36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 121
CONTENTS
Monday, September 25, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1105
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Report stage
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
1110
1115
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1120
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1125
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1130
| The Deputy Speaker |
1135
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 3
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 4
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 5
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 7
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motions Nos. 8 and 9
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 10
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 11
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 12
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 13
|
1140
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 14
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 15
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion 16
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 17
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 18
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 19
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 20
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 21
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 22
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 23
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 24
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 25
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 26
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 27
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 28 and 29
|
1145
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 30
|
1150
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 31
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 32
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 33
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 34
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Motion No. 35
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 36
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 37
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 38
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 39
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 40
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 41
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 42
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 43
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Motion No. 44
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 45
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 46
|
1155
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motions Nos. 47 and 48
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Motion No. 49
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 50
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Motion No. 51
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 52
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 53
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 54
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 55
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 56
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 57
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 58
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 59
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 60
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 61 and 62
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 63
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 64
|
1200
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 65
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 66
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 67
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motion No. 68
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motions Nos. 69 and 70
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Motions Nos. 71 to 73
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 74
|
1205
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Motion No. 75
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 98
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 184
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 185
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 186
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 192
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 257
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 264
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 265
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 266
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motions Nos. 267 and 268
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 269
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 270
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 271
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 272
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motions Nos. 273 and 274
|
1210
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 275
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 276
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 311 and 312
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 313
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 314
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 315
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 316
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 317
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 318
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 319
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 359
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 360
|
1215
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motions Nos. 361 and 629
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 630
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 631
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 632
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 633
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 634
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 635
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 636
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 637
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 638
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 639
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 640
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 641
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 642
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 643
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 644
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 645
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 646
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 698
|
1220
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 699
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 700
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 701
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 702
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 703
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 704
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 705
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Motion No. 706
|
| The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76 |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 707
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 708
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 709
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 710
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 711
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 712
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 927 and 928
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 929
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 930
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 931
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 932
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 933
|
1225
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 934
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 935
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motions Nos. 936 and 1009
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 1010
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 1011
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 1295
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motions Nos. 1424 and 1515
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 1516
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 1517
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 1624
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 1625
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 1626
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 1627
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions No. 1628 and 1647
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 1648
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2213
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2214
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2255
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2256
|
1230
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2257
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2258
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2259
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2260
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2261
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2275
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2276
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2277
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2278
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2279
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2280
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2281
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2282
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2283
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2284
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2285
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2286
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2287, 2288 and 2289
|
1235
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2290
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2291
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2292
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2293
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2294 and 2295
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2296
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2297
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2298
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2299
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2305
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2306
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2307
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2308
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2309
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2310
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2311
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2312
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2313
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2314
|
1240
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motions Nos. 2315, 2316 and 2317
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2318
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2319
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2320
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2321
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2322
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2421
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2528
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2529
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motions Nos. 2530 and 2531
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2532 and 2533
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2534
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2535
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2536 and 2537
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2538
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2539
|
1245
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2540
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motions Nos. 2551 and 2552
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2553 and 2563
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2564
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2565
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2566
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motions Nos. 2567 and 2568
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2569
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2570
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2573
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2574
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2575
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2576
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2577
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2578
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2579
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2584 and 2585
|
1250
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2586
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2587
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2588
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2589 and 2590
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2591
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2592
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2593
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2594
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2600
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2601
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2602
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2603
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2604
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2605
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2606
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2607
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motion No. 2616
|
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Motion No. 2617
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motion No. 2618
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2619
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2620 and 2621
|
1255
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2622
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2623
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Motion No. 2624
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Motion No. 2625
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motion No. 2628
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Motion No. 2629
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2630 and 2631
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Motions Nos. 2632 and 2633
|
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Motions Nos. 2634 and 2635
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Motions Nos. 2636 and 2642
|
1300
1305
| Mr. John Maloney |
1310
1315
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1320
1325
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1330
1335
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1340
1345
| Mr. Randy White |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE HON. JACQUES FLYNN
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| ROY ROMANOW
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| ARTHRITIS MONTH
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1400
| MCWATTERS MINING COMPANY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| OLYMPICS 2000
|
| Ms. Paddy Torsney |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| OLYMPICS 2000
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| SYDNEY OLYMPIC GAMES
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1405
| KAY WALTERS
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| ROY ROMANOW
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1410
| HOUSE OF COMMONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| PHARMACEUTICALS
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1425
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1435
| BUDGET SURPLUSES
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CRIME PREVENTION
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1440
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| YOUTH JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
1450
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| VIETNAM
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| Hon. Raymond Chan |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1455
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1500
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Document
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1505
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
| HOLIDAYS ACT
|
| Bill C-496. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. John Bryden |
1510
| PETITIONS
|
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Pesticides
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| U.S. Missile Defence Program
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1515
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-3, Report stage
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
1520
1525
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1530
1535
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1555
1600
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1605
1610
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1615
1620
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Motions in Amendment
|
| Ms. Christiane Gagnon |
1625
1630
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1635
1640
1645
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1650
1655
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1700
1705
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1710
1715
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1720
1725
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1730
1735
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1740
1745
| Mr. John Williams |
1750
1755
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1800
1805
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1810
1815
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1820
1825
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 121
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, September 25, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1105
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-3, an act in
respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and
repeal other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: Before consideration of report
stage of Bill C-3 commences, the Chair wishes to make some
comments about the process on this debate.
[Translation]
Just before the deadline for submissions to the notice paper
last Friday, hundreds of motions to amend Bill C-3 were tabled
with the journals branch. By working all weekend, we were able
to produce a supplement to the notice paper containing these
motions.
[English]
Because the text was first produced on Saturday, the computer
has generated September 23 as the date appearing on each motion.
Members are asked to ignore this technical anomaly and to rest
assured that all motions appearing in the supplement to the
notice paper were duly received before the 2 o'clock deadline on
September 22.
1110
[Translation]
There are 3,133 motions to amend Bill C-3. Members will
understand that considering all these motions will require a
great deal of time and care. I am prepared to make a
preliminary ruling that debate begin, and you will be informed
of my final ruling as soon as possible.
[English]
There are, as I indicated, 3,133 motions in amendment standing
on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-3. The
motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
[Translation]
Group No. 1 will include Motions Nos. 1 to 75, 98, 184 to 186, 192, 257,
264 to 276, 311 to 319, 359 to 361, 629 to 646, 698 to 712, 927
to 936, 1,009 to 1,011, 1,295, 1,424, 1,515 to 1,517, 1,624 to
1,628, 1,647, 1,648, 2,213, 2,214, 2,255 to 2,261, 2,275 to
2,299, 2,305 to 2,322, 2,241, 2,528 to 2,540, 2,551 to 2,553,
2,563 to 2,570, 2,573 to 2,579, 2,584 to 2,594, 2,600 to 2,607,
2,616 to 2,625, 2,628 to 2,636 and 2,642.
[English]
Group No. 2 will include Motions Nos. 76 to 97 and 99 to 123.
Group No. 3 will include Motions Nos. 124 to 183, 187 and 188.
[Translation]
Group No. 4 will include Motions Nos. 189 to 191, 193 to 256, 258 to 263,
277 to 310, 320 to 358 and 362 to 380.
[English]
Group No. 5 will include Motions Nos. 381 to 628, 647 to 697,
713 to 926 and 937 to 955.
[Translation]
Group No. 6 will include Motions Nos. 956 to 1,008, 1,012 to 1,294, 1,296
to 1,423, 1,425 to 1,514, 1,518 to 1,599.
[English]
Group No. 7 will include Motions Nos. 1600 to 1623, 1629 to
1646, 1649 to 2212, 2215 to 2254 and 2262 to 2274.
1115
[Translation]
Group No. 8 will include Motions Nos. 2,300 to 2,304, 2,323 to
2,420, 2,422 to 2,527.
[English]
Group No. 9 will include Motions Nos. 2541 to 2550 and Motions
Nos. 2554 to 2562.
[Translation]
Group No. 10 will include Motions Nos. 2,571, 2,572, 2,580 to
2,583, 2,595 to 2,599, 2,608 to 2,615, 2,626, 2,627, 2,637 to
2,641, 2,643 to 3,029.
[English]
Group No. 11 will include Motions Nos. 3030 to 3133.
[Translation]
I will now submit the motions in Group No. 1 to the House.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. This matter was scheduled to come
before the House, I believe, on Wednesday of this week and that
was changed late last week.
I was in my riding on Friday and as a result some amendments
that I had submitted never saw the light of day at the committee
hearing and were submitted by the member for Kamloops. As the
justice critic for the party, I am prepared to speak to those
amendments today but I would ask for the unanimous consent of the
House that my name be substituted for the name of the member from
Kamloops as the mover of those amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member's name to be substituted for that of the hon. member
for Kamloops on those motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, as you have ably outlined,
we have heard now that the report stage of Bill C-3 will be
before the House. It will be a hotly contested bill. Officials
of the House have been inundated with notices of proposed
amendments. The government itself has been so inept at the
handling of the bill that it also has over 100 amendments to a
bill with only 199 clauses.
There are so many proposed amendments by other members that the
parliamentary website has not been able to publish these notices
with the regular notice paper. As of 8.30 last evening I was
unable to find the questions that might be before the House this
morning and yet the government expects all members to be here
prepared to debate this substantial bill.
Moreover, I am equally concerned that Canadians have not been
informed about what the possible amendments to the bill will be.
This is a very important bill and arguably the most important
bill that we will see before the House in this session.
We are in real danger. We are close to undertaking a secret
proceeding around a very public bill. We are in this position
for several reasons. We are in this quagmire because of
arrogance and incompetence on the part of the government and its
inability to have any form of compromise.
It is not the job of the Chair, I would suggest, to in any way
make up for or explain the incompetence of the government and yet
it is my submission that there is a basic duty on the Speaker to
maintain an orderly process in the House. The Chair must do this
in an orderly fashion when members are not able to access the
basic information on the questions they will be ordered to debate
and decide upon. This is not an orderly proceeding. This is a
sabotage of parliament.
Standing Order 76.1(5) gives the Speaker an unfettered power to
select amendments for the report stage. To date the Chair has
been reluctant to use that power.
It is obvious that the House of Commons in this session has
started down a path on which none of us should be willing to be
accessories.
1120
At the instigation of the Reform Party's amendments on the
Nisga'a treaty, we now see copycat tactics that the Bloc used
during the clarity bill and now C-3. The House is being turned
into a disorderly House because the Chair has failed to maintain
an orderly process.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 10 demands that
the Speaker maintain order. Standing Order 76.1(5) reads as
follows:
(5) The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments
or clauses to be proposed at the report stage—
The Chair is empowered and, I would suggest, impliedly ordered
to do so.
These two orders of the House are sufficient to allow the Chair
to put a stop to this tactic that is leading the House of Commons
into disrepute. A repeat of the voting circuses that we have
seen here are unnecessary. It will not lead to an improvement
of the bill and it is not an orderly proceeding.
The bill received no clausal examination at committee. Everyone
here should be ashamed of what happened at the committee on this
bill, particularly the Minister of Justice and the Queen's
Attorney General of Canada. This is not the way we should be
considering bills in parliament. We are seeing once again that
the committee stage is being flouted. This is not the way to
pass laws and dumping these amendments now before the House of
Commons without any real examination at the committee, none
whatsoever, nada, is a complete abuse of parliament.
Under these circumstances all of us must examine our conduct and
our consciences if we are to proceed. The Speaker, I would
suggest, and I say this with greatest respect, is not a mere
decoration in this place. The Speaker has a duty to the entire
House and the entire country to make parliament work and to make
parliament relevant. The Speaker has the power to put a stop to
this sabotage of democracy. It is time for the Speaker to do
that job. This place will grind to a smoking, screeching halt if
we continue down this road.
First, I suggest the Speaker should vigorously use the power and
the office he has to select amendments.
Second, the House and the public should have adequate notice as
to what selected questions of debate will be in this place.
Third, the government should get its act together and bring in a
clean bill incorporating the changes that it earlier muddied with
its own amendments.
Fourth, instead of trying to ram everything through the House of
Commons and reacting to dilatory tactics with an iron fist, the
government should admit that it made a serious mistake with this
bill, change the order of business today and stop treating the
House as if it were its own private play toy.
Some in this place will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the House
got itself into this mess and that it will get itself out of this
mess. I state to you quite seriously that for every hour that
the House debates in needless, ritualistic voting as a dilatory
tactic, the House diminishes itself in the eyes of Canadians and
other democratic nations.
The Speaker has the power to prevent this from happening. It is
the Speaker's duty to do so and the House of Commons and
Canadians generally expect the Chair to act in a way that will
bring the House credit instead of disrepute. By proceeding in
this fashion the chair and the Speaker are being rendered to that
of a bingo caller. This is not to be permitted. This should not
be an attack on parliament, which it is. It is necessary and it
is incumbent upon the Chair to act decisively in this fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in connection with the point of order raised by our hon.
colleague, the House leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party, for all intents and purposes, it contains a number of
elements, and I am totally in agreement with some of them but
not with others.
When the House leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party says that the Chair did not use his power,
his prerogative to select amendments, I believe he is wrong.
The total number of amendments tabled with journals branch is
far higher than the figure of 2,133 you gave earlier.
In other worlds, the Chair did exercise its discretionary power
to select certain amendments and reject others.
The House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party took the
trouble to point out that the essential reason for our finding
ourselves in this situation today, and for a similar situation
in the past, is the lack of openness of the government, its
stubborness and its partisan manipulation of this parliament.
1125
The government imagines it can use its majority in the House to
impose anything it wants on this parliament. This closed-minded
rigidity goes so far as to propose to us a bill so badly put
together than even the government needs to amend it. It alone
has proposed over 150 amendments to a bill than does not even
contain 200 clauses.
This is indication that the government ought to have softened
its position and agreed to withdraw its bill and to make the
necessary changes. Instead of doing so, which would have forced
it to admit it had made a mistake, it has decided to go ahead
and to force parliament to examine its bill, imperfect as it is.
Here we have before this parliament today a far from perfect
bill at report stage, with this government itself having to
propose 150 amendments to it. As we have said and often
repeated, this bill is not just imperfect in form but in
substance as well.
While the reasons the government has decided to examine this
bill may be justified in some areas of the country, they are
certainly less justified in Quebec, where we have come to terms
with juvenile delinquency by means other than those the minister
is proposing today.
I respectfully submit to my colleague, the House leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party that, with a bill erring in
substance and not simply in form, it was to be expected that we
would move amendments to correct not simply the form of the bill, but
its substance as well. Not surprisingly we are tabling a great
many amendments.
I repeat that it is very disrespectful toward the Chair
to claim that it has not made a ruling, that it has not
exercised discretion in excluding a number of amendments,
because it has.
I would also be concerned that the Chair is being autocratic and
discretionary to an extent beyond that permitted under the
standing orders of the House and in deciding on the relevance of
the amendments, as it has up to now.
If the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is
right in saying that a tendency is developing to use report
stage as a dilatory tactic in the passage of bills, it is not
the opposition parties who are to be blamed. I would respectfully submit to
him that he should not criticize the opposition parties for
using this tactic but place the essence of the blame if not all
of it squarely on the shoulders of the government, which for all
intents and purposes compels the opposition parties to use such
dilatory tactics because the government is not playing fairly or
working constructively in its efforts to use this parliament for
partisan purposes.
[English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the standing
orders and the usual practices in the House have all been
complied with by the government. The Speaker made a decision and
we should proceed with that decision. We should not reflect on
the decision of the Speaker.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing to listen to the
House Leader of the Conservative Party talk about closure when it
was his party that was one of the biggest abusers of this method
of governing in Canada.
My party always respects the decisions by the Chair
and we will respect the decision you make in this matter today.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I just want to speak briefly on this point of order. I think it
is once more regrettable that the House finds itself in the
situation it is in as a result of what transpired in committee
and the inability of people to move amendments in committee.
We can point fingers as to whether or not it was the government's
lack of receptivity to changes in the legislation or a particular
opposition party's position with respect to the bill.
1130
The fact remains that we now have before us a very undesirable
situation: a committee process in which people were not able to
move any amendments. Therefore it is impossible for any of us to
claim that the bill received the kind of attention that it should
have on a clause by clause basis. Now we are potentially faced
with one of these voting marathons again.
Whatever the case may be, I think there is a larger argument to
be made. Perhaps now is not the time to make it, in the heat of
battle, so to speak, but it is an argument I have made before and
I think others have made before. There should be more power
given to the Speaker to act in the interests of the whole House
and in the interests of the general reputation of parliament when
procedural things like this present themselves.
Now whether the Speaker wants to use this context to initiate a
new interventionist approach by the Chair is something that the
Chair itself will have to deliberate upon, but we do have
a cumulative crisis of legitimacy with respect to how we
deal with report stage. If there is anything that the Chair
could do in this respect, I would urge the Chair to consider it
or to consult with the House leaders or others as to how this
might be achieved.
In the meantime, we have to proceed with what we have before us
and I would urge the House to do that.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order please. The Chair is about to
rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and the Chair really appreciates the
comments of other members on this issue.
[English]
The Chair has given a ruling in respect of the admissibility of
the amendments. Of the 3,100 or so that were submitted, I am
told 156 have been rejected as not in order and will not be
proposed to the House in the course of the debate.
[Translation]
It must be remembered that from 1964 to 1968 we adopted a
number of rules that have changed the practice in this House
concerning amendments at report stage by including a new debate
at the report stage of bills, after a standing committee of the
House tables its report on a bill.
[English]
I know hon. members are aware of the fact that these changes to
the rules were made. At that time certain discretion was given
to the Chair in the standing orders and there have been
amendments to that from time to time in the years since. But I
think it is fair for hon. members to know, and I am sure all hon.
members do know, that the Chair has exercised its discretion in
certain ways throughout the period from 1968 until now, so we
have 30 years of practice in this House of dealing with the
admissibility of amendments at report stage.
What we have today, which we have had before, and not just on
the three bills where we have had a significant number of votes,
is a deliberate choice by members of the House to submit
amendments that, based on Speaker's rulings in the past, are in
order. What has happened on this occasion is that a large number
of amendments have been submitted that, based on previous rulings
by the Chair, are in order.
It is not for the Chair to adopt the solution proposed by the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, that is, to
exercise powers that are there in the rules, that have never in
fact been exercised before, and that in fact have been exercised
but in different ways than what we are faced with today. Members
have chosen to draft amendments to get around rulings that
Speakers have made as to their discretion under Standing Order 76
and they have done it apparently in compliance with those
previous decisions which, in my view, are binding on the Chair
today.
The procedure and House affairs committee, after the two other
voting marathons we have had, has considered the issue and chose
not to come up with any amendments to the standing orders
reflecting their consideration and reflecting the difficulties
that we encountered. The duty of that committee is to make
suggestions for changes.
1135
[Translation]
I do not think that the Chair is required to define a new
procedure here today.
[English]
If the House wishes to make changes in the rules or wishes the
Speaker to exercise his or her discretion in another way, I think
that can be done through the procedure and House affairs
committee, not on a point of order in the House. Accordingly, I
must reject the point of order.
I propose to put the motions in Group No. 1 to the House.
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1
to 10 on page 1.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 1
to 34 on page 1 with the following:
“WHEREAS members of society share a responsibility to address
the developmental challenges and the needs of young persons and
to guide them into adulthood;
WHEREAS communities, families, parents and others concerned with
the development of young persons should, through multi-
disciplinary approaches, take reasonable steps to prevent youth
crime by addressing its underlying causes, to respond to the
needs of young persons, and to provide guidance and support to
those at risk of committing crimes;
WHEREAS information about youth justice, youth crime and the
effectiveness of measures taken to address youth crime should be
publicly available;
WHEREAS Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child and recognizes that young persons have
rights and freedoms, including those stated in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights,
and have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms;
AND WHEREAS Canadian society should have a youth criminal justice
system that commands respect, takes into account the interests of
victims, fosters responsibility and ensures accountability
through meaningful consequences and effective rehabilitation and
reintegration, and that reserves its most serious intervention
for the most serious crimes and reduces the over-reliance on
incarceration for non-violent young persons;”
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 5
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 7
on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11
to 14 on page 1.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 15
to 18 on page 1.
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 19
to 26 on page 1.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 21
and 22 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 27
to 34 on page 1.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 28 on page 1 with the following:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in the preamble, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 37 on page 1 with the following:
1140
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 5 and 6
on page 2.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 11
on page 2.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 12 to
18 on page 2.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
21 on page 2.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 22 to
24 on page 2.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 25 to
27 on page 2.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 28 to
37 on page 2.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 30 on page 2 with the following:
“paragraph 41(2)(n), (n.1), (p) or (q), means the pe-”
(b) by replacing line 37 on page 2 with the following:
“under paragraph 41(2), (n.1), (p) or (q).”
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 1 and 2
on page 3.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 3 to 6
on page 3.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 6 on
page 3 with the following:
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 9
on page 3.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 9 on
page 3 with the following:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 9 on
page 3 the following:
““justice” means a justice of the peace or a provincial court
judge, and includes two or more justices where two or more
justices are, by law, required to act or, by law, act or have
jurisdiction.”
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I simply wish to make a brief correction.
From the outset, you undertook the rather fastidious task of
reading all the amendments that were duly and legitimately
tabled regarding Bill C-3. We are going to begin the report stage
study of this bill today. We have, of course, the list of the
amendments that are on the order paper but we are told that it
is impossible to get copies of the bill.
How can we parliamentarians seriously be expected to do our job
in the House if we cannot get copies of Bill C-3? Is it possible
to see that we get copies before carrying on?
1145
The Deputy Speaker: Each member received a copy of Bill C-3 after
first reading, and there are other copies available here in the
building. We can get some for the members if there is a
problem. Each member's office was sent at least one after the
bill was tabled in the House.
No changes were made to the bill during its examination in
committee. I believe the committee report contained no
amendments, so it is the same bill. Copies are, I believe,
available now at the table. If there is a problem for any
members in this connection, we can get more. There are some
here.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I did indeed get a copy
of the bill, but you will understand that when a bill is a
complicated at this there is more than one person in each MP's
office working on it. There being more than 3,000 amendments,
you will understand that more than one person in each office is
working on such an important bill.
Today the members in this House are going to vote on the
amendments without even having the original tool in hand, Bill
C-3. For there to be democracy there must be information.
I myself asked a page for a copy of the bill and I do not know
whether he found one or not. Some other members of my party did
the same and were told there were no more available.
Before resuming work on this bill, I would point out that there
is such a thing as a photocopier and if necessary photocopies
can be made. We must have Bill C-3 in our hands so that we can
seriously pursue our work on it.
I know that you are in agreement with us on this, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm has
been a member of this House for a long time and he knows full
well that when a bill is being debated in the House there are
always copies of the bill available at the table. Today is no
exception.
I invite the hon. member to approach the table and get a copy of
the bill if he needs one. There are several copies at the table.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I understand what you are
telling me, but what I fail to understand is that you are
telling us to go get copies of the bill ourselves while you are reading
the amendments, when we have asked the pages to provide us with
copy and were told that none were available.
Maybe a few adjustments need to be made here.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that the members have now
received copies of the bill. There are many copies available.
[English]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 9 on
page 3 the following:
““justice” means a justice of the peace or a person appointed
or authorized to act by an Act of the legislature of a province,
by whatever title that person may be designated, who has the
power and authority of two or more justices, including two or
more justices of the peace, to act or who are, by law, required
to act or, by law, act or have jurisdiction.”
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, regarding the remarks made by my
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm and in response to what you told
him, I went to get the seven copies of the bill that were at the
center of the table, I distributed them, and we are still
missing three copies. Would it be possible to get at least three
more copies and maybe more if other members of the House want
some?
The Deputy Speaker: As I indicated earlier, each member received
at least one copy of this bill, probably two, after its
introduction in the House. There will be more copies available
here, but it is the members' responsibility to bring their own
copies of the bill to take part in the debate.
