years ago when he was a lawyer. He deemed
it in conflict so he stepped down.
Then what happened? On February 26 they fixed a date for
sentencing. On April 3 sentencing was adjourned since the crown
counsellor announced that a dangerous offender designation was
being sought. They did not do that way back when the victims
were sitting in the court. After all this the crown decided to
seek that designation.
On April 20, 1998, the dangerous offender hearing was adjourned.
On April 27 the dangerous offender hearing was adjourned as
McNutt entered a new plea of not guilty. He had the right to do
that because the judge stepped down and there was a new judge:
“I was guilty before but I am not now”. The victim who was
indecently assaulted was sitting there listening to this stuff.
On October 29 the pre-trial was scheduled. On November 30, 1998,
the preliminary hearing was held.
What is going on? This goes on every day in almost all our
cities. This is nothing but a sick legal system, a legal
industry feeding on itself at the cost of victims. They sit
there day in and day out, the lawyers earning big pay for this
sort of thing, while the case is adjourned and adjourned and the
judge steps down. He pleaded guilty; he pleaded not guilty after
another judge was on the case.
They laugh. Look at them over there laughing at it. Liberal
members think it is funny. They should try going to the victims
and asking them about it. I think it is sick.
Unfortunately I only have a minute or I would start on what is
wrong with the system. We should take that for what it is worth.
That is what victims are going through day after day. It is darn
well time the government had the courage of somebody's
convictions to develop a national victims bill of rights to make
sure that victims are not treated like third class citizens, to
make sure that victims have at least the same rights as
criminals, and to make sure that victims are treated decently in
a country where they should have always been treated decently in
the first place.
1040
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
normally a government member ought to have risen to say that
what has just been said makes no sense. I cannot remain seated
without commenting on such a speech.
I think I have figured out what the hon. member's problem is.
Having listened to him carefully for 10 minutes, I think he is
in the wrong legislature. He should be a member of a provincial
legislature, because everything he mentioned relates to the
administration of justice. As far as the disqualification of
the judge is concerned, he may have forgotten, but he did not
specify which level of court this was. It was probably a court
of first instance, where the judgeships are provincial, not
federal appointments.
If the judge is incompetent, let the hon. member speak to the
Minister of Justice for British Columbia, which is where he was
appointed, but not in this place.
I think that he is comparing apples and oranges, and scaring
everybody in the process. This is how prejudices are created in
Canadian and in Quebec society, when people listen to these
folks with their tales of the bogey man, trying to stir up fear
about the Young Offenders Act, for instance.
Everything the hon. member had to say about the adjournments,
the changes of court dates, the disqualification of the judge,
who appears not to have done a good job, comes under provincial
jurisdiction. The Bloc Quebecois members are not in agreement
with this, because we respect your Canadian constitution. We
may not have adopted it, or signed it, but we do respect it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: They cannot understand for they are not
listening.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Instead of yelling, the hon. member
should perhaps listen to what I have to say.
He would hear somewhat more balanced and realistic speeches.
People would not be alarmed. The game they are playing here is a
dangerous one. Crime, the judicial system and public safety are
nothing to joke about. They should not be making political hay
with them and they should certainly not be picking up easy votes
in western Canada on such important matters. I think their
remarks are outrageous.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Furthermore, I am receiving applause
from the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Conservatives.
Something is wrong in this system.
I am coming to my question and I will be brief. The hon. member
would do well to come more often to the meetings of the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We recently heard the
testimony of an illustrious individual from British Columbia on
a victims bill of rights and on everything the member has just
said.
It was refreshing to hear someone from B.C. expressing views
that are different from those of Reformers, because that
province has a good system for victims. Perhaps it could be
improved. If the federal government has surplus money, let it
give it to the provinces to improve the system. British
Columbia, like Quebec, has a good system already.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Just what I need, Mr. Speaker, and just
what the country needs: a separatist telling us in the House how
our provincial governments and our judicial system should run, a
separatist telling us how our Canadian judicial system should
run.
This is about politics. This is about a government and
politicians who legislate in the House and leave the
administration of political decisions that lead to legislation to
provincial governments.
Why not legislate a national victims bill of rights and let it
be administered? Why is it that a government like this one
institutes conditional sentences and then turns around and says
to provincial judges that they can issue them all they like? What
happened? In my riding there were two rapes in a row. People who
raped women received conditional sentences.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Thanks to you.
Mr. Randy White: Thanks to me, the hon. Liberal member
says. I would like an apology for that insult.
1045
Quite frankly the Liberal government was told time and time
again in the House that we should exclude rapists and murderers
from conditional sentences and it chooses to ignore it and allows
it to happen. Thanks to me. I would like an apology for that
insult. It is the Liberal government that is at fault. The
government is deliberately denying victims in this country their
rights.
As far as the comment and the question from the separatists,
their agenda is a little below what it should be in this country.
I do not have any time to answer that real dumb question.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me begin by saying what else is new on the part of the
Reform.
Reform chooses an opposition day to do a smorgasbord of what is
the most heinous violent criminals. It is highlighting those
people in our society that the justice system is trying to work
out. It is exaggerating the extent of the crime in this country.
Crime has gone down in Canada. It is exaggerating and
fearmongering which is typical of the Reform opposition. It
highlights the exceptions to the justice system rather than the
rule.
Reform's simplistic attitude toward justice, an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth philosophy belongs in the jungle, not in
this House and not in this country. That is exactly the Reform
philosophy as far as justice goes.
I do not think victims in this country believe in an eye for an
eye or a tooth for a tooth philosophy. They believe that the
government has a balanced approach, both to youth crime and to
victims rights. We are on the record—
Mr. Reed Elley: The punishment should fit the crime.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is very
tolerant of heckling in debate but I am having difficulty hearing
the parliamentary secretary. To that extent I have to say I feel
the heckling is excessive. Perhaps members might tone it down a
little so the Chair is able to hear a member speak. I am sure
there are other members who would also like to hear the
parliamentary secretary.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are
really interested in hearing me but I will continue in any case.
As far as the young offenders proposals put forward two weeks
ago, the government put forward a balanced approach focusing on
front end initiatives in dealing with Canadian youth unlike the
opposition who try to prevent crime by simply changing the
Criminal Code or the back end of crime prevention.
I will give a brief overview of the most important changes to
the legislation that the minister has announced. She proposes to
replace the current procedure for transfer to adult court with
the procedure of assessing adult sentences in certain serious
circumstances so that justice can be provided quickly so that the
decision to transfer is made at the most appropriate moment after
finding of guilt. By speeding up the process we will ensure that
the offender, the victim or the victim's family and the community
see a clear connection between the offence and its consequences.
This change would allow that youth 14 years and older who are
repeat violent offenders or who are convicted of murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter, or aggravated sexual assault will
receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded
otherwise. The Minister of Justice would allow the publication of
names upon conviction of youths who qualify for adult sentences.
At the same time the new legislation will strengthen the
commitment to use community based sentences and effective
alternatives to the justice system for non-violent young
offenders. This new legislation will enhance the requirement
that community based approaches be—
An hon. member: Where is it?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Shall I continue, Mr. Speaker, or
shall we let the opposition—
The Deputy Speaker: I think the parliamentary secretary
has the floor. I am able to hear her well so I have been
reluctant to interrupt, but perhaps hon. members who are seeking
to participate in the debate might restrain themselves until
their time comes.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are quite willing to listen to the hon. member make her
presentation, but she is misleading the House because there is no
legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that it
is improper to suggest that any hon. member is misleading the
House. I caution him very much in respect of those words.
The hon. parliamentary secretary is entitled to continue her
remarks and speak about her intentions and I invite her to
continue.
1050
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, the minister has
indicated that she intended to work closely with the provinces to
help promote and expand the kinds of sentences that help youth
fully appreciate the impact of their actions, accept
responsibility in a meaningful way and come to terms with a need
for change in their lives. These approaches provide youth with
support to overcome criminal behaviour when traditional sources
of support are unavailable. Equally important, they engage
victims and the community in the administration of justice and
thus provide greater confidence by responding to legitimate
concerns that justice be seen to be delivered at the local level.
There are many models already in use across Canada. Some
involve restitution, that is, youth paying back to the victim and
the community for damage done. Other models involve
victim-offender reconciliation programs, family group
conferencing, community service orders or personal services to a
victim. All of these emphasize and reinforce basic fundamental
Canadian values such as respect for others, their property and
their community.
[Translation]
The government wants to increase its efforts to prevent youth
crime. Canadians want to provide their young people with any
assistance they may need and help them stay away from crime.
To
do so requires looking beyond the legislation and the criminal
justice system at ways available to our society to deal with
problems such as child poverty and child abuse, which are often
an underlying cause of youth crime, and to help young people not
to make the kind of choices that may lead them to engage in
criminal behaviour.
The Government of Canada has agreed with provincial and
territorial governments to pursue a joint child development
strategy as part of the national action program for children.
Canadians realize that legislative changes are only one piece of
the puzzle. Legislation alone will not stop young people from
committing criminal acts and innocent people from being
victimized. An efficient approach to deterring youth crime must
reach beyond the criminal justice system and include crime
prevention and a series of other programs and services to help
children and young people.
This is the basic message conveyed by the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs in its report on the Young Offenders
Act. The provinces and territories have been key partners in
seeking new direction for the justice system as it applies to
youth.
More important, Canadians have made a major contribution by
expressing their fears and concerns, and by demonstrating their
support for reasonable and balanced solutions.
These values—not those of the opposition—are the ones
Canadians want our justice system to reflect. We must do a
better job of ensuring that this is the case. There are
effective community-based alternatives, but they are not used to
their full potential. We rely too much on incarceration, as the
opposition often advocates, but this solution, while simple,
does not help young offenders, victims, or communities.
[English]
The Reform Party would want us to believe that the criminal
justice system is in a deplorable state. This is not what the
statistics show, but of course Reform members do not know how to
read or write. The victimization rate has gone down between 1998
and 1992. The picture we get when we care to inform ourselves
seriously is a far cry from those levels advanced by those who
want us to think that we have to lock ourselves up for fear that
we might be attacked if we dare walk out on our streets.
The Reform Party has been claiming that the system is broken
ever since it came into this House in 1993 but it does not have
any hard facts to prove it. Yes there are crimes. Yes there are
victims and one is too many. That we agree on. But it is not a
fair statement to say that the whole system has to be abandoned.
Why is it then that the opposition continues to claim that the
system is broken when Canada's justice system is at least as
effective as any of the other western societies? What is it that
is broken in Canada? What is it that we are not doing in Canada
that is much more efficient elsewhere?
I would suggest, if the members care to listen, it is because of
the very failure of the opposition to demonstrate that crime is
rampant in Canadian society that it has to resort to empty
rhetoric and petty politics to instil the fear of crime and to
try to put this government on the defensive.
The best way to fight crime is to ensure that crime is not
committed. As the Minister of Justice indicated on May 12 when
she outlined her strategy for the renewal of youth justice, crime
prevention is at the heart of a criminal justice system that
works effectively.
1055
A second phase of the crime prevention initiative will soon be
launched. These initiatives and others, which include the
strengthening of aboriginal communities, place a strong emphasis
on dealing with the root causes of youth justice and helping
communities to support and provide guidance to their children and
youth which is a key ingredient in making our young people less
vulnerable to a life of crime.
As for victims, I would caution the reliance the Reform Party
has been placing on a victims bill of rights. Such a bill could
only address matters within the federal government's
jurisdiction. I believe that the federal role in that area is
rather limited. As the hon. member of the Bloc reminded
Reformers, I would like to remind them that there is provincial
jurisdiction in this area, in the administration. They often
forget that.
I want to remind the House that the justice and human rights
committee is looking into the issue of what can be done to help
the plight of victims. In fact there will be a national forum
for victims rights here in Ottawa in early June. They also
forget that. I have no doubt that the Minister of Justice will be
interested. We encourage hon. members to hold more town hall
meetings to get the real opinion of Canadians as they often do
when they hold their town hall meetings if they are willing to
listen.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will make this a very short question because I see there are lots
of people who would like to ask questions.
I am just curious about a comment the hon. member made and would
ask her for a response to this question. She claims that the
crime rate is down 13%. At the same time her colleague from the
solicitor general's office was complaining in a press conference
that I was at that incarceration was up 28%. Could the member
possibly explain, if incarceration is up 28% that maybe crime is
going down because the bad guys are off the street.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, statistics across this
country do show that crime rates are going down. There is a
certain percentage, but I am not sure it is 28% as the member
would like us to believe, of violent criminals that is going up.
Mr. Myron Thompson: That is what your member said.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That is why we have to begin at age
zero, as I said in my speech. We have to begin to take care of
the problem that exists in terms of poverty and other problems
which exist in this country in order to ensure that we prevent
crime, not throw people in jail as the Reform Party would like us
to believe.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague from the government
could confirm exactly what she said about prevention being the
best way and not throwing everybody in jail without looking at
why they are there.
Could the member please give me her thoughts on the kind of
system we would have if the Reform Party was the government
today? What would Reformers be putting toward prevention if they
are talking about tax cuts? And yes we know there are some
people in this country whose taxes are too high and some large
companies that do not pay enough. Could the member please
explain to the House what kind of system we would have?
We know that with the cuts to the social programs now, there is
no more room to cut. We know that with the Reform Party there
would be no real social programs. Could she please explain to us
what kind of crime prevention program we would have in this
country with the Reform Party governing this country?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question but I do not purport to talk for the Reform
Party. I will talk about what this government wants to do. The
Reform Party members can speak for themselves. They are on the
record and have proven themselves true to form again.
As far as this government is concerned, the National Crime
Prevention Council that was set up by the federal government made
recommendations to this government concerning crime prevention.
Poverty is an important issue in terms of preventing crimes,
starting at age zero. This would include taking care of
nutrition, helping parents and single parent families to deal
with the problems which start early and helping dysfunctional
families from the very beginning. We are investing, as is on the
record and as was our commitment in the election campaign, $32
million in terms of community based crime prevention initiatives.
As I said in my speech, we will be doing the launch of these
initiatives in a few days.
I want to assure the member that the recommendations of the
National Crime Prevention Council are the basis of a lot of crime
prevention initiatives. We consider community based initiatives
as being the most appropriate way to begin. That is the route we
are taking.
Yes we have to take care of other social problems such as
poverty and child malnutrition.
We can talk about fetal alcohol syndrome and all the other
syndromes. Those are the types of initiatives we are looking at
in terms of funding and making sure we prevent crime at zero age.
1100
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Justice would explain the numerous contradictions
between the statements of the current Minister of Justice and
those of her predecessor, who both represent the same Liberal
Party and promote the same policies.
I will only quote a few short statements from the predecessor of
the current Minister of Justice. During Oral Question Period,
the then minister said “We must not amend the Young Offenders
Act.
Amending the act will not solve the problem of juvenile
delinquency”. The former Minister of Justice also said “The idea
is not to stigmatize these young people for life by publishing
their names in the newspapers, which could prevent them from
continuing their education and getting a job. Rather, we should
follow Quebec's example as closely as possible in dealing with
young offenders”.
How does the parliamentary secretary to the current Minister of
Justice explain that the minister did a complete turnaround and
yielded to the pressures of western Canada, among others, on a
very simple issue, by publishing the names of young offenders,
which squarely contradicts what the Liberal Party used to
suggest?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question, I
would like to reassure the hon. member by saying that our
position has not changed. Our approach remains balanced, with
crime prevention on one side—and I have already told the House
of our initiative of $32 million—and the treatment of those
needing rehabilitation on the other.
As we said when we announced them, the proposals are aimed at
less than 1% of young offenders, the most violent and repeat
offenders.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
invite the members of the Reform Party to listen carefully, as I
am sure they will have questions to ask me.
First, I think the Reform Party is right to question Canada's
criminal justice system. Unfortunately the arguments that lead
us to criticize the government over criminal justice are at the
other end of the spectrum from those of the Reform Party.
This difference once again illustrates the incompatibility of
Quebec's expectations and federalism as proposed by the
government opposite and especially as proposed by the Reform
Party and the people in the west. I could debate this all day
long. I know the subject well and am passionate about it.
It is vital that legislation to do with the criminal system be
well thought out.
Legislation must not be established on the basis of specific
cases or stories from the Journal de Montréal or other
gossipmongers in western Canada, but on the basis of a very
thorough analysis of the situation. Only then can we draft the
necessary legislation, and it must be for the long term and not
just to resolve a particular problem or a public irritant.
The Reform Party proposes a motion and attacks three
subjects from three different directions. I will deal briefly
with each one.
The first, the Young Offenders Act, is another matter I could
talk passionately about, because it is important. I have always
held and do so still that, a young 14 or 15 year old in trouble
with the law for having committed a murder or armed robbery in a
convenience store or elsewhere has a problem, but society too
has a problem, because this is a societal problem.
As for the Reformers, they criticize the Minister of Justice for
not having gone far enough. They are calling for the electric
chair, or almost; nothing will ever be enough for them, they
want the problem solved once and for all. As far as we are
concerned, when a series of amendments were made to the Young
Offenders Act in recent years, we suggested that, before these
amendments were implemented, the western provinces should first
try to apply the legislation as it then stood to determine
whether anything could be done with it.
In Quebec, we have been investing in a rehabilitation system for
20 or 25 years, and the Young Offenders Act as it stands works.
1105
There is always room for improvement. As long as a 0.1% rate of
repeat offenders remains, not enough is being done. There is
obviously room for improvement. However, will it serve society
to throw young persons in prison for life, in a different wing
from adult prisoners perhaps but sharing cafeterias and dayrooms
with real criminals? I think not.
Will the problem be solved by publishing the name of a 16-year
old who has committed murder? Will branding him on the forehead
ensure public safety? No. The law must be enforced.
The provinces have sufficient latitude under the existing
legislation to help these young people return to society as
anonymous citizens, earn a living, have a family, in a word
re-enter society—that is the basic idea—and become anonymous
citizens.
In this respect, Reformers should listen to what the experts are
saying, in Quebec. While political scientists may be caught up
in their own views, there are also criminologists, sociologists,
those enforcing the Young Offenders Act, those involved, to whom
problem cases are referred and who enforce the law.
I referred briefly to the ACFAS earlier. These experts, who have
gained renown across Canada and even in the United States, have
made it clear that, in Quebec, enforcing the Young Offenders Act
has paid off.
As I was saying, Pierre Noreau, a political scientist at the
Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscaminque, said “Twenty years
ago, Quebec chose to equip itself with a system for handling
troubled youth that is more sophisticated than in most other
provinces”. This is the secret of our current success.
Having heard what the Reform Party members have had to say,
there is absolutely no way we will ever be able to reach
agreement with them on the Young Offenders Act. We have two
different ways of looking at the problem. The Reform position
is incompatible with ours. Increasingly, as the government
takes a position on the Young Offenders Act, it is getting in
line with the Reform Party view, the view of the western Right,
and its position is becoming increasingly irreconcilable with
the Quebec position.
It is unfortunate, because the separatists, as we are labelled
here, used to be able to talk to those the other side, the
federalists, on a matter of great importance, and to reach an
agreement on it, for the good and the protection of society.
The Reform Party is not the only one to be concerned about this
issue, we too are concerned about it. But our solutions are
different.
The second point deals with parole for violent offenders. The
parole system is part of a theory of criminal justice based on
offender rehabilitation. That is the initial premise, and the
basis of the legislation. If they are against it, they need
perhaps to address the initial premise, the objective of the
legislation, which is to rehabilitate the offender and
reintegrate him into society.
Some offenders are harder to reintegrate than others. Some,
certainly, cannot be rehabilitated. I am told that pedophiles
do not respond to treatment.
Is this true? Is it false? I do not know. I am a lawyer, not a
doctor. I am told that, regardless of the treatment or drugs
used, a pedophile cannot be cured. This problem must be viewed
in a different perspective from other offences. The whole parole
system must be structured accordingly.
Since Bill C-45 was passed, the formula used to expedite the
release of some offenders after they have served one-sixth of
their sentence has been of concern to the public.
Obviously, people cannot agree or be pleased with what is going
on, particularly when they see individuals such as Lagana and
others like him, major drug dealers and big time money
launderers—according to the media, and this seems to be
confirmed in the legal files—released after serving only
one-sixth of their sentence.
1110
Considering all the problems created by drugs and the money they
generate, we cannot be pleased to see these individuals released
after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.
The Bloc Quebecois does not just criticize. It proposed an
amendment to the act, to try to solve the problem. We think the
problem has to do with how the parole board defines non-violent
criminals. I could give a presentation on a supreme court
decision in the 1980s or 1990s, the Smith case, in which the
court associated drug money and any money from crime with
violent crimes.
Money laundering does not seem like a violent crime, but where
does the money come from? It comes from crime. After weighing
the facts, the supreme court judges reached the conclusion—and I
respect their very legal rulings—that it was violent. The
legislation could perhaps be amended to bring it more into line
with the Smith ruling and deny such people parole.
My final point is the victims bill of rights, which, as I
mentioned earlier, is a provincial concern. Certain provinces
are undoubtedly more advanced than others. I was delighted when
the deputy attorney general of the province of British Columbia
appeared before the committee and told us everything that was
being done in British Columbia for victims.
It is perhaps not enough and more perhaps needs to be done, but
under no circumstances must the federal government interfere.
If the federal government has money, British Columbia said it
should hand it over to the provinces, who are responsible for
implementing the legislation. They will invest this money where
it is needed.
I could go on for hours, but my time is up.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to my colleague who sits on the justice
committee, as I do. He talked about the administration of
justice within his province.
It was a judge from Quebec who, using alternative sentences,
allowed two men who raped a young girl to walk free on
conditional sentencing.
I would like to know if the member believes that is the proper
use of the law or whether, if he had the authority and the power,
he would limit the use of conditional sentencing to non-violent
offenders as the government indicated.
When the conditional sentencing bill came through, Bill C-41,
and some of the judges began to use in a manner that the justice
minister today felt was inappropriate, he introduced an
amendment. It required the unanimous consent of this House to
introduce it in the manner that he did.
That was to caution the judges that the safety of society must
be taken into consideration when conditional sentencing is used.
It was a warning to the judges about using it indiscriminately
when violent offenders are involved.
I ask the hon. member to bear in mind that the administration of
justice in the province of Quebec overall does have some
concerns. There is a biker war there. We have seen murders,
including the murder of a young child. We saw the gangland type
of execution of two prison guards. We have not seen that for
years, certainly not in my lifetime, in the other provinces.
Before we start to cast aspersions on the administration of
justice in the other provinces, perhaps the hon. member should
take a look at some of these extraordinary criminal occurrences
in his own province.
1115
I would like him to answer that question. Is he satisfied when
that judge in Quebec, as do many judges across the country in all
provinces, uses a law created in this House, called conditional
sentencing, in a manner that allows a convicted rapist to walk
free?
Does the member support that? Or, if he had the power, would he
change that? If he would change it, to what extent would he
change it? Or would he simply allow what the government is
allowing, which is for the appeal courts to deal with it,
plugging the appeal courts with case after case? The attorneys
general of the provinces and the crown prosecutors are appealing
ridiculous decisions made by the lower provincial courts which
have allowed violent offenders to walk free through the use of
conditional sentencing.
I would like the hon. member to express his concern one way or
the other, if he has a concern over that particular piece of
legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker,
the hon. member's comment is somewhat surprising, since the
Reform MPs are the only ones criticizing the administration of
justice at the present time.
I have never criticized the justice
system of any province, I was merely repeating the allegations
by the Reform member who spoke before me, criticizing not only
the administration of justice but the very decision of the judge
who stepped down, more or less labelling him as incompetent
because he waited so long before indicating that he ought to be
disqualified.
I have not criticized the administration of justice. On the
contrary, I believe that the provinces, all in all, do a very
good job with what resources they have available.
I am very pleased with what I see at first glance as far as the
administration of justice is concerned, in Quebec at any rate.
As I have said, there is room for improvement. What the Reform
Party wants, however, does not exist—a kind of machine you would
load up with the facts, pull a handle, and out would come the
result at the other end. That is not how things work in real
life. There are cases where the facts have to be examined,
legislation that has to be applied, there are no miracle
solutions, and at the present time the legislation is good,
overall, although there is room for improvement.
I will not go into specific cases, as they want me to, because
that is not the role of a member of parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to rise to speak to this particular motion on this
opposition day. The topic is an important subject which
Canadians want to talk about. There is a great deal of interest
in the subject and it is very timely to be raising it at this
particular juncture.
The YOA, victims' rights, the whole subject dealing with crime
and urban safety is something that I am very well aware of and
deal with every day. I live in an inner city riding, the city of
Winnipeg, that is home to some of the worst street gang problems,
breaking and entering, nuisance crimes and a lot of property
crimes.
Next to health care, the number one issue that arises from the
people in my riding is: Why are their streets not safer? Why
can they not feel comfortable? They want to live the way we used
to live in that community when I was growing up. My father would
give me $5 to go to the store to buy a quart of milk when I was
eight or nine years old. I would ride my bicycle to the store,
buy the milk and return home.
Now a parent simply cannot do that. They would not be acting in
a responsible way if they sent their kid to the store with a five
dollar bill. It would not be smart. They would not be doing
their child a favour.
It is the number one concern. It is a quality of life issue.
People want it to be dealt with. They want it to be addressed.
They have a right to be angry. Even a lot of the choleric
language that I hear from members of the Reform Party I can
frankly understand. I can relate to it. We all have a right to
be angry when our streets are not safe and we do not feel that
our families are safe.
I recently held a round table on this subject in my riding and
two nuns who run a safe house for street kids in the inner city of
Winnipeg came to that meeting. They told me some stories that
might be useful for members of the House to hear.
1120
First, to give an idea of the nature of the problem, in the area
surrounding around the safe house people no longer sleep in the
outside rooms of their homes. They sleep in the inner part of
their homes, in a den or in a living room that is away from any
outside wall because there is gunfire every night. Every night
around Rossbrooke House in the inner city of Winnipeg people hear
shots going off as gang members threaten each other with
firearms. It is serious. It is not once in a blue moon, it is
every single night and families will not sleep in their bedrooms
because they are afraid of stray bullets coming in through the
windows on the exterior walls. Those are urgent circumstances.
They also went on to talk about some of the services they
provide in this safe house. They provide a refuge for the 9, 10
and 11 year old children who are being harassed and threatened
into joining these street gangs. The older gang members, when
they approach these 10 and 11 year olds, whom they want to perform
certain crimes for them because they are under a certain age, do
not taking no for an answer. In fact, they do not threaten the
little children with beating them up. They say “If you don't
come and join the gang and do what we want you to we are going to
beat up your mother or your sister or some family member”.
We should try to put ourselves in the position of a 10 year old
child who has an 18 year old thug telling him “If you don't do
this tonight I'm going to your mother's house to beat her up”.
It takes a lot of courage for some of these children to say no to
the gangs in my neighbourhood.
That is why the house that Sister Eileen and Sister Bernadette
run is so critical. They offer a refuge where these courageous
children can go to feel comfortable and safe for a little while.
The other thing they pointed out is that it is difficult for the
criminal justice system to deal with some of the young street
gang members. They are almost getting to the point where they
are hyper acute. They are difficult to deal with because there
is no place they feel safe or comfortable. They are always on
edge like a caged animal. They are always restless. Their heads
are always spinning around because they are not safe on the
street and often they are not safe in their homes. At home they
often face a violent situation. All the predictable consequences
of a poor family upbringing are very prevalent. So it is very
hard to reason with them. Using reason and logic does not work
when somebody is frightened and not thinking rationally. It is
very hard to negotiate with them, even in the safe environment of
Rossbrooke House.
I wanted to preface my remarks with some of that background of
what it is like in the inner city of Winnipeg where I live
currently, which has the gang problem, and why this particular
issue is so important to me and to the people I represent.
However, I do not believe this argument is going to be fruitful
or beneficial because of the sentiment, the tone and the content
of the remarks that I have heard from the opposition, at least so
far today, and I am sure there will be much more to come as the
day goes on.
A lot of us are victims in the inner city of Winnipeg. I have
had my home broken into many times. I have actually caught kids
breaking into my home. While I was holding them for the police
one of them kidnapped my four year old son to use as a trade-off.
It was a blackmail situation. It turned into a horrible mess.
Ultimately the kids did not get charged, but I got charged with
assaulting the kids who broke into my house. It took me six
months to clear up that mess. So I have been there. I have been
a victim.
We have a right to be angry, but there are different ways of
dealing with it. If we are serious about implementing change we
have to go beyond revenge. We have to go beyond the hang 'em
high mentality that I have been hearing here too much.
Members of the Reform Party have indicated that victims are
victimized twice in the system, once when a criminal does
something to them and once by the criminal justice system. I
would argue that there is a third time the victims are victimized
in this country. They are victimized a third time by the
exploitation that takes place in this House of Commons when their
personal issues, when the crime that they just went through, is
dragged before the House of Commons for cheap theatrical purposes
to try to fan the flames of some kind of discontent around our
criminal justice system. That I have seen time and time again. I
think it is really shameful.
1125
In the recent tragic case of the death of Reena Virk, the very
next day members of the Reform Party were jumping up out of their
seats saying “These kids are going to have to be punished. We
are going to sentence them like they are adults”. Those kids
were not even charged yet, never mind convicted. What about the
presumption of innocence? Yes, perhaps there was a group of kids
involved, but all the information we had was from a radio story
that indicated that a young girl had been beaten up by other
young people. Yet members of the Reform Party were on their feet
virtually calling for the gallows for these kids.
Fortunately the justice critic for the NDP challenged them and
said “If you are so anxious to hang these kids, build the
gallows right here in the House of Commons. Build it the right
number of feet high and bring these 14 and 15 year old kids in
here and hang them. You guys do it yourselves because we are not
going to be a party to it”.
It was a pathetic thing to witness and listen to people drag out
the worst possible aspect and dig deep for that most base sort of
thing that all people have in them, hatred and intolerance.
Reformers are capitalizing on that. In fact they are marketing
the malice which some people have inside them. Reformers seem to
be experts at digging down and finding the worst in the Canadian
public, pulling it out and slapping it on the table.
I have heard graphic details about sexual assaults and
pedophiles coming from those members. Every time they stand up
they seem to have some new horrific case, and the bloodier and
gorier the better. They recite them in great detail in the House
of Commons, not because they are trying to do anything
constructive in protecting Canadian people, but because they want
the cheap populism that comes with being associated with that
kind of enforcement.
It is sick. There is a morbid fascination that Reform members
seem to have with dragging these issues before the House of
Commons.
The extreme right wing in every country has always been heavy
handed in terms of criminal justice. Let us face it. The extreme
right wingers, and we can go all the way through history, will
avoid the obvious comparison which we are getting tired of using.
Not only in Europe but in any right wing, fascist dictatorship we
see a very heavy hand in terms of criminal justice issues, often
extending beyond human and civil rights.
These things seem to get mixed up and confused in the rather
simplistic world view of the Reform Party. Reformers get the
issues of individual rights, collective rights and human rights
jammed into some unworkable, unmanageable ball. I do not think
they have thought it all through.
We are critical of certain aspects of the criminal justice
system. However, I do not share the opening remarks of the
member who put this motion forward as they were full of a lot of
sensational terms—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I
must interrupt the hon. member as his time is up.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, listening to the NDP member makes it very clear to
me why we have such an unacceptable level of crime in this
country.
It also makes it very clear to me that the Liberal philosophy on
justice—and the Liberals have held power in this country for the
majority of the last 30 years—is the reason we have crime in
this country to the extent we have.
The NDP member talked about the rampant gang related crime in
Winnipeg. He talked about personal instances where he was
affected directly, yet he offers no solutions. Why does the
member not suggest that perhaps the authorities should go after
the people who are committing the crimes and put a stop to them?
All we hear from the NDP and from the Liberal government are
phrases like “We have to look into it. We have to do this. We
should do this. We must do this”. When is the government going
to start saying “We will do this”? Better yet, just do it.
Start addressing crime in this country like it should be
addressed, instead of talking about it with weak kneed analysts
and advisors who tell the government that the protection of
society and the people of this country is not the main priority
of the criminal justice system, but rather it is the protection
and rehabilitation of criminals and their reintegration into
society.
1130
Where do the law-abiding citizens come into this fuzzy, feel
good attitude of the Liberals toward crime?
The Liberal government talks about the new legislation that is
coming in. There is no legislation. There is only more talk.
The NDP is already supporting this more talk philosophy. There
is nothing happening from the Liberal government. Yet the NDP is
already supporting it.
It is this type of philosophy that we have had in the House for
the last 30 years. It has brought the country to the crime
ridden state that exists. Until we change things it will go on.
It will simply not stop.
How on earth can the member stand there and talk about the gang
related crime in the inner cities without offering any solutions
about what to do with the people committing the crimes?
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, actually I ran out of
time. I was just getting to that point in my remarks.
There are plenty of creative ideas in this recommendation to
make a meaningful impact on the unacceptable incidence of petty
crimes and nuisance crimes. The most nuisance crimes in my
community are things like property crime, break and enter,
vandalism, et cetera. We have had some terrible incidents with
more serious crimes.
We must recognize that currently the penal and criminal justice
system is being starved for funding. We give judges an 8% raise.
Yet people who work in the system, whose job it is to get dirty
every day and deal with some of the people on the street, have
not had any kind of budgetary increase or raise in pay for eight
years. They are demoralized.
I heard from a delegation from Stony Mountain penitentiary
recently where people are being asked to go on open range walks
alone. That is a real problem. They go on open range walks in a
ward where the doors are open and people can circulate. The only
reason this is happening is that the whole system is stressed or
maxed to the point where it is almost dysfunctional.
I do not say that spending more money on the criminal justice
system is the answer. However I know it is more costly to
rehabilitate than it is to punish. When dealing with 10 and 11
year old kids surely to God the objective is rehabilitation,
turning them back into productive citizens and not strictly
punishing them. That costs money. Meaningful social work to
turn kids' lives around costs money. I would argue it would cost
us less in the long run. Every soul we save will be a net saving
in the end.
They are predictable consequences of the tight money policy we
have been going through. The economy was ground to a halt.
Unemployment went higher. Many people are saying that U.S.
cities are showing a real drop in the incidence of violent crime.
In actual fact it is not more prisons. It is the fact that the
unemployment rate is the lowest it has been since the second
world war—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I must
interrupt the member.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate. A
very important motion has been brought forward on this supply
day. I commend the mover of the motion. It is also a subject
area that is very close to my heart. As a former crown attorney
the criminal justice system was at the centre of my work every
day. As justice critic for the Conservative Party I hope to
further my devotion to the issue.