1150
We have many copies of the bill. It will take some patience and
some time, but I am sure members will eventually receive another
copy of the bill here today.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
18 on page 3.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
26 on page 3.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
30 on page 3.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 31 to
42 on page 3 and lines 1 to 11 on page 4.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended
(a) by replacing line 32 on page 3 with the following:
“(a) an offence committed, or alleged to have been committed, by
a young person who has attained the age of fourteen years, or, in
a province where the lieutenant governor in council has fixed an
age greater than fourteen years under section 60.1, the age so
fixed, under one of the following”
(b) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 4 with the following:
“, or alleged to have been committed, by a young person after the
coming into force of section 61 and before the young person has
attained the age of fourteen years, or, in a province where the
lieutenant governor in council has fixed an age greater than
fourteen years under section 60.1, the age so fixed, if at the
time of the commission or alleged commission of the offence at”
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 40 to
42 on page 3 with the following:
“slaughter), (iv) section 268 (aggravated assault), (v) section
272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or
causing bodily harm), or (vi) section 273 (aggravated sexual
assault); or”
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 2 and
3 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 12 to
20 on page 4.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 21 to
26 on page 4.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
35 on page 4.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 36 and
37 on page 4.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 36 and
37 on page 4.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 38 to
40 on page 4.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 38 to
40 on page 4.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 39 and
40 on page 4 with the following:
1155
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 41 to
43 on page 4.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 41 to
43 on page 4.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 41 to
43 on page 4 with the following:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 44 and
45 on page 4 and lines 1 to 7 on page 5.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 1 and
2 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 1 on
page 5 with the following:
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 2 and
3 on page 5 with the following:
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the
French version, line 4 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 8 to 14
on page 5.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 15 and
16 on page 5.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 17 and
18 on page 5.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
22 on page 5.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
31 on page 5.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 29 and
30 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
34 on page 5.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 11
on page 6.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended
(i) prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a
young person's offending behaviour,
(ii) rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and
reintegrate them into society, and
(iii) ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful
consequences for his or her offence
in order to promote the long term protection of the public.”
“(i) a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration,
(ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent
with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced
level of maturity,
(iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons
are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right
to privacy, are protected, and
(iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the
offending behaviour and its consequences;”
“young person given his or her needs and level of development
and, where appropriate,”
(d) by replacing line 40 on page 6 with the following:
“needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with
special
1200
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 3 and
4 on page 6 with the following:
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 8 on
page 6 with the following:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 12 to
24 on page 6.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 19 to
22 on page 6 with the following:
“(ii) procedural protection of the rights of young persons to be
applied consistently with the need to hold young persons
accountable and to ensure that they accept responsibility for
their actions, and”
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 25 to
41 on page 6.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 42 to
44 on page 6 and lines 1 to 22 on page 7.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)
moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the
English version, line 9 on page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing, in the
English version, line 15 on page 7 with the following:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 17 on
page 7 with the following:
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
26 on page 7.
1205
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 3, be amended by
replacing line 26 on page 7 with the following:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 21, be amended by deleting lines 40 to
42 on page 16.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 21, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 3
on page 17.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 25 and
26 on page 24.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 26 and
27 on page 24.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 33 to
38 on page 24.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 39 to
44 on page 24 and lines 1 to 6 on page 25.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 4
on page 25.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 5 and
6 on page 25.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 7 to
18 on page 25.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
24 on page 25.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 25 to
29 on page 25.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 30 to
40 on page 25.
1210
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 41 to
46 on page 25 and lines 1 to 4 on page 26.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 30, be amended by deleting lines 5 to
12 on page 26.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 5
on page 30.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 6 to
12 on page 30.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
18 on page 30.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 17 to
21 on page 29.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 22 to
26 on page 29.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
30 on page 29.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 31 to
36 on page 29.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 37 to
42 on page 29.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 35, be amended by deleting lines 37 to
41 on page 33.
1215
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 35, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 8
on page 34.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 37 to
43 on page 53.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 44 to
47 on page 53 and lines 1 to 10 on page 54.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 11 to
18 on page 54.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
27 on page 54.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 28 to
35 on page 54.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 36 to
38 on page 54.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 50, be amended by deleting lines 39 to
44 on page 54.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 3 to
10 on page 55.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 8
on page 55.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 9 and
10 on page 55.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 11 to
19 on page 55.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting line 16 on
page 55.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting line 17 on
page 55.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 18 and
19 on page 55.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
22 on page 55.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 51, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
25 on page 55.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
1220
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 14 to
19 on page 60.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 16 and
17 on page 60.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 18 and
19 on page 60.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
39 on page 60.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 26 to
30 on page 60.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 31 to
34 on page 60.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 55, be amended by deleting lines 35 to
39 on page 60.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(2),
notice has also been received from the hon. member for Quebec
East.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting lines 9 to
12 on page 61.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
17 on page 61.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting lines 18 to
20 on page 61.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting lines 21 to
26 on page 61.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
31 on page 61.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 56, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
37 on page 61.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 77, be amended by deleting lines 21 to
25 on page 76.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 77, be amended by deleting lines 26 to
30 on page 76.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 77, be amended by deleting lines 31 to
40 on page 76.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 77, be amended by deleting lines 33 to
38 on page 76.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 77, be amended by deleting lines 39 and
40 on page 76.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
1225
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 78, be amended by deleting lines 41 to
45 on page 76 and lines 1 and 2 on page 77.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 78, be amended by deleting lines 3 to
10 on page 77.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 89, be amended by deleting lines 38 to
48 on page 83 and lines 1 and 2 on page 84.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 89, be amended by deleting lines 3 to
11 on page 84.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 105, be amended by deleting lines 42
and 43 on page 103.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 105, be amended by deleting lines 44 to
48 on page 103.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 112, be amended by deleting lines 36
and 37 on page 108.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 112, be amended by deleting lines 38 to
44 on page 108.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 117, be amended by deleting lines 33 to
37 on page 110.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 126, be amended by deleting lines 10 to
12 on page 123.
1230
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 126, be amended by deleting lines 13
and 14 on page 123.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 126, be amended by deleting lines 15
and 16 on page 123.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 126, be amended by deleting lines 17 to
21 on page 123.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 126, be amended by deleting lines 22 to
27 on page 123.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 126, be amended by deleting lines 28 to
30 on page 123.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 129, be amended by deleting lines 6 to
18 on page 125.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 129, be amended by deleting lines 6 to
18 on page 125.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 129, be amended by deleting lines 19 to
27 on page 125.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 130, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
35 on page 125.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 130, be amended by deleting lines 36 to
38 on page 125.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 130, be amended by deleting lines 1 to
5 on page 126.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 14 to
23 on page 126.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 17
and 18 on page 126.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 19
and 20 on page 126.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 21 to
23 on page 126.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 24 to
28 on page 126.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 29 to
42 on page 126.
1235
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting line 34 on
page 126.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by replacing lines 35
to 38 on page 126 with the following:
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 39
and 40 on page 126.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 41
and 42 on page 126.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 1 to
16 on page 127.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting line 11 on
page 127.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 12
and 13 on page 127.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 14
and 15 on page 127.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting line 16 on
page 127.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 131, be amended by deleting lines 17 to
19 on page 127.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 9 to
12 on page 128.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
22 on page 128.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
29 on page 128.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 30 to
35 on page 128.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 36 to
43 on page 128 and lines 1 and 2 on page 129.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 3 to
9 on page 129.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 10 to
12 on page 129.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 134, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
16 on page 129.
1240
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 17 to
43 on page 129 and lines 1 to 4 on page 130.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 18 to
24 on page 129.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 25
and 26 on page 129.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
29 on page 129.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 30 to
36 on page 129.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 37 to
43 on page 129 and lines 1 to 4 on page 130.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 135, be amended by deleting lines 5 to
8 on page 130.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 156, be amended by deleting lines 1 to
16 on page 142.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 156, be amended by deleting lines 6 to
9 on page 142.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 156, be amended by deleting lines 10 to
12 on page 142.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 156, be amended by deleting lines 13 to
16 on page 142.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 158, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
38 on page 142.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 158, be amended by deleting lines 39 to
42 on page 142 and lines 1 to 9 on page 143.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 159, be amended by deleting lines 18 to
23 on page 143.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 159, be amended by deleting lines 24
and 25 on page 143.
1245
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 159, be amended by deleting lines 26 to
28 on page 143.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 166, be amended by deleting lines 14 to
16 on page 147.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 166, be amended by deleting lines 17 to
30 on page 147.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 166, be amended by deleting lines 31 to
44 on page 147.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 172, be amended by deleting lines 14 to
26 on page 149.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 172, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
22 on page 149.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 172, be amended by deleting lines 23 to
26 on page 149.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 172, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
31 on page 149.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 172, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
35 on page 149.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 174, be amended by deleting lines 9 and
10 on page 150.
1250
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 174, be amended by deleting lines 11 to
14 on page 150.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 174, be amended by deleting lines 15 to
17 on page 150.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 179, be amended by deleting lines 5 to
17 on page 152.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 179, be amended by deleting lines 18 to
31 on page 152.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 27 to
30 on page 153.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 31 to
33 on page 153.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 34 to
41 on page 153.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting line 36 on
page 153.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 37
and 38 on page 153.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting lines 39 to
41 on page 153.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 181, be amended by deleting line 42 on
page 153.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ) moved:
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 187, be amended by deleting lines 36 to
42 on page 155 and lines 1 and 2 on page 156.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 187, be amended by deleting lines 5 to
19 on page 156.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 187, be amended by deleting lines 20 to
28 on page 156.
1255
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 188, be amended by deleting lines 32 to
40 on page 156.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 188, be amended by deleting lines 43 to
48 on page 156 and lines 1 to 8 on page 157.
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 188, be amended by deleting lines 9 to
17 on page 157.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in
Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 29 to 35 on page 157.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 36 to
42 on page 157 and lines 1 to 3 on page 158.
That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 40 to
42 on page 157.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-3, in Clause 190, be amended by deleting lines 1 to
3 on page 158.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) moved:
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the motions in Group
No. 1 of amendments to Bill C-3. This is a very complex bill and
we had to look at it very closely to get the government to
reconsider, and particularly to show the government that it was
making a mistake in wanting to pass Bill C-3 at all costs.
The experts in the area of young offenders do not understand.
I parenthesize here to state that not one of the experts from
Quebec who appeared before the committee supports the minister's
bill.
None of the experts working with the Young Offenders Act on a
daily basis can find a single reason for the minister to want to
amend the Young Offenders Act at all costs and ram through the
bill criminalizing the young people who are having problems with
the law. The only reason would be a political one, to try and
win votes in western Canada.
Since the creation of the Canadian Alliance, the government
opposite has been trying to build an image for itself in western
Canada, the image of a party that it more to the right, a party
more and more like the Canadian Alliance Party.
It has taken the Young Offenders Act and the young offenders as
hostage to bolster its image in western Canada on the eve of a
federal election.
1300
Everyone knows that I made spoke hours on end in committee, and
even reached out to the minister, suggesting that, before
completely changing a legislation that has proven its efficiency
over the past 15 to 20 years, she should stop the proceedings of
the committee and tour the provinces to examine their youth
policies, and come and see what we are doing in Quebec, where the
crime rate is the lowest in Canada because the Young Offenders
Act is enforced properly in Quebec. The present Minister of
Justice recognizes it, as does her predecessor, the current
Minister of Health, who was the Minister of Justice at the time,
the legislation is very well enforced in Quebec.
I was telling the current Minister of Justice that, if she made
comparisons and looked at the Young Offenders Act closely, she
would be able to see if there was any reason whatsoever to
change it.
With my 27.5 hours of speeches in committee over the past 11
months, I have tried to give the minister time to go and see for
herself, particularly in Quebec, what was being done.
She did not see fit to take a little time to consult and to
check how the act is implemented in Quebec. She did not check
either in the other provinces, with the result that we find
ourselves today in front of a very complex piece of legislation.
The minister has attempted to sprinkle here and there certain
notions she picked up along the way either in my speeches or in
the briefs presented to the committee by witnesses who came from
Quebec to tell her she was on the wrong track.
As a whole, the bill remains complex. Given its goals, it is
unenforceable.
I never said nothing should be done to try to improve the
enforcement of the Young Offenders Act, quite the contrary. An
extensive study conducted in Quebec in the 90s resulted in the
Jasmin report, which concluded that the blame did not lie with
the act, but rather with its enforcement.
Although it is enforced properly in Quebec, there is always room
for improvements.
Had the Young Offenders Act been enforced properly in the other
provinces, in particular in western provinces such as Alberta,
British Columbia and Manitoba, they would not be clamouring for
changes to the Young Offenders Act now. These provinces where it
is enforced the least have the highest detention rates, the
highest youth crime rate, and an increasing number of young
re-offenders. This shows that the problem is not the act, but its
enforcement, as I have been saying for weeks.
One of the good elements in the existing Young Offenders Act is
that it is tailored to their specific needs since a 14, 15, 16
or 17 year old cannot be expected to have the same
responsibility as a 30 or 40 year old adult.
Section 3 of the existing Young Offenders Act, under the heading
declaration of principle, says it very clearly. It contains the
major thrusts for dealing with young persons in trouble with the
law, and trying to rehabilitate them and reintegrate them into
society.
1305
The ultimate aim is to help a youth with a problem to become an
anonymous citizen and to integrate into society as a citizen, as
if he did not have any legal problem or any criminal problem.
The aim is really to try to see to it that this youth might
someday pay income taxes, get married, have children and get
integrated very anonymously into society. In Quebec, we see it
as a long term investment and believe that protection of society
will be increased if this youth does not re-offend and does
integrate into society.
As I said in the declaration of principle, in section 3(1) of
the Young Offenders Act and the following sections, there was
all that was needed to guide the court so that a judge hearing a
case could consider a youth with a criminal problem as a
particular case. The judge could deal on an individual basis
with young people with criminal problem.
Everything necessary was there in the declaration of principle.
I do not want to read it all for my time is limited, although I
could speak for several hours more since the subject is close to
my heart, but, only to remind hon. members of a few elements
found in the declaration of principle, I will quote this “While
young persons should not in all instances be held accountable in
the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their
behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should
nonetheless bear responsibility for their contraventions”.
Further on it provides that “because of their state of
dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have
special needs and require guidance and assistance”. A little
further on it says, “depending on circumstances, the needs
and facts of a youth's childhood, which might explain his
behaviour, must be taken into account once again”. The thrust
in this declaration of principle was to provide alternative
measures for young people.
There was everything in this declaration of principle. The
minister axed this declaration. She said no to Quebec, which is
properly applying the Young Offenders Act. She made a sort of
omnibus preamble. It contains all sorts of things that are not
integrally part of the bill like section 3 of the act is.
In the series of amendments in Group No. 1, there is one by the
minister that will complicate things even further. It is an
amendment to the preamble, when what counts is how the courts
will apply it, especially the interpretation the supreme court
gave of the special needs of adolescents dealing with a problem
of crime within the context of rehabilitation and return to
society especially.
I will to close by saying that the major difference between
Bill C-3, which we are studying today, and the Young Offenders
Act lies in the fact that the act referred to needs, whereas the
minister with her bill now wants to talk about the gravity of
the offence. She is putting the offence at the centre to enable
a judge to impose a sanction, as the minister puts it in the
bill. This is unacceptable.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-3, the youth
criminal justice act.
As the cornerstone of the Government of Canada's youth justice
renewal strategy Bill C-3 provides for a fair and effective youth
justice system that involves young people, families, victims and
communities. This legislation modernizes the youth justice
system and builds stronger links with other programs and services
that help children and youth.
Experience has shown that the current youth justice system is
not working as well as it should. More must be done to prevent
youth crime in the first place, to develop meaningful responses
to youth crime when it does occur, and to emphasize
rehabilitation and reintegration so that youth who do get into
trouble with the law can turn their lives around. Working toward
these three key objectives is the best way to ensure the
protection of society.
1310
As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights I have had the benefit of hearing from many Canadians with
insightful ideas about youth justice. The Government of Canada
has been listening. As a result of the input received from the
thoughtful witnesses who appeared before the committee on Bill
C-3, and through consultations with provincial and territorial
governments, professionals, the legal community, academics,
aboriginal groups, voluntary and stakeholder groups, and young
people and their families, the government is proposing amendments
designed to improve upon the approach in Bill C-3.
The proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act sets out the purpose of
the youth justice system through its principles. The new
principles reinforce that the criminal justice system for youth
is different from the one for adults. Bill C-3 emphasizes
preventing crime, ensuring meaningful consequences for offending
behaviour, and rehabilitating and reintegrating a young person as
the most effective way to contribute to the long term protection
of society.
A number of witnesses who appeared before committee put forward
suggestions that seek to clarify further the principles in the
bill, some of which have been accepted by the government. For
example, we are proposing the inclusion in the principles of a
reference to the importance of timeliness in dealing with youth
offending behaviour. We are also proposing a provision
specifically requiring judges to take into account a young
person's individual needs and level of development.
Another amendment to the principles would stipulate that
measures taken should respond to the needs of aboriginal young
persons. In addition, while the importance of treating victims
with courtesy, compassion and respect, and of providing them with
information about proceedings and an opportunity to participate
and be heard, a proposed amendment would enshrine the interests
of victims in the preamble of the legislation. We would also
propose emphasizing in the preamble the importance of making
information about the youth justice system publicly available.
Bill C-3 makes a distinction in the way we deal with the small
number of youth who commit the most serious violent crimes and
the vast majority who commit less serious offences, providing
more effective measures for dealing with both.
Bill C-3 gives the police more tools for dealing with youth in
their communities in order to try to turn youth around before
they get on to commit more serious crimes. Greater police and
crown discretion early in the process will lead to meaningful,
effective and faster resolutions of the majority of less serious
cases. The formal court process and custody will be used to deal
with the more serious crimes.
We have heard concerns expressed about the definitions of
non-violent, violent and serious violent offences in Bill C-3.
Some have indicated that the definitions may lead to confusion as
to what comes within a certain category of offence. To remove
any ambiguity the government proposes to delete the definitions
of non-violent and violent offences from the legislation.
The difference between a non-violent and a violent offence is
obvious and therefore these terms do not need to be defined in
legislation. In addition, we would improve the definition of
serious violent offences by replacing the phrase “creates a
substantial risk of serious bodily harm” with a reference to
“attempts to cause serious bodily harm”. These proposed
amendments should provide greater clarity to the categories of
offences.
We know that it is important to involve others in the youth
justice system in order to improve upon understanding and to
provide support for victims, youth, families and communities in
responding constructively and meaningfully to offending
behaviour.
Among other things Bill C-3 specifically encourages conferences
at many stages of the proceedings. Some conferences may involve
bringing together professionals such as child care workers,
school psychologists or others who are already involved with
youth to seek advice and ensure continuity of services. Others
may be in the nature of sentencing circles or family group
conferences involving victims, offenders and their families.
While conferencing has been strongly endorsed, some are
concerned about the lack of definition in the bill. Therefore we
are proposing amendments clarifying who may hold a conference and
giving provinces and territories scope to regulate non-judicial
conferences.
A number of witnesses also expressed concerns about youth ending
up in the criminal justice system when their problems and needs
could be more effectively dealt with through the child welfare
system. A proposed amendment to Bill C-3 would recognize that a
judge can make a referral of a young person to child welfare
authorities for an assessment. While this is something that
judges already have the authority to do, the amendments would
encourage a link between the two systems in appropriate cases.
A major flaw of the Young Offenders Act is that it does not
include sufficient provisions for safe, supervised reintegration
into the community. Bill C-3 aims to better support the young
person's reintegration back into the community, which protects
the public by guarding against further crime.
The bill provides that periods of incarceration will be followed
by periods of supervision in the community. To ensure “truth in
sentencing” and clarity for the young person at the time of
imposing the sentence, the judge will state in open court the
portion of time that is to be served in custody and the portion
to be served in the community. Breaching conditions of community
supervision could result in the youth being returned to custody.
1315
Generally the reintegration scheme has been strongly endorsed.
Some, however, have expressed concern about requiring that the
period of supervision in the community be half as long as the
period of custody in all cases. Under a proposed government
amendment, where a young person rebuts the presumption for an
adult sentence on a presumptive offence, judges will have the
discretion to set the periods in custody and the periods in the
community. This will allow more flexibility in dealing with
those who receive youth sentences for the most serious violent
crimes.
A number of witnesses have raised concern about the
admissibility of statements made by youth. The legitimate
concern of the police and others that the exclusion of youth
statements for technical reasons under the Young Offenders Act
brings the administration of justice into question needs to be
addressed.
Bill C-3 currently permits a judge to allow the introduction of
a statement that has not been taken in accordance with the
requirements set out in the bill if the admission of the
statement would not bring the administration of justice into
disrepute. In order to clarify the intent in drafting this
provision, the government is proposing an amendment specifying
that this applies only to technical breaches and that statements
will only be admitted if the admission would not bring into
disrepute the principle of enhanced procedural protections for
youth.
An important concern about the Young Offenders Act has been
voiced by both the police community and victims groups. The
existing law does not allow for publication, without a court
order, of information that would identify young victims or
witnesses who are involved in a young offender's case, even where
the victim or witness and his or her family want the information
to be published. This means, for example, that parents of a
deceased child victim of a young offender do not have the right
to publish the name of their son or daughter without facing
criminal sanctions.
A proposed amendment to Bill C-3 would correct this situation by
allowing a young victim or witness to have his or her identity
published with parental consent, and in the case of a deceased
young victim, by allowing parents to publish or cause to be
published information identifying their deceased son or daughter.
Finally, many of the proposed government amendments are aimed at
enhancing the clarity and reducing the complexity of Bill C-3.
These amendments include improvements to drafting language in the
bill and the consolidation of certain clauses in order to
streamline the legislation. In addition, at the request of the
provinces and territories, the Government of Canada is proposing
a number of technical amendments aimed at facilitating the
administration of the new legislation.
The new Youth Criminal Justice Act is built upon the values
Canadians want in their youth justice system. Canadians want a
system that prevents crime by addressing the circumstances
underlying a young person's offending behaviour. They also want
a system that seeks to rehabilitate young persons who commit
offences and reintegrate them into society. The system must also
ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences
for his or her offence. Canadians know this is the most
effective way to achieve the long term protection of society.
Our new approach also responds to the concern of Canadians that
the youth justice system has to do a better job of instilling
values such as accountability, responsibility and respect. The
system must also be more responsive to victims needs, encourage
young people to acknowledge the harm done and provide restitution
where appropriate.
I am confident that Bill C-3 will provide Canadians with the
kind of youth justice system they want and deserve.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to comment on what we are doing here
today. The longer I am around this place, the more I become
convinced that most of what we do here borders on being a sham.
The public is given the impression that legislation is drafted
pursuant to the needs of Canadians. The government presents
legislation, and parliament reviews and improves it as necessary.
Supposedly that is part of what we are doing today. I seriously
question how effective our review and improvement can be under
the circumstances.
Bill C-3 was first introduced in March 1999. The justice
committee was assigned to review it, and after listening to
interested parties of expert and lay witnesses, to consider
necessary changes.
Members of the justice committee from all parties, including the
government, decided that a number of alterations were needed to
Bill C-3. One particular member of the committee decided that
rather than put all the substantive amendments forward for
consideration, he would filibuster the committee in an attempt to
force the government to consider only his wishes for change.
That was his right, Mr. Speaker. Please do not get me wrong.
That was his right under the rules. I certainly understand that
there are tools and procedures available to opposition parties
and members to try to get their point across. However, where the
committee, as representative of this place, failed in its duties
is when it was given its marching orders, so to speak. A closure
motion was issued to the effect that the committee was to be
given only 10 hours of further debate, and then it had to report
back to the House of Commons.
1320
At that point, with all due respect, the chair of the committee
had an obligation to take control of the committee, close down
the debate on the filibuster, and move to the clause by clause
consideration of the many proposed amendments. Having the
committee return the bill to the House without any change
whatsoever has in effect left this place without the value of the
committee's time and effort of review. The House is in the same
position it was in almost two years ago. What a waste of time,
especially on a bill that was supposed to be a top priority of
the government.