I intend to focus my remarks today specifically on the issues
that have been brought forward in the motion and hopefully on
some of the points those in our party would suggest to improve
the criminal justice system.
There is no more important issue in my mind than that which
touches the criminal system. It deals with issues of health,
education and employment and is the centrepiece for the quality
of life of Canadians.
The application of criminal law is playing a predominant role in
society. Sadly few have not been involved directly or indirectly
with our justice system, whether as a victim, a family, a friend
of a victim or a witness to a criminal act.
1135
Many Canadians feel our present criminal justice system is not
working and therefore we need to change the system in a
significant way.
The Young Offenders Act is perceived rightly or wrongly as being
extremely flawed, inadequate and not sufficiently addressing
those of a certain designated age who find themselves involved or
in breach of the criminal justice system.
There are also those who consider after the fact, after people
have been brought to justice, gone through the court system,
convicted and find themselves serving their debt to society
either through incarceration or conditions placed on them through
probation, that the National Parole Board again is falling down
in its duty to protect Canadians. We can never forget that
protection of the public always has to be the priority when it
comes to criminal justice.
Canadians are shocked almost daily at the way our judges are
applying conditional sentences. The clause itself was never
intended by the drafters of the act to apply to those committing
violent offences. That is completely outside the purview of what
was intended when it came to conditional sentences.
It further reiterates the point I wanted to make earlier that
lost faith in the justice system is prevalent. Canadians are so
taken aback when they hear about sensational cases that they are
losing all faith. This is an extremely crucial issue. It is one
I am glad we are having an opportunity to debate today.
I share the concerns and the frustrations of many Canadians with
the application of the justice system. At times at least
criminal law is set up in a way to benefit criminals, not
victims.
There has been mention previously by members of the House of an
open house that is to occur. It will be a national forum to
address some of the issues, a round table that will perhaps give
us greater insight into the inequities that exist within the
system. I will personally be hosting one in my riding of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on June 1. I look forward to the
worthwhile and productive discussion that will take place.
Youth crime, crime prevention and ways to ensure the safety of
Canadians from criminals have always been priorities of the
Conservative Party. The emphasis on prevention or front end
proactive initiatives has been promoted by this party throughout
its history with the emphasis being on the protection of the
public. I assure the House that my colleagues in the
Conservative Party and I will continue to vigorously press the
government to reach the goals we need to attain.
One of those goals is to ensure victims of crime become a
centrepiece in the justice system. Among the measures my party
has brought forward were a victims bill of rights and the
abolition of section 745 of the Criminal Code, otherwise known as
the faint hope clause, or perhaps it should be known as the dope
clause.
The lowering of the age of the application of the Young
Offenders Act from 12 to 10 years is another initiative we have
put forward. The passage of legislation which would target
specifically criminal gang activity and the revision of the
Criminal Code as it relates to impaired driving sections are
others.
Time is limited in the debate. I will try to address
specifically some of the points raised in the motion. First let
me speak to the very hot and topical issue of the Young Offenders
Act which has been central in our news media of late. Since the
Minister of Justice has tabled her policy on youth justice I
believe it is appropriate to speak to this issue first.
The Young Offenders Act came into force in 1984 and has been
amended several times in 1986, 1992 and 1995. These amendments
addressed specifically the issues of penalties for violent
offences and facilitating the transfers of violent offenders to
adult courts. Those are certainly worthwhile changes, but the
most recent attempts to tinker with the edges of the Young
Offenders Act or throw it out altogether are inadequate
responses.
In 1996 the federal-provincial territorial task force on youth
justice made a number of important recommendations to the justice
department. It included dropping the age of accountability,
addressing serious offenders in a more efficient way and looking
at alternatives to courts, transfers and sentencing.
1140
Over past months the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights examined the recommendations of the task force. We have
seen the minister's response which was released to the media.
This seems to be the justice minister's preferred method of
making public policy statements. On May 12 the Minister of
Justice released the strategy for youth justice renewal.
What can we say about this initiative? Can we say that it has
addressed the concerns not only of the committee but of Canadians
at large? Sadly I have to say no. Unfortunately the minister
has missed a golden opportunity. I interpret it to be a wish
list or perhaps a philosophy of what Canada's worst law firm
would like to see done with the young offenders system.
We are missing in this initiative concrete legislative
initiatives. We do not see a commitment to funding for such
initiatives. The federal government has a responsibility to
enact legislation, not just to talk about it.
I reiterate this response is not what Canadians are looking for.
The goal of the youth justice system must be to reduce youth
crime through prevention, meaningful alternatives and meaningful
consequences at times. It must beef up or attach more emphasis
on rehabilitation and reintegration for youth who find themselves
involved in non-violent offences. There must be alternative
measures or means of diverting young persons out of the justice
system which can sometimes grind to a halt because of sheer
volume. We need to know where the money is and money has to be
put into the system in a very effective way.
Alternatives to formal court proceedings for non-violent
offenders are very complicated and will need a great deal of
attention, but greater emphasis must be put on that area.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always supported concepts
of alternative sentencing for first time non-violent offenders.
The Conservative Party has always believed that rehabilitation
programs for young persons with an emphasis on education, social
skills, personal responsibility and community service can be and
should be developed as a priority in the young offenders system.
I applaud the announcement of the minister. It is important to
see a recognition on the part of the government of the issue, but
sadly we have not seen any concrete initiatives. The $32 million
crime prevention fund announced through the media will be useful.
There is no question about that. However it represents only 1%
of the total law and order budget that exists to address problems
in the youth justice system. It certainly represents a fraction
of the amount of money that will be put into the ineffective gun
registry.
The Conservative Party advocates providing judges with more
power to impose mandatory treatment for individuals, in
particular young offenders. We also advocate parents being more
accountable and more responsible in the system.
The Young Offenders Act is an area fraught with difficulties. I
wish I had more time to address it in a significant way and to
make further suggestions. The motion includes references to
conditional sentences which I have addressed somewhat in my
remarks. The motion before the House talks specifically of the
need to address crime in a more significant way.
The Conservative Party will continue to push the government in
that direction. We recognize that efforts have been made but
that they do not go far enough and we are pleased to take part in
the debate.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I were
both crown attorneys. I listened with much interest to what he
said.
Drug abuse seems to be the matrix of much of the crime that
occurs. A statistic from Philadelphia showed that something like
200 heroin addicts committed about a half million crimes in that
city during a 10 year period. Could he comment on that?
1145
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much
the question. In the Canadian context the involvement of drugs
is certainly very relevant to the commission of crime, not only
persons under the influence of drugs committing crime because
their sense of reality is warped but also they would be out
committing crimes to feed their drug habits.
Emphasis on rehabilitative programs that help get people off the
drugs I think is a focal point. Sadly in places like the
maritimes where we have such a large coastline the devolution of
the ports police has caused problems in terms of the availability
of drugs now in coastal provinces.
Unfortunately I think that has been a failing of the member's
government in the decision to take away the ports police. But I
do agree that this is certainly an area that we have to focus on
in our criminal justice system and hopefully further funding and
rehabilitative focus will address this.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on
the drug situation, I agree with the hon. member and I find it
strange that our prisons are the places where drugs are more
readily available than anywhere else. That is the kind of system
Liberal governments have allowed to carry on.
I want to ask the member a question because of his experience as
a crown prosecutor. As an example, a drunk driver killed four
people in a head on collision. There was no question about it,
he admitted guilt immediately. He was very remorseful at the
time. When they went to court and began the proceedings the first
day, it was exactly two years to the day before sentencing was
finally imposed. There were 18 court appearances.
Could the member please explain what kind of system would allow
that kind of case to go on for 18 court appearances requiring
victims to drive all the way from Saskatoon to Calgary in order
to participate? It happens an awful lot.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Wild
Rose raises a very significant problem in our justice system, the
backlog the courts are facing.
I have to say with all honesty, having been a participant in our
court system, that delay is a tactic used quite often by the
defence. I have participated in that and it is not something
criminal lawyers are particularly proud of, but the old maxim
justice delayed is justice denied I think is very true in the
case he refers to.
It is simply unacceptable to have 18 court appearances and when
there are victims involved this is very telling. It is very
pychologically damaging for victims to have to wait to have some
form of closure on a criminal matter. When loved ones are
involved and they are faced with this continual legal wrangling,
it is simply unacceptable.
However, because of the caseload and the number of criminal
offences we are prosecuting throughout the country we find that
time and time again this does occur. This instance is perhaps
not indicative of what happens in all cases but there are those
exceptions where it drags on endlessly.
I cannot say specifically what happened in that case. It does
happen and I am sure that through addressing this with more crown
prosecutors and perhaps more judges would lessen the workload.
That would be one way to address it. Alternative measures for
some of the less serious offences involving property would give
more time to focus on violent offences and crimes where there is
loss of life.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank
my colleague who has just spoken. He has a seat on the justice
committee, as I have, and I appreciate his input into justice
matters, as I appreciate his comments today on this supply day
motion.
1150
I listened to most of the debate on this issue today and I was
dismayed when I heard the parliamentary secretary to the justice
minister use such strident vocabulary, couching her terms when
she dealt with the Reform Party's approach to youth crime.
It is also more disturbing when I realize that she has access to
the minority report I submitted and made public in response to
the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act.
We worked with the committee. We travelled across the country
and listened to 300 witnesses from not only the various sectors
of the youth justice system but also to parents whose children
had gone off track in spite of all they could do.
The parliamentary secretary and the chairman of our justice
committee knows full well our approach to youth crime. It is
within our report and it is contained within the private member's
bill I submitted to the House on September 26.
Our approach is early detection and prevention. We had experts
appear before our committee who told us very clearly that
aberrant and overaggressive behaviour can be spotted as early as
grades 1, 2 and 3.
We compliment the Government of Quebec which has spent money on
programs where a teacher, for instance, who sees a child who
needs help and care can refer that child to a program of
government where the child as well as the parents may receive
assistance to keep that child on track. We support that very
much and that is part of our approach to youth crime.
We very much favour the diversion of young people who come into
contact with the law for the first or second time in a minor way
out of the court system, away from the court system.
We saw some excellent programs not only as we travelled about
the country but since then. Programs such as the Sparwood
program and the Maple Ridge program have a very encouraging
success rate in terms of directing these young children away from
the court system.
A few weeks ago my colleagues and I met with Lola Chapman, a
co-ordinator of the Maple Ridge program. They began three years
ago as a court watch group. They saw the young offenders system
was not working. It was not helping young people. They simply
began by sitting in court, watching what was going on and
reporting it to the newspapers by way of letters to the editor.
It caused some concern among the court officials because they
did not like to see what was happening in that system as far as
their dealing with young people and the lack of success being
published in the media.
It eventually resulted in Lola Chapman and her 17 volunteers
having young people referred to them by the police and now by the
crown prosecutor, and their success rate is phenomenal.
Three years ago we were advised that there were 45 to 60 young
people passing through the weekly young offenders court. When we
spoke with her a few weeks ago, it was down to eight. That is a
phenomenal success rate. We support that very much.
In addition to that statistic there are very encouraging
statistics not only in her program but in the Sparwood program
and other community programs emerging from the grassroots in
spite of the young offenders system.
It is almost as an act of rejection to the young offenders
system and these people are saying they want to do something to
help.
The Maple Ridge program has a 94% success rate. What does that
mean? We asked Ms. Chapman what she considered a success. She
said any youth they accept into their program who does not
reoffend within one year they consider to be a success.
I agree.
1155
In addition, in 100% of the cases where restitution was required
full restitution was paid. We support that. As the
parliamentary secretary knows, in our executive summary we have
pointed to the need for the federal government to work closely
with the provinces to initiate these kinds of programs to
encourage them.
The attorney general from B.C. has now asked Lola Chapman to
co-ordinate with other communities to see if she can help to move
forward these kinds of programs so that we can keep our young
people who fall off the track for the first or second time and
who need the second chance to get that second chance from people
who are volunteers and who are committed to them.
It was interesting to learn that when a young offender is
assigned to one of those volunteers they stick with them. They
are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They have the love
and care for those young people that perhaps some of them need.
That is one of the key elements to their success.
Those are the two first levels we very strongly advocate. Quebec
has programs which I think are far ahead of some of the other
provinces. We encourage some of the other provinces and the
federal government to do what they can to provide the funding
necessary.
Another interesting point is that the witness from these
organizations such as the Sparwood program who appeared before
the standing committee said they did not want funding. They said
they would use the community resources because when federal and
provincial funding is involved strings are attached and they
wanted the flexibility to develop those programs to suit the
community requirements, and every community is different.
We very much encourage that. It is also encouraging to hear
that those programs are spreading. We talked to the RCMP in
Trail, B.C. which has introduced a program with the community.
It is having the same very high success rate. Over 90% of young
people are being rehabilitated. We find that by and large
rehabilitation in closed custody facilities simply has not
worked.
The issue is very clear. To quickly get the young offender
before he or she develops a hardened attitude toward the abeyance
of laws and rules in the home, in the school and on the street is
very important. We can deal with them in a way that they confess
what they have done, they have to face the victim and the
emotional expression, the groundwork is laid for the healing to
begin. Those young people are often never a challenge or a
problem to any member of society again in a criminal way.
In the area of federal responsibility we must not shrink from
the use of incarceration in order to protect the lives and safety
of members of society who are threatened by that very small
percentage of very violent young offenders who do threaten the
lives and safety of members of our society.
What would we do in that area? I want to briefly touch on the
package the justice minister presented a week and a half ago.
What she is recommending is of course only a recommendation. She
has used unspecified terms without definition. We really do not
know what the bill will look like. She promised one in the fall.
It has taken her so long to bring even this proposal forward that
we wonder why. We were able, without the battery of lawyers and
bureaucrats the justice minister has access to, to bring in a
private member's bill that does reflect the recommendations and
the testimony of many of the witnesses who appeared before the
standing committee.
1200
When we look at her proposal there are two things I have a great
deal of concern over. First she has completely ignored the
recommendation of her own standing committee to lower the age
from 12 to 10. She has rejected the research done by Professor
Nicholas Bala who was commissioned by the justice department to
do an in-depth academic examination of that very question. He did
the most thorough research we understand that has ever been done
in the country on the question as to whether or not the age
should be lowered.
He recommended it be lowered and he had a very sound rationale
for doing so. He pointed out that if a 10 or 11-year old commits
a serious violent crime such as murder, rape or manslaughter, a
child welfare response is an inadequate societal response to that
type of very serious offence.
It also became evident as we gathered testimony from across the
country that the older kids are using younger children to commit
crimes, knowing full well they are immune to the criminal justice
system. In addition, my own view is that the justice system forms
part of our educational system. When our children learn that
they are immune to the police and to the justice system for any
criminal act they might commit until age 12, we are sending the
wrong message to them. That is wrong.
It is an error for the Parliament of Canada to decriminalize by
way of age what would otherwise be criminal acts. We are not
inventing anything new. Under the old juvenile delinquents act
the police and the justice system were charged with the duty and
the responsibility of investigating and dealing with any criminal
act committed by anyone over seven or eight years of age.
The recommendation that was rejected by the justice minister was
simply to reduce it from 12 to 10 years of age, not back down to
age seven, eight or nine. It was to move it down where the
police have the authority to deal with a young offender, whom we
cannot call a young offender because there is no offence for
stealing a car by a 10 or an 11-year old.
There was a young person in that situation in Edmonton. He
stole over 30 cars and the police could do nothing except bring
the individual home and turn him over to the parents. The social
welfare workers could not touch him because there was no evidence
of neglect. They cannot act on a criminal matter because they do
not have the authority. It is only the federal government that
can issue laws dealing with criminal matters and then it is the
responsibility of the provinces to administer them.
I would like to quickly touch on the whole area of the cost of
the administration of the young offender system. The federal
government passes the laws and the provincial governments have to
administer the laws which costs money. They enter into
federal-provincial financial agreements to do so.
The province of Manitoba is now entering into litigation to get
out from under the administration of the Young Offenders Act.
Why? Because the federal government is reneging on its financial
responsibility in terms of the administration of the Young
Offenders Act in that province.
When we asked the justice minister and the officials when they
appeared before the standing committee during the estimates
whether or not they had anything to offer Manitoba at that time
to bring it back on side so it would not simply abandon the
administration of the Young Offenders Act, there was nothing on
the table. The government is not offering Manitoba anything. The
minister is talking about $32 million in crime prevention yet one
of the provinces is taking the whole issue to court to determine
whether or not it can shed itself of a financial obligation of
which the federal government has reneged on its part.
When we talk about funding for crime prevention the government
is not even living up to the financial agreements that ought to
be in place now. We find through our research that the federal
government can renege and back away from any federal-provincial
financial agreement it makes with complete immunity and has been
supported by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Government of
Manitoba knows that because it took it to the Supreme Court of
Canada when Brian Mulroney was the prime minister of this
country.
1205
I want to touch on one other serious flaw I see in the package
presented by the justice minister which she has promised to bring
legislation in to support later this fall. She wants to have
young offenders from ages 14 to 17 convicted in youth court for a
series of violent offences. She has four areas of violent
offences. Then the crown prosecutor will have to argue with the
judge that an adult sentence should apply. This leaves the
discretion to the judge as to whether or not an adult sentence or
a sentence under the Young Offenders Act will be imposed.
We say that is wrong. We say that because the courts are
unaccountable to the people, that discretion should be left with
the agent of the attorney general who will be indirectly
accountable to the people in a democratic fashion. The crown
prosecutor should have the full discretion based upon the
circumstances whether or not a violent young offender is moved
into adult court and then if convicted, our courts have no
alternative but to impose an adult sentence.
Why would we not want the judges to have this discretion? There
are a lot of good judges in our judicial system at the provincial
and federal levels. However we have seen what some of them have
been doing with conditional sentencing. They have thwarted the
intent of conditional sentencing, the intent of this parliament
in conditional sentencing.
We are saying in this party and in this caucus that we would
sooner give the discretion to the crown prosecutor who is
indirectly accountable to the people through the attorney general
of every province, rather than give that discretion to the
judges. I say this not without a lot of dismay and concern and
perhaps sadness. We have judges sitting on the bench who through
their power and discretion of interpretation of the law and their
use of the law, are using it in a manner not meant by the
Parliament of Canada.
The former justice minister admitted in this House that he does
not believe a conditional sentence is an adequate sentence for a
conviction of rape. Yet we are seeing this happen all the way
from B.C. right across the country to Quebec. Cases have been
raised in this House.
Contrary to what our colleagues from the NDP say, I think the
people of this country want those issues of crime and violation
of the law and the destruction of people's lives raised in this
House. What are we here for if we are not to do that, if we are
not to show there are weaknesses in our criminal justice system?
To suggest otherwise is utter nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, a degree of irresponsibility has created disdain
for this House in the minds of too many people across the country
and a disrespect for members such as yourself and myself. I
should correct that. Not yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to myself
and my colleagues. We are looked upon as do nothing people who
just follow the whims of the leader, in this case the Prime
Minister who does not really care about the victims of crime, who
does not really care about the fact that since 1984 when the
Young Offenders Act came in, the overall crime rate has risen
300% and the violent crime rate has risen 100%.
In closing, I thank the mover of this motion for giving me the
opportunity to place the Reform Party's approach to youth crime
squarely before the people. We want early detection and
prevention. We want the diversion programs that are springing up
across this country. We want them to expand. We want them to
have the support of this government and the provincial
governments.
We want the resources brought from the back end of an $11
billion justice industry to the front end. Not only will we
spend a lot less money, but we will be investing money in the
lives of these young people which will keep them out of the
prisons and out of serious crimes.
1210
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to
read the motion that we are debating today. It states “That
this House condemn the government for the deplorable state of
Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of
concern for public safety” and it cites three examples
essentially in the areas of the Young Offenders Act, sentencing,
and victims of crime.
In reading that motion I ask myself and more particularly I ask
the opposition if it is arguing that everything in the justice
system is in such a deplorable state as the motion says. Should
everything this government has done in the criminal justice
system be condemned? Is the opposition also condemning certain
aspects or particular aspects of the correctional system? Is it
condemning the system of policing, all our judges and the entire
Criminal Code?
I believe the federal government is doing much more than the
Reform Party gives it credit for and I would like to give some
concrete examples. Rather than generalities and the sweeping
denunciations by the Reform Party, let us give some facts and
figures. Let us look at what is actually going on in criminal
justice reform.
Let us start with the first fact that Canada along with the
provinces spends in excess of $10 billion a year in the criminal
justice system, not as the member who just spoke said, in the
criminal justice industry, if I heard him correctly. It shows
the difference between the opposition members and this
government. As I said, it includes federal and provincial
expenditures and it covers policing, prisons, penitentiaries and
the courts.
The governments in Canada are not exactly starving the justice
system. As an example, the federal government itself spends
approximately $1 billion a year to support the efforts of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police and it spends a similar amount on
penitentiaries.
Perhaps the opposition is saying that the federal government is
not spending this money strategically, that is, not targeting the
big challenges to public safety. Let us take spending on
penitentiaries as just one example because I know the official
opposition is concerned about the state of our prisons.
Several weeks ago the solicitor general and the commissioner of
the Correctional Service of Canada announced that 1,000 new
correctional officers will be hired in order to strengthen the
safety and security of our penitentiary system. Does the
opposition disagree with the hiring of 1,000 new staff to make
our correctional system better? It is not cheap but it is one
example of setting priorities and then funding them.
The motion by the opposition seems to imply that the government
is ignoring the allegedly deplorable state of the justice system.
In this regard I believe it would be worthwhile to examine the
criminal justice agenda of the government both now and in the
recent past.
In the previous session of parliament the government introduced
over a dozen major bills amending the Criminal Code and related
statutes. For example the agenda encompassed new measures
targeting high risk offenders, bills dealing with prostitution
and child sex tourism, safeguards to protect the privacy of
complainants and witnesses in sexual offence proceedings, and
anti-gang legislation. There were reforms to the Young Offenders
Act and more changes to that act are going to be launched very
shortly by the Minister of Justice. In total over 250 changes
were made to the Criminal Code in just the last session.
[Translation]
I would like to address the main proposals in the strategy
for renewing the justice system for minors in order to address
juvenile delinquency.
First of all, replacing the Young Offenders Act by the Youth
Criminal Justice Act, which gives priority to the protection of
society, fosters such values as the sense of responsibility, and
calls for heavy sanctions for wrongful acts.
Second, the aim of the initiative is to expand the category of
offences for which a young offender may be brought before a
regular court, which will include, in addition to murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter and violent sexual assault, the
reiteration of the facts of the crime and will lower from 16 to
14 the age at which young offenders may be transferred to an
ordinary court.
1215
Furthermore, the legislation authorizes the publication of the
names of all minors found guilty in regular court and eventually
the publication of the names of minors between the ages of 14
and 17 found guilty by a juvenile court of murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, violent sexual assault and other stated
crimes.
One of the proposals is for the potential establishment of
criminal sanctions for the most dangerous and violent young
offenders and the application of intensive resocialization and
treatment programs and of a longer testing period.
Finally, we want to encourage the establishment of a broad range
of sanctions and effective control mechanisms, other than legal
ones, for small time delinquents, which encourage respect,
promote responsibility toward victims and the community, help
minors measure the consequences of their action and enable them
to grasp the cause and effect relationship between their crime
and its consequences.
As the government, we are aware that prevention is society's
best protection against juvenile delinquents. This is why our
strategy promotes prevention by linking reform of juvenile
justice to other government initiatives involving childhood and
adolescence.
I would like to give you a few examples. In the 1998 budget,
the government allocated $32 million annually to fight
delinquency. A new initiative to this end will soon be
implemented.
It is aimed at developing short term solutions and concerns
mainly minors.
We are developing, in partnership with the provinces and
territories, a national action plan for children to address a
fair number of the underlying causes of delinquency, namely
child poverty, childhood development problems, lack of structure
provided by parents, unemployment and scarce family resources.
In 1997 we spent $850 million to create a more generous child
tax benefit that will have a direct impact on the health and
well-being of children. The 1998 budget provided for this benefit
to be increased by another $850 million by the year 2000.
In 1997 we increased funding for the community action program
for children. This program supports the implementation of
hundreds of local projects promoting the development of children
at risk.
The 1997 budget increased funding for the Canada prenatal
nutrition program designed to help pregnant women in precarious
situations, such as teens and women who abuse alcohol or other
substances, so that they can give birth to healthy babies.
In 1994 the government launched a strategy against family
violence, which provided for major changes to the criminal
justice system in order to prevent family violence and for an
extensive long term effort to co-ordinate policies and programs
at all levels of government.
Also, the government announced its Youth Employment Strategy,
endowed with $2 billion, offering school to work transition
services and programs for young Canadians.
In the 1998 budget the government more than doubled its
assistance to help young people at risk make the transition from
school to work and this money will be used to fund company
training, career counselling, coaching and literacy programs.
In response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, the government is also developing initiatives that will
strengthen the government strategy of promoting native justice
with respect to minors, in close co-operation with native
peoples.
In 1995 the Liberal government introduced the head start
program.
This is an early intervention program designed to provide a good
start in life for aboriginal, Metis and Inuit children living in
cities and major centres in the North by providing social
assistance to their families and involving parents in
initiatives to promote culture, health, education and nutrition.
The budget also set aside additional funds to expand this
programme to include children living on reserves.
1220
[English]
I mention these facts and these examples, in essence this track
record, not to encourage our government to rest on its laurels but
rather to show that the government began with a major criminal
law improvement agenda and it accomplished very much of it step
by step.
This administration has not abandoned its criminal justice
agenda. On the contrary, it has continued a sensible, well
targeted agenda of selective law reform and program development.
I have already alluded to the major reform process of the Young
Offenders Act. The Minister of Justice has also stated her
commitment to the interests of victims of crime and has made
announcements in this area. She has also indicated that crime
prevention is a priority and over the past few years the National
Crime Prevention Council laid the groundwork for a broad based
crime prevention strategy and the government has indicated that
it will spend $160 million over the next five years on crime
prevention initiatives. Moreover, this crime prevention strategy
will give priority to the needs of children and youth and they
will be community targeted programs.
We all know the early years of a child's life hold the key to
forming attitudes and to producing law-abiding citizens. Crime
prevention strategies as promised by the government will link up
to youth justice reform and will draw individual communities into
the process of making our neighbourhoods much safer.
I said there were two reasons for referring to the legislative
and program reforms from the last session. The second point is
that the changes made to the Criminal Code over the last four
years are starting to pay off. I use an example that I think
shows the criminal justice system is not failing or falling, as
the Reform Party would lead us to believe, into a deplorable
state, but rather much improving.
I refer to Bill C-55, the high risk offender bill that came into
force on August 1, 1997 as chapter 17 of the Statutes of Canada,
1997. The bill targeted three areas. It built on the success of
the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code, it
created a new sentencing category for sex offenders called long
term offender, and it created a new form of restraining order or
peace bond designed as a means of deterring certain individuals
from committing violent personal injury offences.
The dangerous offender law was changed to make an indeterminate
sentence of detention mandatory in every case in which a
dangerous offender finding was made. The initial parole review
of dangerous offenders was also changed so that the review would
occur four years later than previously in the law.
Than life sentences for murder and certain other offences, the
dangerous offender measure is the only sentencing provision in
the code that calls for indeterminate incarceration. Bill C-55
made this mandatory. It was already evident that the dangerous
offender procedure worked. A study at the time indicated not only
that prosecutors were using it to go after violent sex offenders
but that use of the procedure overall was on the increase. Since
Bill C-55 there has been an even greater increase in the use of
dangerous offender applications.
Moreover, the early identification of potential dangerous
offenders has been made easier by the creation of a national
flagging system and by complementary efforts on the part of the
provinces.
The flagging system which was launched two years ago involved a
special Royal Canadian Mounted Police database that allows police
and prosecutors to put a special flag on the file of a convicted
offender so that any prosecutor in Canada can check the RCMP CPIC
database to identify the most serious cases.
Some provinces, notably British Columbia and Ontario, have their
own mechanisms in place to identify and investigate violent
offenders with a view to a possible dangerous offender
application. There is evidence that Bill C-55 and the national
flagging system have made this task easier and, more important, a
lot more effective.
Bill C-55 also created a new long term offender category. It
resembles a dangerous offender category procedure in its
operation but targets a slightly less serious category of sex
offender. In fact, if the dangerous offender criteria are not
met it is quite possible that he will be covered by the long term
offender category in which case, having been declared a long term
offender, he is still subject to up to 10 years of intensive
supervision being added to his initial sentence.
There have only been two long term offender designations so far
but the tool remains available to prosecutors and the courts and
we can expect to see more of these designations as more
experience is gained with the new procedure.
1225
The other main component of Bill C-55 was a new peace bond as
section 810.2 of the Criminal Code. Essentially it allows
someone to seek a restraining order where there is evidence that
an individual poses a significant risk of committing a serious
personal injury offence. The court can impose a restraining
order for up to 12 months with conditions attached to it such as
a requirement that the individual report any change of address to
the police or correctional authorities.
Canadian police forces were already reporting success with a
similar peace bond in the Criminal Code which targets potential
pedophiles. Section 810.2 is not only an additional crime
prevention tool but is now being used extensively across the
country, particularly in Ontario. Parliament has given police,
prosecutors and the courts one more useful tool to prevent crime.
I think the section 810.2 peace bond is worth mentioning because
provinces are starting to use these restraining orders in
conjunction with community notification orders. There is a
growing trend in Canadian provinces to identify offenders who
after released from prison still constitute a potential risk to
the community but who can also be controlled by appropriate
notice to the community and supportive programs for the
ex-offender. We are finding that provinces are using section
810.2 orders as a complementary measure to ensure that
ex-offenders stay on the straight and narrow.
I raise Bill C-55 as only one example of a measure that is
having impact and responds to the trends in the administration of
justice in the provinces and the public concerns regarding crime.
It is a measure that demonstrates this government's concern for
public safety.
I will list many of our initiatives to show that the Reform
motion is totally out of bounds when it states our system is in a
deplorable state.
The government has introduced legislation recently for the
creation of a DNA databank which will certainly go a long way
toward helping the police in their efforts to solve crime. We
have introduced $32 million a year in funding for community crime
prevention programs. Over 5 years that amounts to $160 million.
We have also, through the solicitor general's office, undertaken
nationwide consultations on the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act in order to improve the overall effectiveness of
Canada's correction system.
The government has introduced legislation for a comprehensive
new extradition act in order to fight international crime more
effectively. Let us not forget the strengthened gun control
legislation we introduced as well as the amendments to the
Criminal Code to prevent use of the drunkenness defence for
general intent crimes of violence, including sexual assault.
We also introduced measures to deal more effectively with high
risk offenders through Bill C-55. We passed legislation to
improve public safety through changes in the parole and
corrections system, including measures for easier detention of
sex offenders in penitentiaries until the end of their sentences
and measures to strengthen rehabilitation and treatment programs
for sex offenders.
We amended the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act to make
it easier for peace officers to obtain DNA samples from suspects.
We passed equally tough anti-gang measures, including the
creation of the new criminal offence of participation in a
criminal organization. These tougher sentencing provisions and
additional police powers to seize the proceeds of crime and
organized crime and to conduct surveillance of gangs have been
used very frequently lately, especially in my home province.
We amended the Criminal Code to toughen the laws on child
prostitution and child sex tourisms. We amended the Criminal
Code to tighten the faint hope clause, making it more difficult
for offenders to obtain the right to apply for early parole and
to prohibit persons who commit multiple murders from using
section 745. We amended the Criminal Code to ensure that those
who commit crimes of hate receive harsher sentences. I could go
on and on with the list but I know time is running out.
I want to reassure Canadians that this government will certainly
not sit on its laurels. We have a very heavy agenda for the next
session of parliament and we will continue to ensure that the
priority we have set, not only in our ministry of the solicitor
general but also the ministry of justice, the safety of
Canadians, is met with concrete action.
1230
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary
to the Solicitor General of Canada. I appreciated the outline of
what his government had done which he placed before the House.
That was refreshing, compared to what we heard from the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who gave a
strident and almost nervous response to her participation in the
debate. She simply attacked our critique of the laws and the
manner in which some of them were being administered.
My hon. colleague referred to 250 changes and covered them quite
well. There is not a hope of the child sex tourism law being
enforced, in other words stopping Canadians from travelling to
another country and engaging in sex with children. This is
window dressing to create the impression that they are doing
something when we do not have enough money to send to Manitoba to
keep it onside in the administration of the Young Offenders Act.
We are to expand funding to do what for child sex tourism? It is
window dressing.
We saw what the government did with the faint hope clause when
thousands upon thousands of Canadians signed petitions, phoned
and e-mailed members of parliament, to get rid of it completely.
They did nothing. Clifford Olson was allowed a full court press
with a judge and jury. We saw that happen. It is tinkering
again and it is window dressing.
Where is effectiveness? Where is safety for society? Where is
fair and just punishment for crimes committed?
We supported the new gang law which was moved through the House
and passed a year or so ago. The chiefs of police asked us to
support it because it would at least open the door to an area of
legislation not before entered into by parliament, organized
crime. How many individuals have been charged for belonging to a
criminal organization or for such a crime? We looked at that and
we saw how ineffective and how unenforceable it was.
The member touched a couple of times on our concern about and
our labelling of the justice system as being in a deplorable
state. When a province initiates litigation to get out from
under the administration of the Young Offenders Act as Manitoba
is doing because there is insufficient funding coming from the
federal department to maintain its financial agreement, surely it
is the greatest sign that at least in this area the
administration of justice is deteriorating badly. I have never
in my lifetime seen such a precedent as this one.
Could the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General
of Canada tell the House today whether or not his government has
taken any action to keep the Manitoba government onside? He must
bear in mind that when the justice minister and the justice
officials appeared before the standing committee weeks ago they
had nothing to offer the Manitoba government.
From that time until now has there been any agreement or offer
made to keep Manitoba onside? Suddenly the province of Manitoba
will not be there to administer the Young Offenders Act and the
federal government will have to do something about it.
Could the hon. member tell the House anything about dealing with
the crisis in Manitoba with regard to the administration of the
Young Offenders Act? Could he offer anything? I would be
pleased to hear what the hon. member has to offer in that area.
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I have been here for
five years. I guess it is inherent in our democratic system or a
tradition for the opposition to criticize the government and for
the government to try to advance legislation and ideas. It would
be refreshing from time to time to hear concrete ideas from all
opposition members.