To further compound my consternation over the operation of this
place, we then have the manner in which the whole process at the
report stage of the legislation has unfolded. The committee
reported back to the House on Bill C-3 last Thursday, September
21. Because of the government's scheduling, amendments had to be
filed with journals branch by Friday at 2 p.m.
It is only now, on Monday morning, the day of the debate at
report stage, that we can even see the amendments proposed into
groupings as assigned by the clerk. After years of delay and
after months and months of waste, we are provided with a bill
without the benefit of committee recommendations. After years of
delay and after months and months of waste, we are now in a type
of overdrive to process the legislation almost overnight.
Regardless of any individual political perspective, I would argue
that the public is definitely not well served by this process, at
least in the way it has unfolded with Bill C-3.
It truly amazes me that this place can be mired in quicksand and
be going absolutely nowhere, and that it takes an imminent
election to force the government to move. What disappoints me
the most is that even when the government does move, it exhibits
little consideration, if any, for our citizens. Although I do
not wish to jump to any conclusions, my intuition tells me Bill
C-3 will be passed virtually intact, with little difference from
the questionable version of the supposed new youth justice law as
presented by the government back in March 1999.
I may be proven wrong, but debate in this place at this stage
will likely have little, if any, influence on the legislation.
Regardless of the arguments presented by interested Canadians and
by members of this place, it appears that it was always the
intention of the government to merely go through the motions.
There was never any real intention to listen to or even seriously
consider other viewpoints calling for substantive change. This
legislation, if it passes from this place in its current form or
with little change in substance, will be a travesty to Canadians.
Just to address some of our amendments that are proposed in this
grouping, our Motion No. 35 would eliminate a presumptive
offence. Under our amendments we are doing away with the whole
concept of presumptive offence, serious violent offence and the
interpretation problems of the government's legislation over just
what will be determined to be a violent offence.
Under our proposals there are to be just two categories of
offence, namely violent offences and non-violent offences.
Violent offences are defined as those within a list of named
offences. The list has been taken directly from the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act.
Violent offences will be those that federal legislation already
uses to determine safety concerns when considering how to treat
adult offenders. By following this list we are being consistent,
we are being all inclusive, and we are being transparent so that
Canadians citizens, our courts, and offenders will know why and
how our youth justice process will operate.
There will be no guessing. There will be no extensive legal
argument. If an offender is charged with a specific offence on
the list, that offender will be processed in a predetermined
manner. The courts still retain all the powers and discretion to
apply specific circumstances to each specific case. If the
offence is not on the list, the offence will be classified as a
non-violent offence.
Our Motion No. 44 would similarly eliminate the definition of
“serious violent offence”. There would be no presumptive
offence designation; there would be only non-violent and violent
offences, as I spoke to before. We have a “serious violent
offence” designation, but only if the crown attorney makes
application and the court sees fit to endorse the information. We
have an overly restrictive list of presumptive offences. Under
our proposal, violent offences are specifically listed. No
interpretation will be necessary.
Again Motion No. 49 speaks to the whole issue of violent offence
and presumptive offence. Leaving the terms undefined will not
ease the difficulty; it will just put the problem into the courts
to be interpreted. This will be costly and will delay justice
once again as the legal argument is made and the appeals have to
be heard. It is the responsibility and obligation of parliament
to present laws that do the job. We should not put off these
problems on to the courts.
Our proposals at least attempt to clarify what will be a violent
offence and what will be a non-violent offence.
1325
The present definition within the legislation states “An
offence that causes or creates a substantial risk of bodily
harm”. That definition will keep lawyers and judges busy for
years to come and is open to various interpretations. Just like
conditional sentencing, it will bring criticism and
dissatisfaction from our citizens when it is limited in scope.
Easy questions of fraud upon the elderly will obviously be
determined to be outside this definition, but many of our seniors
may well be hurt much more seriously on being defrauded of their
life savings than if they were hit over the head and robbed of
their cash on hand.
What happens to the offence of sexual assault? Will an offence
be determined to be violent if the victim does not fight her
aggressor? Will it be a violent offence if the purse snatcher is
successful in grabbing the purse from a senior citizen without
knocking her over? Where will the line be drawn between what is
a violent offence and what is non-violent?
The definition proposed by this amendment clearly lists the
offences to be included within the category of violent offence.
We avoid these interpretation difficulties, we avoid the cost and
time of legal argument, and we bring greater certainty to our
laws.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the
amendments before the House on Bill C-3.
Let me begin my remarks by saying this is a bad piece of
legislation. It is a bill the government has typically brought
forth after seven and a half years of promising it would try to
fix our youth criminal justice system.
Let us be frank. What we have seen happen here is the
government has tried, in its typical form, to do all things to
all people to fix this situation. As a result it will please no
one. As a result, we have a piece of legislation that is
unworkable, cumbersome, complicated and confusing. At the end of
the day it will make worse a system that is already struggling
and not working. It will make the situation worse for Canadians,
worse for youth, worse for parents, worse for police, and worse
for all those in the system who are struggling to make it work.
One of the initial underpinnings of the criminal justice system,
coupled with the usual protection of the public and coupled with
elements and philosophies of rehabilitation, was deterrence and
denunciation for those who cross the line, those who choose in
their wisdom to act in a way irresponsible and contrary to the
laws of the land.
This bill, like others we have seen brought forward, is
completely devoid of any reference to deterrence, of any
reference to the fact that society, the public, and the
government have a right to express their dismay with those who
choose to break the law. This is not to say we should ever go
too heavily in that regard, but it should be there. Courts use
it. Lawyers refer to it. Judges have it at their disposal to
mete out as part of a sentence references to the word
“deterrence”, general and specific deterrence. That is meant
not only to aim this sort of justice at the offender, but also to
send a message to those who choose to act in a like fashion. This
bill is devoid of that concept. It is devoid of that philosophy.
My loquacious friend from the Bloc has taken it upon
himself—and as has been referred to, it is his right to do
so—to express his outrage on behalf of his party. He says on
behalf of his province that this is the only way he can get his
message heard. It is a sad comment that here we are now debating
in a summary fashion on the floor of the House of Commons
amendments to this bill, which is perhaps the most important we
will see in this session of parliament.
We heard from witnesses from across the country, many of whom
expressed extreme reservations about the way in which the bill
has been tabled. The government has admitted its failure in
putting forward over 150 amendments to its own bill, which only
has 199 clauses. That is an absolute condemnation by the
Department of Justice of its own work.
What has happened is that the opposition has had to resort to
extreme measures. I believe this has now gone over the top. This
has now gone far beyond what was intended as a statement in terms
of trying to bring the government back to the centre, back to a
point where there can at least be reasoned discussions as to how
we compromise, how we bring about some feeling that we can at
least bring about legislation that will be responsible, that will
respond to the needs of Canadians but will also respond to the
lack of resources that exists.
1330
That as an underpinning in this legislation is telling Canadians
they should do more. It is telling the people in the system they
should do more with less. It is saying “We are going to give
you the ability through legislation to do more counselling, to do
early intervention, for police to now sit in the living rooms of
Canadians with their children to discuss how it is that we remedy
these problems of young people who have gone astray”. At the
same time there is not a single commitment, not even a reference
to the fact that police, parole boards, counsellors, social
services, anyone involved in the criminal justice is going to
receive further resources, further back-up, a further strategy
even to adjust and to react to an escalating situation of more
violence among young people.
Perhaps most startling, Mr. Speaker, and you would be aware of
this as someone who follows the criminal justice system, is the
escalation of violence among young women. It is something that
has caught the attention of many Canadians that to their shock
and horror this is happening. It is happening across the
country. It is not limited to cities. It is happening in rural
Canada as much as it is in our cities.
This entire piece of legislation is such an inadequate response
to the problems that exist. It is such a convoluted, cumbersome,
bureaucratic, red tape response that it is going to make the
system worse.
Much of the commentary on the bill and the debate in the House
in the coming days and weeks, if it comes to that, is going to
point out a lot of the technical problems that exist with the
legislation. One of the problems I hasten to point out is that
it creates in essence new procedures that are already not working
in the adult system.
I am speaking specifically of preliminary inquiries. Ironically
the justice department envisions a system where we may limit the
use of preliminary inquiries in some instances. That is already
being done in some jurisdictions. The new territory of Nunavut
is collapsing the justice system to make it more efficient and
streamlined. What are we doing as a result? We are taking the
same systems that are failing and pulling them into the new youth
criminal justice system.
Similarly we are taking a system that was never intended to be
used for violent offences that pertain to sexual assaults—I am
talking of conditional sentences—and lo and behold what do we
find? Yes, wait for it, the justice department in its wisdom has
decided to bring conditional sentences into the youth criminal
justice system. Once again it is applying them to crimes which
they should not be applied to and judges are being given that
discretion. In fairness, judges have to listen to the arguments,
they have to listen to the constitutional submissions that will
be put forward by lawyers. Lo and behold once again there is a
gaping hole in our justice system, something that is not working
for adults, and we are bringing it like a plague into the youth
criminal justice system.
I mentioned preliminary inquires. It is also introducing a
parole system for young people. If there was any redeeming
feature in the old Young Offenders Act it was that when a judge
specified a young person was going to be incarcerated in the
worst of all circumstances, when there was no other alternative
available, a young person would receive a sentence and would do
every day of that sentence. There was the confidence that the
young person would do every stick of time that the judge in his
or her wisdom decided was appropriate.
What are we going to see now? We are going to see a parole
system foisted on the young offender system. Now young people
are going to be released at the discretion of an official who is
working within the system. I do not mean to cast aspersions on
the entire system or whitewash this problem, but we have seen
problems in the adult system, such as the 50:50 release plan that
was put in place by the former commissioner of corrections. We
have seen a philosophy where we have to get people out of the
prison system, even putting people at risk on occasion. Lo and
behold the justice department through these amendments, through
this bill intends to put in place a system that will undermine
this concept.
I hesitate to use the words truth in sentencing, but at least
there was an indication that when a person received a sentence he
or she would do that time under the old Young Offenders Act. That
will be wiped out, completely taken out of existence by the
amendments the new bill has brought in.
1335
That is not to say we should not allow judges to use discretion.
Surely we have to support judges in their very difficult duty in
a very difficult time. Crime is becoming more complicated. It is
becoming more pervasive certainly in different areas. We know
for a fact that young people are becoming involved in crime at an
earlier age, which is another amendment I will hopefully speak to
later in the debate.
The minister stated the intention when this bill was introduced
and reintroduced in her many comments outside the House, through
the public forum of the press gallery as opposed to on the floor
of the House. If the intention is truly about early
intervention, if it is truly about borrowing the concepts of
restorative justice, better community involvement, more
involvement of parents, more involvement that focuses on
reconciliation with the crime, with the offender, with the
community that has been offended, why would we want to prevent
the ability to bring young people in at the earliest stage?
This is not to suggest that crime is rampant among very young
children that are outside the parameters of the Young Offenders
Act, that is to say under the age of 12. This summer there was a
recent example of a young man, 11 years old, who walked into a
bank to rob it. Under the current system there is no mechanism
to respond to that.
If we can transfer youth to adult court, we should be able to
transfer children to youth court. The minister has completely
closed her mind to this. She has not responded to the wishes of
the provincial attorneys general. She has not responded to the
wishes of reasoned individuals who have put forward evidence that
this should happen. It is indicative again of a closed mind,
holier than thou approach, an approach which says “We will
bestow upon the country the system that we feel is appropriate”.
It is wrong. It is not going to work. Hopefully throughout this
debate we can demonstrate in opposition that there are reasonable
amendments that should take place for the legislation to work.
The Deputy Speaker: Before the House resumes debate, I
know there are a lot of popular members in the House who receive
telephone calls, but I remind hon. members that cellular
telephones are not permitted in the Chamber.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in response to some of the comments made and
to discuss some of the amendments moved in this large group of
amendments. It is important first of all that we come to some
kind of understanding as to how we arrived at this point today.
My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said we are
debating amendments to what may be the most complex piece of
legislation to come before the House of Commons in this setting.
Indeed, one colleague who has been here a lot longer than I have
told me that this was the most complex piece of legislation after
the Income Tax Act.
The bill was introduced in the last session of parliament. It
was then unfortunately numbered Bill C-68, not a popular bill
number for the Minister of Justice. It went before committee and
there was some discussion at first reading. Then for whatever
reason, it was determined that parliament would prorogue and the
legislation died. It came back as Bill C-3. It has had a long
life.
Those watching and those who read Hansard will know that
the Minister of Justice was questioned time and time again on
this bill. Members asked when it would be brought forward by the
government and they were told it would be in a timely fashion and
it was. Unfortunately the debate has not taken place in a timely
fashion.
Sadly, when this complex piece of legislation was in committee,
there was no opportunity to debate the necessary and important
amendments that have been placed before the House by different
parties. Those amendments fall in different camps and different
areas. On behalf of the New Democratic Party I moved 20
amendments, all of which I thought were reasonable and sensible,
some of which would have been healthy to debate at committee. My
colleagues from the Conservative Party moved another 40 or so. We
will not talk about what some of those were because they are not
in this group of amendments.
Let me say that there were problems with this bill on the day
that it was announced. I outlined the problems and I had hoped
that by the time the legislation came to the House some of those
problems would have been resolved.
We now know that there was an opportunity to resolve them.
1340
I think the thrust of the bill is that the Minister of Justice
has attempted to appease both those who want tougher sentences
for children and those who call for restorative justice. It is a
difficult balancing act.
There are some good measures in the bill that deal with
extrajudicial sentencing. By extrajudicial measures we mean ways
to deal with young people who find themselves in trouble with the
law on their first or second offence, not a serious offence, who
in many instances are acting out against society. There are
provisions in the bill that allow the community to get involved
in a restorative justice sense, to help work with a young person.
The problem is that the provinces are to administer the criminal
justice system.
At the federal level we pass the legislation dealing with the
criminal code and the criminal youth justice act. It is then left
to the provinces to administer the law we create. Part of the
problem with the bill is that the resources will not be there to
put in place the extrajudicial measures that might be so helpful
to young people who find themselves in trouble with the law for a
first or second time.
I do not know of one attorney general at the provincial level
across the country who thinks the resources allocated by the
federal government will be sufficient to put in place those
measures.
I remember when the Young Offenders Act, which we are replacing,
was first introduced. We ran into the same problem. I was
practising in the courts in those days. On many occasions a young
person would come before the judge and the judge would not want
to send the young person to jail. The act had provisions for
other measures but the province had no money. What was written on
paper and what was provided for in the law were not put into
effect by the provinces. When I questioned the Minister of
Justice on this she felt that the resources were adequate and
given the tight financial circumstances we found ourselves in as
a nation, there were no more resources.
We know now there was a $12 billion surplus. It has gone to pay
down the debt because it was not allocated for any of the other
programs that might have found the money useful. I submit that
putting in place this comprehensive piece of legislation and
asking the provinces to take on the administration of it, those
provinces could have used some of the resources the government
found itself with. It would ensure that young people who come
into conflict with the law would at first instance have the
benefit of working with their community and the community would
have the resources to work with them.
After all, we are all responsible for the children in our
country. All of us are responsible for the children in our
community. When a child breaks the law it is a call to all of us
to respond. Poorer communities will not be able to take
advantage. Poorer provinces, especially the have not provinces,
and there are more of them than the have ones, will not be able
to take advantage of some of the good, proactive measures that
are in Bill C-3.
The other thing the Minister of Justice did in an effort to calm
members of what was then the Reform Party was to make the law
tougher, if that is the word one wants to use, at the other end.
In the bill is legislation which allows a judge to send 14 year
olds to do adult time if necessary. Under the previous
legislation it was rare; an adult sentence would not be imposed
on a young person unless he or she was over 16. This bill goes a
little further than that. It allows the court to sentence a 14
year old to adult time for certain types of offences or if the
judge feels it is necessary.
My colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has talked
about judicial discretion. That is where I disagree with him,
and I do not disagree with him often.
1345
When we are dealing with young people in particular, no one is
in a better position to understand the type of sentence that
young person needs than the judge who has heard all the evidence,
has seen the parents in court, has seen the victim in court, has
seen, sometimes, the victim's parents in court, and has access to
all kinds of information from social workers and doctors. No one
has that information except the judge.
Surely if we are going to provide judicial discretion in any
area of the law, that judicial discretion should be used in the
case of young offenders. I have worked in the criminal court
system and the criminal youth justice system for a long time.
The complexity of those cases can be understood only by the
judges.
There has been a shift, but before I go on to that I want to
respond to the case that was raised, about the 11 year old who
went in and committed a bank robbery. I submit that the
appropriate measures were taken. That was a young boy. He
did not know what he was doing. What became clear in the
investigation was that there was an adult who directed this boy
to do something. Surely the person to be charged is the adult.
If we are going to start elevating 11 and 10 year olds
to the criminal justice system, then I wonder where we stop.
An hon. member: Pampers in the courtroom.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, Pampers in the courtroom.
There is a strange conundrum here. When we are dealing with
crime what we know under the rule of law is that to be convicted
of committing a crime one must have a knowledge of what it means
to commit the crime. That is an adult concept. We do not let 14
year olds drive cars. We do not let 12 year olds go into the
liquor store. We do that because we know they do not possess the
necessary judgment. Yet some members of the House are prepared
to send them to jail. I have serious questions about that
aspect, but my time is up.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it is a privilege to speak to
Bill C-3, but seeing where we are today it is less than a
privilege to address the problems we are having with the bill.
I want to go back in time a little. Since being elected in 1993
I have been working on issues of justice. In 1995 or 1996 I met
a fellow whose name was Cadman. He had lost his son. His son
was murdered by a young offender. I heard him speak many times,
in British Columbia in particular, about the need for change. I
thought he was a good speaker who was certainly dedicated to the
issue.
When it came time to look for nominees for the 1997 election, I
approached him. I said that if he wanted to go further with this
issue, why not become a member of parliament, go into the House
of Commons and make a change? Today that person is the hon.
member for Surrey North, who is somewhat frustrated, as we could
hear a little while ago. He has headed up the Young Offenders
Act for us from the day he came into the House in 1997.
I know a lot of emotions about this run through his mind, and I
think back to the meeting we had in a restaurant in Langley. I
said that if he became a member of parliament he could make
substantial changes and all the things that happened to Jesse
would at least be the start of major change in the years ahead.
What do I find? I find that for at least the last decade
Canadians have been looking for changes to the Young Offenders
Act. For the past seven years we have had a Liberal government
in place and for seven years we have had no substantive changes
to the Young Offenders Act.
1350
Here we are, before an election, rushing through the House of
Commons a bill effecting changes to the Young Offenders Act. I
must say that in many cases the changes are poor at best. They
leave out a lot of things that many witnesses who came before
committee have asked for and will not get.
This bill was tabled two years ago. One could hardly say it has
been rushed, but what has been rushed is that at the last minute
we find some 3,000 amendments before us, some 150 of them made by
the government to its own legislation, some 50 amendments made by
the Canadian Alliance and on and on. With that many amendments,
the legislation obviously is not good enough.
One could say that perhaps with all the amendments accepted we
could make an omnibus change bill and things would get done and
would change for the better, but there are some serious things in
this bill that will not get changed. One wonders why, after its
seven long years in office, the substantive things we are looking
for will not get finalized by the government.
Why not allow the publication of the names of young offenders
convicted of serious offences? That is not included in the bill.
It was discussed and recommended by probably the vast majority of
witnesses who came before members of the House of Commons. In
the final analysis this was ignored by the government.
Why not carry over youth records to adult records? So many
times I have been involved with inmates who have committed other
crimes after they have been released from prison. We look for
their records. We see what is behind these individuals. When
we talk to corrections people all we get is a shrug of the
shoulders. They say that they did not know the individual was as
bad as that. They say that the other part of his history was as
a young offender and they do not know about that. They are not
allowed to know. They are not allowed to put it on his record.
People like me or the police cannot see it. It is as simple as
that.
Why not allow the carrying over of youth records? What is wrong
with that? Why, after the government's seven years in office,
does this issue continue to get ignored? Why, after this bill is
passed by a majority government, will it not be included? We all
know that it will be a long time before the government again
tables legislation on the Young Offenders Act.
Why not include young offenders who are aged 10 to 15? What is
wrong with that? Time and again the government has been told
about the need to get 10 and 11 year olds not necessarily
incarcerated but onto a path to try to change them when they do
get into trouble. What is wrong with that? Why did it not get
addressed?
It is interesting to see that with all these amendments before
us, many of them coming from the Bloc, which is stalling for time
to make it difficult for the government because that party is
upset at the bill, there are changes in the bill that are
necessary. My fear is that they will get tossed out by the
government because there are so many amendments to the bill.
1355
I agree with the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on
his point of order this morning. He asked the Chair to have a
look at this situation. We are going to be looking at amendments
to the bill that are really just wasting time.
It is important that the House understand the need to have
changes to the Young Offenders Act. We have been demanding them
for well over a decade. The Liberals are into their seventh year
of responsibility for the act. Still, at the end of the day we
will be faced with nothing substantive. What do we do when we
get to third reading and find that all we are dealing with is the
shell of what we wanted?
I think it is time for the government to call an election. I
think it is time that we put issues like this before the people.
In my opinion the government has a poor track record on many
things, but the one thing in justice that it will be hauled up on
is the lack of substantial action on the Young Offenders Act,
something we have all been looking for.
I apologize to the member for Surrey North. I thought he could
come to the House and get substantial changes to something that
he wanted very badly, like the rest of Canadians. It is just too
darn bad that the Liberal government is not listening.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is almost 2.00 p.m.
Before I recognize the next speaker, we will now proceed to
statements by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
THE LATE HON. JACQUES FLYNN
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, former Quebec senator Jacques Flynn, who was the leader
of the Conservative Party in the Upper Chamber for 17 years,
died in Quebec City on Thursday, at the age of 85.
Mr. Flynn was called to the bar in 1939. He was elected member
of parliament for Québec-Sud in 1958 and became deputy speaker of
the House in 1960. Among other positions, he held the job of
Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Later on, he also
became Minister of Justice and Attorney General, in June 1979.
Mr. Flynn was known as a person of great judgment and wisdom.
His knowledge of the country and his understanding of Quebec
were also appreciated. Mr. Flynn retired from the Senate in
1990, when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 75.
We wish to offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Flynn's family.
* * *
[English]
ROY ROMANOW
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
retirement of a long time fixture on the national stage, the hon.
Roy Romanow. How could we ever forget the historic role he
played in the debate on repatriating the constitution 20 years
ago?
Mr. Romanow has wisely called for a new generation of
politicians to step forward. As an MP who is stepping down at
the next election, I agree. We may have disagreed on many issues
in the past, but I certainly share his view that it is time for
new leadership, not only at the provincial level but at the
federal level as well.
Sayonara, Roy.
The Speaker: I am glad the hon. member tried another
language.
* * *
[Translation]
ARTHRITIS MONTH
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, allow me to remind this House and all Canadians that
September is arthritis month.
Arthritis is a serious disease that threatens the independence
and quality of life of hundreds of thousands of Canadian men and
women. In fact, over four million Canadians suffer from one form
or another of arthritis, which is one of the most widespread
chronic diseases in Canada and the number one cause of long term
disability.
1400
There is no cure for arthritis and the direct and indirect costs
of this disease are enormous. Public awareness campaigns and a
healthy life style can help relieve certain damaging effects of
arthritis.
[English]
Quality of life for these four million Canadians and their
families is dependent upon the efforts of government and
non-government stakeholders to address issues related to our
practice of patient care.
Health Canada will continue its longstanding collaboration with
arthritis organizations dedicated to helping Canadians manage the
impacts of this disease.
[Translation]
I ask the House to join me in wishing the Arthritis Society a
very successful month.
* * *
MCWATTERS MINING COMPANY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
open-pit production at the McWatters mining company's
Sigma-Lamaque complex, scheduled to take place over a period of
15 years, will respect the population and the environment,
promised CEO Claire Derome.