1235
Far too often we hear criticism, criticism, criticism and never
any concrete suggestions whatsoever to improve the system. We are
constantly striving to improve the system. I recall several
attempts by the government to improve the system. We are always
confronted by Reform Party members in particular who vote against
us. They have had a fixation on trying to solve a particular
problem. They always invoke the memory of the Bernardos or
Olsons of the world when we try to enact legislation. Section
745 legislation was a clear example of that.
Had we had the co-operation of the parties—and I know the
Reform Party agreed but the Bloc reneged on its
commitment—Clifford Olson would never have been able to have a
section 745 hearing. The member knows full well that the
amendments and changes we have put in place will prevent serial
killers such as Clifford Olson from even applying under section
745.
There are other initiatives like DNA, for example. I wish we
could evolve to a point where opposition and government members
would work more closely together but I do not think that will
happen. It is the duty of opposition to criticize and I guess it
is our duty as government members to advance and to take the
criticism.
In direct answer to the member's question, just because the
administration of justice is the responsibility of the provinces
does not mean that legislation is bad. The member has identified
a problem in the area of funding. I reassure him that the
Minister of Justice and our government are currently negotiating
with not just the two provinces mentioned but with my home
province of Quebec to make sure the provinces have the right
tools to ensure the administration of the YOA act and other acts
is adequate. I believe also, though, that the provinces have a
very important role in this regard. It is not just the federal
government.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to
continue in the same vein as the Reform Party member who just
spoke, the question is, did the minister come up with the money
and did he suggest to the province of Manitoba that it take over
responsibility for enforcing the Young Offenders Act.
Given that the parliamentary secretary represents a riding in
Quebec, I hope that he is making his point of view known to
cabinet or at least to his minister when he meets with him.
I remind him—and there is even agreement on the other side
about the figures—that an amount of between $77 million and $82
million is owed to Quebec by the federal government for the
implementation of the Young Offenders Act.
Before finding money to help Manitoba enforce a law, and
since Quebec has been enforcing the legislation for quite some
time, I would ask the government to pay its debt of between $77
million and $82 million.
This being said, my question has more to do with the speech made
by the parliamentary secretary. If the hon. member was present
when the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa spoke, he may have noticed that the secretary of state
mentioned that narcotics are at the root of several problems,
that they are largely responsible for crime in Canada. We know
about narcodollars, money laundering, etc.
I have a very simple question for the parliamentary secretary.
Since Canada is known internationally as the number one country
for money laundering—possibly hundreds of billions of dollars
annually—what is the federal government waiting for to
introduce legislation that would prohibit this and make it
impossible to launder money in Canada as in other countries
including the United States where it is a lot more difficult to
launder money than it is here?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Mr. Speaker, this is a good question. Our
government is concerned by this issue. We have been consulting
the various stakeholders for two years now.
I can assure the House and the hon. member that, by this fall,
the solicitor general will introduce a bill providing for
various controls over money laundering, as well as other
appropriate measures.
1240
Colleagues in other departments—and I am referring to the likes
of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—will try to
review the legislation to stop or prevent organized crime from
committing crimes in our country.
It should also be pointed out that Canada and the United States
share the longest undefended border in the world, which makes it
easy to enter our country. We are nonetheless addressing the
issue, and I can assure the hon. member that the minister does
understand the issue and will soon be introducing legislation.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey
North.
I just want to make a few corrections for the Liberal member
opposite who just spoke. He said that Reform has not given many
concrete suggestions. How totally inaccurate that is. Look at
what happened to the victims bill of rights that was passed in
the House. The Liberals consequently swept it under the rug.
Listen to what we said about DNA samples and how they should be
treated just like fingerprinting to give the police an adequate
tool. The Liberals dismissed that out of hand. Time after time
we give positive suggestions and they are completely disregarded.
For him to say that we are not giving positive suggestions is
totally inaccurate.
This afternoon we are dealing with a topic of great concern to
all Canadians right across the country. As I go through my
speech I know the Liberals will say that I am using examples that
are not representative of our justice system. That is again
totally inaccurate. The examples that I will relate are good
examples that illustrate what is broken and what needs to be
fixed. The Liberals should be listening very carefully.
The first example is Billy Jo who was not hungry to see the man
who raped her rot behind bars. However she did not expect him, a
few weeks after his conviction for rape, to be at her local
grocery store. She said “I expected him to be in prison”. She
is 24 years old and lives near Windsor, Ontario. She said “I was
amazed and very angry to see him there. My first reaction was to
protect my children. I was scared for my kids. He had never
seen them before and I didn't want him to. I shoved them under
my coat and I rushed out”.
This man received 18 months of house arrest. Why? It was
because of the government's policy, the thing it is so proud of,
of conditional sentencing which allowed this person to spend not
even one day behind bars for a brutal sexual assault. That is a
symptom of what is wrong with our justice system.
Let us put this in context. What is the primary purpose of
government? In a civilized society the primary role of a
government is to provide for the peace and safety of its
citizens. When Reform chose this topic today and wanted to have
the government discuss it, it was striking at the very heart of
why we organize ourselves in a civilized society.
We need the rule of law. We need proper enforcement of the law.
We need to live by rules that we have all agreed upon, and they
must be properly enforced so that the citizens of a nation are
free to pursue their lives.
I will relate three principles today that I believe must be used
to test to see whether our justice system is the proper justice
system. First, the laws must simple, clear and easy to
understand for everyone in society. If the laws are too complex
and not easy to grasp they will not be respected. Those laws
must be fair.
1245
Second, the laws must be enforced equally. If they are not
enforced equally and if every citizen is not treated equally
before the law, that law will not be respected. There must be no
exemptions. There must be no special status for certain people
under the law.
The third principle is that if the laws are broken, there must
be clear consequences or punishment. If we do not have that in
our justice system, we will not have the respect for the law that
we should have.
Because this government is not taking those three foundational
principles into consideration when it passes laws and enforces
those laws, we are having the problems we are having. They are
three basic principles of justice. That is why we are debating
this topic today. This government has failed in implementing
these principles in the legislation and in the enforcement of
that legislation through the country's law enforcement agencies.
The laws are too complex. I have had a lot of dealings with the
gun registration system. It is not fair and it will not be
respected. It is much too complex for one thing. There are 128
pages of legislation with almost as many pages of regulations
which were brought in. The Liberals a couple of weeks ago
defended it by saying it is no more complex than the Income Tax
Act. Just think about that type of defence, saying that it is no
more complex than the Income Tax Act.
Another thing I know about that system is that someone can get
up to 10 years for not registering a firearm. It may be a
firearm that is lying in the basement of their house. It may be
an antique. It may not have been looked at or used for a long
time. To be made a criminal and to be imprisoned for 10 years
because of that is totally unacceptable. It causes people to
disrespect the law.
There is the example I already gave of 18 months not even in
closed custody for a brutal rape. Compare those two. That is
why people ask questions about what is going on.
Again the firearms act will not be applied equally to all
citizens. Citizens of a certain race living in certain areas
will not have that law apply. The justice minister said that we
have one law for all but it will be flexible in its application.
There is a problem right there.
There are certain provinces wanting to opt out of the Young
Offenders Act. Over half of the population of Canada, the
provinces that represent over half the people of Canada want to
opt out of the registration system. There is a problem when a
government is trying to impose something on people that they are
resisting. They have not agreed that this is a law which they
want.
Let me talk about another very recent example in my riding. A
horrific murder took place approximately a month ago. A young
mother was killed by her husband. The house was burned. Her
body was found later. The trial is not over, however when the
man was put under arrest, he was released on bail. What would be
an appropriate bail to set for someone like this? Do you know
what it was set at, Mr. Speaker? Three thousand dollars and he
was let out. That man is walking the streets today. Not only
that, but the judge gave him custody of the children. The people
in that community are very angry. They are very agitated that we
have a justice system that would allow for this kind of thing.
Mr. Speaker, you do not know the agony it has caused me as these
people contact me and relate their concern. They question a
system that is going to allow for this kind of thing.
The law needs to be seen as fair to all and applied properly.
Members can look at the case that I have just sketched very
briefly. I will not go into detail.
Look at it through the eyes of the victims. The parents of this
woman who was killed see what is going on. They are absolutely
shocked.
1250
What about the terrible murder which took place in the southern
part of my riding where these people lured an elderly gentleman
out and brutally killed him as he tried to help them with their
vehicle. What happened to them? This was murder. They were
punished and are out two and a half years later. We have huge
problems.
I have visited the inmates in the prisons across Canada. I have
asked them what advice they would give me as an MP in the House
of Commons. These are inmates in the prisons. Several of them
have told me voluntarily “I wish they would have gotten tougher
with me sooner. When I started acting up as a young person, I
wish they would have done something”. People who have fallen
afoul of the law, who have received sentences from 10 to 25 years
are saying why do we not get tougher sooner with young offenders.
I am not even half done my speech. There are so many things
which I think are important. I will try to squeeze them in later
in the day. All of these things have to be put into perspective.
I wanted to talk about the family and the need for strengthening
the family in Canada. We need to have this balance. We are not
just talking about becoming tougher. We have to apply the law
fairly. There are other aspects. I will emphasize them later on
in the day. I hope I will have time to do that.
This whole topic and the three principles I have related need to
be emphasized over and over. I wish the Liberals would test
their laws by them.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In view of the fact that my colleague from
Yorkton—Melville is making some excellent points which need to
be brought out in terms of this debate, it seems to me it would
be in order to ask for unanimous consent that his time be
extended.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for the hon. member?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not understand why the government would not give
unanimous consent but so be it.
I listened to the member's speech. He made some excellent
points. I would like to ask the member a question. I was always
taught to believe that when a government is elected its foremost
responsibility is to the law-abiding citizens of the country. At
least that was always my belief. Since I have been in parliament
I no longer doubt that it is the case, but I know that it is no
longer the case with the government.
I would like to get the opinion of the member. It seems that
the criminal element of our country has far more rights than the
victims do today. We had a case in my constituency a little
while ago where a husband stabbed his wife to death. He stabbed
her 37 times. He was only given three years. What kind of a
message does that send to our youth and to the rest of the
Canadian citizens who are looking for some kind of leadership
from this government which they have yet to receive? Does the
member see the same problem? Does the criminal element of this
country seem to have far more rights than the victims?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague
makes a very good point. The criminal element does have more
rights than the victims. That is why we brought in the victims
bill of rights several years ago. The Liberals swept it under
the rug and refused to bring it back to parliament. It was a bill
that was passed with huge support in this House. I do not know
why it has been stalled.
Criminals today have access to all kinds of money for their
defence but the victims have access to virtually nothing. The
criminal is read all of his rights. He is told all about the
wonderful programs that are available and all the things that he
has access to, such as legal aid and so on. The victims have
access to none of them. The victims have to constantly contact
the courts and the police to find out what is happening in a
particular case and how the people who have committed the
horrific crime against them are treated.
Those are just two examples of how the criminal in our society is
almost elevated and given all these wonderful rights and the
victim is given nothing.
1255
When those criminals get into prison I cannot believe some of
the things that are given to them that the rest of the people
even in my little community never enjoy. Golf courses, wonderful
pool tables, terrific training facilities, cable TV, health and
dental services, all of these things that they assume are their
right. I could not believe that some of them live at a standard
that is higher than the seniors in my community. Fourteen
wonderful cottages. The only responsibility they have other than
making sure they clean the microwave and that the TV is turned
off at night is to keep it clean. Seniors in my hometown shake
their heads when they see the type of facilities that are
provided for these people.
We have to seriously question the justice system that allows
this injustice to take place.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to speak to such a worthwhile motion today.
While I have not been here as a member of parliament for very
long, I have been here long enough to understand that today's
debate will likely not encourage the government to pursue
meaningful changes or improvements. The government does not
appear to be too interested in changing the status quo. In fact
I would go so far as to say it is primarily responsible for most
of the ills and complaints that our citizens have today.
This motion makes three specific recommendations: one, to
strengthen the Young Offenders Act; two, to abolish conditional
sentencing for violent offenders; and three, to introduce a
victims bill of rights. These three issues are prominent reasons
why I became a member of parliament.
Previously I had been actively involved in pursuing improvements
to the Young Offenders Act. I was able to review the proposals
made by the member for Crowfoot in his minority report subsequent
to the 10-year review of the Young Offenders Act. His proposals
helped me to choose the Reform Party as being the most likely
opportunity to achieve improvements to our laws.
Just days ago the Minister of Justice finally announced her
youth justice strategy. After almost a year on the job we
expected some comprehensive legislation in response to last
year's justice committee recommendations to significantly change
laws regarding young offenders. Instead of legislation the
minister produced a strategy. The minister has become so fond of
the term “in a timely fashion” to describe her intentions
regarding change that I believe she may have difficulty in
understanding what that term actually means.
The Young Offenders Act was first made law in 1985. The 10-year
review was not completed until 12 years later. It then took a
year for the minister to ignore some of the key recommendations
and merely announce what she hopes to do in the coming fall
session. Meanwhile she intends to spend many more months
studying, reviewing and analysing. I have heard that law
professors are known for studying and analysing. I guess those
among them who come to this place have difficulty in
understanding that a minister has a responsibility to do
something about a problem, not merely study it to death.
I appreciate that these comments may sound somewhat harsh but
young offender legislation is of particular interest to myself
and my family. Each day the minister reacts “in a timely
fashion” means that additional victims in communities have to
live with what even she has admitted to be seriously flawed
legislation. And it is seriously flawed in spite of the attempts
by her predecessor to address the failings of the Young Offenders
Act, but I will save further comment in that regard for a future
date.
On the issue of victims rights, I introduced Private Members'
Bill C-294 last December. It is intended to balance the rights
of victims and the rights of criminals. For years Canadians have
complained that this government falls over backward to ensure
that criminals receive all their rights and all their freedoms
while not being nearly so vigilant as to ensure that victims and
society at large also receive due consideration for their rights
and freedoms.
My bill would provide a formal recognition of victims as a party
to the criminal justice system. The system would be mandated to
keep victims informed of developments in their case. There would
be provision for the broader use of victims impact statements and
restitution could be ordered for psychological harm done to
victims.
Over two years ago the former justice minister promised to
address his government's failure to properly amend our laws and
to fully recognize the interest of victims. At that time he
stated “Although steps have been made toward progress in recent
years, they have been imperfect. There remains a great deal to
be done”.
1300
Almost a year ago the present Minister of Justice stated: “We
have not done enough to accommodate the interests of victims
within the criminal justice system”. Canadians are still
waiting. Our laws are still inadequate and the government still
has done nothing to address the interests of victims within the
criminal justice system.
The justice committee has finally begun to consider the issue,
but will the government have the fortitude to act? Only time
will tell. Hopefully for the sake of victims of crime and
society at large it will approach victims rights in a responsible
manner, but I know better than to hold my breath.
I will now move on to the issue of abolishing conditional
sentences for violent offenders. It is distressing that we even
have to resort to a motion in an attempt to convince the
government to do what it should have done over three years ago.
The former government brought conditional sentences into the
Criminal Code in 1995 through Bill C-41. Reform has no
difficulty with the concept of alternative measures and
conditional sentences, but we did argue to limit them to
non-violent offenders.
The former minister in his infinite wisdom decided that he would
not and could not give credit to the Reform Party for exposing
his failure to appreciate the ramifications of unlimited
conditional sentences. He initially held the position that of
course the courts would not apply conditional sentencing for
violent offenders. We all know the courts did use these lenient
provisions for violent criminal acts.
The court said that if parliament intended to limit the
provision it should have said so in the statute. What did the
minister do? He pretended that it was a problem of
interpretation by the courts and to assist them he again tinkered
with the legislation. In Bill C-17 which passed in 1997 he made
minor changes to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to try to
direct judges as to when to permit conditional sentences.
He should have said something more to the effect that thou shalt
not use conditional sentences for violent offenders and drug
traffickers. I guess that was too direct and uncomplicated.
What kind of mess are we in? For one thing the former minister
has definitely helped his colleagues in the legal profession. A
little legislative issue has generated millions of dollars for
those at the legal bar. It has cost taxpayers in many different
ways. Cases have to be appealed, justice is delayed until cases
are finally adjudicated to closure, appeal courts are clogged
with matters that never should have been an issue, and our crowns
are tied up with arguments and cases which should have been
straightforward. After three years of outstanding government
ineptitude the minister of timely fashion has announced that
maybe we should study the issue of conditional sentencing to
determine why it is being used for unacceptable violent offences.
Perhaps she should review some of the decisions of the various
courts of appeal. She will soon realize how our justice system
is being thrown into disrepute over this provision.
Derek Anderson Austin, convicted of cultivating marijuana and
possession for the purpose of trafficking, received a conditional
sentence. He had a long record, including possession,
trafficking, four failures to appear, driving while disqualified,
unlawfully at large and obstruction of police. On appeal the
court of appeal stated: “We are very surprised that such a
person would be given a conditional sentence”. What happened?
Nothing, because the sentence had already been served.
There are those who receive conditional sentences together with
community service. The lawyers ensure that some or all of the
community service is completed before an appeal can be heard. At
that point the hands of the appeal court are tied as the offender
has already been punished and it would be illegal to incarcerate
them. The former minister of justice solved the problem of our
growing prison population by providing even those who deserve to
be imprisoned with this lenient and abused conditional sentencing
provision.
Court cases are brimming over with examples of individuals who
obtained conditional sentences in appropriate circumstances but
the courts of appeal were barred from rectifying matters because
some or all of the sentence had in effect already been served.
Ronald John Schmidt received a nine month custodial sentence for
sexual assault. He told his seven-year old victim not to tell
anyone or he would do it again. He appealed for a conditional
sentence even though none existed at the time he was sentenced.
He was granted a nine month conditional sentence. There are a
number of cases of sexual assault by persons in positions of
trust over children where conditional sentences have been
imposed. Conditional sentencing does not carry with it society's
denunciation for these offences. Deterrence will not be effected
by such leniency. Parliament's support for these inappropriate
sentencing provisions will only reduce the standards of our
country.
There are hundreds of other cases of improper and questionable
use of conditional sentencing for violent offences but my time
will not permit me to go into them in detail.
We have a flawed Young Offenders Act and a minister who is taking
forever to do what she could have done years ago. We have
promises upon promises to address victims rights issues but the
government wants more studies. We have a sentencing regime which
permits violent offenders to serve their sentences at home.
1305
Yes, the House should condemn the government for its inaction
and for its failures with respect to our criminal justice system.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest. I have
a couple of questions for him.
As I travelled around my constituency back home in
Okanagan—Shuswap, I had occasion to drop into the schools every
now and then. I am finding more and more often as I visit the
schools and talk to the young people that they themselves are
afraid. They are afraid of a few people of their generation who
have some of them living in fear, fear of wearing certain clothes
to school and fear sometimes of taking money to school in case it
is taken from them.
I would like to know if the member has run into that type of
situation as he has travelled around his constituency. Is this
also going on in his area?
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It is an important question.
Before I became a member of this place I spent a lot of time in
the schools over the past five years talking to young people
about violence, trying to work with them and trying to make them
understand the ramifications. It certainly has been my
experience over those years from the number of young people I
have talked to in the schools that there is fear among our youth.
They are the majority of victims of youth crime.
I dare say that when a class full of high school students is
asked what it would do with the Young Offenders Act I find that
most students would be far more harsh than anything members have
ever heard from the Reform Party.
That explains the kind of fear students experience in their
schools. It is not only something I have seen in my riding or
the hon. members has seen in his. I have seen this throughout
B.C. at every school and youth group that I have had the pleasure
of addressing on these issues.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
colleague for his intervention. I know he has spent considerable
time working with victims groups across Canada, particularly in
British Columbia.
I wonder if he would share with the House and with people who
are watching at home the sense of frustration and bitterness and
anger people feel once they realize the justice system is
weighted much more toward the criminals and those accused of
violent crimes than the victims of those crimes. Maybe he could
share with us some thoughts and some flavour of the sentiments of
people who have been deeply touched by violent crime.
Mr. Chuck Cadman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question.
My experience over the past number of years with victims groups
and with individual victims certainly highlights the stresses
imposed on victims, particularly the families of victims of
homicide. These are cases that obviously inflict incredible
trauma and stress among the families. The last thing they need
is to not be told what is going on, and this happens time and
time again. It does not happen all the time, I must admit.
Through my own experience I am not afraid to basically go to the
horse's mouth for the answers. But most people cannot do that
sort of thing. It delays the grieving process. It is part of
dealing with the issue to be kept informed and to be able to talk
about these things.
I have heard of cases where a person takes an afternoon off to
go to court because somebody who is accused is supposed to appear
and when they get there they find out the accused appeared in the
morning and nobody bothered to tell them about it.
I know of cases where an accused has been released on parole and
their victim has come across them on the main street in town. It
retraumatizes victims.
Victims rights legislation and dealing with those kinds of
issues regarding specifically notification and the victim's role
in the criminal justice process is long overdue. I am happy to
say the justice committee is finally starting to hear testimony
on this. We will keep our fingers crossed and see what the
government plans to do. Like I said in my speech, I am not going
to hold my breath for a long time.
1310
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
Once again we see the spectacle of the opposition attempting to
lead Canadians to believe that our criminal justice system is in
a deplorable state. With hyperbole and theatrics it plays
directly into the hands of criminals by promoting fear and
exploiting victims for its own political purposes.
Its motion for debate states, without demonstrating it of
course, that our justice system is broken and that this
government has done nothing to fix it.
[Translation]
I would like to make one thing very clear. Our criminal justice
system is one of the best in the world.
[English]
The Canadian criminal justice system is not broken. According
to a Gallup poll released in March of this year only one quarter
of Canadians say they are fearful to walk at night in their
neighbourhoods. This is the lowest level of fear in 12 similar
surveys in the last 29 years, since 1970. It is also a
significant drop from the 37% level in 1991.
This government has done more in the last parliament than any
other government in the past to modernize our criminal law and to
make it more efficient. We have continued to bring forward
progressive measures for the purpose of improving what is already
an efficient system that protects Canadians better than any in
other democratic societies.
It is irresponsible to repeat without having our facts straight
that crime is on the rise or that the situation is out of
control. We do not have the right as responsible
parliamentarians to create unnecessary and unfounded fear in
Canadians when the facts do not support the bare assertions being
made.
Canadians want and deserve a safe society and we as a government
are committed to ensuring just that. My predecessor made more
than 250 amendments to the Criminal Code, a record that is surely
unsurpassed. He did this in the areas of child prostitution,
high risk offenders, gun control and organized crime, to name a
few. He also began the process of reforming our youth justice
system.
In this parliament the government has taken strong measures to
provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to enforce the
law. In less than a year we have proposed Canadian legislative
measures that reflect our commitment to more effective law
enforcement without abridging the values all Canadians share and
which are enshrined in our Constitution.
With Bill C-16 we have given back to law enforcement the ability
to do its job without jeopardizing the constitutionality of those
powers. This government tabled Bill C-20 which will give federal
law enforcement officials the power to go after those who target
the more vulnerable in our society for the purpose of defrauding
them through telemarketing fraud.
This government tabled Bill C-18 which gives customs officers
the powers of peace officers at border posts for the purpose of
stopping illegal activity. This government tabled Bill C-3 which
will provide for the creation of a DNA databank.
A few weeks ago I tabled Bill C-40 which will give Canada a
modern extradition regime to ensure that those who are wanted
abroad for crimes committed will be brought to justice in an
expeditious manner.
Exactly two weeks ago I announced this government's strategy for
renewing Canada's youth justice system. It is a strategy that
addresses youth crime and is much broader than simply amending
existing legislation.
It is clear that Canadians want a youth justice system that
protects society. They want a system that fosters values such as
respect for others and their property. They want a system that
insists on accountability and that provides both violent and
non-violent youth offenders with meaningful consequences for
their actions, and they want a youth justice system that responds
to the needs of victims and communities.
I announced last week that the system will be improved to
reflect these concerns. We can do much more to prevent youth
crime in the first place.
1315
We must respond more firmly and more effectively to the small
number of the most serious violent young offenders whose actions
and how they are dealt with can impact most profoundly on the
credibility of our youth justice system.
We can develop and employ more effective and meaningful
community based responses for the majority of non-violent youth,
more effective and meaningful for the young person, the victim
and the community. We can also do a better job of reforming and
rehabilitating young offenders to increase the chances that they
do not re-offend and that they become productive and responsible
members of Canadian society.
We will replace the Young Offenders Act with a new youth
criminal justice act. We will build on the strengths of the
Young Offenders Act but address its weaknesses. We will send a
signal to Canadians of all ages that there is a new youth justice
regime in place.
The new legislation will propose changes to several areas. We
will develop more meaningful consequences for the most serious
and violent young offenders. It will propose to replace the
current procedure for transfer to adult court with a process of
transfer to adult sentences.
I will also be proposing an important change in relation to the
publication of names. The debate on this issue essentially
involves two legitimate and competing values: the need to
encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of
publicity on youth versus the need for greater openness and
transparency in the justice system. Both values are important,
but I do not feel that the current legislation reflects the
appropriate balance.
The new act will permit the publication of the names upon
conviction of all young offenders who qualify for an adult
sentence. Publication of the names of 14 to 17 year olds given a
youth sentence for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter,
aggravated sexual assault or repeat serious offences could also
be permitted.
Unlike the Reform Party which apparently believes in throwing 10
year olds into the formal criminal justice system, I do not
propose to lower the minimum age. The standing committee
recommended that in exceptional cases 10 and 11 year olds
suspected of committing extremely violent offences be subject to
the criminal regime for youth. They made a thoughtful argument
for doing so, namely, to provide a safety valve to capture the
very small number of youth who may not get picked up by child
welfare or mental health systems.
This recommendation has been seriously considered by this
government. However, rather than criminalizing the behaviour of
children at such a young age, the government has decided to work
with the provinces to find a more appropriate way of dealing with
these few tragic individuals who are obviously desperately in
need of professional help.
I will reduce the legal complexities in determining whether
voluntary statements by youth can be admitted into evidence. I
will make changes that respond to victims' concerns about
adequate notification of proceedings and access to information.
In addition, I will change the rules to allow the provinces to
recover the costs of court appointed counsel after the
proceedings from parents and young people who are fully capable
of paying.
Meaningful consequences for violent offenders, however, require
more than firmer sentences, tighter rules and control. We want
to develop in consultation with the provinces a special sentence
for the small group of the most violent, high risk young
offenders. This sentence would allow for long periods of custody
and treatment for young offenders who commit murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault.
We also have an obligation to ensure that all young offenders,
including the most serious, receive effective treatment and
rehabilitation. It is in their interest and ours that they be,
upon release, productive, well adjusted Canadian citizens.
Our strategy will increase the emphasis placed on treatment of
all offenders, including provisions for mandatory treatment, as
part of the special sentencing for the most violent young
offenders.
The government has proposed a balanced, integrated youth justice
strategy that goes beyond a simple reform of existing youth
justice legislation. There is a consensus in Canada that the
time for change is now. I look forward to continuing to work
with concerned Canadians and concerned parliamentarians to create
a fair and effective youth justice system in which we can all
have confidence.
1320
Let me now turn briefly to conditional sentencing. The creation
of a new sentencing option was the centrepiece of the
comprehensive sentencing reform package introduced in the last
parliament by my predecessor. While primarily intended for
non-violent offences, the appropriate use of conditional sentence
orders in cases involving personal injury is permitted in the
code.
Let me simply say in relation to conditional sentencing that I
have asked the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to
review the first two years of conditional sentences and I look
forward to its recommendations and guidance on this important
subject.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it interesting that the minister mentioned that 25% of
Canadians are afraid to walk the streets. That means that one
member of a family of four is afraid to walk the streets at
night. I would like to inform the minister that one quarter of
my family of four walked down the street one night, unafraid, and
I now have a family of three.
My friend Chris Simmonds had his family reduced from four to
three by a man who was out on bail after shooting a man in the
face.
Does the minister really feel that 25% of Canadians being afraid
to walk the streets is acceptable?
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why he is
saying that. As usual the official opposition misrepresents
situations for its own short term political purposes.
In fact, 25% of Canadians did express a fear in terms of walking
on the streets in their communities. Obviously nobody is
suggesting that is acceptable. However, because of the actions
of this government what we have seen is a decrease from 37% of
Canadians who expressed that view to 25%.
Clearly my goal and the goal of this government is to ensure
that all Canadians live in safe and secure communities. Perhaps,
as opposed to the hysterical fearmongering of the official
opposition, if they worked constructively with us we would see
safer and more secure communities.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am very glad to see the
minister here in the House. She has obviously displayed a great
depth of knowledge on these criminal justice issues.
The initiatives that she has taken in this policy platform are
certainly welcome initiatives, but legislation is what is vital.
This session of parliament is coming to a close and we are yet to
see some substantive legislative initiatives.
Ten year olds, she said, might be thrown in jail if a change was
made to the Criminal Code that would hold them accountable. I
suggest that is not the truth. The fact is, having a system in
place that would bring youth into the system at the age of 10
would allow her government to bring about the necessary change
that would encompass and hold young offenders responsible.
I also want to question the minister on what policy direction we
are going to see this government take with respect to the area of
parental responsibility, which is a huge problem in the area of
youth justice.
Finally, I would like to ask, when is the money going to be put
out? When are we going to see some of the figures to indicate
what these initiatives are going to cost Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, let me make it
absolutely plain, as I and other members of this government have
done over the past number of weeks. Nobody is suggesting that 10
and 11 year olds should not be responsible for the harm they
create or be held accountable in ways that are commensurate with
their age.
I know that the hon. member knows this because of his experience
in the justice system in Nova Scotia. We have three systems in
which young people can be picked up: we have the child welfare
system, we have the mental health system and we have the criminal
justice system.
What we are saying as a government is that we believe, when we
are dealing with children, when we are dealing with 10 and 11
year olds, that the best way to deal with the harm and make those
young people accountable and responsible and help them to recover
from what has happened in their lives is to make sure that they
are dealt with through the child welfare or mental health
systems. My pledge is to work with the provinces to ensure that
they have, in part, the resources to be able to make sure those
kids are picked up and do not fall through the cracks.
1325
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to see the minister moving in that
direction. There was a serious offence in 1984 in my riding of
Scarborough—Agincourt. In 1989, when we were both novices here,
I presented a private member's bill. After 10 years a lot of the
recommendations I presented are coming to light. I want to thank
the minister for moving in that direction. It is an honour to be
part of a government that has seen the light at the end of the
tunnel.
Could we not look at the legislation for automatic transfers?
Could we not look for mandatory treatment? For a serious crime
like a killing where the young offender is over 14 we could
automatically transfer that case to adult court. We have
mandatory treatment. If the young offender refuses mandatory
treatment we could withhold these special considerations.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we
can force no one, adult or child, to submit to mandatory
treatment. However, it is obviously possible to help a young
person or an adult to understand that it would be in their long
term best interests to participate in some sort of treatment
program.
The animating spirit behind the member's question is important.
Even with the most serious and violent young offenders it is
important for us as a society to ensure they are provided with
the necessary treatment programs to ensure their long term and
eventual successful rehabilitation and reintegration into
society.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous
consent of the House to extend this portion of the debate. We
have the minister with us. I am sure the minister would love to
be here for an extended time to answer the many questions—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House prepared to give its
consent to extend the time for questions and comments?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not hear consent.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of
order.
Is it appropriate for the minister herself to say no, that she
would not extend the—
The Deputy Speaker: The question is not who does or does
not say no. The Speaker puts the question to the House. There
was not consent. Consent was refused. The Speaker is not saying
who said it. I do not know who said it. I heard no, and that is
enough.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I actually said it because I wanted to have an opportunity, if
the members do not object, to put some thoughts on the record on
this very important issue.
An hon. member: Good.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: You may not enjoy them. You say good,
but you may not enjoy them. I can assure you that some of them
will reflect on your philosophy and policies. I do not think
they will—
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for
Mississauga West will want to address his remarks through the
Chair rather than to some “you”. I realize he has not named
another member, in his view, but I would invite him to address
his remarks through the Chair please. It might help in the
circumstances.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will suggest through
you that they may not think my remarks are particularly good.
I was interested in one of the comments made by the minister in
response to a question from a member opposite. She said that
their issue is for their short term political purposes. Just
about everything they do in here is for their short term
political purposes. The operative phrase should be short term.
That is exactly what they do. They do not think in the bigger
picture or in the long term about the consequences of some of
their policies.
I like to think of them not so much as the Reform Party, but as
the “ing” party because the Reform Party's three cornerstones
are based on caning, whipping and hanging. Those are the
solutions of the “ing” party.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1330
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite do
not seem to agree with that. Let me share with everyone
something spoken by one of the Reform Party members. I believe
the member for Wild Rose said in the May 10, 1994 Edmonton
Journal “I do not think that kind of punishment hurts one
doggone bit”. He was referring to caning. “In fact I think it
probably has more effect than what we do today”.
The justice critic for the “ing” party decided that he wanted
to travel to Singapore to study the merits of introducing caning
to Canada's justice system. What a spectacle. Imagine in our
public places, in our courtyards, in our school yards, in our
homes that we would actually resort to caning as a solution to
violence. That is the Reform mentality. If we cane them it will
hurt so they will stop being violent.
I do not profess to be an expert, unlike many members opposite,
but I have read many articles written by experts and any expert
will tell us that violence begets violence. That is exactly the
kind of thing we want to stop.
The same member went on to say “I do not think caning is too
extreme”. That is from the Calgary Herald of May 10,
1994.
The Reform Party, or the “ing” party as I like to call it, has
not excluded young offenders from what it refers to as its two
strike and you are out policy. This would mean, as the justice
critic who is sitting here right now listening to this, said in
the Toronto Sun of August 15, 1996 “the repeat
offender”—and because they have not excluded young offenders,
young offenders would be included in this policy—“will never
see the light of day after committing his second act”.
That is just terrific. That is going to solve our problems. We
will throw them in a dungeon, lock them up and forget about them.
Young offenders need to be treated properly by professionals not
locked up in some medieval archaic way as that party would
profess.
I see the member from Wild Rose has come in, the member who was
illustriously quoted in the Edmonton Sun in March 1995 in
referring to his time as a school principal. He saw remarkable
change in behaviour among those who had “tasted a piece of
wood”. That is just brilliant.