The vast majority of residents of Val-d'Or who attended the
unveiling of the McWatters conservation plan said they were
satisfied with the measures the mining company would be taking
to protect the people and the landscape of Val-d'Or.
I was present at the first meeting and I know that McWatters and
all employees of the mine at Val-d'Or will keep every one of
their promises.
* * *
[English]
OLYMPICS 2000
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to Mathieu
Turgeon of Unionville, Ontario, an awesome Canadian athlete who
won an Olympic bronze medal in the Sydney Games.
Born in Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Mr. Turgeon competed in the first
ever Olympic trampoline competition. He shares his experience
and success with Karen Cockburn, another dedicated Canadian who
also earned a bronze medal in last Thursday's women's trampoline
event.
A kinesiology student at York University, Mr. Turgeon is sure to
have a bright future on and off the trampoline. I am sure all of
us in the House join Mr. Turgeon's family and friends in
congratulating him on his outstanding performance in Sydney. All
Canadians can take pride in this great Olympic moment. We are
proud of him. Way to go, Mathieu.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is two years since Joey Hache presented a petition to the
Prime Minister with over 30,000 signatures calling for
compensation for all those victims of hepatitis C from tainted
blood.
While other kids were out that summer enjoying themselves,
having a good time playing sports, Joey chose to ride his bicycle
across the country to raise awareness of this issue. He is sick
himself with hepatitis C.
The Prime Minister chose to take a narrow legalistic definition
of those who are sick with hepatitis C who would be compensated.
He turned his back on Joey Hache and he turned his back on many
other victims of hepatitis C.
I have had an opportunity to talk with many Liberal caucus
members and I know they did not agree with that stand. It is a
shame he took that stand.
One politician in Canada took a different stand. Mike Harris
decided that he would compensate all victims of hepatitis C and
he did that unilaterally. Once again it is a shame that Joey
Hache, as a teenager, has to stand as the conscience of the Prime
Minister on hepatitis C.
* * *
OLYMPICS 2000
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Saturday, Canada won a bronze medal in the women's
eight rowing competition at the Sydney Olympics. It was an
incredibly emotional moment.
The team of rowers included Buffy Alexander from St. Catharines,
Ontario; Laryssa Biesenthal from Walkerton, Ontario; Heather
Davis from Vancouver, British Columbia; Alison Korn from Nepean,
Ontario; Theresa Luke from Mile House, British Columbia; Heather
McDermid from Calgary, Alberta; Emma Robinson from Winnipeg,
Manitoba; and coxswain Lesley Thompson from Toronto, Ontario. For
most of these women it was a repeat performance to the podium,
having won either a bronze or a silver medal at the Olympic Games
in Atlanta.
These athletes have managed to reach such heights thanks to
their extreme hard work, dedication and sacrifices. I am sure
all members join me in congratulating them and thanking them for
the honour they bring to Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SYDNEY OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, three bronze
medals for some real high flyers: they were won by 10-metre
diver Anne Montminy, and trampolinists Karen Cockburn and
Mathieu Turgeon, in a sport making its debut at the Olympics.
1405
Our thoughts now turn to the Lareau-Nestor men's tennis doubles
team, which has already captured one silver medal and could pull
off a gold later this week, to young Quebec diver Alexandre
Despatie, to the personable kayaker Caroline Brunet, and to
cyclists Lyne Bessette and Geneviève Jeanson.
The Bloc Quebecois pays tribute to each of these athletes for
their discipline and tenacity, their unwavering commitment to
their dream, and their desire to be in top shape in order to
deliver their best performance and bring home a much-coveted
medal.
* * *
[English]
KAY WALTERS
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
sadly Mrs. Kay Walters of Vancouver, B.C., passed away recently.
Her devotion to helping the poor, caring for the sick and
advancing minority rights are fine examples for all Canadians.
Through her work at the Jewish Community Centre, the Canadian
Arthritis Research Institute and her constant support for arts
and cultural organizations, Kay Walters touched many lives. She
was a wonderful wife to Dr. Max Walters and a loving mother to
David, Lorne and Mona.
I salute Kay for all the love and kindness she brought to our
community. She will be deeply missed.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I spent this summer truly looking forward to returning
to the House of Commons and to reports of a new, improved
Correctional Service Canada minus Ingstrup, but memories of the
previous era continue and the solicitor general has no one left
to blame.
Correctional Service Canada still seems to be falling short on
the fundamentals. I had always thought that the concept was to
remove criminals from society, but here I have a report where a
convicted drug trafficker, housed in the most violent offender
section at Millhaven, was able to set up a home office for
himself. Using a cell phone he successfully imported Colombian
drugs into Toronto as well as planned a Rambo-like escape using
military weapons.
It must be simple to smuggle drugs when a body cavity search
fails to notice a cellular phone. It must have been one of those
super small flip phones. My lesson for the solicitor general is
that it is time to tear down Correctional Service Canada and
rebuild the whole system, not build on yesterday's mistakes. By
the way, that is not why they are called cell phones.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I spent the summer canvassing my riding of Hamilton Mountain,
talking to my constituents about the issues that concern them the
most.
In overwhelming numbers they were most concerned about the
future of our health care system. They not only wanted more
money for health care, but they wanted leadership from
government.
The government delivered both. In my riding constituents wanted
to know why the opposition is so pessimistic about the future of
the country. They told me that their families are better off
today than when we took office in 1993 and that their futures
have never looked brighter.
The Liberal government is delivering the leadership Canadians
expect and deserve. Congratulations to the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Health.
* * *
ROY ROMANOW
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the dean
of Canadian premiers has just announced he will be stepping down.
Throughout a lifetime in politics, Saskatchewan's Roy Romanow has
always demonstrated personal integrity, dedication to duty, and
that there is nothing more noble than public service.
He joined the NDP during the 1962 strike by doctors over
medicare. During 11 years Mr. Romanow was Saskatchewan's deputy
premier on tumultuous issues including repatriation of the
Canadian constitution and provincial control over natural
resources.
In 1987 he was acclaimed leader of the Saskatchewan NDP and
elected premier four years later. Although his government
inherited the largest debt deficit per capita that any provincial
government ever faced, within four years his cabinet and the hard
working people of the province had cleaned up the mess and
Saskatchewan was able to introduce new progressive social
programs dealing with child poverty in particular.
Premier Roy Romanow remains a great New Democrat and a great
Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Confection
Haut de Gamme Industrielle de Québec is a co-operative recently
set up by 21 women after three years of efforts by a number of
partners in the community. Most of these women had been on
social assistance and they took a nine-month course on the use of
high tech equipment for the production of top-of-the-line clothing.
An officer of Human Resources Development Canada was involved in
the creation of this project and deemed it acceptable in all
aspects for the Canada jobs fund program.
Now the department has refused to hand over the $105,000
earmarked for the project, claiming that these women were being
paid when they were in fact on training. Although departmental
representatives have acknowledged the error, they have refused
to reverse the decision and to pay out the amount planned.
1410
This decision has placed the future of the co-operative in
jeopardy. Would the federal government prefer to see these 21
women back on employment insurance or welfare? Is this the new
face of federal government compassion?
* * *
[English]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
heard it again from educators and students in Manitoba and
British Columbia. People want national leadership and they
believe that the federal government should provide that
leadership. These Canadians want leadership in higher education;
others want national leadership in health care; and others in
employment standards. Many believe that we should have national
standards in water quality.
I urge all parties in the House to behave like federal parties.
It is our job to act in the national interest for all Canadians.
It is not our job to think of only one region or one group or to
actively set one region against another. Canada is stronger than
the sum of its parts. It is our job to keep it so.
* * *
POLICE AND PEACE OFFICERS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, over 4,000 peace officers, their families and
friends gathered on Parliament Hill to participate in the annual
memorial service. What began in 1978 as a special service for
police officers killed in the line of duty has expanded to honour
all those in the law enforcement community who make the ultimate
sacrifice of laying down their lives in the preservation of
justice, safety and stability.
This year, as before, was marked with the tragic loss of five
additional lives. The names of Charles Mercier, Daniel Rowan,
James McFadden, Mark Nieuwenhuis and Margaret Eve were added to
the honour roll and will be carved in stoic granite stones on
Parliament Hill in the memorial pavilion at the rear of the
Chamber.
The faces of the family members and the officers assembled
reminded us all of the sad reality of the moment. As the
bagpipes pierced the autumn air yesterday and the shots of the
two gun salute rang out, those assembled were reminded once again
how much we owe our law enforcement community.
Those who bravely and voluntarily put themselves in harm's way
to protect and serve our country are truly heroes and we will
never forget them.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Windsor
and Essex county on Thursday, September 21, 2000.
The Prime Minister was very well received both at the official
announcement of a new $500 million investment in research and
development by Daimler Chrysler and later that evening at a
Liberal Party fund raising dinner.
A sold out audience of over 1,000 people gave the Prime Minister
an enthusiastic reception as they heard him speak passionately
about issues that concern all Canadians, including a balanced
approach to debt repayment, the continuing need to lower taxes
and to make important investments in health care, education and
children. Bravo.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the election must be getting close.
The Liberal ads are getting bigger and better.
The minister of agriculture stubbornly refuses to admit that all
his multi-million promises to Canadian farmers are not worth the
paper his press releases are printed on. Farmers wait months for
responses to their requests for assistance after spending
hundreds of dollars getting them prepared by professional
accountants.
I suggest to the minister that his programs are too complex for
the people who need help. As it is, 58% of the claims in
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, two of the hardest hit areas, are
rejected. Ninety per cent of claims for 1999 remain unprocessed.
I suggest to the minister that his programs are too complex for
the people he has running them.
On Friday the minister stated that the full commitment of $600
million had been disbursed for 1998. That is not so. In fact
that is the total including the 40% provincial contribution; a
couple of dollars short. Of the promised 1.7 billion federal
dollars only 41% has gone out to the few farmers who have been
able to fight through the government red tape.
Clearly it would be enlightening to have all Canadians check the
facts on this government.
* * *
PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, drug
prices are the fastest growing costs in our health care system.
We now spend more on drugs than we do on the salaries of doctor.
In 1993 the Liberals promised to reduce drug prices. Instead
they broke those promises and left the pharmaceutical companies
with a 20 year patent protection on their products even though a
generic company can often produce the same product for a fraction
of the cost.
This situation has turned into the greatest corporate rip-off in
Canadian history worth billions per year in unnecessary costs to
our health care system and putting billions into the pockets of
drug companies, the Liberal Party's corporate friends and
sponsors.
What was a problem in 1993 is now an emergency. We hear of
seniors who must choose between paying their rent and paying for
their drugs. We hear of seniors who cut their daily medication
in half to make their prescription last longer.
1415
Incredibly we are now hearing of people being forced to move
from province to province, shopping for the best deal, the best
coverage to meet their health care costs. So much for national
standards and so much for a national pharmacare plan. It is
another Liberal broken promise, this time one that costs more
than just money. It costs—
The Speaker: We will now proceed to oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am excited today. There is a whiff
of democracy in the air because some Liberal MPs are beginning to
speak out against the practice of the Prime Minister of not
letting them vote for their constituents.
Will the Prime Minister inhale this fragrance of freedom, send a
signal, and stand to say that he will not punish his MPs in any
way if in 24 hours they vote for the Canadian Alliance motion to
lower taxes? Will he keep them free from punishment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last seven years there were a lot more free votes
on this side of House than on the other side.
I would like to say that while the hon. Leader of the Opposition
was with the Government of Alberta he was asked for a free vote
on same sex benefits at that time as was permitted in Ontario. He
said this was Alberta and it was not on the agenda. His answer
was no.
A few months ago there was a request for a free vote on Bill
C-11. Some MLAs of the Conservative Party wanted a free vote. He
went there to make sure that there was not to be any.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. A very
hon. premier just resigned today and I truly respect that man. He
was right when he said that we needed a new generation of
leaders. The reason for that is obvious with that response.
Will the Prime Minister, who disagrees with his finance minister
on the high marginal rates of taxes and who now disagrees with
his MPs, do one of two things? Will he either resign because he
has no support over there or call an election based on his record
of being the highest taxing leader in the G-7 countries?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago he was for an early election. Over the
weekend he was not for an early election. Now he is for an early
election again. This gentleman flip-flops so much that we are
having fun on this side.
I tell him that Canadians know the person I am, a politician who
has served Canada for more than 37 years. I will never be afraid
to go in front of the Canadian people with my record and the
record of the Liberal government.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it is an exciting record. In the
olympics of high taxation Canadians deserve the gold medal for
having to carry the heaviest weight of taxes of any of the G-7
countries.
Will the Prime Minister do something about the fact that for
people to move from low income to middle income it is the
greatest and most difficult leap of any of the G-7 nations
because of the high marginal rates? Will he lower these rates?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last budget the Minister of Finance reduced the
rate for middle income earners in Canada. We did that in the
last budget.
We have reduced taxes for three years since we balanced the
books. We balanced the books. We had a $42 billion deficit. Now
we have a surplus. We have started to reduce the national debt.
We have started to reduce the income tax for people. We have
invested in health and in universities.
I am telling the House that Canadian people are quite satisfied
with the performance of this government.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, since he will not answer the question
on whether he will protect his MPs if they vote for the people,
and since he will not do anything about marginal rates, will he
answer a question related to his own advisory committee on
science and technology which said that brain drain was continuing
in the country?
Young people, entrepreneurial people, hard working people
continue to leave. A year ago he said let them leave if they
want to leave. Is that still his answer today?
1420
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have acted in a very responsible fashion. Of course
some people from Canada will go abroad for opportunities and some
will come from abroad to Canada.
When we created the chairs of excellence program we were praised
because thousands of the best brains would stay in Canada or
would come here because this government is looking at the future.
We are very proud of our record on that program.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the court of public opinion I find
the Prime Minister in contempt of the people for not answering
these questions. I have no further questions for this
unco-operative witness.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stockwell Day: I will ask the Minister of National
Revenue if he has run the econometric models to show that we can
lower taxes and still maintain the surplus needed to take care of
the debt and social welfare—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I had presumed that the hon.
Leader of the Opposition had finished his question because I
could not hear it. We deserve to hear both the question and the
answer in question period.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think I can answer the hon. member. We did not just make
promises, we have begun to cut taxes.
Everyone knows that the program we put forward will cut personal
income taxes of the people of Canada in the next few years by an
average of 23%. For example, people with two children earning
$60,000 a year will have their income tax cut by 35.6%. This is
what the government is doing, we are reducing taxes. At the
same time, we are reducing the debt and we have invested a lot
in health care. I see the Minister of Health smiling, he was
very happy to—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government's budget surpluses were predictable. If nothing is
done, this money will be invested according to the whim of the
Minister of Finance without any discussion or his making his
intentions known.
Does the Prime Minister not see a need for his government to
present a mini budget in order to deal with emergencies such as
employment insurance, the price of gasoline and especially
reductions in income tax?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have a tax reduction program. The Minister of Finance has said
himself that the additional resources we have received will
enable him, at the appropriate time, to lower taxes more quickly
than expected. This is good management. Fortunately, we had
revenues higher than we expected, because the economy is doing
much better than foreseen, and everyone should be pleased at
this, including the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would point out that we said last year there would be $11.5
billion in surpluses, and the Minister of Finance was expecting
$3 billion. I am convinced that he knew as well as we did. The
problem is that he does not want this debate. The government is
making promises without substance.
Does the Prime Minister not see the need for a mini budget so
that we have more than just election promises with no guarantee
that they will be kept when the time comes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since July there have been reductions in taxes that will total
$4 billion over the year and that will benefit taxpayers.
Perhaps we could speed up the process even more.
Exactly two weeks ago, we decided to inject $21 billion over
five years, that is, more than $4 billion annually, into health
services in Canada. The hon. members were totally in agreement.
That means that, of the $12 billion announced, $8 billion has
been already allocated. That is two thirds.
1425
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should look at the next five years, not the past
year. The forecasts of his Minister of Finance apply to the next
five years.
In the first four months of the current fiscal year, the federal
government has accumulated an $11 billion surplus, compared to
last year. By the end of the year, the surplus will exceed $21
billion, while the Minister of Finance anticipated a $4 billion
surplus.
Does the Prime Minister realize that if a mini budget is not
tabled in the coming days regarding the allocation of these new
surpluses, the Minister of Finance will do as he did in previous
years and will allocate all the unexpected surpluses, the hidden
surpluses, to debt reduction, without any debate on current
major and urgent social issues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
everyone knows that, under the law, when there is a budget
surplus at the end of a year, that surplus is used to lower the
country's debt.
The hon. member should be pleased that a government which faced
a $42 billion deficit when it took office was able, over the
past three years, to pay more than $20 billion off the national
debt. That had not happened in 50 years.
The hon. member should be pleased, because future generations
will benefit from this reduction of the national debt. He should
congratulate the government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
government that forces people to take to the streets to fight
for their rights because of the drastic cuts made to their
employment insurance benefits does not deserve any
congratulations.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, in the coming months, any
surplus that was not anticipated by the Minister of Finance in
the last budget will be allocated to the debt, even though there
are urgent needs relating to unemployment, gasoline prices and
excess taxes? The money that the Minister of Finance has in his
pockets is money that is no longer in the taxpayers' pockets.
Will the Prime Minister ask that a mini budget be tabled by his
Minister of Finance, who keeps hiding the real figures from us?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Finance always presents an economic report to
the House of Commons in the fall. This report presents the
situation at the half way point during the year. The minister
will make such a presentation again this year.
Things are going well, but I should point out to the hon. member
that, for example, we allocated substantial amounts of money for
health, even for the current year. Right now, all the provincial
governments can buy equipment which they would not have been
able to buy if an agreement had not been reached two weeks ago.
We co-operate with everyone to invest in health, to reduce taxes
and also to provide a very good administration.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Health.
Today, we learned that certain pediatricians in Montreal are
charging up to $60 a shot for standard vaccines that protect our
children against the usual childhood diseases.
What does the minister have to say about this troubling state of
affairs? Will he tell us what he is going to do to put a stop
to this practice?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
intend to raise this matter with Quebec's health minister.
I have asked my officials to investigate to ensure that the
principles of the Canada Health Act are being respected
everywhere at all times.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
spring the health minister said with respect to queue jumping and
user fees for operation rooms in Montreal “We're looking into
it”. With respect to queue jumping and user fees for cataract
surgery in Calgary he said “We're looking into it”. Now we
learn that privatization has taken another step forward, this
time targeting our kids.
Where is the government? How many families will have to pay
$500 for their kids' vaccinations before the government is
willing to take action?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
less than two weeks ago, on September 11, the premier of Quebec
joined with all other premiers and the Prime Minister to reaffirm
their confidence in the Canada Health Act and their adherence to
the principles in the Canada Health Act. I have every confidence
that the minister of health of Quebec will work with this
government to ensure that in the case cited by the hon. member
those principles will be respected.
I have always believed and I believe today that the best answer
for those who would want access to private parallel health
services is to reinforce the public system so there is no market
for private services. That is what we are doing.
* * *
1430
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee on organized crime is set to resume
its study. However, recent events and publicity tell us the time
is getting short.
Canadians and police are very concerned about the government's
inaction on organized crime and the new RCMP commissioner has as
much as told us so.
The subcommittee's work, although valuable, will take far too
long and there is an election looming. Will the Minister of
Justice introduce legislation now to provide law enforcement with
legislation to enhance investigative techniques and to protect
vital information and evidence for Canadians?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of
occasions in the House, we are working with the province of
Quebec and all provinces and territories. We are working with
the RCMP and provincial and local police forces. In fact, we are
very much at work in terms of looking at possible legislative
changes to ensure that law enforcement officials, prosecutors and
judges have the laws and the tools necessary to deal with
organized crime.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister seems to want to reassure the House. But what is clear
is that the subcommittee is beginning its work.
Is the Minister of Justice telling us that, instead of waiting
for the subcommittee to submit a report to the House for debate
here in order to introduce a new bill, she will agree very
quickly to introduce an organized crime bill in the coming
weeks? Could she give us a valid and verifiable timetable?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the subcommittee on
organized crime is hard at work. Certainly the work it does will
help us and enhance not only our work in the federal government
but the work being done in conjunction with the provinces and law
enforcement authorities.
As soon as that work is done we will take whatever steps are
necessary, be it on the legislative side, the resource side or
the investigative tools side, to ensure that we can effectively
deal with organized crime.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, after two months of dithering the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has finally taken a few
tottering steps toward protecting the few remaining lobster in
Miramichi Bay, but he is still in hot water. Lobster catches are
below historical levels across the maritimes.
The minister's failure to protect lobster stocks in Miramichi
Bay, Malpeque Bay and in St. Mary's Bay means that things will be
even worse for fishermen next year. After Burnt Church,
negotiating fisheries' agreements will be even more difficult
than ever.
Looking ahead to next year, what is the minister's plan to deal
with this mess he has created and is he prepared—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the lobster
fishery has been managed extremely well. In fact, lobster
fishermen over the years have greatly benefited from the
excellent management of the lobster fishery.
In terms of Miramichi Bay, I am happy to inform the House that
our enforcement action resulted in 1,351 traps being removed from
Miramichi Bay to protect the resource, without confrontation and
without conflict. I think that is good news. We can now
continue our work to protect the resource. I have always said
that conservation is our number one priority and we will continue
to make sure the resource is protected for all Canadians.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, let us not forget the 40,000 pound
quota and perhaps 300,000 pounds taken out of the bay.
The minister never had a plan to deal with the fallout from the
Marshall decision. He brought in a couple of negotiators, gave
them $160 million and wished them luck. He brought in Bob Rae
and just hoped for the best.
Without a plan, the minister has put lobster stocks, livelihoods
and entire communities at risk. Fishermen want to know now what
the minister's plan is for ending this mess he has created and if
he is prepared to bring that plan before parliament.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our plan was very clear. I went
to the fisheries committee and outlined our plan. Our plan was
also brought forward to the fisheries ministers in Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and P.E.I. They were very supportive. It was
about bringing aboriginal communities into the fisheries and
improving the lives of aboriginal communities. That is why we
had 29 agreements with aboriginal communities. We have built the
foundation to move forward, to create hundreds of jobs and real
opportunity for aboriginal communities.
* * *
1435
[Translation]
BUDGET SURPLUSES
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are
three ways for a government to dispose of unexpected surplus
funds: It can do nothing, as has been done on numerous occasions,
and then the money goes directly on to the debt; it can take
piece-meal decisions, in which case the money is spread around to
win votes; it can bring down a mini budget, hold an informed
debate on the problems facing society, and then take proper
managerial decisions.
Which of these three is the government going to choose?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past seven years, the Bloc
Quebecois has called five times for a mini budget.
[English]
I can say with confidence that Canadians did not need the last
mini budget nor do they need a mini budget today. Furthermore,
it is interesting to note that while we underestimated our
revenues by 3.6%, the province of Quebec has raised its revenue
forecast by 3.8%. This is a national and an international
phenomena. It is a good news story.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe my
question deserved a rather more serious response, since it
addressed a basic problem.
We have always known the Liberals have a tendency to throw money
around all over the place for the purpose of winning votes, of
improving their visibility with the taxpayers.
What we would like to know, and this seems reasonable to me,
given the major social problems confronting our society and the
surplus the Minister of Finance was not expecting—a 300% error—is
what they are planning to do? I feel this is a reasonable
question and deserves a reasonable answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has stated that we are big spenders. I would
like to remind him that, when we formed the government, total
departmental expenditures were $121 billion.
Now, after seven years of Liberal administration, the figure for
government expenditures is $115 billion.
I would challenge the hon. member to find another government in
the world that is spending less on programs after seven years in
power than was being spent when it assumed power.
* * *
[English]
CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to the Kingston city police, 47% of all
convicts released from federal prisons are committing new crimes.
According to the National Parole Board and Correctional Service
Canada, they report between 5% and 15% of freed inmates go on to
commit new crimes. I choose to believe the police.
My question for the solicitor general is, which of these two
statements should Canadians believe, the police or the National
Parole Board?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware of this report.
Neither Correctional Service Canada nor the National Parole Board
were involved. We are evaluating both reports.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, young Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French cannot
celebrate their birthdays anymore. They were only 14 and 15
years of age when Karla Homolka helped torture and murder them.
The newspapers are now showing Homolka celebrating her birthday
in formal attire while serving time with other violent sex
offenders.
My question is for the solicitor general. Where is the justice
in all this?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians I am disgusted by
this crime. However, no matter how we feel, Correctional Service
Canada has a role to play. There must be punishment for the
crime and attempts at rehabilitation. That is exactly what is
taking place.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance has intimated that he could reduce the GST in order
to fight the significant increase in the price of gasoline.
Has the minister really compared the impact of a reduction in
the GST to the solution we proposed, namely, a reduction in the
excise tax, especially since the GST is refunded to truckers and
transport companies in any case. Their solution for truckers is
zero, not one cent more in their pockets.
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the GST was under debate by the
Alliance Party just recently. However, our government is looking
for a comprehensive approach to this issue. The GST, for
example, with respect to truckers, is fully rebated when they
apply for the GST credit. In addition, if we look at the federal
excise tax it is 4 cents a litre for diesel but in Ontario it is
13.5 cents and in Quebec it is a similar amount.
1440
We are working very diligently on the problem. It is a problem
for Canadians. We want to have the right solution that gets in
the hands of consumers, not in the hands of the oil companies.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the question
is what will they do for the truckers if it is not to be this
solution and there is none?
The situation is not going to be resolved with verbiage. What
are they prepared to offer? We want them to lower the excise
tax by 10 cents a litre immediately for consumers and 4 cents a
litre for diesel. Why are they not doing something?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two months ago, the Minister of Finance,
here in the House, proposed to the provinces that they work
together to find solutions to this problem.
However, as far as I know, the minister did not get many calls
from the Quebec minister of finance.
[English]
We have a situation where we are trying to work toward giving
significant relief to Canadian consumers. To do that we have to
have the provinces involved at the table, not just saying things
but actually being part of the solution.
* * *
YOUTH JUSTICE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been demanding changes to the Young
Offenders Act for well over a decade now. After seven years, the
government brings in minor changes which will not satisfy young
people, the police, victims, or anyone else in the country.
Why is it that the government refuses to bring in substantive
changes to the Young Offenders Act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and many
others in the House know, we have been debating the issue of
youth justice in the country for two and one-half years.
As part of our new youth justice strategy we have new youth
justice legislation. It is before the House for debate now.
Unfortunately there have been those who have attempted, dare I
say, to distort or obstruct the process of honest debate on all
sides of the House.
I would say to the hon. member that on this side of the House we
believe we have a balanced package.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, let me give the House an idea of what the minister
thinks is balanced.
Left out of this are changes such as allowing young offenders'
names to be published when they commit violent crimes, carryover
of youth records to adult criminal records, and allowing young
offenders to include ages 10 to 15 years.
The Canadian Alliance would bring in these particular changes.
Why will the Liberal government not? Maybe it is time we had an
election to see who is closer in touch with the people.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is
suggesting that we should criminalize 10-year old children, we on
this side of the House profoundly disagree with him.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is showing tremendous
insensitivity to the plight of people who have been at the mercy
of its EI regime for years now.
But the governing party paid the price throughout eastern Canada
in the 1997 election.
Does the minister understand that in these resource regions
there are many more seasonal workers without jobs than jobs
available and that this has nothing to do with their willingness
to work but that it is a simple question of the absence of
available jobs for them? Period.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we believe that
the best employment insurance program is a job.
Thanks to our interventions and our partnerships across the
country, we are making progress. Two million more Canadians are
working today than were working when we were elected in 1993.
Having said that, I have had the pleasure of sitting down with
representatives of seasonal workers from Newfoundland, the
interior of British Columbia, New Brunswick and Quebec. We are
looking at their proposals and if the employment insurance
program needs to be improved, we will make changes.
* * *
1445
HEALTH
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health has announced the government's intention to
develop a new regulatory process for Canadians to access
marijuana for medical purposes. Some Canadians who suffer with
illnesses like AIDS, cancer and other conditions already have
access through the current process.
I would like the Minister of Health to outline for us what he is
proposing to improve the system for the future because Canadians
who are suffering today need this.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since last June when I announced in the House that we would make
marijuana available on compassionate grounds for medical
purposes, Health Canada has allowed 70 persons to use marijuana
in that way.
Since that time we have had the benefit of a judgment of the
Ontario Court of Appeal with respect to the exercise of
discretion. We announced last week that we have the intention of
creating a set of regulations which will be in place we hope by
next summer to put on a formal basis the criteria and the
circumstances under which that discretion will be exercised,
compassion for the sick.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has finally
made a commitment to return some of the money that it removed
from health care but it still cannot get its priorities straight.
Although the Liberals will not be increasing the transfers for
health and social services until next year, they have lots of
money to advertise how wonderful they are at spending taxpayers'
money on health care.
Can the minister please explain why the government is spending
money on advertising and not on health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first let me welcome the hon. member to her new role as the
health critic for the Canadian Alliance. It is not a position
that kept her predecessor very busy. In fact we did not get many
questions on health from the Alliance at all. It is a little
self-conscious about its position on an issue about which
Canadians feel so strongly.
I am delighted that her first question allows me the opportunity
to talk about the extraordinary agreement reached among 14
governments just a few days ago of over $23 billion in additional
transfers to renew and restore Canadian health care across the
country.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we need more doctors. We
need more specialists. We need more nurses. We need more
hospital beds. What do the Liberals give us? They give us more
advertising.
When will the government put a priority on health care rather
than on its public relations exercises?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is new on the job. I think she has missed the central
point.
The central point is a historic agreement. All heads of
government in the country put on paper common ground with respect
not only to substantial increases in funding, but a concrete
action plan toward shared priorities, including more doctors and
nurses, better equipment, information technology and an
accountability system to make sure taxpayers know how that money
is spent. That is a great achievement.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Earlier the minister was asked what his long term plan was for
dealing with the situation at Burnt Church and the other
consequences of the Marshall decision and he did not answer the
question. He referred to the 29 agreements that he has signed
with bands in the area but what he never says is that these
agreements will expire in March. We have a right to know and the
Canadian public has a right to know what is the minister's long
term plan, looking beyond the expiry of those agreements and the
very difficult situation that will still obtain in that
particular area of Canada.
What is the minister's long term plan and will he share it with
the House of Commons and the Canadian public?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for his question.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the federal government made a
commitment of $160 million as an initial investment in bringing
the aboriginal community to participate in the fisheries. That
is working well. We are once again talking to the aboriginal
community on a band by band basis to start working on it next
year.
At the same time, my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is looking at a process with all the
Atlantic policy congress chiefs to consider the long term issue
because the Marshall decision goes beyond fishing. It says
fishing, gathering and hunting. He is working on the long term
issue and the larger, broader agenda. I am making sure we are
working with individual—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
1450
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I hope the government realizes that what is happening in Burnt
Church is symptomatic of a larger dissatisfaction on the part of
aboriginal people across Canada with the way the government has
dealt with the aboriginal file and all the outstanding claims
with respect to land, et cetera.
What is the government's response today to the call by the
churches for the establishment of an independent aboriginal land
rights commission? This is something we have been pushing for
and others have been pushing for. It seems to me that this would
be a big step in the right direction to restore some confidence
on the part of aboriginal people across Canada that this
government indeed intends to move on this particular file.
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is well
known that the government has made an offer to the Atlantic first
nations not once, not twice, not three times, but four times to
come to the negotiating table.
It really takes more than just our government. It takes the
provincial government and it takes the first nations. We wait
for them when they are ready to come to the table to talk about
aboriginal and treaty rights.
* * *
VIETNAM
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for
Asia-Pacific.
Recently Brampton resident Tran Thi Cam returned to Canada
following her release from prison in Vietnam.
We all agree that this ordeal has been a terrible tragedy for
the family and has set back our relations with Vietnam.
Could the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific tell us how the
government intends to move forward from this terrible tragedy?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I personally have been working on this
file for a few years for Mrs. Tran. Since the terrible tragedy
of the execution of her daughter, Canada has acted firmly and
strongly against the Vietnamese government.
As a result the top leaders of Vietnam appreciate the problems
they have in their country. Also they regret all their actions.
They have fulfilled all the conditions we have set out. In
particular now there is greater co-operation between Toronto
policemen and the Vietnamese government on drug trafficking.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government has not only taken a scalpel to our Canadian
health care system, it has also gutted funding for post-secondary
education. For example, the U.S. federal government invests $500
per post-secondary education student. The Liberal government in
Ottawa invests only $144 per post-secondary education student.
Will the Prime Minister change his attitude toward
post-secondary education and start investing sufficient funding
so that this country can be a leader again?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the question. It offers me
the opportunity to highlight the advances we have made.
We have increased the funding for the university granting
councils. We have created the Canadian Foundation for Innovation
and have introduced 2,000 21st century research chairs which will
make Canada the envy of the world. We have expanded health
research through the Canadian institutes of health research and
have made the networks of centres of excellence a permanent
program.
There has not been a government in the history of Canada with as
proud a record on post-secondary education as this one.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the minister forgot to mention the enormous debts of the students
going to university today. That is what he forgot.
[Translation]
According to a report by the Association of Universities and
Colleges of Canada, college and university campuses throughout
the country are in terrible shape because of the tremendous lack
of infrastructure funding. It estimates the cost of urgently
required work at more than $1.2 billion.
Is the minister responsible for infrastructure prepared to
create an infrastructure program for Canada's college and
university campuses in order to meet the urgent needs?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
reason we now have an infrastructure program is that, through
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, municipalities across
the country have asked the government to create a municipal
infrastructure program.
This is where most citizens' priorities lie, with a special
emphasis on green infrastructures, because air and water quality
are of vital importance to all Canadians, and this is where our
government must place its priority.
* * *
1455
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no end to the
Liberal shameless vote buying with other people's money. Now that
he is about to call an election, the Prime Minister has decided
to increase EI payments to seasonal workers who already earn a
comfortable annual income.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary—Nose
Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, worse is that the
increase will come straight from the pockets of struggling low
income workers, needy EI claimants and employers who pay job
killing premiums.
Why do the Liberals think they can get away with such blatant
manipulation of Atlantic Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone knows when we started, the premiums were
$3.07 and now they are down at $2.40. It shows what we have
done.
And for enlightenment, I checked in Alberta because we have
received a lot of complaints about investments. I have a list of
about 19 golf courses in Alberta that have received money due to
the good office of the Leader of the Opposition today.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Québec.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development issued a very unfair ruling for
seasonal workers who lost their jobs between July 9 and
September 17 in the Lower St. Lawrence, North Shore,
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Charlevoix regions.
How can the minister allow a double standard whereby workers who
lost their jobs after September 17 will get 32 weeks of
benefits, while those who lost their jobs in the two preceding
months will only be entitled to 21 weeks of benefits? Let us
hear the minister's definition of fairness.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed we listened to the concerns of
seasonal workers in that part of Quebec. That is why we
implemented a phasing in of the changes to the employment
insurance boundaries.
That is also why we are implementing transitional measures,
precisely for the men and women to whom the hon. member makes
reference. That too is why we are working in the community,
myself and the Minister of National Revenue, with employees and
employers to find new opportunities for the men and women living
in that part of Quebec. I wish the hon. member would join us in
that endeavour.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister has said that the government would deal with the issue
of post-secondary student debt to the extent of its resources.
Last week when the minister was boasting about having $12.3
billion more than he had expected, why did he not act to reduce
the level of student debt that has increased on his watch? Is it
that the minister has had a hard time keeping his promises, or is
it that he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition that student
debt is just a personal problem?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last few years the
government has taken strong action to relieve some of the burden
on students with their debts by elongating the period in which
they can pay the loans and by deductibility of interest.
At the end of March this year we had a $12.3 billion surplus
which automatically goes against the debt. That means that as a
result of the payment of the debt in the last two budgets, we are
saving $1 billion a year in interest costs. That is to the
benefit of all Canadians.
* * *
1500
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the Reform Party that is totally heartless when
it comes to seasonal workers, I would like to ask the Prime
Minister when he will bring about changes to the employment
insurance program so seasonal workers in our communities can feed
their kids during the wintertime and all year round?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a good
point. Men and women in this country want to work and they want
to work year round. That is why, in the hon. member's region and
the region surrounding her area, my officials are working with
employees and employers to find new opportunities so that
Canadians can work all year round.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Lynn Myers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia raised a point of order last week to which I
would now like to respond.
I would like to emphasize that during question period I was not
reading from or directly quoting the SIRC report, which is a
classified report, as the House knows. I can advise the House
that the solicitor general has asked the Security Intelligence
Review Committee to make as much of that report available as
possible, subject to any national security concerns.
The solicitor general has advised me that he will be tabling the
resulting report as reviewed by the Security Intelligence Review
Committee once that is available.
1505
The Speaker: As I understand it, after a review with
the clerk, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia asked for the
production of documents. Now the parliamentary secretary is
responding that he did not quote from an official document. By
our rules, there would be no need to lay these documents upon the
table.
I do not know how the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia could
have more information at this time, but if he does, I am willing
to listen to him.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I might request that you might want to take a look
at Hansard for that particular day. I do not have a copy
handy with me this second, but in the parliamentary secretary's
response he said point one, point two, point three and it says this,
it says this, it says this. We will not know whether or not he
was quoting from the document until the document is tabled.
The Speaker: What we have is one hon. member claiming one
thing and another hon. member saying that it is not a document.
As your Speaker, I must of course abide by the rules of the House
and respect and believe, as we always do, all hon. members.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, we have a statement made by
the hon. member that he did not quote. Therefore, we will let it
rest at this point.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (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 15 petitions.
* * *
[English]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both
official languages, reports from the Canadian branch of the
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 39th
Canadian regional conference which was held in Prince Edward
Island from July 15 to 21, 2000.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to comply with the requirements under Standing Order 34, I
have the honour today to present the annual report of the
Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group which took place
between May 19 and 23, 2000.
Needless to say, there were five ongoing working groups that
worked between those periods of time. They dealt with e-trade,
transborder issues, crime across the border and all those things
that deal on a day to day basis with our relations with our
friends in the United States.
I have the honour of presenting this report. It is such an
important committee that I would ask that every member of the
House should belong to it.
* * *
HOLIDAYS ACT
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-496, an act to amend
the Holidays Act (Christmas Day).
1510
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my bill is to make
Christmas Day into a heritage day holiday and not just a
religious holiday.
One of the sad things is that so many Canadians who are not
Christian cannot celebrate Christmas Day. By making it into a
legal holiday, we celebrate the fact that Christmas Day is not
only a religious holiday, and indeed is not a religious holiday
to many, but is part and parcel of being Canadian. This goes
back to the very early days of Canada to our ancestors who in the
wilderness when the winter was upon them sat and huddled around
the fire, drank, ate and felt fellowship and good cheer. That is
part of the Canadian tradition. My bill, I hope, will enable
those people who are not Christians to celebrate Christmas with
the rest of Canadians.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
PETITIONS
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by well over 900 people who are exasperated by
gasoline prices and are asking that the federal government do
something about it, such as funding research projects on
alternative energy sources, and exercising its international
influence so that the oil cartel lowers prices.
I believe this is an excellent petition and I endorse it.
PESTICIDES
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House to table a
petition calling on the Canadian Parliament to enact an
immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of pesticides in Canada
until such time as these chemicals have been scientifically
proven to be safe for the health and quality of life of
Canadians.
[English]
It is my pleasure to present this, particularly as I have a
private member's bill that calls on the same issue.
U.S. MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I also have a second petition which has been signed
by 25 residents of Canada calling on the Canadian government not
to support the U.S. national missile defence, NMD program, which
the U.S. wishes to operate in the North American Aerospace
Defence Command by NORAD.
The petitioners call on parliament to declare that Canada
objects to the national missile defence program of the United
States and that parliament play a leadership role in banning
nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have another
petition calling upon parliament to quickly pass legislation
making it mandatory to label all foods that are totally or
partially genetically modified.
This petition is in addition to the considerable number of
petitions tabled in this House with the hope of a favourable
response to our request. This one is signed by 437 people.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will
be answering Questions Nos. 100 and 101 today.
.[Text]
Mr. Inky Mark:
What is the breakdown and
ratio of funding that the CBC is receiving in the current fiscal
year 2000-01 from the Canadian television fund and Telefilm for
the production of documentaries, feature films, children's
programming and drama, showing not only national figures but
regional figures by province and also a breakdown by name of
production company and/or individual independent producer; and
how do these figures compare with those for the last three fiscal
years?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): The Canadian government provides the
Canadian television fund (CTF) an annual contribution of $100
million. The fund assists in the production of high quality
programming in English, French and aboriginal languages for
broadcast in prime time.
The Canadian television fund is a private not for profit
corporation, with a 16-member board of directors drawn from the
public and private sectors. The CTF makes its decisions
independently from government on who will receive funding.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not receive funding.
Rather, CTF contributions go to private producers whose programs
are licensed and broadcast by the CBC.
The list of funded projects by genre and by producer are posted
to the CTF website (www.CanadianTelevision Fund.ca) and are
published in the fund's annual report, also posted to its
website. 2000-01 data is unavailable as the decision making
process is still under way. Figures include all CTF numbers,
including those administered by Telefilm Canada through its
participation in the fund. We expect the final 1999-00 data early
this summer when the CTF presents its annual report. Interim
lists are on the CTF website.
Please find attached a table showing national and regional
figures, financial and percentage, by province for the CTF and
CBC-SRC triggered projects for the years 1996-97, 1997-98 and
1998-99. This information is provided by the CTF.
Mr. Inky Mark:
With regard to the new funding announced for CBC Radio: (a)
how much and what percentage of the total of the new funding for
radio went to the province of Quebec and French radio; (b) what
is the percentage for CBC radio in French and CBC radio in
English of the total funding package; and (c) what is the
breakdown and ratio in funding for the aforementioned during
the last three fiscal years?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): The government provides the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation with a parliamentary appropriation to
provide a national public television and radio broadcasting
service for all Canadians in both official languages. This
service is primarily Canadian in content and character.
As a crown corporation operating independently from government,
the CBC is not required to provide details of its expenditures
beyond those which are contained in the audited financial
statements of its annual reports.
(a) The Canadian Broadcasting corporation does not break down
its funding by province; rather its funding is allocated to
French and English radio and television, and administrative and
other services associated with its production, programming and
distribution.
Effective April 1, 2000 the corporation has announced an
increase to the base funding for its radio services of $10.2
million. This new funding is being shared roughly 60:40
between the English and French radio services respectively and
will be directed at enhancing and enriching the quality of their
program schedules as well as for new initiatives designed to
extend CBC's radio services to more Canadians. These latter
initiatives are currently under developement by both the English
and French language radio services.
(b) and (c) CBC's English and French language radio services
have a combined annual funding platform of roughly $260 million.
This represents close to 20% of CBC's total annual spending for
its operations including specialty services.
Of the $260 million spent annually on CBC's radio services,
roughly 60% goes toward funding CBC's two English language radio
services: Radio One and Radio Two. The remaining 40% funds La
Première Chaîne and La Chaîne Culturelle, CBC's French language
radio services. As a percentage of CBC's total funding package,
therefore, this equates to close to 12% being spent on CBC's
English language radio services and 8% begin spent on CBC's
French language radio services.
This funding relationship does not migrate much from one year to
the next as can be seen from the following which has been
extracted from CBC's annual reports for the respective years
provided:
($ Millions)—1996/97—1997/98—1998/99
English Radio—$167—$156—$157
% of total funding*—12.1%—12.6%—12.4%
French Radio—$101-$98—$104
% of total funding*—7.5%—8.0%—8.1%
Total Radio—$268—$254—$261
*Excludes funding for downsizing and revenue from one time special
events such as the Oympics.
Amounts for the 1999-2000 fiscal year will be available once the
CBC's annual report is tabled before parliament early next fall.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
1515
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to
orders of the day, I have a notice concerning Private Members'
Business. I have received notice from the hon. member for
Rosemont—Petite Patrie that he is unable to move his motion
during private members' hour on Tuesday, September 26, 2000.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in
the order of precedence. Accordingly I am directing the table
officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order
of precedence. Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and
the House will continue with the business before it prior to
private members' hour.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, an act in respect
of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal
other acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee;
and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak today on Bill C-3, which hon. members will recall is the
former Bill C-68, which was introduced in 1997, unfortunately
only to die on the order paper when the last federal election
was called.
I recall that when I spoke to that bill at that time I
commented that the Liberal Party was reforming itself by
adopting such an attitude. Bill C-3 is a complete repeat of
Bill C-68 as tabled in the House. What I should
perhaps say today is that the Liberals are alliancing
themselves, if that is the right word.
The Liberal Party is getting chummy with the Canadian Alliance,
drifting to the right, I would say, because its ship literally
veered off in that direction.
I think it is a fundamental error for the Liberal Party to drift
so far to the right on a bill such as this.
As recently as this past weekend, I read that the hon. Minister
of Public Works, that great Liberal Party organizer in Quebec,
the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, was saying that one
of the four fundamental pillars of the next election campaign
would be compassion.
I would like to understand, and I would like to hear the
minister's explanation of how they plan to show any compassion
when they propose to lock up young offenders as young as 12, 13
or 14 years of age. Where is the compassion in that? Is that
what compassion is? Maybe this is the Liberal version of
compassion. It is not, however, the Bloc Quebecois's idea of
compassion, nor that of Quebec.
I am anxious to see how my Quebec colleagues from the federal
Liberal Party will vote on this. I am anxious to see them vote
one by one, and to hear them explain their vote to their
constituents. Some things are fundamental: there is a systematic
and generalized opposition to this bill in Quebec.
The Coalition pour la justice des mineurs opposes it, among
others, and it seems important to me to mention it. I will name
all those who oppose the bill, and you will see that there are
even people from outside Quebec who oppose it. Everyone who
wants to defend minors in Quebec is on this list. Let us not be
fooled. Liberal members, including members from Quebec, are
getting ready pass this bill. It must be made clear that these
members will vote against all the members of the coalition that
I will mention here.
There are the Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil
permanent de la jeunesse, the Centrale de l'enseignement du
Québec, Jean Trépanier, of the Criminology Faculty of the
University of Montreal, the Community Legal Center of Montreal,
the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the
Institut Philippe-Pinel and the Association des directeurs de
police et pompiers du Québec. These people are in a good
position to know what they are talking about. They are
constantly in contact with this type of clientele and they say
that this bill would not work and should not be passed.
Also included on this list are the Conférence des régies
régionales de la santé et des services sociaux, the Association
des centres jeunesse du Québec, the Crown Prosecutors'
Office—that is the Justice Department of Quebec—and the
Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec.
1520
We must also realize that they are in daily contact with these
people and understand that what exists today in Quebec is much
more valuable than what the minister wants to introduce and
force down the throats of all Quebecers.
Marc Leblanc of the École de psychoéducation, the Regroupement
des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, The Child
Welfare League of Canada, The Canadian Criminal Justice
Association, the Association des avocats de la défense du
Québec, the Société de criminologie du Québec, Dr. Jim Hackler
of the Department of Sociology of the University of Victoria,
Tim Quigley of the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Marge
Reitsma-Street of the University of Victoria, and the British
Columbia Criminal Justice Association are all part of the
coalition that is telling the Minister of Justice today that she
is headed the wrong way. Many Canadians and practically all
Quebecers are opposed to this legislation. This is easy to
understand because the bill before the House is strictly
political.
Before examining a bill and voting on it, we, as lawmakers, must
first know if such a measure is needed.
There is no need for such a drastic law in Quebec. Members need
only look at the statistics. Youth crime is decreasing, but
there is more to it Statistics show that the further one goes
east the more one notes a drop in youth crime.
In other words, the youth crime rate in Quebec is lower than in
Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. The reason is that:
Quebecers consider the youth justice system more as a
rehabilitation process. We have to get the young offenders back
into society. This bill before the House does just the opposite.
It would throw these young people in jail. And as everyone knows,
prison is a school for crime.