It is a remarkable quantum leap to go from the motion that was
put very responsibly by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca,
whom I saw on Canada AM this morning speaking about his
policy on the headstart program dealing with young people. It is
a quantum leap in logic to go from dealing with a pregnant woman
and helping her give birth and raise a healthy, happy child to
caning, to hitting them with a piece of wood.
Where in the world did you guys come from? When they loaded up
the wagon train to come east I guess they checked their brains at
the Manitoba border.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member is perhaps
enjoying the rhetoric but I think he knows he must address the
Chair rather than any of the “you guys” he may be referring to.
I invite him to continue to do that.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. It becomes
a little frustrating when we read some of the things those hon.
members have talked about.
There is another problem. The hon. members from the “ing”
party across are confused. Some of the members want to scrap the
Young Offenders Act and some of them simply want to amend it. The
member for Nanaimo—Cowichan stated in Hansard in March
1998 “As the justice minister dreams about changes to the Young
Offenders Act, violent acts among youth are escalating and
revealing why the Young Offenders Act should be scrapped”.
Then we have others like the member from Wild Rose saying “When
are you going to amend the Young Offenders Act?”
1335
We have some of the extreme right saying to scrap it and then we
have others who generally are seen as being on the even more
extreme right saying to amend it. Their own policies in this
place do not coincide with the policies of their own party.
I would like to hear one of those members stand up and tell me
why they would not support replacing the Young Offenders Act with
new stronger youth justice legislation. That has been announced
by our minister. Why would they not support that? Do they just
want to be negative? Do they not want to have input into it?
This is a policy. They have a chance to have input into it. All
Canadians will have that chance.
Why would they not support expanding the offences for which a
young offender can receive an adult sentence to include a pattern
of serious violent offences? I have heard members opposite call
for that. The minister has said she agrees with that.
What seems to be the problem here? Why do we not just get on
with it? Let us take that policy statement and build it into
legislation. That is what the Canadian people expect us to do.
The minister would not agree to lower the age to 10 but why
would it be 10 by the members opposite? Why not nine? Why not
eight? In fact, as a parent of three young men I am a firm
believer that if you have not put your values into your children
by the time they are seven years old, then you may have lost
them. The first seven years of a young person's life are probably
the most critical years in their entire life. Why not seven?
Let us do what they have suggested. Seven years old, they
commit a crime, we throw them away. They do it again, we throw
them in a dungeon and lock them up. What kind of a society would
we be purporting to represent if we were to adopt those kinds of
policies?
The minister has said that the bill will lower the age limit for
which young offenders are presumed liable to adult sentences from
16 to 14. Why would they not support that? It is a positive
step in the right direction, things that many members opposite
have called for, some who are not quite so extreme.
It would expand the provisions allowing the publication of the
names of young offenders who have been convicted and who qualify
for adult sentences. But no, what the Reform Party wants does not
matter if they qualify for an adult sentence or not. If they
commit a crime, their names should be published. They should be
tarred for the rest of their life, instead of working with those
young people to help educate them, to help teach them that
violence is not a solution. They are not taught that by smacking
them on the back with a cane or hitting them on the rump with a
piece of wood. That party is spouting archaic nonsense. Those
members should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously this fellow missed his spankings when he was a young
person. That is pretty obvious.
Over the last 10 years, since the Young Offenders Act, 1984,
2,400 cases of violence were recorded. Now it is up to 24,000
and climbing which is over a 100% increase.
I do not understand where the member is coming from. Articles
come out like the one today, May 26 “Teachers in Montreal's
largest school board, the Montreal Catholic School Commission are
rightly denouncing the climate for fear and violence in which far
too many of them are forced to work. In the past two years, MCSC
teachers have reported 90 incidents in which they have been
physically assaulted by students, 30% in cases considered so
serious that police were called in. Teachers were punched,
kicked, choked, bitten and scratched. They have had chairs, bags
and books thrown at them. They have had desks pushed into them.
This March a teacher abruptly left her job after finding out that
one of her students, a member of a gang, had put a price on her
head”.
1340
That is what we have come to. There are guys like that member
who probably majored in bleeding heart 101 when he went to
university, if he got that far, teardrop 102 and all the other
socialist subjects they teach in these garbage places, so he can
come here, stand and brag about how wonderful a job they are
doing. And we have over a 100% increase in that kind of a crime.
He is close to my age. Surely he was brought up a little better
than that in the schools. I do not think that we had that kind
of a problem when I went to school. I know we did not when I was
a principal.
How does the member explain this terrible increase in crime?
Does a little bit of discipline not ring some bells in his
brainless head?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the best four years of my
life were not in grade nine, unlike the member opposite.
To answer, the problem is very real in terms of discipline
within the schools, but discipline is not violence. I went to a
catholic boarding school. Does the member want to talk about
discipline? Does he want to talk about violence? I would be
delighted to tell him some stories that would curl what little
hair sits on top of his head. I can say that I know a little bit
about this from some personal firsthand experience in a school
like that.
Generally what happens is a parent will say “I believe in
corporal punishment as long as you are going to strap the kid who
sits beside my Johnny. That will scare the dickens out of my
Johnny, but do not strap my Johnny”. You would hear that as a
principal, Mr. Speaker. He would hear that as a principal. That
is the problem. We have to give our teachers the authority to
discipline young people, but that is not the strap, that is not
the cane and it sure as hell is not a piece of wood.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if we could bring this debate to another level, another
plain.
I agree that with the Young Offenders Act there must be some
rehabilitative process. Right now with the federal government
and the provincial governments there are young offender services
and programs in place.
I wish the minister would have answered this question herself,
but the hon. member for Mississauga West is going to have to do
his best. The minister talked about working with the provinces.
The minister talked about a consultative process with the
provinces. The minister talked about cost sharing with the
provinces. Right now federal funding of the young offenders
services and programs has been reduced to the point where in
Manitoba it is funding only 34% of the programs. In B.C. it is
only funding 22% of the same programs that the member for
Mississauga West embraces. It is now funding only 31% of the
programs in the province of Saskatchewan.
Why is it that the member embraces these programs on one hand,
but now all of the funding from the government is removed on the
other hand?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is important that we
take it to a different level than talking about the size of our
individual brains or lack thereof. I appreciate the question.
The member will know that the province of Manitoba to which he
refers incarcerates more young people than any other province in
the country. It should be examined as to why that is happening.
We heard a speech earlier by a member from the New Democrats who
talked about having his home broken into and the violence he has
experienced at home in his riding. That is absolutely shameful.
No one here is saying that there are not problems with our young
people. We believe that the way to treat those problems is to
work co-operatively with the provinces to try to put in place
programs that will rehabilitate and help these young people lead
normal productive lives.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
difficult to follow a speech from a person who obviously does not
know a lot about young people. I wish he had worked at a
schoolhouse for a number of years. He would have seen the number
of changes I have seen over the 30 years I have spent in the
schools. It used to be that chewing gum was the major problem in
the schools but today violence is a major problem.
1345
It is a shame because this system and this government have put
certain things in our Criminal Code that have made it very
difficult for people in the school houses to maintain any kind of
discipline any longer. If they lift a finger or shake too hard
or even touch them they can be arrested for assault because of
the bleeding hearts over there who will not allow these kinds of
things to happen.
Unfortunately for them there have been parents who have lost
their kids today. Why? Because they were caught spanking their
children. Is that not a shame? I would like to know where a
person like the individual over there grew up. What era was he
in? Did he come from another planet where discipline was never
used?
At any rate I reiterate the things that have happened in the
government under the rule of the Liberals more than anyone else.
They have been in charge for a greater percentage of the time,
unfortunately for this great country. The Liberals have brought
us to the time that we get headlines like “Violence grows in
schools”. This is today's headline about a major school in
Montreal.
I got a large kick out of the speech I heard from a separatist a
while ago that everything was wonderful in Quebec and all the
right things were being done. Yet these kinds of headlines come
out from Quebec indicating a huge increase in violence in
schools.
Something must be wrong. Some changes have to be made. When we
talk about changes and the suggestions we want, we receive in
glossy print from the Minister of Justice all the things she has
been yapping about for a year or longer. She puts it all down in
print, but nothing comes before the House in the form of
legislation that would say to victims across the land that it is
time we did something because the number of victims is rising too
fast and people are being harmed.
They are sitting on their butts here doing nothing except
putting out a press release with something in glossy print which
those guys opposite will say are wonderful proposals. They
should stop the proposals, get something on the table and let us
debate it to fix the issue.
Let us talk about conditional release. Here is the positive
attitude of the Liberals in a headline “Conditional release
working 92% of the time”. Most people would say 92% is pretty
good. However, my headline would give a little more of the
facts. I would say that our conditional release program is not
successful because of an 8% failure.
That group over there would not understand what we are talking
about. Let us take a look at what happened during a 10 year
study that they provided to me. The 8% that were not successful
under the conditional release program went on to reoffend. As a
result we have another 2,237 new victims in Canada, of which 217
were murdered and 900 and some were violently raped. There have
been many other violent crimes because of the policies the
government has put in place.
They sit back and say they have a 92% success rate. However the
8% out there hurting people, killing people and raping people is
too big a sacrifice to ask Canadian people as a whole to make. It
is not a successful program when those figures come across my
desk from their own offices and their own people. Something has
to be done about that.
I listened to the NDP member who talked about how we exploited
all things that happen in the land. For his information and for
the information of the NDP, I have talked about many individual
cases. I talked about the case regarding the Manning family from
Quebec when we tried to get DNA testing in place. In fact when I
talked about it the Manning family was sitting in the gallery
encouraging me to do just that.
The Ambose family from Scarborough, when the Young brothers
campaign was on, encouraged me to rise in the House to talk about
their political situation because nothing was happening. I
talked about the Boyd family when we tried our darndest to kill a
Liberal law, section 745 of the Criminal Code.
We tried desperately to get rid of it. It was suggested by one
of their previous members who is now an independent.
1350
The Boyd family and other families encouraged the Reform Party
to do its best to get rid of those kinds of laws. They sat in
the galleries begging us and asking us to do these things. We
had their support and what we got from the other side was
political nonsense.
They said that we are exploiting these crimes for political
gain. Hog manure. There are many ways to get political gain.
All we have to do is talk about all the stupid things they have
done financially and we will get political gain. We do not need
to talk about crime. It is bad enough as it is.
To suggest for a moment that we are exploiting these cases for
political gain is really getting sick. It is the victims who
have come to our offices to encourage us to do these things. They
do that because they know the group opposite does not have the
intestinal fortitude or the guts to even consider doing such a
thing.
The bleeding hearts in the left end of this room, from the
separatists on clear to the wall, would not even dare talk about
those things. They would rather talk about the mushy stuff that
goes on around here: the warm fuzzy feeling that we should be
giving to the criminals of our land and how we need to do more
to help in rehabilitating them instead of looking at the victims.
Is giving them more golf courses a great way to do it?
Drugs are rampant in the prisons. They are absolutely out of
control. There is not a guard in the whole country who will not
say that is the truth. What are the wimps over there doing?
Nothing. They do not have the guts to do anything. The only
thing they can do is sit over there and heckle like my
bald-headed friend. I can say that because I have more hair than
he has.
This kind of sickness exists in the government. Its members sit
back while the statistics go up and up because not one of them
has the courage to say it is time to do something. It is a
shame. They had one member on that side of the House who had the
courage to demand certain changes such as section 745. He sits
over here now because he was way out of line with this group of
people.
We have another one over there who constantly insists that
things are wonderful, that we must not let things get out of
control by daring to discipline children in our schools or in our
homes with a strap or a paddle, et cetera.
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Cariboo—Chilcotin.
I do not have to say that after five years in the House I get
worked up when it comes to justice issues. I really get worked
up when government members do nothing but dabble here and there.
Then they profess they have made wonderful changes to the
criminal code that will make my family and my grand kids safe.
People will not have to put bars on their windows any longer.
They have not done a thing. If they think I am exaggerating, I
invite them to come to small towns in my rural riding where there
are no police stations. They have bars or deadbolts on their
doors, on the windows in their business and in their homes. They
do everything they can to protect their property and in some
cases to protect their lives.
It is a shame that people in rural Alberta have to live behind
bars while the criminals are running around. It is a shame that
people are thrown in jail when they try to illustrate a principle
like being able to market their produce by selling their grain
without a wheat board permit and at the same time violent
offenders are put on community service. This whole outfit is
absolutely ill.
1355
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chair of the justice committee I have frequently
enjoyed having the hon. member for Wild Rose on our committee. I
have to say that his appearance in the House is a little
misleading because he certainly does not present himself in quite
the same way in committee. I say this as a compliment because he
is an active contributing member of the committee and I
appreciate his participation very much.
He is also very well known for his candour as we can see today.
I would like to ask him to candidly express his view on a couple
of things.
As a school principal I am wondering if he employed corporal
punishment in his school. Once and for all let us finalize it.
Are they true, these quotes that have been attributed to him
supporting caning?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in the school board act
in my particular district we were allowed to administer corporal
punishment under section 43 of the Criminal Code, which I
understand many on this side of the House would like to get rid
of. We used it, not sparingly, but as a tool that was used when
deemed absolutely necessary. It was kind of a last straw type of
thing.
The member who spoke before me and got me riled up to begin with
would have a hard time understanding that the strap or the paddle
can be very effective. He ought to try it some time. Maybe he
should have received it. I received it and I guarantee it works.
I admire people like the hon. member who would like to abolish
all this stuff with all his warm fuzzy bull that will never get
anywhere.
The Speaker: I wonder if the member would consider not
using the word bull again.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I usually say Durham
after it and I forgot.
As far as corporal punishment in prisons is concerned, I believe
there might be a place for it. I would like to see it here for
discussion. I cannot for the life of me understand why anybody
would object to that kind of punishment for an individual who
would rape, hurt and slaughter little children, sex offenders of
little kids of five and six years old.
The hon. member should tell me what is the best thing to do in
terms of punishment. I think 90% of Canadians would say maybe
that is what we ought to do.
The Speaker: Whether it is Lord Durham or whomever, I
think we should go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are preventable
tragedies. The cold hard fact is that when a pregnant woman
drinks her unborn child also drinks.
Sadly FAS children can reflect severe neurological disorders,
social dysfunction, permanent behavioural problems, learning
disorders, hyperactivity, mental retardation, pre- and post-natal
growth retardation, speech and vision impairment, and physical
deformity. The list goes on.
The personal human devastation is horrific. FAS is estimated to
cost $1.5 million during the lifetime of a child in terms of
increased health needs, special education and social service
costs. Far too many of these victims run afoul of our criminal
justice system. In reality we are all affected.
I call upon the government to develop public education campaigns
to promote public awareness and to encourage prevention
initiatives. Let us stop the waste of productive lives. Let us
eradicate fetal alcohol syndrome.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as the
next millennium approaches time is running out for the Treasury
Board and for the federal government.
The year 2000 computer bug is poised to create major problems
for Canadians on January 1, 2000, yet the government is
sleepwalking toward disaster.
We know that just 584 days from now Canadians will face a
challenge. The potential for disaster is startling. Planes may
not be able to fly. Heart monitors and health care systems may
fail. Hydro grids might shut down. Yet Treasury Board refuses
to take action to ensure that all computers are Y2K compliant.
1400
Not only is public safety at risk but Canadians may also lose
vital services such as CPP cheques and passport records. The
assistant deputy minister for the year 2000 has even said the
government will have to write cheques by hand if it is not ready.
The failure of the Treasury Board to answer the call threatens
the safety and security of Canadians as we enter the next
millennium. It is time for the government to stop sleepwalking
and wake up.
* * *
CANADIAN YOUTH
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
I rise to pay tribute to the young people of Canada. I start by
using the words of our Prime Minister in describing them as
Canada's greatest resource.
As I travel across my riding of Simcoe—Grey I feel an
overwhelming sense of optimism regarding the future of our great
country. However, this road will not be an easy one for our
upcoming generation. It will require the tools to compete in
this ever changing world.
One of the most important tools we as parents and as a
government can provide is access to education. It is for this
reason I am especially proud to be part of a government, a team,
that has the fortitude to put in place a program like the
Canadian millennium scholarship program. This will afford young
Canadians access to post-secondary education regardless of
location or financial status.
With access to education I know young people like those visiting
from Duntroon public school will not just compete in the next
millennium, they will lead in the next millennium.
I say bravo for the Canadian millennium scholarship program and
what a great future Canada has.
* * *
[Translation]
EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all of
Brome—Missisquoi, from Bromont, Knowlton, Sutton, Dunham and
Frelighsburg to Eastman, Mansonville, Orford and Magog, applauds
the announcement made by the secretary of state responsible for
economic development.
Indeed, Tourisme Cantons de l'Est will receive $1.5 million over
three years to develop, in partnership with local organizations,
promotional ideas to sell our region to attract international
tourists in larger numbers.
[English]
I invite all colleagues of this House as well as every Canadian
to visit us this summer in our beautiful eastern townships.
With 80% of our people speaking French and 20% speaking English,
Brome—Missisquoi and the eastern townships reflect really the
true values of Canada. Come and find out.
[Translation]
Our beautiful landscapes await you.
* * *
[English]
BPS IMAGING
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development was asked
about the job buying fiasco at BPS Imaging in Newfoundland and he
said he had not heard about it.
Frankly, I am not surprised. Only years of shortsighted job
buying scams from Ottawa can explain the dullness on the
government bench. But the bungling incompetence at BPS Imaging
is less disturbing, less troubling than the bungling incompetence
in the government that approved it.
After spending a million taxpayer dollars to subsidize jobs at
BPS, did the minister ensure the jobs he was buying would be
permanent? No.
BPS shut its doors last week after only seven months in
operation. Did he secure the taxpayer money with BPS assets
before making the loan? No. There were a million valuable job
training dollars wasted. Did the minister tell us how his
department plans to recover the funds? No.
Canadians are on the hook and in the dark. Once again the
federal government attempts to broker hope in Newfoundland and
fails to deliver.
* * *
JOAN CHALMERS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to salute and acknowledge one of Canada's
greatest arts patrons, Joan Chalmers.
Instead of receiving gifts last night at her birthday
celebration, Ms. Chalmers took the opportunity to announce a $1
million donation to 21 of her favourite arts organizations. Ms.
Chalmers described the donation as one family's attempt to keep
the arts and artists of this country alive and vibrant.
Donations of this nature demonstrate the outstanding commitment
to the arts by patrons like the Chalmers family who understand
that for Canada's arts industry to thrive there must be a
commitment from both the public and private sectors to work
together in support of the arts.
Last night's announcement came at the Chalmers awards ceremony
in Toronto which is funded through an endowment established in
the 1970s.
Congratulations to all last night's winners and a heartfelt
thank you to Ms. Chalmers for her leadership and longstanding
commitment to the arts in Canada.
* * *
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today marks
the 125th anniversary of Prince Edward Island's joining
Confederation. It was on May 26, 1873 in the wee hours of the
morning that Premier J.C. Pope moved that the address to the
Queen embodying the terms of union between P.E.I. and the
Dominion of Canada be accepted by the assembly of P.E.I.
1405
The government of the day envisioned the development of a great
nation and wanted P.E.I. to be part of that future. Admittedly,
to that point islanders were reluctant brides.
Nine years earlier, in 1864, P.E.I. had hosted the initial talks
on the union of the British North American colonies. However,
when the new dominion was created in 1867, P.E.I. opted to pass
on it. It was six years later before P.E.I. finally joined
Canada.
The Liberal government of Robert Haythorne negotiated an
agreement that included the dominion's assuming the railway debt,
advancing funds to buy out the island's absentee landlords—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mississauga West.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Reform Party has called for extreme right wing changes to
Canada's criminal justice system. It favours a two strikes and
your out law that would jail young Canadians for life if they
commit two relatively minor offences.
Some of Reform's extreme ideas include public scorn, caning and
other forms of corporal punishment. Reform members even wanted
to send a parliamentary delegation to Singapore to witness the
caning of young offenders in that country.
Is this what Canadians want? No. Canadians want public policy
that makes sense. That is why this government launched a
balanced strategy to renew our youth justice system, a strategy
that emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation, not public
beatings. That is why we have established a DNA bank to store
samples and why we increased crime prevention funding by $32
million a year. That is why we passed tough anti-gang
legislation and why, to the consternation of the Reform Party, we
introduced gun control.
This government has always made crime prevention a priority and
to the Reform agenda I say no.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla who
have serious concerns about the Canada pension plan disability
program, in particular an appeals board that is backlogged with
cases from March 1997.
Delays of more than one year have left many disabled Canadians
in dire financial straits. Many are forced to apply for social
assistance which they cannot get without first signing a
repayment guarantee for benefits they may never receive.
The Liberals have failed disabled Canadians. They have left
many disabled Canadians with no source of income. The Canada
pension plan has been so badly mismanaged that it fails to
provide Canadians with secure retirement. Now it fails to
provide disability security.
The official opposition believes in the principle of a social
safety net that provides security for those members of our
society who are most in need.
On the day that Rick Hansen is on Parliament Hill will the
government show compassion to disabled Canadians and expedite
their appeals?
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
safety of air travelers is currently being threatened.
This fact was reported by Nav Canada, the organization
responsible for air traffic control, in a document released
yesterday by the CBC. In a memo to the Canada Labour Relations
Board, Nav Canada states that the ongoing labour dispute
presents a threat to passenger safety and operational efficiency
in terms of air navigation.
Let us not forget that Nav Canada is the product of privatizing
air traffic control, a government decision which has cost the
taxpayers $1 billion. And now Nav Canada is not even able to
ensure passenger safety.
Beyond the labour dispute, the federal government has a
responsibility to ensure that passenger safety is maintained
under all circumstances, and we call on the government to do so.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians
in my riding support the new EI system because they know it is
fairer and more in step with today's job market. Its hours based
system better reflects the way people work and now protects many
workers not covered under the old system. It helps those most in
need through active measures which help them get back to work and
improve their skills, through income supplements for families
with children and low income earners and through two special
funds, an $800 million investment in re-employment benefits and a
$300 million transitional jobs fund for areas of high
unemployment.
Because of these facts, I call on my colleagues to think twice
before they criticize this revised program which is helping
unemployed Canadians cope with the world of work in the
information society of today.
* * *
1410
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are shocked at the brutal rape and sexual
assault of women in the Canadian Armed Forces and are more
shocked by the callousness of the Minister of National Defence
and the defence critic of the Reform Party.
The Minister of National Defence has publicly characterized
these incidents as poor behaviour. As usual, the Reform Party is
not happy just to deny or ignore the problem. It actually wants
to turn the clock back. The Reform Party's defence critic has
said the full integration of women in the military has been a
disastrous social experiment, women should not be hired to do
some jobs.
How can we expect the military to change when the minister
considers rape poor behaviour and the Reform Party thinks women
have no role outside the kitchen?
We must be tough on sexual assault and tough on the causes of
sexual assault in the military and in society at large. The
Reform Party's defence critic and the minister need to be part of
the solution, not part of the problem.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE JEAN HAMELIN
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
May 15, Quebec lost one of its great historians, with the
passing of Jean Hamelin at the age of 66.
Jean Hamelin, Professor Emeritus at Laval University,
contributed during a career spanning over 30 years to the
training of an impressive number of historians now dispersed
throughout the major universities of Canada.
He graduated from Laval University, and in 1957 from the École
des Hautes Études de Paris. Among his awards were the Tyrell
medal, in 1972, and the Governor General's Literary Award in
1972 and 1985.
Among his many books were works on the economic, social,
political and religious history of Canada, and of Quebec in
particular.
We salute Jean Hamelin's extraordinary accomplishments over his
lifetime, and offer our most sincere condolences to his family
and friends.
* * *
[English]
CHRISTINE LAFORGE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
it is important to remind ourselves that from time to time as
lawmakers what we do here in this House matters, not just for
this generation but for generations to come.
In that spirit, I am pleased to welcome from my riding of
Tobique—Mactaquac one of the many young Canadians who will be
assuming leadership roles in this country in the next few years
when old guys like me decide it is time to move on.
Christine Laforge is here visiting our nation's capital with her
mother Monique, her aunt Micheline, and her cousin Dominique.
Although still young, Christine has already distinguished herself
in her community of Grand Falls.
She is an accomplished vocalist, pianist and guitar player who
won the regional star at the New Brunswick music festival last
month. Christine volunteers at the Grand Falls hospital and the
regional manor and last year she beat out eight finalists to
become Miss Grand Falls.
Christine will be studying music at the Université de Moncton
this fall and would like to pursue a career in politics some day.
To her and all Canada's young leaders, I say good luck and keep
up the good work.
* * *
[Translation]
FÉDÉRATION ACADIENNE DU QUÉBEC
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to extend my congratulations to those who received
awards at the Fédération acadienne du Québec's Soirée Méritas,
which took place this past weekend in Montreal.
The Méritas 1998 award went to naïve painter Nérée Degrâce, aged
78, a graduate of the École des Beaux-Arts de Québec. His works
are hung throughout Canada, as well as at the Musée de
l'Île-de-France in Paris. They depict scenes of daily Acadian
life such as a wedding in Shippagan, his native city, and people
coming back from midnight mass.
Another award, the Hommage 1998, went to Pierre Maurice Hébart,
the author of Les Acadiens du Québec.
This work describes how Quebec offered protection to those
fleeing the Acadian deportation, tells about the Acadian members
of les Patriotes, and shows how Acadians are now represented in
all spheres of activity in Quebec. Mr. Hébert's work has
contributed to raising Acadian pride in Quebec.
Congratulations to these two award winners.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan there have been many incidents
which highlight the fact that the Young Offenders Act is not
working and needs to be changed. The most recent involves Tasha
Pederson. She is the owner of a small hairstyling shop in
Cassidy which has become the target of a group of youth intent on
vandalizing her establishment.
To date, this businesswoman has had to pay over $500 in repairs
to property that these youths have damaged on several occasions.
That might not seem like a lot of money to the Liberal MPs who
recently spent that amount of taxpayer money for each night they
stayed in a posh Italian hotel, but to this woman it means the
difference between paying her suppliers and putting food on the
table for her family.
However, the truly sad part in all this is that the local RCMP
is powerless to do anything about it because the Young Offenders
Act does not apply to youth under the age of 12 and these young
vandals know it.
Rather than address situations like these, this do nothing
justice minister has stayed the course again and ignored the
justice committee recommendation to lower the age at which a
youth can be charged.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has another excuse for not looking after those victims
of hepatitis C. He says that if we pay those victims, he will
have to pay for those who got hepatitis C from drug addiction.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize the difference between
hepatitis C caused by self-destructive behaviour and hepatitis C
caused by a blood system monitored by this federal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that a lot of questions need to be looked into.
When you talk about compassion you talk about only one type of
people. It is the people who are sick who deserve compassion.
I see that Reform is coming back to a notion of responsibility.
Its members should make up their mind.
I wrote a letter to the premier of Ontario who suddenly wanted
to compensate everybody and I wanted to have a list of the people
who he thinks should be compensated.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
letter here with me that Premier Harris wrote to the Prime
Minister. Compensate everyone? He says very plainly
“Compensate those who got the hepatitis C virus through the
blood system”. No one else.
Why is the Prime Minister looking for excuses for not doing what
is simply and frankly correct?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the Reform Party does not want to compensate
everybody. It is passing judgment. It is changing its position
again.
It would be no wonder at the end of the month if Reformers
amended their constitution to confirm that they should be
disbanded by November 2000. They do not know what they are
talking about.
We have, at this moment, a conference with all the ministers of
health who are looking at the problem seriously, not just trying
to score some political points.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the victims
are questioning what it is about the Prime Minister's character
that he cannot admit that he has made a mistake.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Next question.
The Speaker: We are getting a little close with our
language. I encourage members on both sides to stay away from
too many personal comments.
Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot
admit that he has insulted the hepatitis C victims by comparing
them with those who have a drug addiction. He cannot admit that
he has made a mistake in not compensating those individuals.
Why does he not change his mind?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in Canada we have a system where the provincial
governments are responsible for health.
We made a deal with them to offer some compensation to those who
have hep C because of a problem that existed between 1986 and
1990. There was an agreement signed by all the governments of
Canada.
Two governments decided to quit and offer compensation to
others. Since that time eight other provinces have decided to
stay with the federal government to find a reasonable solution.
As Prime Minister of Canada—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
two governments added to the original deal because they operate
on principle and did not mind saying that they were wrong.
My question today is for the Prime Minister. I want to catch
him quickly before he leaves the country again. I want to ask
him about this hep C deal.
Before he flew to Italy a couple of weeks ago he told the health
minister to make sure that he scuttled the deal. That worked.
That deal was scuttled.
1420
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I want to know this from
the Prime Minister.
Is he proud of the fact that his health minister obeyed him and
scuttled the meeting?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has worked very diligently. He
worked very hard with the provincial governments to find a
solution long before these people tried to score some political
points.
These people are claiming compassion. They are the same people
who promised to cut welfare by $3.5 billion. They are the same
bleeding heart Reformers who said they would slash seniors'
pensions by $3 billion. They are the same people who would have
a two tier system for the people who are sick in Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government knows full well about two tier health care.
It just instituted it with these victims.
What is happening is that this so-called working group that the
health minister put together is the same group that was put
together last July and is offering the same options. What is
happening is that the Prime Minister and his government are
stalling until they can get to the summer break because the heat
is too much. More meetings, more memos, more technical talk is
not going to solve the problem for victims.
What does the Prime Minister think about this restructured, same
old working group that is going to come up with the same
solutions which were not good for all hepatitis C victims? Is he
proud of that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the questions today are about two types of hepatitis C
victims: those who contracted it through the blood system,
according to this gentleman, and the rest according to this lady.
They should make up their minds and help the provincial
governments and the federal government find a solution.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
yesterday's oral question period, $17 million has accrued in the
employment insurance fund.
During this time, all the Minister of Human Resources
Development has said in response is that he ordered an
investigation by Statistics Canada, because he cannot figure out
what is happening with his reform.
With all his investigations and studies, is the minister not
simply stalling for time while his colleague, the Minister of
Finance, keeps taking $700,000 an hour from the pockets of
workers and the unemployed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was not
that we did not understand the effects of the reform, quite the
contrary, but we were not in favour of any hasty decisions, as
the Bloc Quebecois apparently is.
What astounds me about the Bloc is that none of the bills it has
tabled in this House aims to help any of the unemployed to
return to the labour force. The measures are passive, old hat.
There is no constructive reform relating to the modern market.
They are proposing a return to the past, and we are saying no.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should stop being the pompous technocrat and holder of
all truth and get on with answering questions.
What those excluded from his reform want—and it is not studies
and investigations—is for him to come out of his bubble and
deal with a real problem. Will he, once and for all, deal with
their problem, not in six months, but now, today?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition still does not
understand the courage and boldness displayed by our government
to adequately serve Canadians from coast to coast.
Our reform sought to change an unemployment insurance system
that was neither fair nor equitable. We wanted to help Canadians
break the cycle of dependency that existed in certain regions.
We want to help create jobs in the regions that need them most.
This is what our reform is all about.
1425
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, whenever the
issue of employment insurance is raised, we get the impression
that the minister lives on another planet.
He may keep saying that everyone loves his reform, the fact
remains that three out of every four young people who are
jobless do not qualify for employment insurance benefits.
Will the minister finally admit that, because of his reform, 75%
of young Canadians who lose their jobs are left to fend for
themselves?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, eligibility criteria for
employment insurance may be tougher for young people.
However, we on this side of the House are not trying to make it
easier for young people to collect employment insurance, but to
ensure that they stay in school as long as possible, benefit
from the youth employment strategy and have access to higher
education and knowledge. We have greater ambitions for young
Canadians.
The Bloc Quebecois basically wants us to encourage young people
to leave school as early as possible by making it too easy to
collect employment insurance. This would not be good for the
future of young Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, such comments
make no sense.
Will the minister admit that his system is ridiculous and is
much too hard on young Canadians, given that only one in four is
eligible for employment insurance? Can he not admit and
understand that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what young people need is not
easy access to employment insurance. What they need are
placements in businesses, community work, useful experience they
can put on a CV to help them get a job. This is a sensible job
strategy. It is a strategy of providing opportunities for access
to knowledge and education so that people can improve their
future and raise a family. This is what young people need, this
is what they have told us, and it is what we are giving them.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
time and time again the environment minister was asked about the
state of Canada's environment: budget cuts, staff cuts, bad
policies and devolution.
The committee report on CEPA enforcement and today's environment
commissioner's report confirm that basic standards are not being
met.
Will the minister continue to dismiss the facts and ignore the
truth or will she admit today that there are insufficient
resources for the environmental protection of this country?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government considers the two reports
that have been tabled in the last 24 hours to be very important
and ones that I will take very seriously.
It is very interesting that the Prime Minister's appointment of
a commissioner for sustainable development has not resulted in
the whitewash of this government's environmental program as was
suggested by the opposition. The commissioner presents very
important detail about my department. Some of it is already
outdated because we have acted upon it.
But we will continue to review what he has to say and make
necessary and important improvements to the environment for all
Canadians and their environment.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Overall this government's environmental leadership got a failing
grade from Canada's environmental watchdog. Canada is threatened
by pollution. We will not meet our international obligations in
climate change and our environmental assessment process is not
working.
Does this failing grade reflect on the competence of the
minister or is it a failure shared by the whole cabinet?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the important work
that is accomplished by the people in my department. They work
very competently and efficiently. We are fulfilling our
obligations. We are absolutely committed to meeting our Kyoto
protocol commitments.
We will continue to review everything that is said and look to
improving our practices, but we are now doing a very good job on
behalf of all Canadians.
1430
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, going
into Kyoto the government was more interested in one-upping the
Americans and greenhouse gas targets than on showing leadership,
but the environment minister could not even accomplish that.
Now the commissioner for the environment has stated that there
is no federal leadership on climate change and no targets to
measure whether Canada is meeting commitments to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Does the minister have any idea about how Canada will meet its
Kyoto commitments?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the
government is absolutely committed to achieving its Kyoto
protocol commitments.
The Prime Minister has put in place a secretariat to assist the
Minister of Natural Resources and me to lead on this initiative
on behalf of all of Canada. We have a secretariat in place which
is implementing a national or a federal strategy. We are working
with all our partners, provinces, territories, business and
industry, communities and individuals, and we will achieve our
target.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
understanding is that the government will be waiting 18 months
before it implements anything.
Canada's watchdog on the environment has said that the
government does not have a workable plan to reduce greenhouse
gases. He has also stated that the federal government has a
responsibility to lead the nation in developing a realistic,
broad based and cost effective response to climate change that
minimizes any negative impact and maximizes any positive impact
on Canada's economy.
Will the House ever see such a plan from the government?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share with my
colleague the government's comprehensive plan on how we are
working today with all partners to find the most cost effective
way to reduce emissions and to achieve our commitments at Kyoto.
The government set aside $150 million to be used over three
years to develop our plan, but that does not stop us from
implementing measures right now, which is what we are doing.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government received its environmental report card today and
it got an f. Regarding the Kyoto protocol on climate
change the environment commissioner gave the government an
f for lack of an implementation plan, an f for
assigning targets, an f for designating responsibility and
an f for accountability.
My question is very straightforward. Who in the government is
willing to take the blame for this dismal failure?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after our engagement at Rio in 1992 we
have realized that we did not meet voluntary obligations we set
for ourselves at that time.
We are in the company of many other developed nations in the
world. That is why we went back to Kyoto and determined that we
had to enter into legally binding obligations.
The commissioner's observations were made prior to our
negotiation at Kyoto and prior to the action we have taken since
then which has been very significant and will be successful.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the environment minister has antagonized the provinces, has
antagonized industry and has confused the public. The auditor
general clearly states in his report that the Kyoto agreement is
bound to fail because of government bungling.
Why did the minister go to Kyoto without a plan and then sign a
protocol when she knew full well that the government had no
intention of following through?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is totally committed to
reaching our objectives, our Kyoto commitments, but what is
confusing is the stand of that party, the party that denies the
science, the party that says we ought not to take any action, the
party that today is not involved in working with all Canadians to
help us meet our objectives.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning, we heard terrible stories about
the disastrous results of the EI reform.
Take the case of Bertrand Duval, a seasonal government employee
working 24 weeks a year. For years, employment insurance meant
he had an income all year.
Now, with the minister's reform, his family must live with no
income for nine weeks a year.
1435
Since he no longer has an employment insurance cheque for nine
weeks of the year, what active measure does the minister suggest
to Mr. Duval to help him with his problem?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we could mention the
transitional job fund, which has created thousands of jobs in
disadvantaged regions. We could mention targeted salary
measures to help him find work.
We could tell this seasonal worker that, under our new
hours-based system, whenever he works 42 or 45 hours, he can
build up many more insurable hours and get EI more easily
because he has not perhaps worked as long, but the number of
hours means he has faster access.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is the new system that has placed Mr. Duval
in this situation. And his case is not unique.
For the 1994
reform, the Department of Human Resources Development estimated
that there were about 800,000 individuals whose average benefit
period would be shortened by seven weeks.
What would the minister do if he were in the same situation as
Mr. Duval and the 800,000 other claimants?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, they are ignoring what
I just said. I clearly demonstrated that seasonal workers with
45 and 50 hours in intensive weeks now have a better system to
serve their needs.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Statistics
Canada reports that more than 24,000 serious offences were
committed by youth last year.
Does the justice minister think this is a minor offence she can
justify sloughing off until next fall?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the
hon. member means by his question. I do not think anybody is
sloughing anything off.
I think the government has taken a very responsible approach to
the renewal of the youth justice system. We tabled our response
and I look forward to the constructive comments of the hon.
member and others in the official opposition.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these are
the statistics that the justice minister has been sitting on for
almost a year: 32 murders; 23 manslaughters; over 1,400 sexual
assaults; 482 assaults on police officers; and more than 13,000
cases of break and enter, many into private dwellings, all in a
single year.
Does the justice minister believe it is justifiable to slough
off all these statistics and this situation until next fall?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member
that neither I nor the government has been sitting on the
statistics to which the hon. member refers.
I also reassure the hon. member that in our government response
we are proposing a renewal of the youth justice system that makes
the exact distinction between violent and serious violent
offenders and non-violent young offenders that Canadians want us
to make.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister goes on and on about his reform saying that workers
in vulnerable situations benefit most from it.
How then does the minister explain the case of Monique
Rainville, a UQAM teaching assistant, who in the past was
eligible for unemployment insurance with a teaching load of only
one course, and now, after the reform, is no longer eligible,
even with two courses? This is a fine example of someone with a
diploma, minister.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, you must always address the Chair.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our employment insurance reform
has liberated thousands and thousands of women from the trap of
the 15 hour week. Hundreds of thousands of women in Canada
working 12, 13 or 14 hours a week, part time, were not covered.
We released them from the 15 hour trap of the old system.
1440
What about the woman in Sydney, Nova Scotia, who worked 14 hours
a week in a store without any form of protection?
And if she had a second job of 12 or 13 hours to help her family
out, she had two times no protection. Now she is covered for
all—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, time for the
minister to face reality. There are thousands of cases like
that of Ms. Rainville in Quebec.
Will the minister, who is bragging of the benefits of his reform
for vulnerable workers, finally admit that his reform is not
adapted to the labour market?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I think the
reform was undertaken in response to a fluctuating labour
market, a market that is changing completely, where more and
more people are working part time.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: What strikes me is that four members
of the Bloc have risen to ask me questions today and none has
spoken about the active measures to help workers return to the
labour market. That is what the unemployed want.
None was interested in getting the unemployed out of the
unemployment insurance trap and back to the labour market. No
question from that side of the House, no positive contribution.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like Canadians to understand just how insignificant the
proposed youth justice changes are. I would emphasize they are
just proposals. The minister still has not actually changed the
law.
The 14 and 15 year olds involved in the initial beating of Reena
Virk in Victoria would not be covered by these proposals. If
this kind of violence is not covered just how serious are these
proposals?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these proposals are very
serious. I would ask the official opposition to seriously engage
in a meaningful debate. The government and Canadians are
interested in working together to create a culture of safety.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker what members of the official opposition
are doing today and are continuing to do? They are only
interested in creating a culture of fear.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
appears as though the government minister is becoming an expert
in creating loopholes and finding technicalities.
Let us take her so-called firm measure to move 14 to 15 year
olds to adult court. It is crafted so that there are so many
exceptions, exemptions and loopholes that only 21 cases in all of
Canada last year would be affected.
Does the minister honestly think that changing the law for 21
cases is a firm measure?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on that specific point, the
hon. member chooses to ignore the fact that we are creating a
fifth presumptive category that deals with violent serious repeat
young offenders. That will expand the number of young people who
are presumptively subject to an adult sentence in our youth
justice system.
I also remind the hon. member that any 14, 15, 16 or 17 year old
charged with an indictable offence can be subject to an adult
sentence.
* * *
[Translation]
BC MINE IN BLACK LAKE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
former workers at the BC Mine in Black Lake need help.
If the minister had made the effort to meet with them this
morning, they would have told him that his active measures are
not working.
Is the minister prepared to restore a pre-retirement program to
support the efforts by Quebec and the company to enhance the BC
mining employees' incomes until they retire, which is the only
way they can be helped?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that the fifth Bloc MP is
continuing in the time-honoured tradition of the Bloc: passive
measures only. This is totally in keeping with the logic of
this party, which dwells completely on the past.
I would point out that our government was the first to act in
connection with the BC mine. We gave $3 million to help the
miners to get training, and wage subsidies in other fields.
We were the first. They were the ones who opted not to take the
POWA, which was already available to them.
* * *
1445
[English]
CUSTOMS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Last weekend a group of tired Canadian forces members travelling
on a military service flight returned to CFB Trenton after four
months in Kuwait. Can the minister tell this House why these very
special Canadians were forced to endure the often lengthy customs
re-entry procedures after a patriotic tour of duty?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that
customs officers are very much committed to providing the best
service for Canadians. In fact as Minister of National Revenue,
I have taken the opportunity to visit many of our border
crossings as well as airports to ensure that we have efficient
customs officers.
I want to remind the hon. member that under sections 11 and 12
of the Customs Act, every person must be cleared through customs.
I want to assure the hon. member that I will look into the matter
to ensure that we do provide an efficient and quick service to
all the travelling public.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I just
noticed that if the two members across the way want to have a
conversation they should probably take it to a room somewhere.
The professor over there may know nothing about justice but she
knows a lot about politics. She knows about blocking and
stalling and propaganda. For example she says “few offenders
under the age of 12 are involved in serious violent crimes” but
according to Stats Canada, more than 5,000 children under 12 were
involved in crime in 1996 and 833 of those were violent crimes.
Does the professor really think that 100 crimes a week—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk
about serious violent crimes committed by those under the age of
12, as I have in the past let me inform the hon. member that in
1996 for example there were exactly zero youth aged 10 and 11
convicted of the most serious violent crimes.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
lights are really on over on that side of the House. The last I
heard, a person under 12 could not be convicted.
Up in the faculty lounge the only crime those people ever
witnessed is that their wine was not able to age long enough.
Getting back to reality, there are 833 violent crimes by kids
under 12. Real Canadians want to know, what are they supposed to
do about these violent crimes? Are they to lie back, shut up and
take it?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been very, very clear
in terms of young people under the age of 12. No one on this
side of the House is suggesting that a young person, at the age
of 10 for example, who hurts another individual should not be
held accountable or take responsibility. What we believe on this
side of the House is that the most effective way to deal with
those children is not through the formal criminal justice system
but through either the child welfare system or the mental health
system.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health told the House yesterday that
albumin blood product meets safety standards not only in the
United States but in Canada.
Given that the company supplying this blood product is under
investigation in the United States for infractions so serious it
is one step away from being shut down, will the minister explain
why the Canadian government is not doing the same?
Why is the Canadian Minister of Health bringing in truckloads of
albumin and not initiating an investigation to assure Canadians
that this blood product is not unsafe?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
albumin is an important product which is essential to the health
of many Canadians.
There is a shortage of albumin available from likely suppliers
in Canada. As a result, physicians asked Health Canada for
permission to go to an American company named Alpha to supply
that product.
The issue is not where the product comes from. The issue is, is
it safe. As I told the House yesterday, this product has been
approved in both the United States and Canada as meeting safety
requirements.
At no time have the American authorities prohibited the sale of
the products of this company. It continues to certify the
company. The product is safe and that is the bottom line.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the real issue here is whether or not the product is
safe. The minister has an obligation under the Criminal Code to
ensure the safety of those products.
The minister's own department has ordered 45,000 vials of
albumin at the same time as his American counterpart has put out
the red alert and slapped a consent decree on Alpha Therapeutics
not because of a technicality, but because it was not keeping
proper records to distinguish between bad blood and good blood.
Can the minister give the House his personal assurances that in
fact this product meets all—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these questions should not be determined by theatrics or by
politics or by any other factor aside from safety. The member
might just as well accept it because the reality is not going to
change.
The products in question have met safety standards in America
and in Canada. They have met those standards and appropriately
they are being made available at the request of the physicians of
the people who need them.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
In today's report on environment the auditor general's
commissioner concluded that the government's lack of leadership
results in inadequate environmental assessments that will have
significant consequences on the environment.
Given that the majority of the environmental screenings examined
by the auditor general did not meet the criteria of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency, what will the minister do today
to ensure that all federal assessments meet the criteria of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, environmental assessment is a very
important aspect of the work of Environment Canada.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is in its third year
of operation. The agency is working very diligently to make sure
that all departments working with me do proper assessments. We
are having to look to see how we can improve the processes. We
are working hard on that and have provided different guidelines
to departments and other groups that do environmental
assessments.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
March 19 I asked the minister whether she agreed with her own
deputy minister that there were not enough resources to enforce
all environmental regulations. Her response to the House was that
“there is within my department resources available to deal with
all enforcement issues necessary”.
Given today's auditor general's report and the environment
committee's condemning report on environmental enforcement, can
the minister square her comments with those of the auditor
general and her own committee, or does she wish to retract her
comments of March 19?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to retract my comments
made in March.
I understand that there are some difficulties with enforcement
measures being taken in my department. For that reason I
requested my department to undergo a review some months ago. I
also requested that the standing committee do a review of
enforcement.
I believe that the resources within my department can be
reviewed and that we can put resources to better effect to ensure
proper enforcement.
* * *
TOURISM
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Egmont has asked us to join with all islanders in
celebrating the 125th anniversary of that province's joining
Confederation.
Tourism is important to New Brunswick, to P.E.I., to Nova Scotia
and to Newfoundland. Will the secretary of state responsible for
ACOA explain to the House what ACOA is doing to assist tourism in
Atlantic Canada?
1455
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Like you, my colleagues, I really want to
hear this answer.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and so does the rest of the House.
1997 was a banner year for tourism in Atlantic Canada. All four
Atlantic provinces enjoyed double digit growth. Prince Edward
Island led the way with 60% over the previous year in the number
of visitors.
In addition, the House will be interested to know that tourism
generated $2.5 billion worth of revenues in Atlantic Canada, of
which $440 million was returned to the province and to the
federal government in the way of taxes.
There are 96,000 people involved in tourism. This is why—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration.
In view of a recent intelligence report tabled by the solicitor
general that concluded Canada has become a haven for every known
terrorist group in the world and the solicitor general's promise
to clean it up, can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
guarantee that the eight suspected terrorists in an Israeli jail
will not be admitted to Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country that has
always been proud of its humanitarian tradition of taking in
refugees.
We will always respond to appeals from the UN High Commission on
Refugees, but in keeping with the immigration rules, carrying
out security checks.
[English]
I think that the member should stop creating myths against
refugee people. Refugees are not criminals.
* * *
[Translation]
SOCIÉTÉ DES ACADIENS ET ACADIENNES DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In a press conference this morning, the president of the Société
des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick revealed that
Heritage Canada has cut his organization's budget by 41% since
1990. That is why he is forced to shut the operation down for
the summer.
What does the Minister of Canadian Heritage have to say this
afternoon to the president of the Société des Acadiennes et
Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick, who is asking that the federal
government stop withdrawing from the area of official languages?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to his government's decision to cut
funding to the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes, I assume the
hon. member opposite, who was part of the government that made
the cuts in question in 1990, can answer.
As for our government, I can assure him that we have all
experienced financial difficulties. Cutbacks of 33% were imposed
on all organizations. I hope that the renewal, next March, of
the Canada-communities agreements will mark another step in the
right direction, as it did for the CBC and all crown
corporations—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Minister of Human Resources Development said that he traveled
across the country.
I do not think the United States is part of Canada, unless the
minister went to Liberal golf clubs. If he had met people
affected by the changes to the employment insurance program, he
would not be indifferent to their plight.
Is the minister prepared to come with me to visit the regions
affected by the employment insurance policy? Is he prepared to
listen to the unemployed who are in difficulty?
1500
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because we
listen to the unemployed that we know their strongest wish is to
get back to work as quickly as possible.
This is why our government has put our fiscal house in order.
This is why it has set up a transitional job fund and taken
active measures to help the unemployed get back to work. This is
what these people expect from us, and this is what we try to do
for them.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of members to the
presence in our gallery of a brother Speaker of mine, Mr. Ludwig
Bieringer, President of the Austrian Federal Council.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
The Speaker: Yesterday, the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine rose on a point of order about a word
supposedly uttered during yesterday's oral question period.
As I said yesterday, I heard the word, but I did not know who
said it. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine mentioned that
it was the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who used the word
“liar”.
As you know, members get a bit more excited than usual during
oral question period. If the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is
here now, and if he used this word yesterday, I would ask him to
please withdraw it now.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: I will hear the member for Roberval, but only for a
moment, because I am addressing the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
1505
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish
to be disrespectful, quite the contrary.
I will simply say that I have reviewed the House of Commons
Debates, and nowhere are these words attributed to the member
for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I do not see why he should have to
give an explanation for words that are not attributed to him.
The Speaker: I heard the word myself. I do not know where it
came from, but if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot did
not use this word, he has only to say so. If he used the word,
he has only to withdraw it.
I am now addressing my colleague, the member for
Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, directly.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
great respect for you and your office.
I do not recall having used those words yesterday. Many words
are uttered in the House of Commons in any given day. I am also
looking at Hansard and I am not identified as being—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Here is the situation. We have one member who says
that another member said something in the House. We have the
other member who rises and gives his word that he does not
recall having used the word. I therefore accept the member's
explanation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having used the
word. But if I did so inadvertently, I am prepared to withdraw
it. In order to satisfy my colleague, I will not make a fuss
over the matter.
The Speaker: As I understand it, if the hon. member used the
word, he withdraws it. Is that correct?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Just a moment. The hon. member is here, we have had
a discussion and, as I requested, the hon. member withdrew the
word. It has been done and I accept the withdrawal. At this
point, the matter is concluded.
[English]
I will hear other points of order, but I will not hear anything
more on this point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I just heard the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot say
that he does not remember having said—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: That is all for this point of order.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have two minutes
left for questions and comments on the intervention by the hon.
member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a very interesting debate today on justice issues. During
question period we also had a very interesting question and
response time from the government.
I wonder if the member for Wild Rose could comment on the
response by the justice minister. She was very pleased because
she is willing to swear and she can prove, and apparently
Statistics Canada will show, that not a single person under the
age of 12 was convicted of a serious criminal offence in Canada
in 1996, the latest year for which she has statistics available.
1510
I wonder if the member for Wild Rose could describe why she
thinks that statistic is so profound.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the
answer I heard. What I heard was that no one under 12 was
convicted of a serious crime. That is a pretty good statement
considering that no one under 12 can be charged. So how can we
convict them? But then that is the brilliance of the Liberal
government. What do we expect?
What is more important is that there are serious violent crimes
committed by people under 12. This government is not willing to
deal with that problem whatsoever. It talks about passing it off
to social welfare, passing it off to other provincial
institutions. It does not have what it takes to do the right
thing. It ought to be ashamed of itself.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am taking the remainder of the time of my hon.
colleague for Wild Rose.
I am honoured to rise once again to speak on behalf of the
people of Cariboo—Chilcotin and to speak on the official
opposition supply day motion:
That this House condemn the government for the deplorable state
of Canada's criminal justice system, and the government's lack of
concern for public safety, as demonstrated by their refusal to:
(a) strengthen the Young Offenders Act; (b) abolish
conditional sentencing for violent offenders; and (c)
introduce a victims bill of rights.
A couple of weeks ago, in my hometown of Williams Lake I hosted
a town hall meeting dealing with exactly these issues.
Ironically, this was the very same day the Minister of Justice
finally introduced her response to the standing committee on
justice report explaining her strategy for the renewal of the
youth justice system.
Over a year after she promised a swift introduction of massive
changes to the Young Offenders Act she outlined a strategy which
appears on the surface to make only cosmetic changes to this act,
one of which is getting rid of the name. There are many serious
things that need to be done. I am sure that getting rid of the
name is very important too. This is a name across the country
which prompts negative comments and stories of horrific crimes
committed by young people who merely get a slap on the wrist for
the crimes they have committed.
Over the past five years I have heard my constituents' concerns
about the current state of the criminal justice system. These
concerns cover all aspects of the system, how violent and repeat
offenders are treated in the system, how all too often victim
rights are completely ignored, how the current federal government
time and again ignores the safety of the average Canadian
citizen, how it ploughs ahead with legislation not at all
consistent with the needs of those law-abiding citizens who are
directly affected by this legislation.
The clearest example that comes to mind is the government's
handling of the gun control issue, Bill C-68. This is a
bureaucratic mess where the budget was blown long ago. The
government's experts are saying the registration system will be
filled with inaccurate and useless information. All the while
law-abiding citizens will be held accountable for this failure.
The Reform Party has proposed an excellent approach to deal with
the complex issues surrounding youth crime. Before I comment on
this approach I take this opportunity to thank the chief Reform
justice critic, the member for Crowfoot, and his colleagues on
that committee for their long and dedicated service to this
issue.
1515
Reform's approach to dealing with youth crime has three
components. The first component concerns early detection and
intervention as an effective means of crime prevention. The
second component deals with community based resolutions and
sentences for non-violent offenders, and the last component deals
with substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Included in the amendments are changes to the age range for
those who fall under the act from 12 years to 10 years for the
youngest and from 17 years to 15 years for the oldest, as well as
the publishing of names for all violent offenders charged as
adults.
Our party also proposed that a distinction be made between
non-violent and violent offenders. We feel that less serious
offenders can be diverted from formal court proceedings and
incarceration while at the same time we want to ensure that
violent offenders are held in custody.
After she was sworn in as the justice minister last June, the
minister stated that one of her top priorities was to reform the
Young Offenders Act and that we could expect changes shortly. It
is almost a year later and we are told that legislation will be
introduced this fall after further consultations this summer with
the provinces, the territories and various stakeholders.
Although I welcome the federal government consulting the
grassroots of our country when changing legislation, there comes
a time when consultations have to result in some action, and that
time has come.
The justice minister is armed with an extensive report from the
standing committee which was tabled before the election call last
April. It was accompanied by a comprehensive list of
recommendations. She also has the minority report submitted by
the Reform Party. It is a thorough report which also provides
the justice minister with well thought out and comprehensive
proposals to significantly reform the youth justice system. The
justice minister also has at her disposal the recommendations of
several provinces for reforming the system.
With all this comprehensive information what does the justice
minister do? She admits that the current system is flawed and
needs to be changed. Did we not know that already? After a year
of inaction she introduces a framework with no real specifics, no
real details on how the system is going to be reformed and
restructured. There are no concrete proposals for change.
The government has proposed to spend approximately $32 million
on crime prevention programs, but as we have seen before with
this Liberal government it does not have any concrete plans as
to who will be in charge of these programs and it cannot provide
details on what programs will be available. Included in this
mess of disorientation, disorganization and lack of leadership,
the minister has also failed to assure the provinces that there
will be the necessary funding for any new programming
initiatives.
Gauging from the various provincial responses in their own
reports on reforming the youth criminal justice system, it looks
like the provinces do not share the justice minister's vision.
For example, the people of Cariboo—Chilcotin have told me that
they want change to the youth justice system that is fair, that
works at preventing youth crime and that looks at alternative
measures for dealing with and rehabilitating youth who break the
law.
On the issue of conditional sentencing, the changes made to
section 742 of the Criminal Code in June 1995 under Bill C-41
have made it possible for a variety of offenders to serve their
time in the community. This provision has been applied quite
liberally. It applies to anyone from those who have committed
fraud to those who have committed sex offences. Although the
previous justice minister acknowledged the problems with the
legislation in allowing certain sex and violent offenders to have
conditional sentences, he took no action to amend the
legislation. The current justice minister has not taken action
on this issue either, despite repeated calls from the opposition
and from the Alberta court of appeal.
Violent offenders are still being put back into the communities.
1520
Finally I would like to take a moment to comment on the issue of
victims' rights.
It has now been over two years since this House passed a motion
introduced by my colleague, the official opposition House leader.
The motion read as follows:
That the House urge the government to direct the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to proceed with the
drafting of a Victims' Bill of Rights, and that, in such areas
where the committee determines a right to be more properly a
provincial concern, the Minister of Justice initiate
consultations with the provinces aimed at arriving at a national
standard for a Victims' Bill of Rights.
This motion received widespread support from all parties in this
House: 154 yeas; 24 nays. Since that time it has languished in
the justice committee.
Earlier this month the committee finally started formal hearings
and will hopefully submit a report to the House sometime this
fall.
I am happy that these formal hearings are finally taking place,
but I wonder why it took the government so long. I am sure it
has heard from many Canadians, as have I, who want the government
to move forward on this issue of establishing a victims' bill of
rights.
The justice minister of the day was in support of a victims'
bill of rights, but what does today's justice minister think?
During her appearance before the justice committee last month
she announced a national office for victims of crime to help them
navigate through the justice system, but was lukewarm to the idea
of a victims' bill of rights.
She said that often these bills are rhetorical and that she was
not interested in rhetorical flourishes, but in actually
improving the services and programs for victims.
Given the recent proposals by the Minister of Justice, I think
she is far more interested in those rhetorical flourishes than
she is in delivering on her promises for actual change.
I would like to close by conveying the comments I received from
my constituents at the town hall meeting at Williams Lake earlier
this month.
Canadians want fair and comprehensive change to the criminal
justice system, change not only to provide alternative programs
to rehabilitate those young offenders who commit less serious
crimes, but also adequate and effective punishment for the more
serious offenders.
These constituents call for safe streets and for victims to have
as many rights as those criminals who commit crimes against them.
Canadians are demanding change and it is past time for the
government to listen. It must act with concrete proposals and
substantive changes.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker on the
content of his speech. I think he makes some very compelling
points. He is obviously representing his constituents very well
when he makes those points here in the House.
I want to touch on one issue that he spoke of which concerns a
rather perverse anomaly that exists in our current justice
system. We currently have under the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and the parole board someone called the correctional
investigator; that is, an investigator who acts in the interests
of those who are incarcerated. That person is there to represent
the interests of the inmate. There is no question that there is
a need for that.
However, this is the anomaly. There is no such person presently
in our Canadian justice system to play a similar role for
victims; that is, victims who, to use the words of the hon.
member, must navigate through this elaborate system which
sometimes results in revictimization.
I would ask the hon. member his opinion on what the present
government should do and what his party's position is on having
an ombudsman, a person akin to the correctional investigator, to
act for victims and assist them in any way possible in navigating
our very complicated and sometimes slow justice system.
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, my party has begun by
trying to establish some guidelines to support victims in a
victims' bill of rights.
We all agree that the rights of people need to be respected and
that the rights of those who have been charged and convicted need
to be looked at carefully. However, the rights of those who have
been caught up in circumstances of other people's criminal intent
or action, through no fault of their own, have received no
support from the government.
1525
The victims are there for the charge, the trial, the appeal and
the re-appeal if that is the case. The scabs are opened and
re-opened. They are continually reminded of their pain.
The Reform Party of Canada is absolutely determined that
wherever there is a choice to be made between the rights of the
victim and the rights of the criminal that the rights of the
victim will always come first.
With regard to the subject of the ombudsman, that is something
that I believe should be duly considered after we have come to a
decision on the rights of the victim. At this point, how can an
ombudsman act when we have no idea how the government will
respond to legislating the rights of victims? I think that is
the first step. Following that we should then look at the means
for providing those rights and ensuring that they are secured for
victims.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to my colleague from the adjacent constituency. I
know he is very knowledgeable about the First Nations in his
area. I suspect also that he is well briefed on the native
justice system that has developed on the Navajo reserve in the
United States. Over the years they have developed a very
sophisticated system in terms of dealing with young offenders on
their lands.
Is the member aware of that system and, if he is, does he see
some use in adapting and adopting some of their practices to what
we are considering doing here in Canada?
Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, as we look at the
difficulties that we as Canadian citizens are having in dealing
with those who choose to commit crimes we are compelled to begin
to try to understand how we can protect ourselves and look after
the interests of those who are hurting, which perhaps results in
them committing crimes, and those who have been affected by the
commission of those crimes.
What we need in Canada is a fair and consistent system that
applies to all citizens, where everyone knows the rules.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I rise today in the House to provide
hon. members with some information about the status of victims'
rights in Canada and the progress that has been made in
addressing the concerns of victims of crimes. The topic is
obviously very timely. It certainly is of interest to the
residents of my riding of Waterloo—Wellington and indeed to all
Canadians.
I think it is also important to ensure that we present facts
instead of distortions, myths and other incorrect information
which we have heard today from members of the Reform Party and
others.
Hon. members must surely be aware that the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights is currently examining the role of the
victim in the criminal justice system. This review is under way
due in part to a motion made by the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford in April 1996 which called on the government
to ask the standing committee to explore a federal bill of rights
for victims.
The standing committee heard from several witnesses in April
1997 and concluded that a more detailed examination of this and
other related issues was necessary.
Therefore, the standing committee will address a range of
issues, including the need for additional services for victims,
the information needs of victims, how such services can be funded
and whether additional Criminal Code amendments are necessary.
The Minister of Justice has already discussed several options
with provincial attorneys general, but has noted that further
information will be gathered by the standing committee. Their
consultation process will assist the minister in refining many of
the options under consideration.
This government cannot be faulted for any lack of concern for
victims. Quite the contrary. The Minister of Justice has
identified this as one of her highest priorities, and rightfully
so.
1530
I would suggest that members opposite are exhibiting impatience
rather than focusing on fully participating in the standing
committee's review which they in fact encouraged and are now
criticizing this government for a lack of concern. Would they
bypass the committee process? I would certainly hope not. It is
very important that that process take place.
The letter sent by the Minister of Justice to the chair of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights emphasizes the
minister's eagerness to move forward with concrete proposals but
defers to the advice of the committee in order to permit the full
participation of all parties represented in this House.
I would also refer members to the Canadian statement of basic
principles of justice for victims of crime which was adopted by
provincial and territorial governments in 1988. That statement
was intended to guide policy and legislative development and it
has.
All provinces and territories have enacted victim legislation
which generally includes a statement of purpose or principles
echoing that Canadian statement. Some jurisdictions, including
Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Yukon,
Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, also
provide for a victim fine surcharge on provincial offences.
Provincial legislation already deals with the notion of victims
rights in several different ways. For example there are
provisions referred to as a declaration of principles or simply
principles in the victims legislation in Alberta, Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario and Prince Edward Island.
Ontario's Victim's Bill of Rights also includes a preamble.
The Northwest Territories Victims of Crime Act provides that the
purpose of the victims assistance committee established by that
act is to promote inter alia the courteous and compassionate
treatment of victims.
The Yukon Victims Services Act sets out in section 2 the purpose
of the victims services fund, for example to promote and provide
services and to publish information about the needs of victims
and available services.
Similarly Saskatchewan's Victims of Crime Act includes a
statement of purpose in section 3, to establish a fund to be used
to promote several principles including that victims should be
treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity
and privacy, that their views should be taken into account and
appropriate information and assistance should be provided to them
throughout the criminal process where appropriate and consistent
with criminal law and procedure. In addition wherever reasonably
possible, victims should receive through formal and informal
proceedings prompt and fair redress for harm suffered.
It is important to note that some provinces have used the term
“rights”. For example British Columbia's Victims of Crime Act
sets out several rights for victims of crime in sections 2 to 8.
Nova Scotia's Victims Rights and Services Act also employs the
term “right”. Section 3 sets out the victim's absolute rights
and section 4 sets out the victim's limited rights. Quebec's act
respecting assistance and compensation for victims of crime
provides for victim's rights and obligations under title 1,
sections 2 to 6. Manitoba recently introduced new victims rights
legislation which addresses a victim's entitlement to services
and information.
It should also be noted that despite the varying terminology
used, all provincial victims statutes include provisions which
clearly state that no cause of action lies based on the statute
for anything done or omitted. In other words there is no remedy
for the inability to provide for a right or fulfil a principle
set out in the legislation.
It is important that the minister has noted also that when it
comes to responding to the concerns of victims of crime the
provinces, territories and the federal government have a role to
play. It is an important role.
The provinces are responsible for investigating the majority of
criminal offences, enforcing the law, prosecuting criminal
offences and administering justice within the province. Given
that responsibility, provincial legislation can appropriately
address victims rights which relate to the provision of
information about the investigation, the prosecution, for example
the charges laid, bail decisions, trial scheduling, et cetera and
available services. Provinces have done exactly that in their
legislation.
Federal victims rights legislation to address matters of
provincial jurisdiction would not be either possible or
practical. That too is important to note.
1535
When discussing the issue of victims rights, I fear we may be
influenced by events south of the border and I would hope that is
not so. Practically every state in the United States has a
victims bill of rights and some even have amended their state
constitutions. Canadians may think we must follow suit. However
recent studies suggest that these rights are only paper promises.
Although we should keep an open mind about the need for more
rights, I am sure all members would agree that it is pointless to
have symbolic victims rights which are not enforceable.
I look forward to the report of the standing committee that will
greatly assist the government in addressing the victim's role in
the criminal justice system, whether that be through legislation
or through other initiatives.
It is important to review some of the background information on
provincial victims legislation. I will highlight the legislation
in four provinces to provide examples of the various approaches
taken which are worthy to note.
The first relates to British Columbia. British Columbia's
comprehensive legislation, the Victims of Crime Act, sets out a
range of entitlements for victims and assigns a responsibility to
justice system personnel or for example to the crown,
commissioner of corrections, or attorney general. For example,
section 2 provides that all justice system personnel must treat a
victim with courtesy and respect and must not discriminate
against a victim on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of
origin, religion and other similar grounds.
Section 4 directs that crown counsel must ensure that a victim
is given a reasonable opportunity to have admissible evidence
concerning the impact of the offence as perceived by the victim
presented to the court before sentence is imposed for the
offence.
Section 5 directs that justice system personnel must offer a
victim certain information regarding the justice system, victim
services, the victim legislation and privacy legislation.
Section 6 provides that certain information must be provided for
victims such as the status of the investigation, the name of the
accused, court dates and probation or parole conditions.
Section 7 addresses information that will be provided on request
of the victim.
Finally, section 8 sets out several goals that the government
must promote, including the development of victims services,
prompt return of stolen property and protection from
intimidation.
I want to highlight Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia's Victims Bill of
Rights and Services Act sets out a victim's absolute right in
section 3, including the right to be treated with courtesy,
compassion and dignity and the right to the prompt return of
property.
The victim's limited rights are set out in section 4. They are
subject to the availability of resources and any other limits
reasonable in the circumstances. These limited rights include
the right to information about the charge laid, progress of the
prosecution and services or remedies available.
I would like now to highlight Ontario. Ontario's Victim's Bill
of Rights, proclaimed in June 1996, sets out a range of
principles in section 2 regarding the treatment of victims of
crime, including that victims should be treated with courtesy,
compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy;
that victims should have access to information about services,
protection against intimidation, the progress of investigation
and prosecution, court dates, the sentence imposed and release
conditions. On request, victims should be notified of release
from prison and in the case of persons found unfit or not
criminally responsible on account of mental disorder of any
dispositions made by the Criminal Code review board.
This legislation clarifies that these principles are subject to
the availability of resources and information, what is reasonable
in the circumstances of the case, what is consistent with the law
and public interest, and what is necessary to ensure that the
resolution of the criminal proceedings is not delayed.
The Ontario legislation has created a civil cause of action for
victims of prescribed crime. The offender is liable in damages
to the victim for emotional distress and bodily harm. The
legislation creates a presumption that a victim of sexual assault
or attempted sexual assault or spousal assault suffers emotional
distress.
The legislation also creates a provincial victims justice fund
account which will include federal and provincial surcharge
revenue, donations and appropriations from provincial general
revenue. The fund is used for provincial victims services
provided by the solicitor general and attorney general and for
grants to community agencies.
1540
I would like to highlight Alberta as well. The Alberta Victims
of Crime Act, proclaimed August 1, 1997, consolidates the former
victims programs assistance act and the criminal injuries
compensation act and makes significant reforms to the
compensation scheme.