In prison, 14 year old kids are living among older criminals for
whom it is perhaps harder to get back into society because of
their age. For a 40 or 50 year old man who has been a killer all
his life, rehabilitation is less likely. Of course, Quebec will
try to give him a chance, but the most important thing is to
give young offenders the opportunity to redeem themselves.
Throwing them in jail with hard core criminals would defeat the
purpose. Statistics show that Quebec has a higher rehabilitation
rate among young offenders because we have come to realize that
these young people need support and supervision, not jail time.
I mentioned earlier a major coalition and all its members. But
there is also another very important element that must be
mentioned.
Not one of the 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly
supports this bill. I have here a motion I consider important
which was adopted by the Quebec National Assembly on November
30, 1999:
That the National Assembly request that the federal Minister of
Justice suspend the legislative process with respect to Bill C-3
in order to make a better assessment of the implementation by
the provinces of the measures provided for in the Young
Offenders Act and ascertain that Quebec will be able to keep its
strategy based on the needs of the young, with an emphasis on
crime prevention and rehabilitation.
Obviously, the basic principles in the motion are rehabilitation
and prevention.
These notions should prevail much more frequently in our
society. We should stop investing money to deal with just the
consequences of crime. With the minister's proposal, we will
have to invest a lot of additional money. It is expensive to put
people in prison, and even more expensive when we deal with
young offenders because, with this bill, they will probably end
up in prison several times during their lifetime.
1525
Also, this does not take into account the international impact.
There are United Nations conventions dealing with juvenile
delinquency and the protection of children. The government is
totally disregarding that, because these conventions say that
within a justice system the young person must come first.
As I have been explaining for the last 10 minutes or so, we
have proved that it works in Quebec. Social reintegration is
possible and we rehabilitate young offenders. We do not condemn
them to be criminals for the rest of their lives.
This is why, naturally, I will support all the amendments.
Judging by the number of amendments on the table, it is clear
that the bill is totally inadequate. We have had to move
3,000 amendments to improve it.
Let us pass all these amendments. If it is not possible, we will
definitely vote against the bill at the third reading stage. It
is not too late for the minister, however. It is not too late
for my Quebec colleagues, the Liberal members from Quebec. They
can still set an example for once and pay attention to the
heartfelt cry of the people of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in 1993 when I first came to the House one of the first
speeches I was able to deliver was on the Young Offenders Act.
In 1993 there was a cry from the public throughout Canada to do
something about this act which after 10 years of being in place,
having been brought into the House in 1984, had proven to be not
a very effective means of dealing with young people. If a 350%
increase in violent crimes means it was successful then there is
something wrong with that success.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. My apologies to my worthy colleague. Our colleague is
recognized as the House expert on this subject. I think it most
unfortunate that we do not have a quorum here to listen to him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands has called quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, here we
are in the year 2000 and nothing has changed.
When we came here in 1993 I was informed that the top priority
at that time was the Young Offenders Act. In fact the previous
Minister of Justice called for a meeting with me and one of my
colleagues to discuss the Young Offenders Act because it was such
a high priority. Yet it did not go anywhere. There were
submissions from across Canada from thousands and thousands of
Canadians. There were submissions from all parties in the House
of Commons. There was a strong cry to do something about the
Young Offenders Act, and here we are still tinkering around with
this issue.
The previous justice minister did nothing. It appeared to me
quite obvious after a little while that the idea that the Young
Offenders Act was top priority was nothing more than smoke and
mirrors and just talk, because they tinkered with it and did
nothing. Then the new justice minister came in in 1997 and again
it was a top priority. What did we get? A glossy print of a new
thing called the youth justice system, a glossy print of
tinkering around, not truly bringing any significant changes to
the Young Offenders Act.
Then along comes the day we are to have a discussion on it, and
we find out the act has gone through a justice committee for days
and days, being filibustered most of the time, and nothing has
changed in it. It has not been amended. It has not been changed
at all.
Now we are looking forward to voting this week on something like
3,000 amendments the Bloc has presented. The Bloc is opposed to
this particular bill for certain reasons, but we are opposed to
this bill for totally different reasons.
1530
The one thing that puzzles me is the cry from the Quebec
population, who through various polls have indicated that 70% to
80% of them are calling for tougher measures in the Young
Offenders Act. They want something done but the Bloc is
presenting the opposite. That is not very good representation.
What really amazes me is hearing the Liberals and the Bloc talk
about what they are going to do with young offenders. They spend
minutes and then hours talking about the criminal element, the
ones who commit the crimes. They make no mention of the victims.
Once again, as with all legislation regarding justice, the
victims are shoved in the background. The criminals are brought
to the foreground; we talk about them and what we must do.
We talk about the successful justice system we have. That is
the one where Karla Homolka lets herself in and out of her
cottage and dresses up in an evening gown and has a birthday
party. She is able to do all the things the victims can never
do. Yet that is our wonderful justice system. We must
concentrate on Karla Homolka. We cannot concentrate on the
families and on the victims of these people.
We talk about 10 year olds being brought before the courts and
being run through a system to deal with the problems they have.
The NDP and the Liberals scream, oh my goodness gracious, 10 year
olds. I spent 32 years in the business of working with young
people in a schoolhouse. Believe me, 10 and 11 year olds know
right from wrong, as do a lot of 8 and 9 year olds, and maybe
even younger ones.
I am a strong believer in prevention. We had excellent programs
for trying to detect young people at risk. We tried to catch
them early in life so we could deal with them properly and
through the right channels, in the hope that we could prevent
them from ever entering the crime scene. There are two fine
towns in my riding, Strathmore and Airdrie, that have excellent
youth justice committees. They are working hard to prevent crime
and help these people, but we need legislation. When someone
crosses the line and prevention methods do not work, something
has to be done. What is that something to be?
I have heard the suggestion that we should listen to the United
Nations, the wonderful United Nations that says we have to learn
to teach people to be more sensitive, that we have to sensitize
our children. Maybe we have to sensitize them to Hollywood and
to TV and all the violence that goes on there. I do not know
what the United Nations means by saying that we have to sensitize
our children to all of these issues.
The whole problem is getting worse, not better. All the
rhetoric and all the reports they talk about do not indicate at
all that it is getting better, yet the government claims it is
doing a wonderful job. It is not happening. It is now 2000.
Since 1993 it has gotten worse. It continues to get worse.
Nothing is happening.
I want to read into the record a letter that I received from
Theresa McCuaig. She is the grandmother of Sylvain Leduc.
Members may remember the terrible tragedy that took place in
Ottawa. She says:
Along with other family members victims of horrific youth crimes,
on three separate occasions we have addressed the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning youth crimes.
I truly wonder if anyone knows how difficult and embarrassing it
is, to sit in front of a group of strangers to share our ugly
stories and the grief we feel over our murdered and maimed
children.
Did you know that as we walk into that room, we are filled with
hope that the people we are addressing will hear us and make our
world right again? We do not ask for much, simply the protection
of future victims and hopefully some justice for them. We
sometimes cry and tremble inside as we re-live the horrors of our
children's pain or death for you. We feel like we're begging for
the common sense changes needed to our unjust laws. At the time,
we feel soothed and are impressed that you, our government
members, actually take the time to hear us. We leave the room
tapping each other on the back, convinced that what we've said
will really make a difference.
I've followed the committee's progress, watching its members
working hard in preparing their many recommendations to the new
youth justice act. I was impressed with their hard work and was
appalled that the committee was given only 10 hours to debate
their recommendations. Apparently no one cared to hear what we
had to say. Regrettably, none of us were heard.
With all its inadequacies the new youth justice act will be
debated this week. I'm told that those who have grave concerns
will debate it forcefully. Regardless, I know in my heart that
the act will be passed simply because those who oppose it are
outnumbered.
Among we insignificant `little people' it is whispered that the
bill is quickly being pushed through to make it look good for the
upcoming election that will soon be announced.
In the future, I suggest you do not bother asking victims to come
humiliate themselves by testifying in front of the justice
committee. The resulting pain and disappointment added to our
great grief are just too difficult to live with.
I feel that our testimony had about as much impact on our
government as our victim impact statements have in the courtroom.
None!
To the members of the justice committee who have worked so hard
on this bill, I offer you my heartfelt sympathy and can appreciate
your great disillusionment and disappointment.
Regards, Theresa McCuaig, Sylvain Leduc's grandmother.
1535
The victims are not being heard. Canadians are not being heard.
We have been here for seven years and it has not happened. It is
time the government got off its duff and started to do something
right.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I note again that the Liberals are showing their utter
contempt for the House, as they usually do. I would ask for a
quorum, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands has requested a quorum count.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, usually
I begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to speak on an
important bill. This time, although it is an important bill, I
am not at all pleased to speak to it. Why? Because this bill
is an aberration.
The government is in a much greater hurry to go after 14 year
olds than organized crime.
How long have my colleagues from Berthier—Montcalm and
Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert along with the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois and all its members been fighting for more effective
measures against organized crime and reinforcement of the
criminal code more consistent than the reinforcement and
amendments to it in 1997? They are fighting for real anti-gang
legislation and, if necessary, the use of the notwithstanding
clause. Well, no.
On the other side of the House they are hedging because they are
not interested in going after the real criminals. Pursuing the
real criminals does not necessarily bring in votes. However,
pursuing young children and thereby meeting the demands of the
former Reform Party, now comprised of Alliance members, is more
profitable.
They think they will be able to win more seats in the west in
the next election with a certain right-looking vision.
1540
In so doing, the Liberals are completely overlooking one thing,
namely the well-being of teenagers and their ability to be
rehabilitated and returned to society. The Liberals are
advocating caning, not rehabilitation for these young offenders.
During oral question period, I was surprised to hear the
minister say that some members have tried to distort the debate.
She was referring to opposition members, particularly Bloc
Quebecois members.
I remind the minister that she was the first one to distort the
discussion by turning a deaf ear to the consensus throughout
this debate and by moving over 200 amendments without having had
the courage to defend her bill and the 200 amendments that she
moved in the House a few months ago.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is doing an
extraordinary job on this issue, managed to achieve a consensus
among Quebec's major stakeholders in the area of young
offenders' rehabilitation. He invited the minister many times to
appear before the justice committee, precisely to justify the
thrust that she was giving to the new young offenders
legislation. But the minister declined.
Someone has been distorting the discussion since Bill C-3 was
first introduced, but it is the Minister of Justice herself.
She has ignored everything. Above all, and we will not let this
drop, she has ignored the needs of troubled adolescents.
Instead of a bill that addresses needs, there is a call for
caning. Needs are no longer important to the Liberal
government. The needs of a 14-year old adolescent who has lost
his way are no longer important. What is important is throwing
him in jail. That is important for winning western votes.
The government talks about the flexibility in the bill. I have
read and reread it and listened to all the explanations of the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, for whom I have tremendous respect,
as well as of all those who spoke to this bill. There is no
flexibility, and one of those who offered his opinion was a
spokesperson for the Coalition québécoise d'opposition au
nouveau projet de loi sur les jeunes contrevenants. He said,
and I quote:
The provinces' supposed flexibility in enforcing the legislation
is no more than a series of limited powers dependent on the
crown attorneys. Nowhere in this bill is it stated that the
provinces may implement their own model.
So much for flexibility. Furthermore, it is very strange that a
government wants to change its young offenders legislation,
which works when properly enforced. Extraordinary results can
be achieved with the existing legislation, when it is properly
enforced. If there is one place in Canada where the Young
Offenders Act is being so enforced, it is Quebec. In Quebec, we
have had the best results of all of Canada.
Since 1991, the youth crime rate has dropped 23%. Quebec has its
lowest youth crime rate in 20 years. We also have the lowest
indictment rate, the lowest conviction rate and the lowest
custody rate.
It goes to show that when the Young Offenders Act is enforced
properly, when the focus is on rehabilitation and on the needs
of young offenders, it works. It works very well and we have
proved it. And in those places where the act was not enforced
properly, the results are totally the opposite of what we have
seen in Quebec.
Let us look, for example, at the situation in Saskatchewan,
Ontario and New Brunswick.
It is incredible. The conviction rate and the custody rate per
100,000 inhabitants show that the Young Offenders Act was not
enforced properly. Those provinces have conviction rates and
custody rates that are considerably higher than the national
average. Their rates are very high compared to what they are in
Quebec. All the stakeholders in Quebec think this bill is
useless and extremely dangerous.
As far as reintegration is concerned, this bill is way off the
mark.
1545
Reference is made in this bill to publishing the identity of
offenders. How can one think that publishing the names of young
offenders will help them re-enter into the community? For one
thing, does publication not make the illegal act committed look
good in the eyes of other young people?
How can we, while claiming to want to help them and meet some of
their needs and talking about social reintegration, allow young
people to see their reputations tarnished by having their
identity published and whatever offence they committed be
glamourized, so to speak, in the eyes of their peers?
It was totally unacceptable to introduce such a bill.
Moreover, most of those who condemned the Liberal government's
behaviour said the bill was so complicated that, even if one
were in agreement with it, it would be an extremely difficult
bill to enforce.
In particular, the bar association's recent brief indicated the
following—which confirms what I said earlier—on page 63:
The wording of clause 41 and the following clauses is so complex
that experts had tremendous difficulty understanding those
clauses. They have to be rewritten, because it must be
remembered that this legislation is addressed to adolescents.
When Quebec bar association experts have difficulty interpreting
what the minister means and, moreover, there is a solid
consensus in Quebec to the effect that this is a bad piece of
legislation, we have a problem.
The hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm asked for an opting out
provision, whereby a province would be able to opt out with full
compensation, so that Quebec, which properly enforced the Young
Offenders Act and which achieved spectacular results with the
rehabilitation of young offenders, could eventually be fully
exempt from these new provisions and continue to use an approach
that has so far given such good results.
The minister rejected that request from the coalition, from all
the major stakeholders in Quebec.
Yet, as I said, youth crime has continuously been dropping over
the past 20 years, and in Quebec in particular we have achieved
incredible success, with the result that our youth crime rate is
now much lower than elsewhere in Canada, because we did things
right.
We respected the spirit of the Young Offenders Act, whose
purpose is not to marginalize young offenders for the rest of
their lives by dragging them before adult courts without any
consideration and without taking their needs into account.
Rather, we looked at the alternative and tried, whenever
possible, and most of the time it is possible, to rehabilitate
young offenders and return them to society.
When I spoke about unanimity in Quebec, I should have mentioned
that the supreme court also voiced the opinion that the Young
Offenders Act should not be seen as the counterpart of adult
criminal laws. Even Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer made this point,
and emphasized that the Young Offenders Act took into account
the very specific needs of adolescents and that it was not
necessary for a new law to be the mirror image of the criminal
laws for adult offenders.
There is a coalition in Quebec, which has made representations
to the minister, with the assistance of the member for
Berthier—Montcalm, using shock arguments, arguments set out in
the documents of the Minister of Justice, which show beyond a
shadow of a doubt that, if the Young Offenders Act is properly
enforced, no rod is necessary. We do not need a new act.
The one we have is fine. It needs to be properly enforced, but
it should not be used for electioneering, as the minister is now
doing.
We hope that the House will approve our amendments, that the
minister will listen to reason or that the government will
ensure that this bill dies on the Order Paper before a federal
election is called.
1550
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, again we are in the House talking about the Young
Offenders Act.
When we first arrived here in 1993, I remember the hon. member
for Wild Rose mentioning that one of the big reasons we came here
was to see what the government was doing in regard to young
offenders. It seems to go on forever.
We can throw blame and shift it around all we want. I just
listened to the member from Quebec state that all we believe in
is the whipping post. He said that Quebec instituted legislation
that that works really well. Well, according to 77% of
Quebecers, particularly those who have been victims of the Young
Offenders Act, they want the act toughened up a whole bunch. I
would bet, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it is at least 77% in
the rest of Canada.
We have heard the government, time after time, stand in the
House and say that its number one priority is for the safety and
well-being of law-abiding citizens but time after time it has
failed the law-abiding citizens. The Young Offenders Act is just
the tip of an example of what is going on.
There are many reasons for this. One of the significant causes
for the failure of the Young Offenders Act and youth criminal
justice is the lack of significant funding to properly deal with
young offenders. There is a federal-provincial agreement to
split the costs 50:50 for youth justice. Under the Constitution
Act, 1867 the federal government is responsible for the criminal
law through section 91. Through section 92 the provinces are
responsible for the administration of the criminal law. Much
like this government's shenanigans with health care, it has been
playing games with young offenders funding. Rather than
maintaining its 50% responsibility, the federal government has
been slowly allowing its participation to erode to the extent
that recent estimates of its contribution places it closer to 20%
to 30%.
The government will argue that it recently allotted an
additional $206 million toward youth justice. However, as is
typical of the government, particularly the present finance
minister, figures are always used to make larger numbers. Let us
take a look. The $206 million is over three years. That is less
than $70 million a year. Those funds do not cover the present
shortfall in funding to the provinces and they will not cover the
additional cost of this new piece of legislation. Again the
government comes out with numbers that do not match reality.
We have a government, as we have had governments before, saying
“We will be the parent. We will look after your children”. How
it did this was by forcing both parents out to work. When that
happened the children had nobody at home to look after them when
they came home from school. The name that was used for them, and
I think is still used, was “latchkey kids”. Where have our
young people been learning while their parents were working? Was
it in the parks? Yes, they have learned very well how to shoot
dope, how to pull break and enters and, in some cases, assault,
and they have learned how to rob. When the parents decided to
crack down and put some law and order and discipline into their
lives the government stepped down on the parents. The government
has has taken the rights of parents through something called the
charter of rights for children.
There is an old saying “You reap what you sow”. This is what
we get. We have young offenders now who know they will get away
with just about anything.
They will serve soft time if they serve time at all. The most
they will probably get is probation and, in many cases, not abide
by it. I say this because I have talked to students at various
schools.
1555
Young people in grades 7, 8 and 9 have said to me “Mr. Stinson,
we are afraid to go to school, afraid to go out at night and
afraid to hang around with our friends because of the gangs that
intimidate us. They take our clothes when we go to school and
our lunches because they know nothing will happen to them”.
There will be no severe penalty and probably no penalty at all.
We have case after case of repeat young offenders going into
different communities. Why? Because the public is not allowed
to know their names. They are protected. Our neighbours do not
even know what their children are up to.
The hon. member for Wild Rose quoted letters from victims who
classified themselves as insignificant little people. When they
came as witnesses before the committee they felt abused by their
own politicians.
Members have to wonder exactly what we were put in this place to
do when we have people going out of committee feeling that way.
Something has to be done. We have tried study after study. We
have listened to what I like to call the bleeding hearts of
Canada tell us that soft love works and yet violent offences by
youth are up 365%. Same on the government members who sit on the
other side and say that their programs work when we have a 365%
increase in violent offences by young offenders.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Where?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: The member from Quebec asks,
“Where?”. That is a good question. Where does it work, as
members are sitting around their tables? I have to
wonder.
Let us take a quick look at what is happening today. We hear
government members saying that 15 and 16 year olds are not adults
and that 10 and 11 year olds do not know right from wrong. We all
know full well that 14, 15 and 16 year olds know exactly what
they are doing when they commit a violent act. We know that and
yet we want to keep going down the same old road of doing nothing
and studying the situation.
I want to speak to a personal experience I had before entering
politics. My mother had the unfortunate experience of being
stabbed and left for dead by a 14 year old and his 15 year old
sister. They were caught and had to go before the court. The
court asked them what had motivated them since there was no
robbery and no intent. Their answer to the court was “Who
cares?” That is the attitude that is out there. We have a very
small minority of young offenders saying “Who cares and even if
I do care what are you going to do about it because the laws
protect me and not the victim”.
I began my speech today saying that the government's first and
foremost responsibility was for the safety and well-being of its
law-abiding citizens.
Who needs our help and protection more than the young people of
Canada? Who needs our help more than those 6, 7, 8 or
9 year olds who want to walk to school in safety and are
afraid of children their own age or just a little bit older
because our system does not have the penalties which those
predators of our children deserve.
1600
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, at the request of our justice
critic, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, who for the past few
years in this House has been trying to make sure that pieces of
legislation dealing with young offenders are the best, and in
keeping with the fact that young people are not the criminals
they are believed to be in some parties.
In this regard, I would like to remind the member who spoke
before me of a few statistics he is trying to hide because,
somehow, he agrees with the government's approach, which is not
based on a fair and reasonable appreciation of what is really
going on across Canada, especially in Quebec, and which shows to
what extent the reform brought about by the justice minister and
her government is purely political and is a vote-seeking
initiative. It seems that it will have to be implemented before
an election is called, which looks like it could be very soon.
The minister's very own statistics, which appear in a fact sheet
dated March 1999, show for instance that between 1991 and 1997,
the charge rate for young people dropped by 25%, and that the
charge rate for violent crimes among youth has decreased by 3.2%
since 1995.
According to the most recent statistics, the crime rate fell for
the sixth consecutive year in 1997. The 5% drop resulted in the
lowest police-reported crime rate since 1980. This decrease
applies to most offences, including violent crimes which
seemingly would justify a tougher approach and legislation,
especially sexual assault, for which the rate fell by nearly 1%,
robbery, which dropped 8%, and homicide 9%.
Violent youth crime is still on the decline. Fewer charges are
laid, yet the government wants to pass new legislation and get
rid of the Young Offenders Act; it actually wants to repeal it
even though it has proven to be effective when implemented
properly, like the Government of Quebec has done in recent
years, and when a real effort is made to show the kind of
compassion the courts and those responsible for enforcing
legislation passed by parliaments to deal with young offenders
ought to have.
As a matter of fact, the Bloc Quebecois tried to stop and will
continue its fight to stop the federal government from passing
legislation that, according to all stakeholders in Quebec, will
in no way solve the problems nor help those who must not only
sentence young people, but also try to rehabilitate them and
facilitate their social reintegration.
The Bloc Quebecois has succeeded in creating awareness among all
stakeholders dealing with young offenders. Not one of these
stakeholders supports this bill.
1605
On the contrary, all groups joined in a coalition around our
party to indicate to the minister that this legislation should
be withdrawn, that it is not good for Quebec or the rest of
Canada and that, as it is, the existing Young Offenders Act
meets our needs and provides the necessary tools to prevent
youth crime or to ensure that crimes are punished and that
rehabilitation and social reintegration of young offenders are
not threatened.
For the benefit of all Canadians and especially of young
offenders, the Bloc Quebecois will continue to plead for this
legislation to be withdrawn or at least for it to provide an
opting out clause, since not only the players I mentioned
earlier and my colleague from Saint-Jean listed oppose the bill,
but all Quebec MNAs unanimously adopted a resolution to that
effect. They all wanted to indicate to the government that they
do not want this legislation to apply to Quebec.
In this sense, the right for Quebec to opt out would be a lesser
evil if, as some members say, Canadians they represent elsewhere
in Canada want stricter and more restrictive legislation for
young offenders.
For the purpose of this debate, I would like to add a more
personal note that I find interesting as an international law
professor. The bill itself makes reference in its preamble—I am
referring to one of the preamble's last paragraphs—to the fact
that Canada is a party to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child. Since Canada has ratified that convention,
the bill must meet Canada's obligations stated in the
convention.
This convention forces member states to get Canada to make a
commitment to the international community as a whole, as this
convention is one of the few treaties to have been signed and
ratified by almost all the members of the international
community.
More than 180 of the 191 states, within the international
community, have ratified the treaty.
Canada appears to be ignoring one of this treaty's basic
provisions that says that one of the most important
considerations in any decision concerning children, and also
teenagers who are still children, is the best interests of the
child.
As we know, this bill does not seem headed that way, since it
focuses more on the protection of society, which should not be
neglected of course, on the protection of victims, than on the
best interests of the child, a notion that has the same
importance in our human rights law as in international
conventions, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child.
In this connection, I would like to remind hon. members that
article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child which codified the rule of best interest of the child is
one which Canada has invoked specifically, claiming that the
Young Offenders Act respected that principle.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reminded
Canada, when it tabled one of its reports on the application of
the convention, that the principle of best interests of the
child should be better reflected in Canadian internal
legislation. This is far from the case with this piece of
legislation we have before us.