Section 2 sets out the principles which apply to the treatment
of victims, including that victims should be treated with
courtesy, compassion and respect, receive information about
relevant services and their participation in criminal
proceedings, scheduling and ultimate disposition and that their
views and concerns should be considered where appropriate.
The act also empowers the minister to appoint a director to
implement the act, to provide information to victims, to resolve
the concerns of victims who believe they have not been treated in
accordance with the principles of the act and to evaluate
applications for benefits, financial and others, formerly
referred to as criminal injuries compensation.
The act also imposes a surcharge on provincial offences and
establishes the victims of crime fund into which both federal and
provincial surcharge revenue is deposited. The fund may also
receive other revenue, including appropriations from general
revenue. The fund is used to provide grants with respect to
programs benefiting victims of crime and for financial benefits
to eligible victims of crime, for example specific victims.
The director is mandated to determine the eligibility and the
amount of the financial benefit for the victim applicant. An
appeal board is also established to adjudicate appeals of the
director's decision. Eligibility criteria and the amount of the
applicable financial benefits will be prescribed and are
prescribed by regulations.
In addition, it is important in light of the motion presented
today to review some of the recent Criminal Code initiatives
which in fact do respond to the needs and concerns of victims of
crime. These are Criminal Code responses which Canadians think
are very important and clearly support. I would like to
highlight some of those now.
In 1995 in response to victims concerns, the maximum penalty for
leaving the scene of an accident was increased from two to five
years to achieve consistency with the maximum penalty for
impaired driving.
On September 3, 1996 amendments to the sentencing part of the
Criminal Code included amendments to the restitution and victim
impact statement provisions. The scope of restitution is
expanded and courts are now required rather than permitted to
consider a victim impact statement when one has been prepared.
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing, related
to that.
In 1995 section 33 was added to the Criminal Code to clarify
that intoxication is not a defence to any general intent crimes
of violence, such as sexual assault and assault. Bill C-72, an
act to amend the Criminal Code, self-induced intoxication,
referred to that.
Other legislation provided for special warrants to be issued to
collect bodily samples for DNA analysis in specified
circumstances. These were outlined in Bill C-104, an act to
amend the Criminal Code, DNA warrants.
In 1997 Bill C-17, the criminal law improvement bill, included
amendments to benefit victims. The peace bond provisions were
strengthened. Provisions regarding the use of blood sample
evidence in impaired driving prosecutions were clarified and the
mandatory prohibition from driving provisions were strengthened.
More specific amendments came into force in May 1997. These
amendments include provisions to facilitate the testimony of
young victims and witnesses by expanding the use of screens and
closed circuit TV to include both complainants and witnesses
under 18 years of age, an important move. It also included
provisions designed to facilitate the giving of testimony. It
will now include offences of prostitution, child pornography and
assault, in addition to the sexual offences already listed. It
also included amendments clarifying that the existing provisions
which prohibit publication of the identity of sexual offence
victims apply to current and historic sexual offences as well.
Section 715.1 which permits a young victim of a sexual offence
to adopt video testimony at trial will now be available in the
prosecution of other offences, including assault, prostitution
and child pornography. This was outlined in Bill C-27, an act to
amend the Criminal Code, child prostitution, child sex tourism,
criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.
1545
Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code, production of
records in sexual offence proceedings, was passed and proclaimed
into force on May 12, 1997 to protect sexual offence victims by
restricting the production to the accused of irrelevant personal
and private records.
These measures underscore the commitment of the government to
make protection of the public a top priority. That is understood
and that is clearly apparent.
It is important to note that while others talk we as a
government have acted. It is important to maintain those kinds
of actions and to ensure that these actions are consistent with
what Canadians want and what Canadians expect the government to
do.
[Translation]
In its vision of the future, the federal government attaches
vital importance to the security of all Canadians. The federal
government will continue to look after the interests of all
Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the message the hon. member was giving, but
I am afraid he missed the whole idea with regard to victims.
Let me quote Phyllis de Villiers, president of CAVEAT:
The credibility of the justice system depends on the way in which
victims are treated and the system's sensitivity to their
experience. Currently, victims are often revictimized by the
justice system itself. While inordinate attention is paid to the
rights of the offender, the victims are marginalized.
With the murder of my daughter, I suddenly became a victim with
no voice, no face, no standing, no representation. I received no
legal assistance nor advice to help me understand the process at
a time when I was barely functioning. There is little
recognition of the financial toll of violent crime, both on the
victim and the community.
This was on May 30, 1997. We have heard some mighty fine words
from the hon. member. He talked about paper promises. He
mentioned that we have to show courtesy, compassion and respect.
That is only normal. One would have to show those, but victims
are not looking for compassion, respect and courtesy. They are
looking for some action where justice is being served, where they
could stay home and feel satisfied that they have been truly
addressed.
The parole system is in a shambles. People are not happy with
that. The victims cannot understand how their sons and daughters
could be murdered, raped and vandalized by a person who has just
got out of prison for the same crimes.
On section 45 tons of people across the country cannot
understand how a first degree cold blooded killer could apply to
get out of jail in 15 years.
These people keep talking about how they are compelled to
address these issues and they are not. Liberal members came up
with conditional release. They dreamt that up and it applies to
violent offenders. Then there was statutory release even when the
guards and the people on the frontline in prisons said that they
should not be released because they would kill again. They do
it, sit back and do nothing about it. We could ask the Melanie
Carpenter family how it feels about statutory release.
CAVEAT exists as do FACTS, CRY, Kid Brother Campaign and MADD.
All these victims groups exist because governments like the
Liberal government have done nothing on their behalf.
What does the member propose to do for victims? I say to him
“Don't give me any more of this courtesy, compassion and
respect”.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question
of the hon. member opposite it is my understanding that it is
Priscilla de Villiers and not Phyllis de Villiers.
As a former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police I dealt
extensively in that part of Ontario, in that part of Canada, with
victims and the rights of victims. I see the government making
enormous strides in terms of making sure that we have in place
facilities and programs that assist victims in their time of
need.
1550
Every time the government presented options and opportunities
for the opposition, in this case the Reform Party, it chose not
to vote on bills dealing with victims rights, for example Bill
C-41 which dealt with restitution and victims rights accordingly;
Bill C-37, victims impact statements; and Bill C-45, stringent
measures to be put in place for sex offenders.
It is unbelievable that rather than vote for concrete measures
and get on with the job at hand, it seems intent to continue to
fearmonger, continue to stir up negativity and continue to point
out all kinds of extreme measures which are clearly and
absolutely inappropriate for Canadians and society.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, to address the hon. member's statements continually put
forth in the House, they are as true as saying that the earth is
flat.
The member is wrong. This party put forth the private member's
bill on victims rights. This party is the one that passed it
through. This party has been pushing the government for victims
rights ever since we got here. This party wanted to put
equability and fairness into the justice system. This party
passed yesterday a private member's motion on crime prevention
using existing programs that have been proven to work. This
party is trying to work with members across party lines and put
our partisanship aside to build a stronger justice system. The
facts speak for themselves.
Many members in our party have reached out their hands
repeatedly to members from the other side. Some members have
taken that hand and would like to work with us. I find it
personally offensive, and I am sure members from this party find
it personally offensive, that the member continually chooses to
put partisanship ahead of the truth. I hope the member would
choose to put constructiveness ahead of partisanship.
Would the hon. member take to the Minister of Justice the
private member's bill my colleague put forth on victims rights
since he spoke for it and push it forward with the minister to
make sure it is enacted in legislation before the end of the
year?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for his question.
We as a government have always moved forward in a non-partisan
way hoping to do what is best for the interest of all Canadians
and for the country. It is important we continue to do so.
I am amazed at the allegation made by the hon. member in terms
of what we as a government are doing. It is clear through not
only this debate but through question period and other times that
the Reform Party repeatedly wants to take the position of
negativity, of extremism, and all kinds of outrageous and
outlandish positions when it comes to offenders, victims and
everyone else in the criminal justice system. It is quite
outrageous. Canadians see through that kind of nonsense and I am
glad they do.
Every time we as a government have tried to take concrete steps
to address the causes of crime, child poverty, educational
opportunities and other issues related to these kinds of things,
it would appear we were stymied by members opposite. It is
outrageous and too bad. That party would slash over $1 billion
from social services programs in Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, we could accept the changes the Liberal government
put forward in criminal justice programs if they were concrete
steps, if they were steps that moved the prevention of crime
ahead. There has been little more than tinkering done with the
justice system since 1993 and prior thereto.
The member talked about how the Reform Party would not support
some of the justice bills that were brought in by the Liberal
government. The reason for that, and he knows it very well, is
that within all the pages of changes there might be one minute
piece of legislation, one clause that we could consider to be
something that was a positive step.
The rest was simply window dressing. In many cases it was a
backward step in dealing with criminals and the crime situation.
That is why we could not support the Liberal bills.
1555
He talked about Bill C-41. There was one small good part in it
which, if they had separated it out, we would have supported.
They would not do that and we had to vote against the bill.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, all this
from the party that wants to slash $1 billion from social
services and literally gut the whole system. It would be
absolutely outrageous in terms of what that party would propose
and try to do.
In a non-partisan way we have tried to ensure that the criminal
justice system is in place in a manner consistent with what
Canadians want, deserve and need. It is something to hear
members opposite speak in terms of what they want to do and the
extent to which they want to drag the country down. I find that
ludicrous. Canadians see through that and they will not stand
for it. That is the long and short of it.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley.
Let us look at the problem. The problem today is that crime is
increasing. Some like to trot out statistics that it is not.
They say it is going down. The reason crime is increasing is
that 50% to 60% of non-violent crime and 40% of violent crime is
not reported to the police. The fact is that crime is
increasing. Youth violent crime in particular is increasing. It
has doubled since 1986. What can we do?
There has been a failure of the system to deal with it. Our
traditional response of detection, detention and deterrence
simply has not worked. If one looks at them carefully the
statistics bear that out. We have not been able to put forward a
system that protects victims rights. We do not have a system
that prevents crime, but there are solutions out there. What can
we do?
I will put forth some constructive solutions that members of my
party and other parties have been putting forth for some time.
The first thing—
Mr. Jack Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
When I look around I do not see that we have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1605
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for bringing in the members to listen to this speech. I hope it
will live up to its advance billing.
In this hopefully riveting speech I was talking about justice
and the Reform Party's motion today on what we can do to improve
and revamp our justice system.
The first thing we have to realize is prevention. How do we
prevent criminal activity? If we are to do this we have to peer
at the roots of criminal activity. If we look at the people who
are incarcerated in our jails many of them have had family
histories that can only be described as a house of horrors.
While their history does not exonerate them from their actions,
perhaps it makes us understand how they came to have fractured
psyches.
It starts often at time zero. It is estimated that half of all
people incarcerated in our jails have fetal alcohol syndrome or
fetal alcohol effects. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading
cause of irreversible neurologic damage in our society today. It
is increasing in geometric proportions. Some communities have
incidence rates as high as over 60 per 1000 live births. These
people have IQs of an average of 68.
They have a great deal of difficulty in interpersonal
relationships, a great deal of cognitive disabilities. It makes
it very difficult for them to interact and engage in society.
Some of these people go on to lives of crime or at best have
difficulty interacting in society. We need to prevent this. In
order to prevent it, we have to work in utero.
1610
We also have to make sure that children are not subjected to
abuse, sexual abuse, violence, improper nutrition or more subtle
factors such as improper parenting and inconsistent parenting.
All those factors in a cumulative effect have a dramatic effect
on the building blocks of a normal psyche during that critical
first eight years of life and in particular in the first three to
four years of life.
Study after study demonstrates that the input we make in the
first four years of life has a dramatic and profound effect on
those individuals and is also highly cost effective. Programs
from Moncton to Hawaii to Michigan have demonstrated a 50% to 60%
reduction in youth crime, a 50% reduction in teen pregnancies,
higher rates of employment, less dependence on welfare and a $6
saving for every $1 invested.
Head start programs are a win-win situation if they are done
properly. I was very pleased that Motion No. 261 calling for a
national head start program was passed yesterday by this House
and I want to thank all the members who supported it from all
parties, except the Bloc Quebecois that voted against it, and I
applaud them for putting partisanship aside for the betterment of
the children of this country. My hope is we will be working
together to make this a reality.
Already five provinces and territories are on side and they want
to work with the federal government, with parliament, to make
this a reality. We can save a lot of people's lives and save a
lot of money.
My colleague from Fraser Valley East put forth a very
comprehensive victims bill of rights that we have been pushing
forward. The government should adopt it. Far too many times we
see victims are left in the shadows and salt is actually poured
on to their open wounds as the result of a system that puts a
preferential onus on the convicted and not on the victim.
We need to look too at alternative measures of sentencing.
Restorative justice has been used in British Columbia and is
starting to be used in a very cost effective manner. In British
Columbia under this program it costs as little as $290 per
individual, a dramatic saving from the $95,000 it takes to
incarcerate a youth in a jail for a year.
Restorative justice works for a select group of individuals who
are first time offenders for non-violent offences and where they
have the approval of the community and, most of all, the approval
of the victim. In a restorative justice program the incidence of
recidivism has dropped dramatically. It is over 95% successful
for individuals selected for that program.
We should also look at tougher penalties for individuals who are
committing violent offences, repeat offenders, pimps, individuals
who have shown an utter disregard for society. This population
needs to be separated from the other individuals who are
non-violent offenders, non-repeat offenders, first time offenders
where there is a hope of trying to break them out of a cycle of
crime, punishment and recidivism. My colleagues have put forth
many constructive suggestions along those lines.
We have to look at naming young offenders, not only those who
are committing violent offences, who are 16 and 17 years of age,
but all violent offenders. The rationale is if we accept that
restorative justice works at least in part on the principle of
shaming, then why do we not name all individuals who are young
offenders and committing offences, be they violent or non-violent
offenders? Society has a right to know. The neighbour has a
right to know whether the person beside them is a B and E artist
or a sexual predator. The public has a right to know and public
safety must be first and foremost in our justice system.
While these individuals are in jail let us make it obligatory
that they engage in counselling sessions for violent behaviour or
for their substance abuse problems. Let us make it obligatory
that they take training programs so that once they get out of
jail they can take up a role as an integrated part of society.
There is no obligation. Right now people can be let out of jail
and paroled with spending as little as one third of their
sentence. When a person gets sentenced for nine years, they can
be out after three. What kind of justice system is that?
1615
Perhaps it is a better thing to say they are going to be
sentenced to nine years but that they can earn having that
sentence whittled down if they take the measures necessary to
treat whatever problems they have, be they psychological, to get
the skills necessary to become a functional member of society.
Also we have to look at post-discharge issues. When criminals
get out of jail, we should have the systems in place to help them
integrate into society. Many of them get lost in the shuffle,
fall through the cracks and go back into a life of crime.
Let us talk about streamlining the justice system. We have a
justice system that too often engages in a system where somebody
is arrested and it takes a long time for that person to get to
trial and be convicted. Justice delayed is justice denied. We
can put forth a streamlined system and this is not difficult.
We should have immediately put forth a small group of
individuals who can take constructive suggestions from around the
world that have worked to implement right away into our system,
to streamline it so that we manage to get the arrested person
through to the court system to be judged by their peers and to
either be exonerated or convicted and sentenced in an expeditious
fashion.
This would be fair to society and to the victims. We also need
to look at the system of how we put accountability into our
system. Why do we not examine electing judges? Look at the
experience in California where they have managed to elect judges
while still managing to retain that separation of judicial
independence from other parties such as this House.
It is possible to do that. It is possible to have elected
judges and to still maintain judicial independence. It is just
the way in which the individuals are elected. It would add
accountability to a system that desperately needs an element of
accountability.
We need to consider looking at changing our system of legal aid.
Look at the public defender system. Again in certain parts of
the United States they have managed to institute a public
defender system that saved taxpayers millions of dollars while
still, with retrospective analysis, showed that those individuals
got as good or better treatment under the law as they would have
in the existing system.
Look at a public defender system to replace the legal aid system
we have now that is actually crushing under the demands placed on
it.
If we fail to act that will be our biggest crime in this House.
We have an opportunity not to study these issues for the nth time
as we are apt to do in this House of Commons, not continue to
examine an examination or study a study, but use the studies that
have been done in this country, use the constructive solutions
that have been put forth not only here but around the world, take
the best of these solutions, discard what does not work and
implement it.
For heaven's sake, for Canadians, for the victims, for the
people we can prevent from getting into a life of crime, let us
act now.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has a good
vantage point and has listened well to some of the strategies out
there.
A lot of the comments he made fall very clearly into the agenda
on a motion that passed in this House yesterday. Much of that
motion of this hon. member was also relying on the ideas that the
crime prevention council, especially with respect to young
offenders, brought to the foreground in the last parliament and
that is why this government supported that initiative and funded
it.
I know this member very sincerely believes in restorative
justice.
1620
I listened to the member for Wild Rose talk about advisability,
that he wished to have corporal punishment in our prison system.
Could the hon. member advise me how this could be restorative
justice?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
parliamentary secretary for her intervention and for her support
in passing Motion No. 261. I know she believes in crime
prevention. I also thank her for bringing up the fine work that
the National Crime Prevention Council has done for so long and I
hope we can use the constructive solutions the council has been
putting forth and enact them into this legislation rather than
for us to merely talk about them.
I was not privy to the previous discussion the member refers to.
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Surrey
had come to my riding and spoken very eloquently about
restorative justice, about preventive measures and I hope members
on the other side would consult with them along those lines.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention but also
for his motion which I was proud to support yesterday. I think it
fits very well with some of the goals the government has and
clearly it fits with the goals that some in his party have.
There was an amendment voted on which the hon. member supported
and I noticed the members for Nanaimo—Alberni, Prince
George—Peace River, Blackstrap, Cypress Hills—Grasslands,
Okanagan—Shuswap, Athabasca, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast,
Calgary Southeast, and Skeena, all of whom are Reform members of
parliament and colleagues of this hon. member, did not support
that motion, the intent of which was extend the benefits of the
hon. member's initial motion to native Canadians.
I am wondering if he discussed this with them and what could
possibly be their reason for not wanting to extend these benefits
to our native children.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question and also for the support she has given on Motion
No. 261 and her actions on prevention.
I have not discussed the issue with my colleagues but members
from this party have always supported a head start program for
aboriginal people. The head start program that exists today
exists within the aboriginal community and has been highly
effective for that.
The member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale has been working with
members of the public who have been leaders in pushing forth the
aboriginal head start program which has been highly effective. I
am hoping we can take elements from the aboriginal head start
program and use those in employing a national head start strategy
from which all Canadians will benefit regardless of whether they
are aboriginal or non-aboriginal.
Perhaps all members from this side do not differentiate or like
to categorize people as to whether they are aboriginal or
non-aboriginal but would prefer to look at everybody as
Canadians, respecting everybody's differences, everybody's
individualities and respecting all what those people through
their differences bring to our multicultural society.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Charlotte: Hepatitis C; the
hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill, The Budget; the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Employment
Insurance; the hon. member for Halifax West, Aboriginal Affairs;
the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Banks.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): I
am pleased to speak to the Reform Party's supply day motion, the
Reform Party that has been the only party that has been crusading
against crime since we came to this place, the only party that
has been listening to the voices of average Canadians who have
some genuine fears about our society and the safety in our
streets and communities.
The motion today says that this House condemns, and condemn it
should, the government for the deplorable state of Canada's
criminal justice system and the government's lack of concern for
public safety as demonstrated by its refusal to strengthen the
Young Offenders Act, abolish conditional sentencing for violent
offenders and introduce a victims bill of rights.
1625
The government has failed miserably on all three counts. Since
1993 when it had an opportunity to bring in some real changes
that would reflect some positive steps in our criminal justice
system, it failed to do it. It has at best settled for some sort
of tinkering around the edges of a badly flawed criminal justice
system.
I cannot go on with this speech without bringing up something
that happened earlier today. Under a barrage of questions from
the Conservative Party and the Reform Party, we stood here in
utter amazement and watched the Minister of Justice of the
Government of Canada and her parliamentary secretary flee from
this House in an attempt to evade questions. They were questions
that came from real Canadians. They were questions about their
safety and about the safety of their children. They were
questions about the terrible crime rates.
No matter what the Liberals say about crime rates going down
in some areas, the level of crime in this country is at an
unacceptable level. Whether it has gone down or up, whichever
way, the level of crime is simply unacceptable. The Canadian
people have been saying do something to address crime.
The government has failed miserably.
They fled from the House. Cowardice was shown by the minister
and her parliamentary secretary as they fled from the House and
from the questions that we brought forward from Canadians from
all across this country.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding by the hon.
member. He keeps using phrases like fled from the House. I
believe the situation was one that unanimous consent was required
to continue with the question beyond the allotted time for the
minister—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That may well have
been a point of clarification but it was not a point of order.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the minister did have the
opportunity to stay and answer the questions. She chose not to.
She chose to not give unanimous consent.
The Liberal government has continuously accused the Reform Party
of fearmongering. Let me tell members that it is the Liberal
government that is spreading fear among society by its inaction
of dealing with the criminal justice system and by its inaction
of dealing with crime and the people who commit crimes. That is
what is scaring people, not the Reform Party.
We talk about real life crime situations and things that are
actually happening. We talk about people who are getting
assaulted, killed, raped and molested. When we talk about those
things, this is reality. The government accuses us of
fearmongering. The people are afraid of this government. That
is what they are afraid of. They are afraid of the inaction that
is happening with this government.
Now we have a justice minister who has come up with this set of
proposals to change the Young Offenders Act. It took well over a
year to take some action. Now after all this time and after the
continued questioning by our justice critic from Crowfoot on when
she would be bringing it forward, she said in a timely fashion.
Day after day we asked her when she would bring it forward.
Finally, her version of making some changes and bringing forward
legislation is bringing forward a strategy, nothing concrete,
just a bunch of ideas that could change six ways from Sunday by
the time they actually hit the House if they ever do.
There is no legislation. There are no changes to the Young
Offenders Act. There is nothing.
That is exactly what the Liberals have done with the criminal
justice system since they came to power in 1993. Nothing.
1630
I want to deal with conditioning sentencing, the scourge of the
justice system. People are committing violent crimes every day
and are walking out of the courtrooms without doing one minute of
jail time because the disgraced health minister, the former
minister of justice, brought in legislation to allow conditional
sentencing. If ever there was a screwball idea in the justice
system that was it. People are committing violent offences,
assaults, attempted murders, rapes, molesting children and are
walking out of prison without doing a day's time because they
fall under the conditional sentencing.
The conditional sentencing provision is as heinous as some of
the crimes that are happening which allow criminals to get out of
jail and never serve any time.
I believe you would find consent for the following motion, Mr.
Speaker:
That for the remainder of this session motions pursuant to
Standing Orders 57 and 78(3) shall not be receivable by the
Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley has asked that for the remainder of
this session motions pursuant to Standing Orders 57 and 78(3)
shall not be received by the Chair. Is there consent for that
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue
talking about conditional sentences. For people who are watching
the debate, conditional sentencing is simply a loophole created
by the former minister of justice which gives a judge the option
of making a decision on whether people will be a threat to
society and, if not, the judge can give the convicted people a
conditional sentence of two years less a day that allows them to
walk out of the court house.
I have no problem with someone getting a conditional sentence
for shoplifting, for writing a couple of bad cheques or for
committing some other misdemeanour crime because they are
non-violent crimes. Certainly they will not be a threat to the
safety of the community.
I will give some examples of people who are walking out of court
under conditional sentencing. A fellow by the name of Fabian
Torres received a conditional sentence in May 1997 after he
pleaded guilty to manslaughter, which incidentally is killing
somebody, in the shooting death of a 13 year old lad in 1995. He
killed him and he walked out without serving one single day in
jail.
On December 10, 1998 the Ottawa Sun reported “No jail
term shocks victims”. A man who hypnotized his wife and forced
his two step sons to have sex with her will not serve any time in
jail. Justice Robert Desmarais handed Robert Demers a
conditional sentence of two years less a day and two years
probation.
I question once again the sanity of conditional sentencing. I
also question the sanity of Justice Robert Desmarais who felt
this was not a serious crime. The fellow did no jail time. The
Edmonton Sun of March 18, 1998 reported that the sex
exploiter was spared jail and talked of healing reserve. The man
was convicted by Justice Cecilia Johnson of sexual exploitation.
The judge noticed his lack of remorse when he denied the charges
right up to sentencing but agreed to the defence lawyer's
suggestion that he should receive a conditional sentence.
Something is wrong with this picture.
1635
People who are committing serious crimes are not spending any
time in jail. That is what the Reform Party and the people of
Canada are talking about, and the member just happens not to have
been listening.
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley I could tell that he and his Reform Party
colleagues thoroughly enjoy this kind of debate. It is not the
first time that members of the Reform Party have raised the issue
of crime. They do it over and over again. The reason is that it
scares people. People get very afraid when they hear the kind of
talk that comes from the Reform Party. What is that called? It
is called fearmongering.
The Reform Party has been in the House for about five years.
Hardly a day goes by that it does not raise the issue of crime.
What is that called? That is fearmongering. We could spell it
with capital letters.
The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley talks about
conditional sentencing. He suggests that this is a terrible
innovation in the criminal justice system. Let us make it
absolutely clear that what he dislikes is giving discretion to
judges. It is another attempt on his part and on the part of the
Reform Party to smear judges.
It was not long ago when there was an issue in the House about
the salaries of judges and Reform members smeared judges. They
are doing it again today. It is absolutely unacceptable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Just before the hon.
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley responds, I remind the
House that it is our custom not to refer to members of the
judiciary by name in the House.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that
while the member for Charleswood—Assiniboine and his colleagues
would prefer to dream in Technicolor about the criminal justice
system, that everything is all right, the Reform Party prefers to
talk in real terms. We prefer to relay what the voices of the
Canadian people are telling us when we come to the House.
We do not prefer to talk about some fuzzy philosophy that
everything is okay and it is no one's fault. The fact is that
crime is happening, serious crime. While the Liberals would
prefer to cover it over and pretend it is not there, the Reform
Party talks about it and will not stop talking about it. If the
member for Charleswood—Assiniboine is getting tired of hearing
us talk about it, I would suggest he not show up any more because
we will not stop.
He talks about our talking about the judicial system. When I
look at some of the decisions and sentences handed down by some
judges, quite frankly if I were king of picking judges I would be
throwing a lot of them off the bench for some of the idiotic and
insane sentences and decisions they have been making.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I point out to the member for Prince George—Bulkley
Valley that in the period September 3, 1996 to December 31, 1997
there were 18,284 conditional sentences imposed. He has given an
example of three that have gone awry, all three of which have
been appealed. Others have been appealed and the courts of
appeal are now stating that it is inappropriate to use
conditional sentences in certain circumstances. Those
circumstances are the very circumstances these members are
complaining about.
It looks to me like conditional sentences are working and our
judiciary is working.
1640
Let me also remind the hon. member and his erstwhile colleagues
of something that is very important. They are every bit as much
a part of the criminal justice system as any judge. They have a
responsibility that they abrogate every day not to fearmonger,
not to malign people who are—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely amazing.
The member just said that the courts of appeal are now saying
that some of these conditional sentences are not appropriate.
What a revelation.
The last time I looked I thought it was the Liberal government
that was supposed to be directing what happens in the criminal
justice system. The former justice minister was the one who
brought in conditional sentencing and it was his Liberal
colleagues who supported it.
That is where the mistake was made. Now, surprise, surprise,
after the Reform Party has been talking about it ever since the
Liberal government brought in that insane legislation, the courts
of appeal are now saying that it is not appropriate to let
violent criminals walk out of jail with no jail time after being
convicted.
We will never stop talking about the deplorable state of our
justice system. We will never stop talking about the reality of
the crime that is happening.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to participate in the debate because I think it is a
serious matter.
I first want to address myself to all young people in Canada and
applaud the majority of them who managed to get through the teen
years, very difficult years, without having to engage in the
youth justice system. I do not think young people do this in a
vacuum. Most of them have parents and teachers. Perhaps they
have support through sporting activities and their daily lives. I
applaud those young people, the majority of youth between ages 12
and 17 in Canada. They look like every other child on the
street. They look the same as they walk down the street. They
walk in groups and not in gangs. Most of them are wonderful
children. They are at a time in history when it is very
difficult to grow up and face the challenges in society.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble even
hearing myself with the rhetoric from the other side. The Reform
Party never seems to want to stay and listen.
My point is that a lot of good children are growing up healthy
and responsible. I wanted to start with that premise.
The second premise is that during the very short period of the
difficult teen years many young children go through a temporary
period where they get into trouble in the sense that they may
come into conflict with our laws.
The vast majority of them get into trouble because they commit
property offences. I will not say that property offences are
insignificant because they are not. I am sure all members of the
House feel they have worked hard for their properties, homes and
family security. Canadians value and want a safe community to
live in. They do not want to be fearful.
Property offences are far different in nature and need a
different response than offences that a slim minority of children
engage in involving violence. Most violent offences of a
criminal nature—and I want to stress this and maybe have
Canadians understand it—are not committed by children, by young
offenders, but actually by adults. That is important to
understand.
I also stress that when we hear about rates of offences they are
actually charge rates. They are not conviction rates. They are
backed up by Juristat, a tracking mechanism in society doing
victimization studies after the fact and tracking the charge
rate. They correlate quite well. There is accuracy in these
figures which show that crime is going down across the board in
Canada.
That does not mean that a society ignores what crime there is.
It just means that we must be doing something right.
Something must be happening inside the system, inside society.
The values of the majority of the Canadian public who seek a safe
Canadian society are being responded to in a way that does work.
1645
A safe society, how do we accomplish that? If I create a new
act or I change this or change that or put some more words into a
statute and put it through a parliament, is that going to make my
society better? Some people think so. But in reality what has
to happen is that whatever legislation and whatever we call it
which is accepted by the majority of the people living under
those rules, people have to accept the rules of society.
In other words our legislation has to be based on the values
that society holds dear. That means responsibility. That means
some compassion. That means accountability. And it means giving
an individual in this country a chance to rehabilitate. That is
the major difference between the Canadian society, our system of
justice, and some systems of justice in different countries
around the world where the rights and the protections are not
there.
Does that mean we ignore victims? Absolutely not. In fact in
the last couple of parliaments a lot of legislation and the
actions of organizations across the country have very much taken
to heart the need for all members to have a say for those people
who are aggrieved by people who are not in control of their
actions for period of time.
I think back to situations where we did change those rules. In
fact in the last parliament we strengthened and changed some of
the rules with respect to young offenders. We strengthened the
rules with respect to DNA situations. We strengthened the rules
with respect to gun control.
Who in our society in Canada is not thinking today that down in
the States they have a bigger problem than we do. They have not
had the will of their population to change the social more that
thinks of a gun as a tool to which anyone of any age should have
access.
We have a different set of values. If we want the values at the
end of the system to be ingrained in a productive manner
especially for the young children in our society who come into
contravention of the law, then we have to put some values into
the system which will surround the individual and try to change
the behaviour while they are captured for a limited amount of
time inside our justice system. It starts right at the beginning
of the charge and ends for an adult at the parole system and for
a juvenile at the end of the system in which we deal with that
child.
There are differences in the individuals before our justice
system just as there are differences in the individual needs of
people inside a family, inside a community, inside a school,
inside an organization. People are not clones of one another.
They come with their positives and their deficits.
A lot of the children who go through our young offenders system
have some social deficits. They have social deficits that may
stem, not always but may stem from poverty conditions or that may
stem from illiteracy. Maybe they have a dysfunctional family. In
fact many do.
We all wish that there would be healthy, nurturing families
surrounding every child in Canadian society, that there would not
be child poverty. For some children with attention deficit
disorders or learning disabilities, we might wish that we could
put a white picket fence around them, give them a mother and
father who are employed and functional and supportive. Where we
cannot though we have to have systems.
Some of those have to come in the form of the social welfare
system that is administered by the provinces. There are
situations where we have good integration. I applaud the province
of Quebec because it has a better system than many of the
provinces for dealing with its young offenders. The solution is
not to criminalize so as to access the social welfare system.
There are provinces where there are gaps. We know from evidence.
We have to be careful to stay with evidence, things we can prove
as opposed to thinking about or perhaps have a perception which
is usually a misperception. We have to divorce the perceptions
from the realities.
1650
A lot of very good work done has been done on what are the
causes and what can be the benefits of a well integrated, well
defined program for young offenders to have a better outcome.
I do not think there is a party in the House that would not want
a better outcome and that includes the Reform Party. Sometimes
the rhetoric and partisanship that surround this issue rob
Canadian taxpayers of the viewpoint that is best for Canada, the
viewpoint that kids come first.
We cannot penalize kids more than when we have a choice between
money spent on penalties and money spent on rehabilitation. We
could probably tell 3 year olds or 10 year olds that they will be
in trouble when they hit the young offender system. We could ask
any teacher in any riding and they would be able to point out who
is having problems.
We need systems outside the justice system supporting children.
That is where there needs to be some financing. If we spend
money preventing children from turning into young offenders we
will have accomplished something of which we can be proud.
People often talk about costs and wastes in government. In my
mind a waste is to build a building that incarcerates people and
warehouses them without giving them good programming so that
there is some benefit for those individuals and hence for
society. If young or old people are put in a building and their
behaviour is not changed during the time they are there, we have
wasted that dollar. Eighty per cent of adult offenders will be
on the street again. What do they learn while they are
incarcerated? They learn about brutalization and anger.
I have been in our penitentiaries. I am five foot one. If I
stretch out my hands I can touch both walls of a cell where often
two prisoners are housed. It is not a cell built for two but a
cell that is accommodating usually two adult males. There are
sleeping accommodations and a toilet facility in the cell. People
ask “Why do I care if they are crowded or it is uncomfortable
for them? There many other better human beings to spend money
on”.
That tells me in the double bunking system of our justice system
that there is not enough money to provide programs. There is not
enough money for programs for these people.
It is much easier for an opposition member to talk about a nine
hole golf course, the extreme exception. What is more the rule
is the double bunking situation where there is insufficient
programming, a situation which breeds unrest, violence and many
things people do not want to think about.
As a mother of two teenage boys and another younger child coming
up through the system I could not think of a worse place to send
a child, especially if they are in trouble. It would be
horrific. It is not in line with the values of people.