1610
It is important that I finish my presentation. I would like to
point out in closing that in the Jasmin report in Quebec—a
totally remarkable report on young offenders—within and beyond
the law, an appendix titled “Adolescence, from turbulence to
independence” concludes with the words of a psychologist,
Louisiane Gauthier, which are very much worthwhile quoting to
this tribunal of the people that is parliament:
From the time a child leaves his mother's body until he becomes
a member of the social body, the identity he will construct for
himself will reflect the significant adults whom he encounters.
These adults, by the authority of membership in the generation
of those who begat him, are the beacons that light the way for
the child, through their kindnesses, their mores and their
rules. Adults provide him with the ability to respond to the
major questions encountered in life.
We in this House are adults, let us act as adults. Let us give
precedence to the best interests of the child. Let us not pass
this legislation which this government wishes to have us pass.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and contribute
to the debate this afternoon on Bill C-3.
I thought it was interesting that when the minister responded to
a question today she said that the Young Offenders Act had been
under debate for the past two years. I thought she must
have been sleeping in the 35th Parliament. The debate on the
Young Offenders Act was one of the first things we dealt
with when we entered the House in January 1994. There had been a
nationwide request for submissions on the Young Offenders Act in
the late fall of 1993 and the justice committee tried to move
that agenda forward in the 35th Parliament. I believe we were
successful only in forcing the federal government to bring a very
weak piece of legislation at the time into the House which dealt
with nothing that was identified by Canadians as a problem with
the Young Offenders Act.
It would appear that Bill C-3 is another lackluster attempt by
the federal government to deal with the concern of Canadians with
the Young Offenders Act and its inability to deal with the
changes in our society and where young people find themselves.
It is not just adult Canadians who have identified the problems
with the Young Offenders Act. It is the young people who have
indicated to my colleagues and to myself that they do not feel at
all protected by the Young Offenders Act. There is no
significant penalty being paid by young people who choose to live
a life that is less than desirable.
I sympathize with the Bloc in that Quebec does have a much
better system for early intervention than we will find anywhere
else in the country. Early intervention is certainly not
something that replaces the Young Offenders Act. It is something
that should work with the Young Offenders Act. It is something
that should continue to be used and supported in the province of
Quebec and hopefully in other provinces.
In my province of British Columbia we have a program in a number
of communities that deals with first time offenders or young
people who show that they are getting into the wrong choices.
Two of the communities in my riding have that program. The
process is to bring them into the program for counselling, to
work with the parents and their schools and to try to give these
young people, who have made a bad choice or perhaps got mixed up
with the wrong group of friends, an opportunity to change the
direction in which they are going without having a criminal
record.
That is not what a young offender act is all about. A young
offender act, although it can deal with some of these alternative
measures for first time offenders and for young people who are
not criminal in nature or who are not going to be repeat
offenders, should have other ways to deal with that. A young
offender act deals with young people who have chosen to go in a
direction that is not acceptable to society. They need to know
very strongly and very clearly that their actions are not
acceptable and there is a penalty to pay to behave that way.
1615
That has not happened in the past. With the present Young
Offenders Act under which we now operate there is not a clear
definition of what a young person can get away with. I think
young people are asking for that clear definition.
Once again the government has brought in a piece of legislation
that does not give those kinds of clear definitions. I have
noticed that again there is a reluctance to understand there are
11 year olds in society who are part of the group of young people
that have chosen to violate the law and do things that are
abhorrent to society. Unfortunately those 11 year olds are not
dealt with.
If the government thinks that they are dealt with under the
social services and child protection acts of the provinces,
surely the statistics out there would indicate that is not the
case. The provincial governments do not have the resources or
the ability to make sure those young people get appropriate
treatment.
It has also been brought to my attention over the course of this
debate that the federal government has once again reneged on its
commitment to fund the services for young offenders to 50%. If
the federal government is to bring in legislation that puts the
onus on the provinces to deliver a service with the understanding
that there would be financial contributions of up to 50% of cost,
why does it never meet that commitment? Whether it is in health
or the young offenders act, why is the federal government not
meeting a commitment it is making to the provinces to fulfil an
obligation that is there?
If these young people are brought into the system and are
treated, perhaps we will not have an increase of 360-odd per cent
of violent offences by young people. If a young person breaks
the law repeatedly, does not pay any significant price for doing
so and then goes back into the school environment holding himself
up as a tough dude who will continue that kind of behaviour, why
would we expect anything different?
We on this side of the House and others in society are asking
for the government to acknowledge that there are young people out
there who need substantial support because they do not mean to be
doing whatever it is they are doing and are being led astray.
There are also some young people out there who are not nice and
whose intentions are not to be good citizens of society. Those
young people also have to be brought into a system where they
know what will happen to them, what the lines are and what the
punishment will be. It has to be substantial enough that they
change the direction in which they are going.
It is quite obvious to many of us when we see what happens in
society. If young people are not given opportunities to
readdress where they are going with educational opportunities,
counselling or whatever they might need when they are young
offenders, chances are they will be in the system when they are
adults. We have seen it. Anyone who has had any exposure to the
prison system has seen that many individuals in that system
started at a young age and were young offenders.
A lot of it is because they never had to pay when they were
young people. The concern we have in the House is that we are
not distinguishing between young people who make a bad choice and
violent offenders. In this piece of legislation there is
reference to alternative sentencing, which means something other
than incarceration, being applicable to violent offenders.
We saw in the sentencing legislation brought down under the
criminal code a couple of years ago that violent offenders are
now being given alternative sentences, which means something
other than incarceration, and put back or left out in society
because there was not a clear definition in the legislation which
said a violent offender should be treated differently than an
ordinary non-violent offender.
The legislation for young offenders allows that same abuse of the
system.
1620
We have had numerous cases brought before the House of how it is
not working in the adult system. Why would we repeat the same
mistake in the Young Offenders Act when we have identified that
mistake in adult legislation in the criminal code?
Although there may be the odd provision in the legislation that
is supportable, for the most part it should not supportable by
individuals in the House. It is another weak attempt by the
Liberal government to brush the issue aside and say that it has
dealt with it. We will be revisiting the same issue, mark my
words, in another couple of years because the government has not
addressed it any more now than it did in 1995-96 when it brought
in its previous legislation on the Young Offenders Act.
It would be nice if the government would be a little more
willing to listen to the witnesses who appeared before the
committee giving constructive suggestions and if it would listen
to opposition members and actually do something meaningful to
readdress the Young Offenders Act.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is a
correction to the Speaker's ruling regarding report stage of Bill
C-3. Earlier this day the Chair delivered its ruling on the
groupings of motions for debate at report stage of Bill C-3, the
youth criminal justice act, and explained that a further decision
would be forthcoming on the voting pattern for each of the
motions in all groups.
At that time the Chair neglected to mention that Motion No. 123,
standing in the name of the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, could not be proposed to the
House because it was not accompanied by a recommendation of the
Governor General.
Standing Order 76.1(3) requires that notice of such a
recommendation be given no later than a sitting day before the
beginning of report stage consideration of a bill. Consequently
Motion No. 123 will not be selected and will be removed from the
notice paper.
[Translation]
MOTIONS IN AMENDMENT
Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy
to speak to a bill which impacts on society as a whole and Quebec
society in particular.
From the various speeches, it is obvious that we are far from
achieving any consensus as far as the application of Bill C-3 is
concerned. The Canadian Alliance would like to go further and the
government is proposing a bill without allowing us to express
ourselves freely on the impacts of this bill on society as a
whole.
It is so sad to see how much the government is playing party
politics, how it is using all of its powers to ram through a bill
that is absolutely not adapted to the solutions and the position
of Quebec. It is a bill which has not been studied and has not
received the support of several groups in Quebec, a bill which
runs counter to the objective of decreasing the crime rate.
It is a bill that should be the object of some very strong
speeches to explain to the public the impact of the application
of such a bill in Quebec. Those opposed to it in Quebec see this
as a useless and dangerous bill, which has no positive effect as
far as the reduction of the crime rate is concerned.
Nowadays, the solutions for returning to society a youth who has
committed a violent crime are to make sure that this youth is
able to reintegrate into the community, based on our assessment
of his needs.
1625
The minister wants to restore public confidence in the youth
justice system. I have doubts as to the minister's objective
because, to obtain a few votes in the next election, she is
bowing to demands in her own riding instead of taking into
consideration the effects this bill will have on youth in
particular.
Experts from Quebec, people on the front lines who are fighting
against youth crime, have criticised this bill. One only has to
think of criminologists, social workers, police forces, lawyers
and the Coalition pour la justice des mineurs. This coalition is
made up of 22 associations or individuals such as le Conseil
permanent de la jeunesse, la Centrale de l'enseignement du
Québec, le Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal, la
Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, Institut
Philippe Pinel, l'Association des chefs de police et pompiers, la
Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et des services
sociaux, l'Association des centres jeunesse du Québec,
l'Association des CLSC et des CHSLD du Québec, Marc Leblanc of
the École de psycho-éducation de l'Université de Montréal, the
Regroupement des organismes de justice, the Canadian Criminal
Justice Association and the Société des criminologues.
I could name a lot more who are saying no to the minister and to
her project, because it is does not carry unanimity, and
especially because it goes against the objectives of Quebec, that
being the rehabilitation of young offenders.
Quebec, as had been said, has no interest in a repressive
approach such as the one favoured by the New Canadian Alliance,
the former Reformers. A change of name does not mean a change of
mind. The Bloc Quebecois wants to explain these facts to the
population, because some have said that the justice system is
ineffective. The statistics for Quebec are very clear: the law is
enforced and the crime rate has fallen rather than risen.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The animals seem to have escaped from the zoo. Could we
have a quorum count, please?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I should not have
recognized the hon. member because he is obviously not in his
seat. What took place a moment ago did not actually take place.
However, I want to point out that I would not have responded to
a quorum call in any event. While we can certainly ask for a
quorum call, I do not think it is appropriate to refer to hon.
members in any circumstance in a deprecating way.
[Translation]
Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, we did note the absence of
the members across the way, government members who do not seem to
be concerned. Those Liberal members from Quebec are not here to
defend the situation in Quebec regarding the implementation of
Bill C-3. We will remind them of this fact during the election
campaign. We see them applauding the decision of the Minister of
Justice to act in a totally inadmissible way through the
introduction of Bill C-3.
Obviously, this bill has not garnered unanimous support and it
does not take into consideration the different actors in criminal
justice and in the area of young offenders rehabilitation. They
want to lower the age from 16 to 14 years and Reformers would
like to reduce that from 14 to 12 years and drag these young
people before a tribunal for adults. These children rather need
guides in society in order to be rehabilitated. We all know that
an adult criminal eventually goes back into society after having
spent some time behind the bars.
1630
We must look at the type of rehabilitation offered to those who
do not have an acceptable behaviour, whether they have committed
violent or non-violent crimes. This does not mean that we accept
the kind of crime they have committed, but I believe we should
give them a chance to return to society. Otherwise, it would mean
that we would be keeping them behind bars all their life for the
crimes they have committed.
Members of the Canadian Alliance say that society must show its
disapproval of these people by punishing them more harshly.
To send young people to prison where they meet more hardened
criminals, without giving any thought to their rehabilitation,
is like sticking one's head in the sand and not see that the
individual will be released shortly and have to live in and deal
with society.
If this young person has not had all the support he or she needs
to behave appropriately in life then society has to have some
concern for their rehabilitation. The young person must not be
further marginalized. We must look instead at the adolescent's
urgent needs so we can provide some help.
In Quebec, we know about personalizing treatment. We have to
talk about this. How do we help a young person who has committed
an offence? After committing the offence, the young person must
undergo a process of rehabilitation. The bill does not permit
this.
For example, if a young person appears before an adult court,
the period before sentencing would be too long. It is a fact
that this period is vital to the individual's rehabilitation.
There is a very long time, as we know, between the time of
proceedings and of sentencing. The young person could easily
divorce himself from his offence. There is no agreement on the
approach proposed by Bill C-3.
Under this bill, the face of juvenile justice will gradually
change with the new principles. The minister should have looked
at the impact of the way the Young Offenders Act is applied in
Quebec and the drop in the crime rate. We know that Quebec sets
the example in the treatment of young offenders.
A number of briefs were submitted by, among others, the
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la
jeunesse. These briefs point out that it is dangerous to treat
minors like adults and that rehabilitation will become
increasingly difficult for a young person who has committed an
act of violence, which is certainly reprehensible, but whom we
should nevertheless try to rehabilitate.
The minister refuses to budge. She did not allow us to review
the full impact of this legislation. It is regrettable that,
today, we must oppose this bill so strongly to show how this is
not the right way to do things.
While she may appear to be flexible, the minister is not at all
flexible regarding the implementation of this bill. Things will
be done on a case by case basis. Young people in particular will
not get adequate help on time to be rehabilitated.
The bill includes a series of limited powers held by crown
attorneys. This is not what Quebec had hoped for. Quebec was in
favour of including an opting out clause, to allow us to proceed
the way we already do in the area of youth crime.
[English]
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-3, the youth
criminal justice act. I am pleased because it matters to the
people of my riding of Prince Albert.
They are concerned about youth crime and about this legislation.
They are concerned.
1635
We have a federal penitentiary in the city of Prince Albert. We
have at least three other provincial jails in the riding. People
know about youth crime, adult crime, all kinds of crime, crime
committed by people on parole who should not be on parole, the
whole gamut. It affects my riding a lot, so I am pleased to have
this opportunity to speak.
This bill is meant to replace the Young Offenders Act, as we all
know, but that act is so bad that it has been characterized by
the Minister of Justice herself as “easily the most unpopular
piece of federal legislation”. This legislation, after it comes
into effect, will probably get the same title. It will be right
in there with the firearms legislation.
When the government announced a new youth criminal justice act,
it claimed it would be a top priority. Yet it has taken five
years for the government to get this legislation to second
reading, let alone to committee, report stage, third reading and
proclamation. If that is a priority, I do not know how the
government would characterize anything less than that.
Many of the youths for whom this legislation was crafted are no
longer youths. They are already into the adult system. They
have had no help from this legislation at all, as if it would
help. Not only has it taken five years to get here, but all of
the problems the Alliance has pointed out along the way are still
in there. It comes with all those glaring weaknesses. It pleads
for meaningful amendment, not what the Bloc envisages, which
would simply be to return to the old Young Offenders Act.
The Canadian Alliance anticipates that the time spent here on
debate and on amendments at report stage and at third reading
will be thoroughly wasted, as the governing Liberals appear to be
deaf to any reasoned arguments to make changes. There are
reasons I say this.
How have the Liberals handled this piece of legislation to date?
First of all, Bill C-3 contains very little of what witnesses
presented during the 1996 and 1997 justice committee hearings.
After almost a full year before the committee and after a
significant number of testimonies from witnesses, the committee
referred the bill back to the House without a single word
changed, if one can imagine that. The time and effort the
members of the justice committee spent listening to the witness
presentations and preparing amendments for committee were
thoroughly wasted.
One of the most significant causes of failure of the Young
Offenders Act and youth criminal justice to date is insufficient
funding to properly deal with young offenders. There is a
federal-provincial agreement to deal with that; it is 50:50. They
are supposed to split the cost of youth justice, with the federal
government picking up half and the provinces covering half. The
federal government is responsible for criminal law through
section 91 of the constitution. Section 92 gives provinces the
responsibility for administration of criminal law. Rather than
maintain its responsibility, the federal government has been
slowly permitting its participation to erode. Recent estimates
of its contribution place the amount in the range of 20% to 30%.
Those in the health field will find this a familiar story. The
government will argue that it recently allotted an additional
$206 million toward youth justice, but that $206 million is over
how long? Three years. That is less than $70 million a year,
and that amount does not cover the present shortfall in funding
to the provinces and will not cover the cost of this new
legislation.
When we turn to the legislation itself, we see that uniformity
of youth justice right across Canada is at risk with this bill.
Before the Young Offenders Act we had the Juvenile Delinquents
Act. One of the major criticisms of that act was that it
permitted the provinces to vary the way in which they operated
within the criminal law process. If a young person commits a
crime just over the provincial border, that young person may find
himself in a more difficult situation or an easier situation just
because of the location of the crime. That does not make sense.
Because of the complaints about and criticism of the proposed
youth legislation, primarily if not solely by the Bloc, Bill C-3
permits many of the problems of the Juvenile Delinquents Act to
return to this legislation.
There has been no adjustment of the age categories. Youths of
10 or 11 years old who commit crime are still not to be held
responsible for their actions.
1640
Let me make it clear that the Canadian Alliance has never
advocated locking up all 10 and 11 year old offenders. What we
are saying is put them in a system so that the courts can review
the circumstances and decide the proper method of getting each
young person who is in trouble back on the right track.
The government continues to leave young offenders to child
welfare, and often the welfare authorities do not have the
resources to properly deal with children in desperate straits.
Some violent children cannot be controlled without more serious
and professional treatment facilities.
On Saturday night in my riding I spoke with a young father who
is just frustrated to death with the youth criminal justice
system. He is at his wits' end. Parents cannot even force their
12 year olds to be accountable to them. If the courts do not
deal with them properly and have the proper resources, if the
parents do not have any authority and social services let them
go, what is the result? It is a young person who has too much
authority, no idea of accountability, and no one to account to
for his or her actions or for even what the courts lay out as
steps to get this kid back on track. It just is not right.
The Canadian Alliance and many Canadians believe a younger age
would be an age where the best opportunity for rehabilitation
could take place. It will not occur, however, if there is no
accountability for that age group, just as this father said. This
is the age group that could be helped the most if they were
included in the legislation. This would be real, authentic
rehabilitation, and it would place young offenders into programs
that could have a positive impact on their lives.
As a side benefit, and this father also made this point, it
would identify homes where children are not being given the love,
support, and structure they need to develop into law-abiding
citizens. In fact it was his contention that neglect is a form
of abuse. They could get the help they need when they need it
and where they need it. Should that not be the desire of
everyone here? Our official opposition justice critic has
pointed out that society is not being protected and that this
piece of legislation will just change nothing.
If we take a look at crimes committed by 16 and 17 year olds, we
see it is a huge problem. This age group constituted over 70,000
of the 135,157 cases heard before the courts between 1991 and
1996. That amounts to well over half the juvenile cases. Of
those cases, one might expect to see a significant number raised
to adult court, but actually only 385 cases were heard in adult
court. Perhaps more significantly, only eight of the 163 charged
with murder were transferred out of the juvenile system. Should
not this government, should not any government, be making a
serious effort to address the particular problem in the
legislation it brings to the House of Commons?
We will give the minister a little credit. She seems to have
taken note of first time non-violent offenders in this
legislation, and for that we are grateful. However it is
difficult to understand why she chose not to exclude repeat and
violent offenders from lesser forms of punishment. Young people
who appear before the courts on a regular basis, who are regular
clients, need to be dealt with in a serious manner to impress
upon them the fact that society does not condone their actions.
This is an issue we will have to deal with. We can deal with it
here and now before the bill is enacted, or we can wait for the
consequences in society and then deal with it here later on.
If we look at the central message of this piece of legislation
we see that preventing crime, meaningful consequences for
criminal actions, rehabilitation of the offender and
reintegration into society are the principles of the bill. The
first principle alone could keep a person speaking all day. We
could talk about why kids get in trouble with the law in the
first place. It has been studied endlessly.
We read in the declaration of principles, subparagraph
3(1)(a)(i): “preventing crime by addressing the circumstances
underlying a young person's offending behaviour”.
1645
That is the crux of this piece of legislation. We are looking
for accountability and responsibility for an individual's actions
on society. The main point is accountability and we are not
seeing it in this legislation.
What made the Young Offenders Act unpopular in the first place
continues in the new bill. We can hear members muttering about
that over there. The final word is that the bill will not serve
those for whom we believe it was written.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-3, which deals with
young offenders.
It is a very important bill because we must never lose sight of
the fact that it deals with a key segment of our society, namely
our young people who will take our place in the future. Some of
these young people may be experiencing problems that bring them
into our justice system.
First of all, I want to commend my colleague from
Berthier—Montcalm for all the work he has done on this issue. He
pleaded his case before the justice and human rights committee
for 27 hours non stop, trying to convince the government, trying
to get through to the minister who refuses to bring fundamental
changes to her bill.
The member for Berthier—Montcalm deserves our appreciation
because he has worked hard on Quebec's behalf, with a clear
mandate from Quebecers and with a strong desire to protect
Quebec's fundamental interests on this issue, which goes straight
to the heart of Canada's problem and which brings to the fore the
constitutional debate that has been going on in this country for
150 years. We must be conscious of the fact that this debate is
now reaching a critical point because it touches a very important
aspect of our life as a society. So, again, I commend the member
for Berthier—Montcalm for his work.
However, we cannot say the same for the government House leader
who, in response to the reaction of the Bloc Quebecois, which is
defending itself with the means at its disposal, those permitted
under the rules of parliament, i.e. introducing amendments, the
House leader who, in his great generosity and foresight—we give
him his due—said, and I am reading from an article in the
September 23 issue of the Nouvelliste, which was in turn based
on a Canadian Press story:
The House leader reacted strongly to the Bloc Quebecois tactics
“It is an abuse of the rules of the House. Canadians will not
be impressed”.
He estimated that this marathon debate could once again be
expensive for the House of Commons, particularly because of the
overtime paid parliamentary employees. “It will cost $3 million
to defeat the Bloc Quebecois amendments. This abuse of procedure
has become almost institutionalized. It is shocking and must be
changed. But, in the meantime, it is Canadian taxpayers who are
footing the bill”.
It is disgraceful for someone with the responsibilities of House
leader to react in this way. He is an experienced
parliamentarian. He knows just how helpless parliamentarians and
parliament are before government when it wishes to steamroller
such a bill through. He knows the weakness of parliamentarians.
The only course left to us is to take extreme measures, as the
Bloc Quebecois has done in this case, through the member for
Berthier—Montcalm, by introducing amendments which will bring
home the seriousness of the situation to the public.
The high-minded House leader talks to us of $3 million dollars.
How much did the Liberal-generated debates on the privatization
of Pearson cost? How many millions? How many hundreds of
millions? What was the bill for the whole helicopters and
frigates saga? The helicopters are too big for the frigates and
the frigates are too small for the helicopters. What did that
cost. How many other similar examples can be cited?
Just to enforce this new legislation for the next three years
will cost Quebec $69 million, $23 million annually. And the
government is worrying us about the $3 million it will cost to
defend the Canadian democracy that it is so quick to boast about
to other nations.
1650
To reduce the debate to such a level is a total disgrace, given
the responsibilities and experience of the government House
leader. We should keep repeating that it is unacceptable. He must
be desperate to resort to such an argument. It is the logic of
the weak.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: He is a sorry figure.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Yes, the hon. member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a sorry figure.
This is a very important debate for the young people who stand
to be directly affected by this bill. The whole process will
change. I also mentioned that the debate deals with a
constitutional issue.
It is an important debate for our youth, because this bill will
completely change the way things work right now. It is a totally
new approach. And as in many other areas, the position of Quebec,
as a distinct society, as a nation, is different than that of the
rest of Canada.
The focus in Quebec is on prevention. Quebec relies on
rehabilitation. Canada prefers a more punitive and correctional
model. These are two totally different approaches and the federal
government comes trampling in to impose its process on us. If it
wants to impose it on the English-speaking provinces, it is its
right, its choice. But when it tries to impose it on Quebec, it
must realize that the opposition being voiced by the Bloc
Quebecois is only the tip of the iceberg.
If I have enough time later on, I will list the members of the
coalition.
The Bloc Quebecois is but the tip of the iceberg. In Quebec,
nobody is supporting the federal government at this time. The
Bloc Quebecois is doing a great job of opposing the bill through
the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, and we will continue to
fight for as long as the government lets us and does not impose a
gag order as it is wont to do too often, in view of its claims to
democracy.