We can go through the process of looking at some of the
recommendations the justice committee has worked on. All members
of all parties on the justice committee and members of the
communities have worked hard. We just returned from a week in my
riding where I talked with the partners in my community involved
in these issues. They regularly talk with me and voice their
ideas. Their ideas work. The community is where the best ideas
will come from.
I cannot sit in parliament and dictate to people what will solve
the issues in their communities.
We have to facilitate a mechanism that may involve for young
offenders and adult offenders some alternate measures. Then the
community will have to find a much cheaper way. Alternate
measures are much cheaper than incarceration, especially for
juveniles. Up to $100,000 a year can be spent on a custody
situation for a juvenile.
1655
For example, in my riding in London, Ontario we have something
called the youth justice system. It is a diversion for young
offenders out of the court system, not on serious crimes, but
again I stress most young offenders are not involved in serious
violent crimes. It takes those young offenders and the community
chooses people, adults and youth, to sit in a discussion group
and the young offender has accountability for the offence. There
is counselling. They are trying to figure out what created the
problem. They are not pointing a finger saying “you are the
problem”, but they are figuring out what created the problem and
how will it be fixed.
That youth then often is involved in a restitution situation to
whomever he has harmed. There is often a community working
restitution order. It is whatever is wanted as a creative
solution at a very low cost and which is very fast. Most
sentencing youth justice circles take less than three hours.
Often the parents, or whoever is living with the child and is
responsible for the child is in attendance. In fact if they are
not, it tends not to work.
There is no long time schedule. We who deal with teenagers know
that tomorrow is forever. A court system is slow. In my opinion
I would rather see the majority going to alternate measures
outside the very formalized courtroom setting and into something
which I think will bring real value and real solutions at far
less cost.
We should be looking at the community to help us design these
measures. As members of parliament we should be there as
facilitators. It is so much cheaper, so much better and so much
safer for society to prevent the offence than it ever is to come
after the fact and punish for the offence. In that way we can
build the values.
Some of those systems are there now. It could be the sports and
recreation system or the tutoring system. It could be as basic
as nutrition programs. There is a need for breakfast programs in
some of our communities, let us face it.
What I am saying is that Canadian youth are far from perfect.
Our justice system is far from perfect. There is a need and I
believe a desire in this country to get beyond the rhetoric of
crime and the fear of crime, and into the real working situations
day in and day out. This will model a justice system that
actually does benefit our society, as opposed to always focusing
on unfortunately what the media can sell a paper with, which is
the latest crime. There is nothing I would wish more than to
never have those horrific crimes occur, but when they do there
will be a stricter discipline system. However those crimes are
the minority.
Our legislation has to cover everything from the extremes
through to the broad middle section. It is important that we also
remember all of those youth and those adults in this country who
never come into contact with our criminal justice system.
The final thing I will say is that it is so very important for
Canadians to understand that there is judicial independence from
the politics of a nation in our justice system in Canada. I
applaud that concept. I believe in that concept. Judicial
independence is as fundamental to our system of working in a
Canadian democracy that values rights and freedoms as is privacy
of information in our taxation system.
1700
These are fundamental building blocks and I believe they should
not be called into question. I call upon members from all
parties in this House because all of our communities will benefit
when we work together with different levels of government toward
these solutions.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for her intervention today on
what I think we all agree is a very important topic.
It is unfortunate at times that in the heat of debate the
atmosphere in the Chamber does not allow for reasoned debate. I
think we all participate in that. I know I do. I confess that
from time to time we do not allow it to be a chamber of reasoned
debate.
It saddens me, as a member of parliament and as a member of the
opposition, when we bring in a motion like this, which will
hopefully serve to open the debate even further, that sometimes
members opposite and even those on my left would heap only scorn
and anger upon us because they do not agree with our position.
They do not acknowledge that we are speaking for a number of
people in the country who are very concerned about this problem
perhaps from a little different perspective than theirs.
I met last week with a group of people in my riding who were
concerned about the Young Offenders Act. Some of them were young
people. I want to pay tribute to a young person in my riding by
the name of Sarah Taylor who, in response to concern among young
people over youth crime in her school and the surrounding area,
started a youth against crime club in her school. I commend this
young woman. She has taken an initiative to tackle the problem.
Some of the feedback I get from her and from others is that
there is the perception that somehow either there is no fear of
consequence of action in our country because of our laws or kids
just do not get it.
Should our laws act somehow as a deterrent to crime?
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Madam Speaker, I think it is correct to
say that most teenagers will say that the Young Offenders Act has
no teeth. They actually believe that. Yet when the police do a
criminal investigation, the whole system surrounding an offence
has exactly the same investigative powers, the same charge
powers. So that is just wrong.
There is a misperception about the system. They would get a
very quick surprise at how fast that system would take them in.
It is not sport.
One of the analogies I use when I am talking to groups is that
if I was sick and people were concerned about my illness they
would tell me about the remedies that cured their disease. But
in the long run, if I was really sick, I would still go to my
doctor. If I was really, really sick, I would want the best
specialist I could get.
Sometimes I think it is our obligation as members of parliament
responsible for these issues to actually go and seek the best
evidence we can get and then act on what will actually fix the
problem; what will help to solve the problem, as opposed to what
will satisfy the fears and the anecdotes. I think that is
important to remember in this debate.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, when I
have been in the Yukon in the last while there has been a lot of
dissatisfaction with the justice system and there is some fear.
However, when there is satisfaction, it is very clear where it is
coming from.
1705
The First Nations people have the option of circle sentencing.
They still go through a trial procedure, but they have the option
of going to their community for circle sentencing where they will
have to face their victims, their parents, their aunts, their
uncles and the community. That also makes the community
responsible for that person. There seems to be a bit of envy
that the option is there for some people to serve their sentences
in their communities with the support of the people who matter
most to them.
Can the member see that sort of situation becoming available to
all of us? It does put a lot of responsibility on individuals to
follow it through. We cannot just stick the criminal in a jail
and pay someone to look after them. It means that they come into
our homes, our schools, onto our streets and we are all
responsible for them. Can the member see that?
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for that excellent question.
If it was my desire, all kids in this country who have been
convicted of less than violent offences would be in a justice
circle modelled after the native sentencing system.
That is happening in my riding right now. It was an interesting
partnership that started it. Neighbourhood Watch teamed up with
the St. Leonard's Society in my riding of London West, Ontario,
and put it to together. Even the provincial Government of
Ontario, which often talks about boot camps, is helping to fund
some of these circles, or justice circles as they wish to be
called in my riding.
As recently as last week there was a movement to put the
partners together with the Fanshawe College social worker,
students together with the local board of education, to alleviate
some of these partnership concerns and to get the synergy of
people working in an interdisciplinary fashion on the same
problems, surrounding the offender with a system that would be
supportive long after the sentencing circle had gone for the
evening.
It is a very inexpensive thing to do. It is done mainly with
volunteers and expert supervision.
I hope that this is something we could see a lot more of in
different communities around the country. It makes communities
take ownership of and embrace their own children. They do not
have to rely on prisons for a period of incarceration, pretending
that they can forget about them and they will come back better.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, certainly our role in the opposition is
to hold the government to account. Our job is also to present
constructive alternatives. When we bring the issue of justice to
this Chamber, certainly the government should not mischaracterize
our points in defence when perhaps in the public view it is found
lacking in the operation of the justice system.
When the Liberals say we are extreme, they are just plain wrong.
It is the failing system that is extreme. When they say we are
simplistic, I think that is somewhat of an admission from the
government that these complex issues of justice administration
are rather confounding the government and it just does not know
what to do.
Today the justice minister talked about the criminal justice
system, the mental health system and the social welfare system,
especially for young offenders. However, she forgets that it is
the criminal justice system which provides the railway track for
the train to be able to get to the social welfare system and the
mental health system, for it is the police that form the 24 hour
social agency in most of Canada, especially in the outlying
communities. It is often in that context that the mental health
worker or someone from the hospital and the local social welfare
agency get together with the local justice system person to deal
with problem families and issues. Unless we have the criminal
justice system to provide the authority to act, we cannot bring
to bear the other social services in the community.
I wanted to talk about what the justice minister said the other
day. The justice minister said “justice delayed is justice
denied”, but she continues to delay the introduction of the
needed amendments to the Young Offenders Act and fails to bring
in a victims' bill of rights. When are we going to have some
legislation rather than continued reports and press releases?
1710
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Madam Speaker, I believe the justice
minister has indicated that legislation will be introduced in the
fall after the Canadian population has had time to discuss and
reflect on the proposals just put forward by the justice
minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak in the House on the motion put forward
by one of my colleagues in the Reform Party on this opposition
day.
We have to admit that the current criminal justice system has
some major failings, in terms of both its application and its
principles. However, I should point out that the Bloc Quebecois
vigorously distances itself—and I underscore the word
vigorously—from the positions advocated by the Reform Party,
which represent in our opinion a vision of things worthy of the
best westerns.
The Reform Party places itself at the far right of the political
checkerboard, whereas the Bloc is right in the centre, just
because of the people it represents. This dichotomy in a matter
so complex illustrates the state of Canadian federalism and the
impossibility of its being properly reformed. Quebec's
expectations are incompatible with the perceptions of the rest
of Canada. This matter is simply one more example that two
completely distinct societies are living within a single state
and this arrangement does not work.
On the subject of the Young Offenders Act, we were right to
criticize the initiative of the Minister of Justice, because she
was giving in unduly to western pressure on the application of
criminal justice to young people, something that is totally
unacceptable and simply a way to make political points.
The minister's parliamentary secretary herself said on Le Point
on CBC French television that the aim of the reform was to
solicit public support rather than to expose the real problems
and propose solutions. Need we add anything? I do not think
so.
Toughening sentences for young offenders is not the best way to
discourage criminals in waiting. There are other much more
flexible methods that would ensure a better performance and
therefore greater justice within our society. Branding a young
person for the rest of his life will help neither him nor
society.
According to those in the criminal justice system in Quebec,
this message must be brought home. The Young Offenders Act
raises problems in its application and not in its present form.
If the Young Offenders Act were applied as it ought to be,
according to the way it is written, everything would be fine.
The proof of this is that the province which applies it best is
Quebec, and Quebec is where there are the best results.
We are perpetually confronted by the incompatibility between
Quebec and the rest of Canada, the west in particular. We are
caught in a vicious circle and, with her fake reform, the
minister is endangering the very foundations of the justice
system and the efforts expended against youth crime,
particularly in Quebec where, as I have said, it is working
fine, though not perfectly.
Before changing the act, however, I believe that, as the former
Minister of Justice said himself, it must be applied as it was
intended to be applied, and the other provinces would be well
advised to follow the example of Quebec.
Concerning the conditional sentencing of young offenders, the
parole system is based on the principle of rehabilitating
offenders. This is a principle that is dear to the hearts of
the large majority of Quebeckers, and of Canadians I believe.
Commission has followed on commission, report after report, and
consultations of all kinds were held on the early parole
procedure.
1715
What we can conclude, without fear of being wrong, is that there
is a problem with the system itself, not the principle
underlying it. There are numerous examples of offenders being
released for good conduct after serving one-sixth of their
sentence. Several examples could be given, but it would waste
the time of colleagues in the House.
Authorities are applying the principle of good institutional
conduct, which, by definition, should guarantee the same conduct
outside the establishment. This is the crux of the problem.
The same conclusions are based on two completely different
realities.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have drafted a bill along these lines
that will be introduced shortly, so that offenders are not
released after serving one-sixth of their sentence. I urge all
colleagues in the House to support us in this undertaking.
As for victims' rights, beyond all the considerations we accord
the criminal justice system, it must be remembered that those
most affected by this issue are still the victims. Before all
else, we must think of these people, the innocent victims.
There is a necessary balance to be achieved between the
treatment reserved for offenders on the one hand and victims'
rights on the other, and finally the general public. If the
balance between these three categories is destroyed, nobody
wins, not the victims, not the offenders, who also have rights,
not society.
Without saying that we support the Reform Party on the issue of
victims' rights, we cannot deny that the government's initiative
of passing legislation on this thorny issue must be examined
more closely.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Richard Marceau: The Bloc Quebecois is demonstrating its
open-mindedness in all the debates and this issue will be debated
in the same way. I appreciate the verbal support of my
colleague, the member for Richelieu.
Some hon. members: And others as well.
Mr. Richard Marceau: And others as well who are with me in this
august Chamber.
However, in all this debate over victims rights, sight must not
be lost of the provinces' role in the administration of justice,
because the provinces are in the best position to meet the needs
and expectations of the societies they represent.
It must not become another example of useless, costly and
unproductive duplication. The federal government must respect
the jurisdictions of the provinces, especially, and I bust my
britches with pleasure here—since we are often accused of
working ourselves into a state over things—because Quebec's
treatment of victims is exemplary.
The government should not be currying public favour, and
especially that of the west, as it did with the reform of the
Young Offenders Act. The stakes are high and should not be the
focus of petty politicking by the other parties.
I invite all the other parties to follow the example of the
behaviour and positions taken by the Bloc Quebecois, because its
apolitical and impartial behaviour sets the example for all
parties in this House.
[English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I thank
my hon. colleague from the Bloc for his comments. He is a member
of our justice committee and I appreciate his participation on
that committee.
When we did the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act of
course we went to Quebec and we listened to a number of
witnesses. I was impressed with the advance that the Government
of Quebec extends beyond what most other provinces have in terms
of the treatment of young people.
Yet according to an editorial in the Montreal Gazette,
there is a way to go even in the province of Quebec. Teachers in
Montreal's largest school board are indicating that they live in
a state of fear. In the last two years 90 incidents occurred
where teachers were physically assaulted by students and 30% of
the cases were considered so serious that police were called in.
1720
Teachers have been punched, kicked, choked, bitten and
scratched, had chairs, bags and books thrown at them. There is a
youth crime problem in Montreal, certainly in this school.
As we travelled about in the last two months, we were in a
number of urban schools. When talking to the high school
students, grades 11 and 12, I was amazed at the number of
students who raised their hands and said they lived in
apprehension and fear. That is very sad for me to hear that.
We were in western Canada. We will be holding public meetings in
June in Ontario and will be asking the same questions.
There is a degree of apprehension on the part of our students
and I imagine there is a degree of apprehension with the students
in the Montreal school this article refers to.
I wonder if I might address a question to the hon. member
dealing with this whole concept of the recommendation made to
parliament by the justice committee with regard to the lowering
of the age.
We questioned some of the officials from the department when we
were in Quebec and they seem to have a very good system of
dealing with youngsters under 12 who get into difficulty.
I wonder if the hon. member would care to share the response of
the authorities. When the police are investigating an offence
and they realize it has been committed by someone under the age
of 12, what is the process that occurs in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Crowfoot for his question. Although we do not always share the
same position, I believe our debates within the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights are productive for all of
its members and for everyone in this House.
I would like to point out that my hon. colleague referred to
what I would call the exemplary treatment the Government of
Quebec gives to young offenders. This merits attention, and
should even been copied outside Quebec.
The hon. member referred to an editorial in The Gazette. With
all due respect to my colleague and to the newspaper, I must say
that it does not constitute a reference for myself or a number
of my colleagues.
That is, to put it mildly, an understatement.
I taught in a number of secondary schools in my riding before
being elected to this august Chamber. I believe, once again,
that it is important to distinguish between reality and
perceived reality. Are teachers and the general public afraid
of crime? I believe the answer is yes. Do the facts justify
that fear? Not as much, I think, as some would have us believe.
I do not want to minimize the hazards to which teachers are
exposed, but the emphasis should not be on punishing young
people who beat up a teacher, but rather on raising awareness,
prevention, information programs and promoting non-violence.
This should replace the threat of the strap if the child
misbehaves. We used to think that a smack on the fingers with a
ruler worked, but that is no longer done, and our schools are
none the worse for it.
In closing, I would like to repeat for the benefit of my
colleague that the members of the Bloc Quebecois are against
lowering the age in the Young Offenders Act, because we
unanimously believe that, as my colleague to the left has said,
we will arrive at a fairer and less violent society not by
stigmatizing young people but by raising their awareness.
1725
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would
like my colleague's opinion on the defence of provocation.
I believe our justice system should be evolving and this law
came into effect in the 1700s. It was so that two men of equal
class could shoot each other in a duel and use an insult as
defence for this murder and have the charge reduced to
manslaughter.
Now this defence is used most often in spousal murders where a
man will murder his wife and use the defence of provocation that
he had been provoked by her to murder her.
I would like the member's opinion on whether we should be
keeping something like in our justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question
put to me by my colleague from the New Democratic Party.
As my colleague herself points out, this is a problem that is
most often raised in cases of domestic violence, one of the most
serious problems in our society, I believe.
When we speak about violence, something we do a lot in the
House, these cases arise more often when the aggressor knew the
victim than between perfect strangers.
That is why, in a case such as this, it is a very complex
problem, one that cannot be simplified, and there is no yes or
no answer.
It deserves much more extensive study, so that women who are the
victims of violence at the hands of their spouse, among others,
can feel adequately protected by the system and not feel that
they have to take matters into their own hands.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
knew that if I persisted you would recognize me.
I have two short questions. I urge the parliamentary secretary
to listen to the first one. I would like my colleague to
provide us with some information. Is it true that there is an
argument between Canada and Quebec as to whether this
government, the government of which the parliamentary secretary
is a member, owes Quebec the considerable sum of $77 million,
which is not peanuts, considering that we are administering this
part of the Young Offenders Act ourselves and that it is modeled
on Quebec's approach? I am sure he will have much to say on
this topic.
The second question is of more general interest. Could he bring
us up to date on hostels—
Mr. Richard Marceau: Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Quebecois
were elected and re-elected in 1997 to promote sovereignty in
Quebec and to defend the interests of Quebeckers.
Without the presence of the Bloc in the current debate, the
interests of Quebeckers would not be defended. This government,
which claims to be just, is treating Quebec unjustly.
Quebec is the only province to really apply the Young Offenders
Act as it should be applied. The federal government owes the
Government of Quebec $77 million for applying the legislation of
this government—
An hon. member: Shameful.
Mr. Richard Marceau: —and this government is refusing—
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: We did not refuse.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I hope the parliamentary secretary is
listening carefully.
We will continue to fight to ensure Quebec receives its due.
An hon. member: We want a certified cheque. We don't trust you.
Mr. Richard Marceau: I invite my colleague—I am even ready to
give her my pen so she can sign the cheque for the Government of
Quebec.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1730
[English]
CONDITIONAL SENTENCING
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights be instructed, in accordance with
Standing Order 68(4)(b), to prepare and bring in a bill to
prevent the use of conditional sentencing in cases where someone
is convicted of any sexual offence, drug trafficking, or any
other violent crime.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to
elaborate on my Motion No. 383. It is very appropriate, almost
ironically so, that the one day allotted for my private member's
motion concerning conditional sentencing happened to fall on this
Reform supply day. In its role as official opposition the Reform
moved a supply motion that was debated by all parties in the
House. We debated conditional sentencing, the Young Offenders
Act and other aspects of the failed legal system which is
presently masquerading as a justice system in Canada.
It is unfortunate that Motion No. 383 is limited to simple
elaboration. The committee responsible for determining which
private members' motions are votable and worthy of three hours of
debate in this House did not feel inclined to allow all members
of this House to explore the issue further. Naturally I am
extremely disappointed in that decision as this motion is
non-partisan in nature. It is simply a mechanism I proposed to
remedy a legislative error.
The granting of conditional sentences to violent and sexual
offenders is indeed an error. It was never the intent of this
House in the last parliament to have Bill C-41, which instituted
the concept of conditional sentencing, apply to those types of
crimes. That is one of the issues that was being debated
virtually all day in the House. Even the justice minister at the
time publicly stated that was never the intent.
Through this motion I wanted to right that wrong by using the
resources and co-operation of the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights. This motion does not propose something
concretely unpalatable to any members of this House. It is a
first step in drafting a reasonable remedy to the ambiguity of
conditional sentencing.
I believe certain members of the private members' business
committee did not understand that intent. During my presentation
the chair of the committee asked “And just how many more
prisons would have to be built if your motion were passed?” In
case any members of the House are asking themselves that same
question, I caution that they do not understand the motion. I
emphasize that the prison population will not suddenly expand to
phenomenal proportions if conditional sentencing were disallowed
for violent and sexual offenders and drug traffickers.
Conditional sentencing is a recent development. It has not been
responsible for significantly reducing the prison population
throughout the years. It did not take effect until September 3,
1996, so the answer is no. There will be no sudden overwhelming
need to build more prisons. I fear the chair of the committee
missed the entire point of my motion when she asked that
question.
Conditional sentences have created confusion and ambiguity in
the legal system across the country. It is ironic that when Bill
C-41 was before the House the justice minister at the time said
the bill would improve the process of sentencing and criminal
law. I ask government members to listen carefully to his words
which so specifically describe the intent of Bill C-41: “In this
bill, parliament is given the opportunity to declare the key
purposes of sentencing, to put before judges a list of factors to
be taken into account, to provide direction, to encourage
uniformity so that the purpose of the process can be properly
understood and so that it might be rendered more predictable than
it is at present.
“What are those purposes and principles?
They are spelled out clearly and in plain language in the
statute. The sentence would reflect the seriousness of the
offence. There would be similar sentences for comparable crimes.
Those who contravene the criminal law must face punishment”.
1735
Those were the words of the justice minister in June 1995. He
said that Bill C-41 was to assist the courts in making the
sentencing process more reliable and more consistent with the
intentions of parliament.
Now fast forward to January 1998, more than a year after Bill
C-41 provisions took effect. The current justice minister
publicly stated: “There have been some circumstances in which I
believe conditional sentences were used when it was not the
intention of parliament to have them used and those should be
appealed”. She added that conditional sentencing was never
intended to apply to violent or sexual offenders. While Bill C-41
was supposed to clear up ambiguity in sentencing she said she
prefers to allow the appeal courts to address the inappropriate
use of conditional sentencing.
Needless to say, this is entirely opposite to the promises of
consistency and reliability for the courts in using Bill C-41 as
a guide which were given by the former justice minister in 1995.
Since its implementation conditional sentencing has been used in
cases of rape, assault, drug trafficking and other violent
offences. Canadians are alarmed at this application of the
Criminal Code and communities feel threatened. The punishment
certainly does not fit the crime. This is not a tough on crime
perspective. This is just the simple facts of the wrongful use
of conditional sentencing.
Rapists, violent offenders and those who attempt to exploit
children and the weak through a profitable drug trade should face
jail time. In Grande Prairie, Alberta a judge released a man on a
conditional sentence after he fired a .22 calibre sawed-off rifle
at his wife but he missed. He received an 18 month conditional
sentence to be served in the community.
In a B.C. case a man who confessed to sexually assaulting his
babysitter once a week for three years from the time she was 11
was excused from serving any time in jail.
In Nova Scotia a convicted wife beater received a conditional
sentence. In Ontario another man pleaded guilty to carrying a
pellet rifle while assaulting and forcibly confining his
estranged wife in her Mississauga home while his children
watched. His punishment was an 18 month conditional sentence
through which he was to live with his parents and stay at least a
kilometre away from his wife and children, despite the fact that
his wife believes he will return to kill her some day and the
children remain fearful of even seeing their father.
A B.C. man was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and
three counts of gross indecency. The victim was a child he helped
raise from the age of three months and the sexual assaults began
when she was three and ended when she was thirteen. This man was
spared jail time on a conditional sentence.
In another B.C. case a man who threatened, raped and sodomized a
38-year old woman with the handle of racquetball racquet received
a conditional sentence exempting him from serving two years in
jail. The sentence was appealed and the offender eventually
received a sentence of two years in jail less time served; in
other words, just a few months in jail for that horrendous crime.
The appeal itself was a drain of resources.
We are not talking about fearmongering here. We are talking
about legal precedents. These are just a few of the examples of
phenomena occurring with increased frequency. In any of these
cases I find it impossible to believe that any reasonable and
feeling human could consider that these offenders should not go
to jail for their crimes. The victims of these criminals deserve
better. It sends the message that despite the pain and suffering
resulting from the violent trauma they have endured society does
not feel it is worthy of punishment for the offender.
Imagine how this must feel to the victims of these crimes. Many
victims have compared an inadequate sentence to enduring the
attack all over again. Unfortunately in some cases an inadequate
sentence may actually mean the attack will occur again. This is
certainly a very real possibility for victims of domestic
violence and sexual crimes.
A woman whose husband, ex-husband or boyfriend has beaten or
raped her and is released on a conditional sentence lives every
day in fear of that happening.
1740
Since he is not in jail he is able to strike again. As we have
seen, once these offenders are obsessed with the intent to harm
their victim the restrictions imposed under conditional
sentencing are not much deterrence, little deterrence if any at
all.
The two fundamental reasons for sentencing are punishment and
deterrence. Fair and just sentences are required to denounce
unlawful conduct, deter offenders and others from committing
criminal offences, separate offenders from society when
necessary, provide reparations for damages and promote a sense of
responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgement of the harm
done to victims and the community.
What deterrence is there for a convicted drug trafficker granted
a conditional sentence? The trafficker has already shown a
preference for profit over the welfare of children and other
users. What part of a conditional sentence could possibly
convince that person to give up their trade? They are
immediately back out on the streets on a conditional sentence.
The best source of income they know is to continue pushing drugs.
There is certainly no deterrence. As for fair punishment, is a
ticket to freedom justifiable for an individual motivated by
greed through the physically harmful exploitation of others? I
ask that question to the government.
The sentences handed down in these cases and many others across
Canada have created even more of a backlog in our justice system,
as the legal wrangling ensues and appeal after appeal is
initiated.
Keeping in mind what the former justice minister said about Bill
C-41, making the sentencing process easier for the courts, and
keeping in mind what the current justice minister said about
leaving the subject of conditional sentencing up to appeal
courts, listen to what the appeal courts have to say about
conditional sentencing and parliament's role in it. An Ontario
appeal court judge stated: “The new sentencing direction set by
parliament requires that the courts give these provisions a large
and liberal construction and wherever possible the court should
resort to the community sentence option”.
“Parliament clearly envisioned that a conditional sentence
would be available even in cases of crimes of violence that are
not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. Parliament
also contemplated that the conditional sentence would be
available even where, absent appropriate controls, there may be
some risk of reoffending”.
So much for the certainty in sentencing the justice minister
claimed to have come with Bill C-41. So much for the current
justice minister's belief that parliament did not intend for
conditional sentences to be granted for violent and sexual
offenders.
What we really have is a wide ranging legal interpretation of
parliament's intent and tremendous ambiguity. My motion is a
method to remedy this situation by instating more specifications
in the Criminal Code on conditional sentencing. The B.C. court
of appeal agrees. In a August 1997 decision the B.C. court of
appeal ruled that violent offenders are entitled to serve time in
the community under conditional sentences: “If parliament
had intended to exclude certain offences from
consideration under section 742.1, it could have done so in clear
language”.
That is plainly and clearly an invitation for this House to
enact clear language and to provide more certainty for
conditional sentencing under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code.
I believe we and this government have an obligation to do so.
Let us not get into blame and partisan finger pointing. Let us
just fix it. We owe that to Canadians and we owe that to the
victims of crime. Canadian courts are already bogged down in
legalities and appeals. If it truly was the intention of Bill
C-41 to relieve the confusion, we must ensure the conditional
sentencing is not a further source of backlog in the courts.
Since parliament is responsible for initiating this ambiguity,
parliament must also rectify the situation. This motion was to
send a clear message that we have a flexible and responsive
democracy. It is my hope that even though my motion has not been
deemed votable other similar initiatives such as the motion
debated by my hon. colleagues today, or even a legislative
initiative by the government, will ultimately right this
injustice.
1745
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Motion M-283 arrives on a day when this subject is being
discussed a fair bit, since the Reform Party had tabled a motion
addressing conditional sentencing among other things, and
therefore the same area of criminal law.
You will understand that I am not going to go back over
everything I said this morning on this. This will, however,
give me the opportunity to go more specifically into one part of
this motion which relates to conditional releases in their
entirety.
I can understand the hon. member's questioning this aspect,
because there have been media reports in recent days of certain
releases which were, all in all, very questionable, and very
much so in certain cases.
Overall though, once again, I believe that the Bloc Quebecois
and the Reform Party will not be able to agree, because it is
not true that the system is rotten and needs to be demolished
completely, and the law amended, nor that this act does not
reflect reality.
As I said this morning, there is certainly room for improvement.
There is always room for new ideas, in order to attain the very
precise objective the Bloc Quebecois wants to see, as does the
government. Any responsible party shares that point of view,
that objective of protecting the public.
I think that, if there is one point on which all the members of
this House agree, it is the protection of the public.
At the present time, I believe the legislation on parole
protects the public. Does it protect enough? Can it be
changed? No doubt. Can it be changed to close up the loopholes
in the system, and in the act applicable in such cases? Yes,
certainly.
This must be looked at as dispassionately as possible, not by
dragging out specific cases that make the headlines, dreadful
cases that make one nauseated and affect our attitude toward the
bill. That is not what is needed. I feel it must be looked at
as coolly and objectively as possible, trying to find what we
need to make this the best piece of legislation possible.
I would like to devote the rest of my time to parole and to
violent crime.
There is one incontrovertible fact on the matter of parole.
Offenders serving long sentences are more likely to obtain
parole than those serving shorter sentences.
At first glance, that may appear horrifying, but I understood
looking at the problem more carefully that 65% of judges
apparently, after very careful study, take the probability of
parole into account in sentencing.
Thus, a judge who knows very well that an offender will be
paroled may, in the case of a violent crime, impose a harsher
sentence. Judges are therefore influenced by the possibility of
parole and release.
This means that a judge about to sentence someone for five, six
or ten years will calculate that the individual will be released
after serving a third or two thirds of his sentence, whichever
case applies. He will lengthen the sentence to ensure that the
accused will serve a sentence that is respectable within our
system.
It is wrong to say that the longer the time a person serves,
the more quickly they are released. The effect of certain
amendments was somewhat contrary to the objective set for them,
that is, in terms of rehabilitation and return to society.
My proof is the series of amendments made to the law as a result
of the passing of Bill C-45, on the famous quick review
procedure. I think it was a good example of poor performance or
rather the poor application of the intent of the legislator with
this review.
1750
We are therefore going to take a closer look at the accelerated
review procedure. In a legislative reform in the fall of 1996,
the government passed the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. Certain amendments were introduced in Bill C-45,
particularly with respect to the accelerated review procedure
found in section 125 of the act.
After a few months in practice, the new provisions resulted in
numerous irregularities, not to say some rather strange
sentences. The result of Bill C-45's passage was that major
organized crime drug traffickers were released on parole after
serving only one-sixth of their sentence.
As soon as the 36th Parliament opened, the Bloc Quebecois began
calling on the government to amend the new accelerated review
procedure criteria in the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act. The Bloc Quebecois member for Charlesbourg introduced a
bill along these lines to try to plug the loopholes in the act
in order to resolve the problem and particularly to improve the
public's perception of the Corrections and Conditional Release
Act, an extremely important piece of legislation.
Section 125 provides that an offender may be released after
serving one-sixth of his sentence if there are reasonable grounds
to believe that he will not go on to commit a violent offence.
There are a series of exceptions in section 125, but one was
omitted, or perhaps there was a misunderstanding, because it
seems to me that I asked the question in committee. Whatever
the case, the exception applying to drug traffickers is still
not included.
I think it would be easy to take care of the problem at this
level and to improve the public's perception of the judicial
system if the act were amended so as not to release someone
found guilty of trafficking, money laundering, or importing or
exporting drugs, after serving one-sixth of his sentence. But
this is a long time in coming. The government does not seem to
be in any rush.
However, we have reason to hope that the bill introduced by the
member for Charlesbourg, a Bloc member and our party's critic
for the solicitor general will progress and that eventually we
will manage to convince the government to make the necessary
amendments to have the bill implemented and, especially, to
improve people's perceptions of parole.
Earlier, I was saying that I put questions to the committee and
I thought I understood that money laundering and drug
trafficking were excluded.
We must certainly not forget that, in the Smith decision by the
supreme court, Justice Lamer rendered a very important decision,
establishing some link between drug trafficking and money
launderers and violent crime, since we know that there is always
violence at the end of the line with these activities, because
those who want drugs steal, murder or whatever to come up with
the money illegally to buy drugs. Yes, in the end these are
violent crimes.
However, the national parole board does not make the same
interpretation.
I invite those who may be listening to reread the Smith
decision. It is very interesting and will perhaps influence
their decision in the application of section 125 of the law.
That said, members will understand that I do not support the
member's motion. There is perhaps room for examination and the
need for certain amendments in the law to make it more
applicable and surer of meetings its objectives, but, in short,
I think we have a good system. There is room for improvement,
but we must be reasonable and look very objectively a the
problem in trying to find solutions.
1755
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the comprehensive sentencing reform legislation introduced in the
first session of the last parliament as Bill C-41 has been in
force since September 3, 1996.
While this legislation included many reforms, including the
first ever parliamentary statement of the purposes and principles
of sentencing, several provisions addressing the needs of
victims, the possibility of diversion for adult offenders and the
new provisions for fines and fine enforcement, one of the
centrepieces of the legislation was the conditional sentence of
imprisonment.
The conditional sentence concept was first suggested in a white
paper on sentencing in February 1984 by then minister of justice,
the late Mark MacGuigan. It is a sentence of imprisonment of
less than two years which may be served in the community if the
court is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community
would not endanger the safety of the community and would be
consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of
sentencing now set out in the Criminal Code of Canada.
The offender must abide by whatever conditions are ordered by
the court. If the offender is found to have breached a
condition, the balance of the sentence can be ordered to be
served in custody.
[Translation]
When it comes to determining sentencing, there will always be
decisions that will generate controversy and will seem
questionable at first glance. This is precisely why our appeal
courts are so useful. Without in any way minimizing the
concerns we all have about certain conditional sentences, I
believe that the hon. members must look at things in a balanced
way.
More than 18,000 orders for conditional sentencing have been
brought down since September 1996, and the great majority of
these were the result of well-informed and wise decisions.
Certain questionable decisions have been brought to the
attention of this House by various members.
As usual, the opposition is passing off the exception as the
rule.
Consequently, we shall be continuing to work in close
collaboration with the provinces, as the minister has already
said in this House, in order to monitor the application of the
clauses relating to sentencing closely and to assess whether
further changes are required.
We are working with the provincial and territorial authorities
responsible for prosecutions and correctional services in
monitoring the use of conditional sentencing. From September 3,
1996 to December 31, 1997, there were 18,247 conditional
sentences in this country, most of these for non-violent offences
relating to property, operating a vehicle and the administration
of justice.
[English]
In Ontario, for example, fraud is the offence which attracts the
highest proportion of conditional sentences in terms of all
sanctions. We must also bear in mind that prior to the
availability of conditional sentences a significant percentage of
offences involving violence resulted in probation as the most
serious sanction.
[Translation]
I would like to say a word about the case law that is
developing. Over 200 conditional sentences have been appealed
since September 1996. The courts are now working on an
analytical and reasoned approach that could be used by judges in
determining when to hand down a conditional sentence.
They could invoke the purpose and principles of sentencing set
out in paragraphs 718(1) and 718(2). The specific purposes of
sentencing, such as setting an example, deterrence, and
rehabilitation, are being analysed and the courts are trying to
determine how the sentences handed down can achieve these
objectives.
[English]
Courts are placing emphasis on denunciations, deterrents and
proportionality in sentencing offenders convicted of serious
sexual offences. Let me refer with approval to some of the
statements which appellate courts have made in the context of
considering whether a conditional sentence should be granted for
an offender convicted of a sexual offence.
1800
Madam Justice Ryan for the majority of the British Columbia
court of appeal in Ursel said “Violent, degrading sexual attacks
against women demand denunciation and deterrence. In a case such
as this those sentencing objectives could not be adequately
addressed through a conditional sentence”.
The Quebec court of appeal in P.C. said “nor would the imposition
of a less restrictive sanction” than imprisonment “satisfy the
objectives of a general deterrence and denunciation of assaults
against children by those who are supposed to be protecting
them”.
The Ontario court of appeal in MacNaughton said “In our view it
should only be in rare cases that a conditional sentence be
imposed in cases of breach of trust involving the sexual touching
of children by adults”.
[Translation]
I think that these citations should reassure the House. I
subscribe to the thinking that these courts of appeal have
adopted in the cases cited and in many others.
In my opinion, the courts have done well to focus on the fact
that these offences do not generally lend themselves to
conditional sentences, excepting in extenuating circumstances
having to do with such things as the advanced age of the
offender, and the severity of his mental or physical condition.
I would like to remind hon. opposition members that a
conditional sentence is no less a sentence of imprisonment.
The court orders the offender to spend a certain period of time
in prison. The offender who meets the terms of section 742.1
may, under certain conditions, serve his sentence in the
community. He may, however, be sentenced to serve the remainder
of his sentence in prison if he violates any one of these
conditions.
[English]
In closing, may I say that while I understand and share the
concern citizens sometimes feel when reading accounts of certain
sentencing decisions, and those exaggerated by the opposition
members, I think the conditional sentence has added an important
sentencing option to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Without complete information about a case, the particulars of a
case and all the possible mitigating circumstances and other
factors, it is very difficult for us to sit in judgment of the
appropriateness of a conditional sentence.
Trial courts have, for the most part, exercised their discretion
with prudence. Appellate courts continue to provide guidance and
perspective and no doubt the Supreme Court of Canada will have
the opportunity to give its views on conditional sentences at
some point in the future.
When the Minister of Justice appeared before the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights last month she tabled a
letter to the chair suggesting it would be useful for the
standing committee to undertake a review of the operation of
conditional sentences at some point after the two year
anniversary of the proclamation of Bill C-41.
This would be an opportunity for victims, criminal justice
professionals, the public and even the opposition, because we do
value their opinions when they are valuable, to express their
views on the conditional sentencing option.
One issue on which the minister indicated she would particularly
appreciate the committee's advice related to whether or not there
should be further limits on the availability of conditional
sentences than those presently set out in the Criminal Code.
I know the minister looks forward to working with the members of
the justice committee, the member for Prince George—Peace River
and all members in a shared desire to improve the criminal
justice system for all Canadians.
In light of this referral and the minister's desire to benefit
from the committee's thinking on this important issue, it would
be premature for this House to pre-empt the committee's work by
voting in favour of the hon. member's motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to be able to speak to
this motion. I believe it is an excellent motion and I commend
the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River for bringing this
matter forward. It is consistent with his party's motion that
was debated in the House today.
The motion calls for the House to instruct the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member, to
prepare and bring for a bill to prevent the use—and I might
suggest the word misuse—of conditional sentencing in cases where
someone is convicted of a sexual offence, drug trafficking or a
violent crime.
1805
Specifically, the use of the words “sexual offence” and
“violent crime” I could not agree with more.
As I have said, members of the Conservative Party support the
motion. However, I find it somewhat disturbing and almost
embarrassing that the government has taken the position that it
would be opposed to this.
I know that this particular section of the Criminal Code
originated from this government. It is unfortunate that it does
not recognize that it has been misused. I do not criticize the
intent so much as I do the fact that common sense should have
allowed the government to see that it was going to be misused.
The application of conditional sentencing has deeply affected
Canadians' confidence in the criminal justice system. It is
another instance where, unfortunately, Canadians seem to have
their confidence undermined when the government passes
legislation that fails to protect them.
The mandatory use of this type of disposition is not something
we are dealing with here, but the discretion is there. The
discretion exists and, sadly, discretion allows lawyers—and I am
a member of that group—to potentially push the limits.
Let us be honest. That is what lawyers do. That is what
lawyers are going to do when given the opportunity. They are
going to argue their case in front of a judge and try to push the
limits as far as they can.
Conditional sentencing was put in the Criminal Code to address
in a better way the issue of non-violent offenders. It would
help to reduce the number of individuals who, if convicted, would
find themselves serving time in a federal or provincial
institution.
I do not argue with that philosophy. We certainly want to
divert individuals away from incarceration if and when the
circumstances allow it. However, the emphasis should be on the
denunciation of violence, general and specific deterrents, which
is something many cases, including the case of the Queen v Grady,
espoused. We want to generally and specifically deter
individuals and denunciate violence when a specific criminal act
occurs, but it always has to be balanced with the protection of
the public, coupled with the reaffirmation and rehabilitation of
a person when they run afoul of the law.
Surely violent offences, sexual offences and offences involving
children, in particular, were never the intent of conditional
sentencing. The hon. member opposite spoke of the fact that
probation exists, that probation was an option when it came to
sentencing and that this is, in essence, a perpetuation of that.
I think what we want to see and what this bill addresses is
truth in sentencing. Let us let the judges make that discretion.
This is a halfway measure. That is what it amounts to. We want
judges to have discretion, but this is on the horns of a dilemma
where the person is basically allowed a second-second chance. We
are putting them back on the street and saying “We are going to
give you one more shot at it. If you offend again, then you are
going to come back and complete the sentence that you would have
received had their been truth in sentencing the first time
around”.
We are becoming far too tolerant when it comes to offences of
violence. The minister herself has said time and time again that
this is a priority.
I really fear there is a lot of lip service, a great deal of
discussion and a great deal of intent on the part of the
government to address these types of offences, when what we need
is hard core legislation. We need the government to do what it
was elected to do. If it is going to change the law this is the
place to do it.
With all due deference and respect to the Supreme Court of
Canada, it does not make the law. The Supreme Court of Canada is
charged with interpreting the laws that are made in this place.
What we have seen in recent years is the Supreme Court of Canada
setting the standard or striking down significant pieces of
legislation, as it did in the Queen v Feeney, sending them back
here and telling us what we are to do. That is not the way our
criminal justice system should operate in this country.
Judges are, contrary to the will of parliament, using
conditional sentences in cases that involve violence and sexual
abuse. That was not the intent.
Surely there is not one member on the government side who would
stand here and say that was the intent of the legislation. It has
to be corrected and it has to be done quickly.
1810
Sadly we have seen a lack of speed and a lack of response time
on the part of the government when it comes to dealing with
criminal justice issues. Are there any more fundamental issues
that need to be dealt with quickly and need to be dealt with in a
non-partisan way, I might add?
If this is something that the government is serious about, if it
is something that it really intends to do, here is an
opportunity. This is a golden opportunity for it to stand and
say: “We support this initiative. This is something that
Canadians would want”.
That, again I would emphasize, is the litmus test. Does it
offend Canadians' sensibilities? Do Canadians look at this piece
of legislation, conditional sentencing, and say: “Yes, that is
something that we embrace if is to protect our communities, if it
is to help people to deal with issues of violence?”
Surely that is not the case. We need only to pick up an
editorial article in any newspaper and it will say that Canadians
are losing confidence in our justice system day after day. I ask
rhetorically if the government is ready to support this member's
motion. Is the government ready to act and make a difference by
embracing and moving on this motion? Unfortunately I am afraid
that will not happen.
No one should be getting a free ride in our justice system. I
think that goes almost without saying, but precisely that is what
can happen when a conditional sentence is applied. As I said
earlier, it is a halfway measure. It is almost a way out for
some judges in instances where they cannot quite come to grips
with a certain set of circumstances, where they want to give the
person another chance.
That decision can be made by our correctional services. They
are charged with that responsibility now. Let the judges do
their job but do not give this halfway measure, this out that
judges are permitted to use on conditional sentences when they
pertain to violence.
We are not saying to do away with conditional sentences
altogether. That is not the intent of the hon. member's motion.
It is to specify when it is appropriate to use them. That is the
key issue here. It is not that the law itself is entirely bad,
but it is the application with which I and other members on the
opposition side take issue.
I will not recite horror cases to emphasize the need to bring
the legislation about, but we are certainly aware, all too aware,
of cases where conditional sentencing has been applied improperly
and resulted in individuals not being sentenced properly, further
undermining the confidence of the general public and certainly
undermining the confidence and perhaps having a more direct and
life shattering effect on victims who have been victimized by
offenders and then go through the trauma of seeing the
individuals who put them in that position walk out the courtroom
doors. I have seen it happen myself and it is not a happy day
when that occurs. Conditional sentencing is one small but very
important example of what is currently wrong with our justice
system.
In conclusion, the government has an opportunity. We have heard
a lot of talk, a great deal of talk in the Chamber. What we
really need and what Canadians want to restore their faith in the
justice system is action, legislative action.
The government has failed to act on what it should be doing in
condemning this type of use of conditional sentencing. It has
talked a great deal about strengthening the Young Offenders Act,
cumulative versus consecutive sentencing, the faint hope clause
and victims rights.
All these issues have been given a great deal of air time, but
we are yet to see the concrete legislation the government could
and should be bringing in. That is what we are here to do in the
Chamber. We are here to make laws. We are here to make changes
when they need to occur. I believe the motion that has been
brought forward is a step in the right direction, and that is why
we support it.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have had the pleasure of speaking to preventing the use of
conditional sentencing for violent criminals and drug traffickers
earlier today on our supply day motion. My comments in that
speech are just as applicable here.
As I stated earlier, the former minister of justice erred when
he refused to limit the scope of conditional sentencing. Through
Bill C-41 it is available to even violent offenders and drug
traffickers.
At first the former Minister of Justice said the courts would of
course restrict the application to non-violent offenders and they
did not. Then he attempted to tinker with the wording through
Bill C-17 and that still has not worked. He and the government
for political reasons refuse to admit their error and correct it.
In the meantime those Canadians affected are holding our justice
system in disrepute.
1815
To support these criticisms I will first of all refer to the
Alberta Court of Appeal case of Steven James Waldner. Mr.
Justice Berger made it very clear that conditional sentencing was
open to violent offenders and drug traffickers when he said at
page 6 of the decision “Parliament has made the legislative
choice to exclude only those offences punishable by a minimum
term of imprisonment from the regime of conditional sentencing”.
At page 7 he said “Unless parliament has barred what would
otherwise be an option, the starting point must be that all
options are open”.
I will provide a case of drug trafficking and conditional
sentencing. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia decided
that Trung Viet Bui's conditional sentence was appropriate. Mr.
Bui and his brother-in-law were in the drug trafficking business
and undercover agents caught Mr. Bui. He sold approximately
$3,000 worth of cocaine in the first transaction and about
$35,000 worth of cocaine in a second transaction, not exactly a
nickel and dime operation. Obviously these individuals were well
connected to be dealing at this level.
We all know of the damage done to our society by the sale of
drugs. Younger members of our communities are particularly
susceptible to addiction and to criminal actions to support their
habits. The court of appeal decided that since Mr. Bui had
served a year of his conditional sentence without difficulty, he
should continue. Little discussion occurred regarding deterrence
of denunciation over high level drug trafficking and what it does
to our society.
I will now move on to some sexual assault cases. The Court of
Appeal for British Columbia in the Ronald Neil Scott case dealt
with the issue of conditional sentencing. Mr. Scott was
convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching in
relation to incidents with his step-granddaughter from when she
was five or six years old until she was 10. His actions came to
light when the victim told a school friend that Mr. Scott would
offer money for touching his privates. He was sentenced to nine
months imprisonment and placed on probation for two years. He was
sentenced prior to conditional sentencing coming into effect but
his appeal occurred subsequently.
The court decided that conditional sentencing was a lesser
punishment available to the accused and he should be considered
for its application. It also stated that parliament had formed
the intention to provide for and encourage the imposition of
conditional sentences and wherever appropriate the courts must
carry out that intention. The court decided that the offender was
not a danger to the community because he had only done these acts
with his step-granddaughter. He obtained conditional sentencing
even though it was not available at the time of his offence or at
the time of his sentencing.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia in the case of Regina v
M.M. also took advantage of conditional sentencing. The accused
was convicted of three counts of gross indecency with the three
children of his girlfriend. He commenced his sexual activities
with one victim when she was nine years old and with the other
when she was 10. He was often left alone to babysit the three
girls. The abuse continued over a period of nine years and
involved countless acts of gross indecency. Evidence was
presented that he often had sex with their mother in front of the
three girls.
In deciding whether to accept conditional sentencing as a
possibility, the court viewed the purpose of the reform to reduce
the number of persons sentenced to prison. The court viewed a
conditional sentence as still a jail sentence but one that is
served in the community. The court decided that no sentence
could right the wrong done to the three girls. The court agreed
that sexual assault was a crime of inherent violence but
recognized that parliament had decreed a scheme of conditional
sentencing. A conditional sentence was applied.
I will now provide another case which goes to show how we permit
and maybe even encourage criminals to move up the scale into more
serious crime. The Court of Appeal in British Columbia in the
case of John Paxton McEwen had to consider conditional
sentencing. In 1997 at age 24 he attacked a 78-year old woman
who was out walking near her home at 10 o'clock in the morning.
When he stole her purse from around her arm she suffered a broken
and dislocated arm. Surgery was likely required and she suffered
serious psychological injuries. The experience had a very
serious effect upon her life.
His previous record indicated that he had had a large number of
second opportunities. In 1992 he was convicted of mischief and
given a suspended sentence and probation for eight months. Also
in 1992 he was convicted of impaired driving and fined. In 1994
he was convicted of driving while disqualified and fined. Also
in 1994 he was convicted of assault, sentence was suspended and
he was placed on probation for a year.
In 1996 he was convicted of theft and he was fined. He was also
convicted at that time of failing to appear and he was fined.
1820
The trial judge gave McEwen a conditional sentence for one year
for his attack on this elderly woman. He was also ordered to
take drug and alcohol counselling and to stay away from the
victim. The court of appeal decided that the trial judge's
decision did not go far enough. It ordered the remaining portion
of his one year conditional sentence to be served in custody but
subject to any parole as if he had been incarcerated for the
entire period.
When we look at his continuing record and the growing
seriousness of his offences we can see that he is not getting the
message. The conditional sentence will certainly do little to
convince him of the error of his ways. More individuals will
likely be victimized in the future.
I have to question just what messages are being sent to victims
in communities by these conditional sentences. These cases show
that you can traffic in cocaine at highly profitable levels and
if caught, serve your sentence at home. You can sexually assault
children in your care and serve a little time at home. You can
even attack senior citizens while they walk in the community and
be sent home for your efforts, even if you happen to hurt them
badly or possess an extensive record.
That is just not good enough. The justice committee must be
encouraged to fill the void which the Minister of Justice has
refused to address.
Reducing the number of prisoners serving time in our
institutions is one thing. Failing to deter or denounce violent
crimes is something else entirely. The former justice minister
brought in conditional sentencing to reduce the pressures on our
institutions. Obviously little thought or consideration was
given as to how the best interests of offenders and the
corrections system would impact negatively on the interests of
victims and society at large.
The concept of conditional sentencing is not at issue here. What
is at issue is who should qualify to benefit from it. Violent
and multiple repeat offenders as well as major drug traffickers
should be excluded. I urge the government to fix this problem
immediately.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with my eye on the clock I thought it would be useful
and at least it would make me feel a little better if I spoke to
some of the issues raised in this motion today.
The hon. member has properly focused on a relatively new section
of the Criminal Code that deals with sentencing, specifically
conditional sentencing. This sentencing mechanism was introduced
into Canadian law quite recently. I recall being in the House
when it was introduced. I recall sitting on the committee when
it was reviewed. The member and others who have spoken are quite
correct when they suggest that the parameters or restrictions or
the guidelines for its use were on the light side as opposed to
the complex side.
I recall at the time, and I certainly was not alone as a member
of parliament in looking at this, that we found it quite
difficult to attempt to draw a line as to when conditional
sentencing might be used and when it should not be used. Every
time we bundled up and grouped certain types of offences
generically there were always one or two situations or scenarios
where one might suggest that conditional sentencing would be
appropriate. There is always an exception to the rule in other
words.
We felt that the judicial community, the judges of this country,
would be well up to the task in deciding when to use these rules.
It turns out that in 99% of the cases they were. There are
certainly cases now where it appears that judges need guidance
from the appeal courts. If the appeal courts find that the
problem is more widespread, if the judicial community is not able
to handle it and draw the line themselves as we had hoped they
would, then it is an area for statutory amendment.
The member's motion certainly points down that road and may in
fact lead in that direction. I sense the possibility for change.
I commend the member for his motion. I look forward to seeing
what the House will do in this area.
1825
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, once again I must say it is a sad day in this House of
Commons that this government has shown itself to be completely
unresponsive to the general public about this issue, unresponsive
to the victims of crime and unresponsive to the cries of those
victims for real justice.
I see the parliamentary secretary sitting across the way shaking
her head. I heard her say in response to some of the examples my
hon. colleague from Surrey North cited that it is fearmongering.
An hon. member: It is.
Mr. Jay Hill: She says it is.
I would like her to come to my riding and other ridings in the
country and say to the victims that it is fearmongering when
criminals who have brutally raped them walk out of court and do
not face any time in jail.
An hon. member: How many?
Mr. Jay Hill: How many? Why did she not tell us how
many? She commented during her remarks that there have been more
than 18,000 times since September 3, 1996 that conditional
sentencing has been used by our courts. But she did not say how
many times it was used in cases of rape, how many times in cases
of drug trafficking. How many times? How many of the 18,000
were for rape? How many were for violent offences? How many
were for drug trafficking? Because if it is one, then it is one
damn well too many.
For this government to say it will leave it up to the courts,
leave it to the judges to decide or it will appeal, there can be
no doubt that the Liberal Party of Canada and the government is
made up mostly of lawyers. They want to perpetuate this type of
nonsense. They want to keep the courts busy. They just want to
keep appealing it instead of correcting the problem. Even if
there is one person who does not serve time in jail, and I am not
talking about four star hotels where they can flex their muscles
and exercise, I am talking about putting them to work, I am
talking about real justice and punishment that will deter these
people from doing it again.
The parliamentary secretary in her comments said, and I wrote
this down maybe not word for word but something close, that the
government is willing to work with the provinces to monitor and
see whether further changes are needed. To monitor. That is
about all bloody well good this government is for, to monitor. It
certainly is not intent on making any meaningful justice changes,
any meaningful justice reform.
I see I am about out of time. That is unfortunate. The member
for Scarborough—Rouge River says that they wanted to rely on the
judges when they passed Bill C-41 to draw the line because there
is always an exception to the rule. That is what he said. Yes
there are always exceptions to the rule. I can say that less than
two months after these conditional sentencing provisions came
into effect in September 1996 I raised the issue of how it was
being inappropriately used in cases of rape.
There was a young mother whose ex common law spouse broke into
her home and raped her on the kitchen floor. He was found guilty
and convicted but the judge did not give him any time in jail.
One of the conditions he imposed upon this criminal was that he
felt it would be better for the mother and the children if this
individual continued to pay his child support. That was one of
the conditions. That is what conditional sentencing does. It
imposes these harsh conditions on rapists.
I want to thank the hon. House leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party and my hon. colleague from Surrey North for
their participation in the debate. I want to say to everyone
watching this debate at home tonight that I and the victims of
these crimes are absolutely appalled at the parliamentary
secretary's callous disregard for meaningful justice reform.
1830
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There was no callous disregard for the House or for the member's
debate. I would like that withdrawn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is very clearly
a point of debate, not a point of order.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am here
tonight to speak on the hepatitis C compensation package.
The position the government has taken on this package to
compensate hepatitis C victims is untenable. It is untenable
simply because it leaves too many innocent victims out.
The compensation package as supported by Ottawa, by the federal
government, compensates only those victims between 1986 and 1990.
That is wrong. I am glad and I am sure all members of the House
are to see that these victims are being compensated. The tragedy
in that package is that the victims prior to 1986 are not being
compensated, nor are the innocent victims after 1990. What I am
telling the House is that position is untenable and the Canadian
people are making that known from coast to coast.
Canada is a pretty generous country. We are ranked number one
in the world by the United Nations. There is no way the Canadian
people are going to allow a package that screens out, that
discriminates between innocent victims. They want all victims
compensated.
The Prime Minister presented a new twist to the compensation
package the other day. I am reading directly from the Ottawa
Citizen, today's edition, the Prime Minister talking about
the compensation package. He is linking drug abusers and AIDS
victims into the package. The Prime Minister stated:
What about those who have used needles, who are those who have a
problem with...transmitted by sex, and after that, the others?
The Prime Minister does not get the message. We are talking
about innocent victims who received tainted blood through our
health system. There is something wrong when that happens. I
think all of us agree on that. When the Prime Minister clouds
the issue there is something wrong with his thinking. What we
are talking about is compensation for innocent victims.
We need some movement on this file by the health minister. I
have been asking him since the Krever report was released back in
November 1997 to act unilaterally, to act alone, as a federal
government should, on this issue. At the end of the day we have
only one federal health minister and he and no one else is
responsible. He is solely responsible for the safety of Canada's
blood supply system. It is as simple as that.
We are asking for compensation for all the victims of hepatitis
C outside that package already announced. We want the victims
prior to 1986 covered and we want all victims after 1990 covered.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health enjoys
the full support and confidence of the government.
His unwavering commitment and hard work to obtain financial
assistance for victims of hepatitis C as a result of blood
therapy is known to all and bore fruit when provincial and
territorial governments collectively announced with the federal
government the financial assistance package for those victims
during the period from 1986 to 1990, a period clearly identified
by Mr. Justice Krever as a time when those responsible for
Canada's blood system could have and should have acted to prevent
this type of infection but did not.
1835
Achieving a consensus is never easy in a federal system but it
is essential in sustaining the strength of the Canadian
federation. It is therefore a tribute to the health minister
that he was able to weave that consensus premised on the
principle of governmental responsibility. We all know the events
of the past couple of weeks necessitated revisiting this initial
consensus but that does not detract from its desirability.
Following that meeting a working group of officials was created
to review a number of possible options to address remaining
questions on the issue. That they have agreed to this process
indicates that all parties understand the importance of finding a
pan-Canadian response. Members of this House have a duty to
facilitate directly and indirectly the attainment of that
pan-Canadian consensus. It serves the interests of all when we
achieve it. It serves the interests of none if we fail.
Leadership is best tested during difficult times. I assure the
House that at all times during this difficult process the federal
Minister of Health has always enjoyed the full support and
confidence of the Prime Minister, his cabinet colleagues and
fellow government caucus members.
THE BUDGET
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this government has created uncertainty, confusion and
unnecessary anxiety for Canadians about their retirement
security. It announced changes to seniors programs that would be
costly and disruptive for millions of citizens and then neglected
to bring in legislation which left Canadians twisting in the wind
when trying to figure out how to sensibly plan their retirement.
Financial experts are uncertain as to what to advise their
clients. Middle income Canadians fear that the clawbacks and the
taxes on their retirement savings will be so high that they will
penalize their thrift. Lower income Canadians do the numbers and
have no doubt that RRSPs will merely be offset by a lower
government pension.
In the budget of 1996, over two years ago, this government
announced proposed changes to old age security, the guaranteed
income supplement as well as the elimination of the retirement
income tax credit and the seniors tax credit based on age. These
proposed changes were called the seniors benefit. Some benefit.
Those planning for their sunset years quickly saw this proposal
as ad hoc, flawed and illogical.
Financial advisers and citizens have been seeking certainty so
they can figure out how best to maximize their retirement
dollars. The official opposition and other parties have asked
many questions in this House. They have been urging the Liberal
government to end the suspense, decide on a policy and let us all
know where we stand as Canadians. Still from this government
there are only trial balloons, empty rhetoric and more foot
dragging.
Perhaps the government should say we screwed up, we are
going to withdraw our proposal and come back later when we get
our act together. At least it could assure Canadians that their
hard work and sacrifice to save for their own retirements will
not simply be eaten up by another Liberal tax grab.
Will the minister tell Canadians when the government will
introduce legislation to let people know where they stand with
respect to seniors programs, and what it intends to do to ensure
fairness to Canadians who have scrimped and saved for years for
their retirement and who now fear their thrift will be penalized
by cuts to benefits promised to them by their government? I look
forward to the answer.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to
taking the time to fully examine what is best for the public
pension system and the retirement income system as a whole. That
is why we held meetings across the country last fall with seniors
groups, social groups and pension industry experts on the
proposed seniors benefit.
1840
From Halifax to Vancouver we listened carefully to the concerns
and views that Canadians expressed on this very important matter.
We have taken the time to consult with seniors and other
interested parties on the 1996 proposal.
We believe the government has a responsibility to ensure that it
is fully aware of Canadian concerns and views about the public
pension system and the retirement income system. That is what we
have done. Now we are reviewing the proposal based on what we
have heard. That is why an announcement has been delayed. We
are making every effort to ensure that the concerns of Canadians
are reflected in our proposed policy on the public pension
system.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
March 20 the story broke in the Calgary Herald about the
government's responsibility for radiation death and sickness in
the Dene community of Deline. Sixty-eight days later and the
community still waits for written confirmation of a meeting with
this government.
On March 30, I called on the ministers of health, Indian affairs
and natural resources to meet with the community to immediately
address this crisis. Fifty-six days later continuing silence.
Speaking with the community representatives, as of noon today
this meeting had not been arranged.
A gentleman diagnosed with bone and lung cancer last week has
just died. The community has already laid out its plan. This
government should immediately respond with actions, not words, to
the plan for essential response and necessary redress outlined by
Chief Raymond Tutcho of the Dene First Nation. This plan calls
for immediate crisis assistance, comprehensive environment and
social assistance, full public disclosure, clean-up and
monitoring, acknowledgement of government responsibility,
community healing and cultural regeneration. Immediate crisis
assistance, yet 68 days of government silence on this request.
Since 1939 what has this community received from the government?
Nothing. Yet a federal crown company profited from this
obscenity while it served to fuel the atomic arms race.
The Dene had a community meeting arranged on this issue for
tomorrow and Thursday. That meeting was cancelled and replaced
by a funeral for the community member who died of bone and lung
cancer. The minister knows bone cancer is linked to exposure to
radioactive dust and particles. What is even more sickening is
the government has known about this since the early 1930s, over
65 years.
The Sahtugot'ine, the Bear Lake people, made this clear in a
statement showing a government official in 1932 claimed: “The
ingestion of radioactive dust will cause a build-up of
radioactive material in the body. Lung cancer, bone necrosis,
and rapid anaemia are possible”.
While the community buries its dead the government tries to bury
the tragedy. How can this government state it must examine more
history? Why are the ministers of health, Indian affairs and
natural resources not there right now dealing with this
catastrophe? There are literally millions of tonnes of this
poison buried in the region. It is in the water and the food
chain. Is this government through its inaction willing to
consciously condemn yet another generation of children, women and
men to radiation death? While whites were told to shower, the
Dene children played with radioactive dust. This community is
now losing its elders to this tragedy.
The minister stated in her interview with CBC on May 17 that she
is under the impression that the clean-up at Sawmill Bay employed
current radiation standards and implementation measures. This
suggests the minister is disregarding out of hand the testimony
of the Dene record and the oral history of the clean-up crew.
Does the minister consider the provision of federal dollars for
radioactive clean-ups, where even dust masks are not provided, as
meeting radiation standards? The minister responded to my
questions with comments like “it behooves us to understand the
circumstances and we will act to include the Dene people in our
review”.
While the government may be content looking at the history, the
death and illness toll from this obscenity continues to mount.
Where is the Minister of Health while people are dying? Immediate
crisis assistance? Will this government commit right now that
all three ministers will meet this community and lay out an
action plan before this House recesses for the summer, yes or no?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the
hon. member for Halifax West regarding the Deline community
concerns about past mining activities involving the Port Radium
uranium mine.
The government is taking this matter extremely seriously and is
seeking to gain a better understanding of the activities
associated with the mining and the transport of the uranium ore.
1845
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has
been assigned the lead role in co-ordinating federal government
activities. Key to these activities will be the active
participation of Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada. A
collaborative approach with the Government of the Northwest
Territories health and social services department has been
established.
The federal ministers are committed to meeting with the Deline
community members in the near future to determine an appropriate
course of action.
Over the past year the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development has been working in collaboration with the community
to address a number of environmental issues of interest to them.
Drawing upon this existing good working relationship, a strategy
for meeting the information, research and communication needs
related to the radiation concerns in the community is being
developed with the Deline uranium committee.
In fact we are already working with the Deline uranium committee
to answer questions about present day levels of radiation.
Current conditions will be assessed through a research proposal
developed earlier this year by the committee.
We hope to build on this spirit of co-operation as we work to
address concerns about the historic operation of the Port Radium
mine and the transportation of ore from the mine. The next steps
will be determined as our collaborative work with the community
progresses.
BANKS
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, more and more Canadians are asking why the Liberal
government will not agree to all party meetings on the proposed
bank mergers.
On May 7 I pointed to recent U.S. evidence on the behaviour of
big American banks toward small business, evidence that was being
presented to a bipartisan congressional committee in the U.S.
House of Representatives studying their proposed bank mergers.
The evidence showed in the U.S. four things: big banks make
fewer loans to small business, big banks lend more money to
bigger business, the bigger the bank the smaller their small
business loan portfolio, and big bank service charges are at
least 15% higher.
Moreover a Wall Street Journal analysis found that small
business lending declined in the U.S. banks which merged but went
up in their non-merged competitors over the same period.
Canadians want to know why American legislators can study
proposed bank mergers in their country while the Liberals reject
all party hearings on the proposed bank mergers in Canada. Why
can the U.S., the birthplace of modern capitalism, strike an all
party inquiry into bank mergers and their impact on Americans but
the Liberal government turns a blind eye? Is it because the
Liberals are protecting their friends, or is it because they
support the mergers?
Recently I proposed that the industry committee hold hearings on
the impact of the bank mergers on small business, consumers and
rural Canada. The Liberal majority on that committee voted it
down.
Here is what the Liberals want to do instead. They have
appointed a Liberal dominated task force, the so-called MacKay
task force, but this task force is not mandated to look into bank
merger proposals or lost jobs or service charges for consumers,
business and farmers. Three of its members have already had to
resign because of a conflict of interest. They were employees of
the banks that want to merge.
The government has set up a committee of Liberal backbenchers to
study the bank mergers as well. They get to stand up and say
they care while they play both sides against the middle. There
is only one problem. The hepatitis C vote showed us all how much
Liberal backbenchers and their points of view count for in the
government.
At the end of the day they can produce their report but it will
not matter a bit to the Prime Minister or the finance minister
because they will make whatever decision they will make
regardless of what the Liberal backbenchers recommend. The
backbenchers will be told to fall into line and history shows
they will to the last MP.
Why does the government not want all party hearings now? Would
not the recommendations of an all party committee have much more
credibility than what we would get from Liberals alone? Are the
Liberals buying time for the bankers association's million dollar
PR campaign to soften people up and allow the banks to persuade
Canadians that bank mergers are inevitable anyway? The CBA is
spending millions of dollars on TV ads and the individual banks
are spending millions on lobbyists.
No, the Liberals want to wait until the fall, wait until they
get their marching orders from the blue ribbon panel, throw a
bone or two to their backbenchers, and only then will they allow
the finance committee of the House of Commons to conduct a study
which will be the equivalent of closing the barn door after the
horses have left.
Who will benefit from the bank mergers and who will suffer? Bank
CEO's stock options whose value goes up every time the market
goes up on the excitement of all this merger mania will benefit
to the tune of millions of dollars. The figure I would like to
see is the comparison between the total increased value of these
stock options and the payroll savings the banks will be making
after they downsize their merged workforce.
How many jobs will be lost and where will these jobs be lost?
Small business is very worried about the future of banking
sector. Small business representatives have a lot of questions
about the mergers themselves as do farmers and other consumers in
other parts of Canada including rural Canada.
1850
These are the kinds of questions we believe an all party
committee could effectively study now. That is why we are
calling upon the Liberal government to strike an all party
committee to review the bank mergers immediately.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric from the
NDP the government remains concerned about the growth and support
of small businesses in Canada.
Small businesses are the backbone of economic growth and job
creation. That is why the government has worked hard over the
past few years to improve the environment for small businesses,
including the issue of access to credit.
We have worked with the banks to improve the reporting of small
business lending activity. As a result statistics are now
available publicly on bank lending to small and medium size
enterprises.
Concerns have been expressed that the proposed mergers in the
banking sector may result in reduced access by small businesses
to bank credit. The government is indeed concerned about the
potential effects on the Canadian consumer including small
businesses of allowing bank mergers. The proposed mergers have
the potential to fundamentally change our domestic banking
sector.
The work of the task force and the future of the Canadian
financial services sector will be valuable in the government's
deliberations of the merger issue and I look forward to its
report in September.
The government will not allow any merger in the banking sector
to proceed without understanding its impact on the small business
community in Canada and without the input of Canadians during the
consultation process.
I invite the hon. member to join the Standing Committee on
Finance when we hear from Canadians on this issue as we go across
Canada. The last time I checked the Standing Committee on
Finance was an all party committee. I believe a member of the
NDP sits on that committee. I invite the hon. member to
participate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.)