This is a big substantive issue, because our whole philosophy is
being changed. Instead of talking about prevention, they want to
punish and emphasize the seriousness of the offences of the
young, and they minimize their reintegration capacity. Until now,
in Quebec, our preferred approach has been to build on the
principle that the individual who has made a mistake can be
rehabilitated if we give him the support he needs and keep his
name and the whole matter confidential. In so doing, we believe
the young offender will go to school, have a family and lead the
life of a law abiding citizen. All of this is being destroyed by
this government and especially by the Minister of Justice.
This is also a serious constitutional issue. There are lessons
to be drawn from this. I have just explained how Quebec is on a
different course. It would be quite possible—and it has been
requested—that Quebec be exempted from this legislation, which
could be enforced in other provinces if they so wish.
As for Quebec, it should be recognized as distinct, and the
Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice should keep the
commitment he made in the aftermath of the referendum, when he
described Quebec as a distinct society. He still boasts about
that once in a while, but he does nothing about it.
He is not keeping his commitment when it comes to either young
offenders, or the millennium scholarships, the wildlife species
at risk, or health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction. It
is an empty shell, which is the reason why it should not be
forgotten.
The Bloc Quebecois voted against the motion because we knew it
was nothing but smoke and mirrors and that it would be an empty
shell. The Prime Minister shows it is indeed so every time he
misses the opportunity to recognize his own people, the Quebec
people, as a distinct society, not only in Quebec, but throughout
the world.
No, it is too far in the past, it is asking too much of the
Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice.
But this is catching me off guard, I did not think it would
happen so fast. I say it again, the Bloc Quebecois' opposition is
only the tip of the iceberg. The whole of Quebec is behind us.
The National Assembly voted unanimously, that is members of the
Parti Quebecois, the Liberals, the ADQ, all of them voted
unanimously denouncing the federal government's attitude.
1655
The only support it has in Quebec these days are Quebec MPs in
Ottawa. They are the only Quebecers who support this bill. We
would hope that at least one of them, maybe the member for
Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, would rise and tell the government
to stop trying to enact Bill C-3.
Even the Supreme Court of Canada, in previous judgements, voiced
its opposition to the spirit of the bill. The same goes for
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the
Human Rights Commission. Even the former Minister of Justice who
became the Minister of Health, made comments at the time which
run counter to this bill, which hopefully will be defeated.
Hopefully the government will come to its senses and for once
agree with the Bloc Quebecois because we know we are right.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are considering Bill which C-3 is
an important piece of legislation. It has lots to do with crime
among youth. As all of us in the House know, there has been
mounting public pressure on the government to give Canada
effective laws to deal with youth crime.
I emphasize that the vast majority of Canadian youth offer a
bright hope to our society for the future. The vast majority of
youth in the country are people of whom we can be proud, people
on whom we can base some good hopes for the future. They are
fine young people who are working hard to be an effective and
contributing part of society while learning skills that will
eventually allow them to lead society.
It is important for us to emphasize that we are dealing with
laws directed to a very small minority, but a minority that
places the majority of youth at substantial risk and in fact risk
to the public at large.
Just on the news yesterday there was a report of a severe
beating of a 14 year old or 15 year old youth in Edmonton who was
set upon by other youths. A gang connection is suspected. What
the police had to say really struck me as so bizarre. The police
said he was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I am sure that
was no comfort to the pain and suffering the young person had to
endure at the hands of lawless youths.
It is very important that we protect our children, families and
youth from crimes and violence by their peers and others in
society.
When she took the justice portfolio after the last election, the
minister said that bringing in changes to the Young Offenders Act
was her highest priority. That was in 1997. Well here we are on
the eve of an election, and an election may be called in less
than a week from today, and legislation is being rushed through
parliament against huge opposition. Legislation to do with youth
justice is being rushed through parliament against grave concerns
expressed by numerous experts. Legislation is being rushed
through parliament with 150 amendments put forward by the
government that have not even been considered by the proper
committee of the House. This is no way to deal with the highest
priority of the justice minister. I say shame on her for being so
ineffectual and derelict in her duty in bringing forward what she
says is her highest priority.
Before the last election the justice committee conducted months
of extensive cross-country hearings to get Canadians' wishes on
what changes they wanted to see to the Young Offenders Act.
1700
Yet we are told by those on the justice committee that most of
their work, these months of work, was simply ignored by the
justice minister in the bill. In fact the bill has been widely
criticized for its ineffectiveness.
On the surface many of the provisions Canadians have been asking
for were included but closer examination has disclosed not just
to members of the opposition but to members of interests groups,
to experts, to the witnesses before the committee that many
loopholes in the legislation will result in undesirable and
unanticipated exceptions.
I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the worse
faults in the bill. Although alternative measures for first time
non-violent offenders recommended by the official opposition are
in the bill, those measures are open to repeat and violent
offenders. In other words, repeat and violent youth offenders
may not have any meaningful consequences for their actions.
Alternative measures are writing an essay, making a poster or
doing a little community service, very minor responses to what
can be serious and even violent crimes. This whole area of
alternative measures has already proven to lead to incredible
injustice within the adult system, for example no jail time at
all for rape.
We are facing the same unfairness, the same anomalies now
available in the youth justice system. We wonder whether the
justice minister watches what is going on when she simply repeats
and expands on the mistakes she has made in previous legislation.
The second fault is that adult sentences, while they may be
warranted, will rarely apply to the actions of violent and
serious young offenders. Adult sentences will apply only to four
categories of offences: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter
and aggravated sexual assault.
There will be no adult sentences for sexual assault with a
weapon, hostage taking, aggravated assault, kidnapping and a host
of other violent offences. Whereas the justice minister is
saying hard core youth criminals can be severely dealt with as
adults, the truth of the matter is that in almost every case that
will not happen. That is a serious flaw in the bill.
The third flaw in the bill is there is no way to deal with
serious offenders under age 12. The minister rose in the House
today and asked with horror and contempt in her voice why we
would want to make criminals out of 10 year olds. The simple
answer is no one wants to do that, but the sad fact is that there
are sometimes extremely serious crimes committed, even murder, by
10 and 11 year olds. There needs to be a way for society to deal
with that in a meaningful fashion.
In addition, having every person under 12 exempt from any
responsibility or accountability in our criminal justice system
simply invites them to be exploited by adult criminals. We are
actually putting young people, children under 12 at risk by
refusing to have them brought into the system.
I agree with my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough
who said this morning that if circumstances sometimes warrant
youths being transferred to adult court, they also sometimes
warrant children being transferred to youth court. That just
makes perfect common sense and will benefit everyone in society
including the children in question.
1705
The fourth flaw is that the bill will result in a patchwork,
uneven, unequal youth justice system because every province will
administer it differently. Someone who may be right across the
border from another young offender or may travel from one part of
the country to another will have completely different measures
and processes to deal with their offences.
That simply does not make sense, especially when the government
reacts with total horror at the thought that there may be
different standards of health care across the country. However
it brings in measures that will bring completely different
standards of youth justice across the country. I wonder where
the consistency is with the government. There is not very much.
My time does not allow me to continue with the flaws in the
system. I have already mentioned four serious flaws with the
legislation. I appeal to the government to stop the insanity of
pushing through badly thought out, widely criticized legislation
and to get it right because our children and our society deserve
much better than what we have in the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is not
the first time that I rise in the House to speak to this bill on
young offenders. I have done so at the various stages. I find
myself here again today, at the report stage, repeating things
that have been said many times, but the government seems too
stubborn to understand them.
The bill before us does not deal with a new federal or
provincial issue. An act dealing with young offenders has been in
effect for many years. That act even went through a number of
amendments a few years ago, and these amendments have resulted in
a number of improvements to the current act.
Therefore that act, which has been in force for many years, has
had tangible results on youth crime reduction. Indeed, since
1991, for the last nine years, the rate of youth crime throughout
Canada went down 23%. This is an excellent result. The federal
budget has greatly increased, which is not a good result. But
youth crime in Canada has been reduced by 23% in nine years.
The legislation that is currently in force is giving good
results. In English, there is a saying that goes like this: If it
ain't broke, don't fix it. Indeed, we have an act that is
effective, and what is the federal government getting ready to
do? It wants to scrap it.
It wants to replace it with a piece of legislation about which
everyone in Quebec says “It is not going to work. It will not
give results. It will make things worse”.
The proposed legislation is based on some very wrong
assumptions. They are assuming that, if an act imposes heavy
sanctions on reprehensible behaviour, those liable to commit such
acts will think twice before doing so. Between you and me, Mr.
Speaker, who among us in this chamber of members of parliament
and legislators, outside of those with a legal background, can
say what the sentence is for going out and breaking a car
windshield? I do not. I am not even interested in knowing. Most
of the people of Canada and of Quebec probably do not know, nor
do they want to. I have no desire to break a car windshield, but
not because I am afraid of the law. I am a peace-loving person,
able to settle life's problems by normal means.
1710
A child, a teenager will be no more aware of the law than I. The
fact that we are going to make speeches here in this place and
that the government is going to toughen up certain measures is
not going to scare him or her out of the idea of doing something
wrong. Most children are normal and will not do such a thing.
For a variety of reasons, some children have behavioural
problems and are going to commit some act that they will come to
regret. Legislation is not going to make them stop and think,
when they do something wrong on an impulse.
I was going to make a comparison, a rather poor one, but one
that comes to mind. This approach is akin to sweeping dust under
the rug.
The child, the adolescent, commits some reprehensible act and,
rather than help him with rehabilitation, we send him to prison
and put him away, “Go on, dirt under the rug”. Yes but, let us
stop and give that some thought. One day, this young person will
return to society. Do you think he will be a better citizen for
having been shoved under the rug for a time? Absolutely not.
If we the public are to enjoy quality of life, we must give our
children appropriate care. The existing law provides for this.
The one being proposed would not permit it any more.
In Quebec, we do more in rehabilitation even. Our program in
Quebec is further ahead than that of anywhere else in North
America. In Quebec, the juvenile crime rate is the lowest in
North America. The process of rehabilitation is the best in
North America. The rate of recidivism is the lowest in North
America.
The recipe works. The moral is, since we have a recipe that
works, the federal government says “Dump it. Let us make sure
we have a recipe that will not work”. This is what we have
before us. It is not just the member for Portneuf or the members
of the Bloc Quebecois saying this. This is what associations,
organizations and intermediate bodies are saying throughout
Quebec and Canada.
In Quebec there is a consensus. The Quebec bar has criticized
this bill. In the national assembly, all the parties together,
unanimously, have criticized it.
Here, the Bloc Quebecois, through its actions in parliament,
speaks on behalf of everyone in Quebec when it says “This bill
must not be passed as it stands”.
If the people in the rest of Canada want to treat their children
this way, I find it unfortunate, but that is their business. For
the love of heaven, do not impose that approach on the people of
Quebec. For the love of heaven, do not force Quebec into this
unsuitable mould you are going to impose on your families and
your children.
What we are asking is very simple. We want Quebec treated in a
manner worthy of its values, its experience and its children.
All we ask is to have added to the bill a little clause to the
effect that “This law does not apply to Quebec. The existing
law will continue to apply”, so that our successful results will
continue to be a fact of life for Quebecers.
If Canada wants to go through with that unfortunate measure, so
be it. Perhaps in a few years, when it sees this 23% reduction go
the other way, it will realize it made a mistake, but we do not
want to pay for the stupid mistake that is being made.
1715
If I were Mr. Bouchard, I would hold a referendum on behalf of
children and I would say “We do not want to stay in a Canada
that will force us to treat our children in an such a shameful
manner. Let us get out of this country”.
If the bill is passed in its present form, it will be yet
another reason, and a good one, to hold a referendum to achieve
Quebec's independence, so that we can live in accordance with our
own values, so that we can treat our children properly, something
which the rest of Canada does not seem to be able to do.
It would be so simple for the rest of Canada to go its way and
to let us go ours.
We do not want to impose our views on anyone and we do not want
anyone to impose their views on us, particularly when it comes to
our children.
My time is up. I hope the government will hear this call and
will exempt Quebec from the provisions of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the bill, as I
have in the past. I appreciate that we are in the first group of
amendments. I will keep my comments general with respect to the
youth criminal justice act.
I want to state at the outset that prior to being elected as a
member of parliament I did practise law. I did a fair amount of
work in the youth criminal courts. It was a real eye-opener. I
want to put this premise at the very beginning: every single
youth who ends up in our youth courts will end up back in the
community, whether they have committed a lesser offence or are
incarcerated. At some point in the continuum they will all end
up back in the community. We have to keep that in mind so that
we can help them help themselves and be integrated back into the
community.
My greatest concern with the new youth criminal justice act is
that we have taken the old Young Offenders Act and repackaged it.
We have put some new wrapping paper and ribbons on it and given
it a new name but by and large we have not made the substantive
changes that are necessary.
I will give a few examples. I want to emphasize that in my
experience I have seen a lot of troubled children with horrific
backgrounds who end up in our court system. Trying to stop them
from becoming career criminals and going through a revolving door
is another problem in itself. The focus has to be on ensuring
they do not end up back in our courts. How do we help them? How
do they become productive members of society?
I call it a tough love approach. I think we need to deal with
these people. When these young offenders are institutionalized,
the people at those facilities need to have the tools and
resources they need to do the job, as so often they do not, such
as the right counselling and drug programs. The goal at the end
of the day is to make sure these young offenders are taught
discipline and respect for society. I think that can be done.
I heard the Minister of Justice say today during question period
that we want to send 10 year old children to jail. In very
serious offences that will be necessary. That is what we are
pushing for.
There are cases where 10 and 11 year old children absolutely
need to be institutionalized to get the help they need. I mean
that sincerely. If we do not send them away when they are
committing really serious offences at a very young age, it is a
problem. In most cases they come from terrible backgrounds. The
best thing we can do for those young children when we
institutionalize them is to make sure that they get the programs
and the counselling they need. I would say based on my
experience that at least half of them have fetal alcohol
syndrome. There are all kinds of problems.
I heard the Minister of Justice say in question period today
that we have no compassion, no feelings, and that we want to send
10 year old children away. I believe in my heart that it is the
right thing to do if we are going to get them the help they need.
That is just one example.
1720
Adult sentences under this new youth criminal justice act are
for only very specific offences: first degree murder, second
degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated
sexual assault. That is why I say we have only repackaged the
old Young Offenders Act.
There are many other offences, such as assault causing bodily
harm, that are extremely violent offences. There are property
offences such as breaking and entering and home invasion. These
are very serious offences. We also need to look at these
offences. I call it a tough love approach. We need to deal with
these young offenders and make sure that this is not a place they
want to come back to, that they learn respect and discipline. We
will only be helping them.
There are other areas I would like to see addressed that are
not. One is with respect to the whole area of legal aid. I
watched young offenders who were given lawyers under the legal
aid program. One of my concerns is that we are sending the wrong
message. Many of these people are striving for attention. They
get their own lawyer and think that is cool. They walk into the
courts and it is “I have my lawyer with me.” We do not do
them a service. There are other ways in which that could be much
better addressed. I do not see this legislation as addressing
any of that.
I want to emphasize that at the end of the day our goal is to
help these people, because every single one of them, at least at
this point in their lives, will be back in society. We want to
make sure that they are not just being institutionalized. If
they need psychiatric help, counselling, anger management or
schooling, we want to make sure that all of it is happening while
they are in these institutions, that they are not just going
through a revolving door. I want to emphasize that I do not
believe in my heart that the bill is doing any of the things I am
talking about. It is important that we focus on providing what I
call tough love.
Youths used to come up to me and say they did not mind going to
jail for two weeks. Some of them actually kind of liked it.
What they used to absolutely hate was curfews. Under section 7
of the old Young Offenders Act there was a provision whereby a
curfew could be enforced by parents. In other words, if a young
offender breached that curfew the parents, as legal guardians,
had an obligation to report that breach. Obviously they could
not control that child, but they had to report the breach to the
authorities. That person would then be picked up at a later date
and brought back before the courts.
If, along with other conditions, we made curfews mandatory for
many offences, that would go a long way toward helping these
children, as I call them, with their problems. We need to take a
tough approach. It does not have to be a mean approach, but it
has to be a tough approach up front so that young offenders get
discipline and guidance and learn to respect society.
Home invasion and break and enters are not even mentioned in the
act with respect to adult offences. Other than sexual assault,
those are some of the most intrusive invasions into one's
personal privacy. These are very traumatizing for victims and
affect their lives for years. These young offenders, these
children, who are committing these terrible offences need to be
dealt with swiftly, not by taking a year to go through the
process, and without the adjournments. They need to be dealt
with very swiftly. They have to realize that society will not
tolerate these actions. They have to learn that there are
consequences. We will be helping those children to become much
more productive members of society and to have a much better life
in the future. That is a good approach.
I know that members from the Bloc oppose this vehemently and
seem to want to take a lesser approach. I do not share that
view. I am not talking about a mean approach. I am talking
about an approach whereby offenders learn respect for and
discipline in society. The institution becomes a place they do
not want to go back to. While offenders are institutionalized,
those institutions must have the resources to help offenders to
help themselves. Those who do not want to be helped will have to
learn that there are serious consequences and that those actions
will not be tolerated in society.
To summarize it in a sentence, I see this youth criminal justice
act as just a repackaging of the old Young Offenders Act. It has
a new outside, but by and large it is almost the same as what we
have.
1725
The substantive changes that are required are not there. There
is not the commitment on funding that is required to make sure
that the resources are available for these institutions in order
to actually help these people help themselves. For those
reasons, I will not be supporting this new act. I look forward
to this debate. Hopefully there can be some amendments that will
help to move us in this direction.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after listening to my
colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and my colleague from
Portneuf one gets a good sense of the divide that has come to
this difficult subject of youth justice. That is why I believe
the government has in this bill found a balance between the two
sides of the divide that I think all Canadians will ultimately
appreciate.
I would like to focus on one of the most important areas of the
bill, that is, the area dealing with youth custody and
supervision. Although one of the main objectives of the bill is
to ensure that custody is not overused, it will of course still
be used in appropriate cases, such as those of violent offenders
and repeat offenders who have not complied with previous
community sentences.
The bill contains a number of significant changes to ensure the
youth custody system operates so that youth who serve time in
custody do not return to the community in a situation that is
worse than when they left.
Underpinning the whole bill is the belief that young people can
be rehabilitated and successfully reintegrated into the
community. The focus of every custody sentence will be on
reintegration, on ensuring that public protection is increased by
measures aimed at assisting the young person so that he or she
will not reoffend. This reintegrative approach is in everyone's
best interest.
One of the most significant changes is the requirement that
every period in custody is to be followed by a period under
supervision in the community as part of the sentence. The judge,
when imposing time in custody, will clearly state in open court
the portion of the sentence to be served in custody as well as
the time to be served in the community under supervision and
subject to conditions. This is a very important requirement as
it increases the transparency of the youth justice system and
makes it clear that a part of the sentence to be served is to be
served in the community.
This increases public confidence in the system, as a decision as
to when the youth should return to the community is stated in
open court by the judge. The judge will also make it clear that
a youth who is serving the community portion of a sentence must
comply with conditions and that if they do not they can be
brought back into custody to serve the remainder of that
sentence.
Before discussing the supervision period in more detail, I would
like to speak in support of the government motion that would
provide for increased judicial discretion in setting the
community portion in relation to the most serious offences.
Under the bill, young people can receive youth sentences
consisting of a period of custody followed by a period of
supervision in the community. This can occur either through a
custody and supervision order that sets the time in the community
at one half the time in custody or through specific sentences
whereby the judge sets the proportion in custody and in the
community. The bill currently provides for this judicial
discretion in regard to youth murder sentences and intensive
rehabilitative custody and supervision sentences.
The government amendment would provide for judicial discretion
to set the community portion of the sentence in a manner that is
similar to that for murder sentences, where the offence is the
attempt to commit murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual
assault. These offences, along with murder, are the most serious
violent offences. It is appropriate that a judge have discretion
in setting the custody and community portions in these serious
cases, as well as for murder.
I would like now to turn in more detail to conditions that apply
to the young person serving the community portion of a sentence.
The bill contains a list of mandatory conditions, such as keeping
the peace, good behaviour, and reporting requirements, that apply
to a young person while under supervision in the community.
Further, the bill provides that additional conditions can be
imposed which address the needs and manage the risk of a
particular young person.
1730
The supervision and support in the community will be provided by
youth workers. The extent of the contact with youth will depend
on the individual case. It will vary according to the needs of
the youth, degree of risk posed and the program for support and
supervision that is put in place.
The conditions to be imposed cover a full spectrum and include:
(a) conditions to establish structure in the youth's life, such
as school attendance, place of residence, employment and curfews;
(b) conditions that prohibit factors associated with the youth's
offending behaviour, such as not associating with members of a
certain youth gang or abstinence from drugs or alcohol; and (c)
conditions that encourage law-abiding behaviour, such as
attending substance abuse programs, counselling or participating
in community service programs.
Elements of support would also be encouraged by the youth worker
to assist the youth's reintegration, including such things as
family counselling, finding educational and employment
opportunities, mentors and community supports for the youth.
I would like to speak in support of proposed government
amendments which clarify and reinforce that the period under
condition in the community is not just for the purpose of
supervising the young person to see whether or not he or she
complies with the conditions, but also to provide support to the
young person and to help meet their needs during their critical
transition from custody to the community.
When a young person fails to comply with a condition while under
supervision in the community, reviews will be conducted which may
mean a change in conditions or which can mean that the young
person may be apprehended and brought back into custody. After a
review by the youth justice court the young person can be ordered
to serve the rest of the community portion in custody. There is
an onus on the young person in this situation.
Each sentence with a custody and supervision portion is made
subject to the possibility that the young person will not serve
the community portion if they present a serious risk of
endangering the community. The youth justice court may order
that the young person remain in custody for a period not
exceeding the remainder of the sentence, if it is satisfied that
the young person is likely to reoffend before the expiry of the
sentence by causing murder or serious harm to another person or
for sentences other than murder where the conditions that would
be imposed on the young person in the community would not
adequately protect the public against offences against the
person.
A judge will make it clear to everyone at the time of sentencing
that if a court considers the young person to be a danger to the
public, he or she will not be released into the community to
serve the community supervision portion of the sentence but will
continue to serve the whole sentence in custody.
Looking at part 5 of the bill, we find, for the first time, a
legislative statement of the purpose of the youth custody and
supervision system as well as the principles that guide it. The
emphasis is on contributing to the protection of society through
safe and humane custody and supervision and through programs that
assist the young person in effectively reintegrating into the
community.
As I noted earlier, reintegration is a key component of the bill
and supports the protection of society by reducing recidivism
through guidance and support of a youth during the critical
period when he or she returns to the community.
Also, among the amendments tabled by the government is one that
will make it clearer that the principles in the declaration of
principles should be taken into account when it comes to making a
decision on the custody and supervision order.
Another measure that supports the reintegration of youth is the
bill's requirement for a reintegration plan. When a young person
goes into custody, a youth worker will work with the young person
to plan for his or her reintegration into the community, through
preparation of a reintegration plan that sets out the most
effective programs for the young person in order to maximize his
or her chances for successful reintegration into the community.
When the young person is serving the community portion of the
sentence, a youth worker will supervise the young person and
provide support and assistance to the young person in respecting
conditions and implementing the reintegration plan.
It is clear that the custody and reintegration provisions of the
bill, strengthened by the amendments proposed by the government,
will work in practice to increase long term public protection by
assisting in the reintegration of a young person into the
community following custody.
It is for these reasons that I am pleased, along with my
colleagues, to support the bill, because after all, it does
indeed put the young person first.
1735
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have not had
the chance to speak to this bill before, and the many
parliamentary duties I have to perform almost prevented me from
studying it closely.
It is not as a legal expert or as a person who is knowledgeable
in this field that I want to take part in this debate today, but
as a father of five. It is not easy to know what goes on in a
young person's head, particularly if that person has suffered
from socio-affective problems, maternal deprivation or other
problems of that kind.
I would like to tell a little story. One day, I went hunting
with my four year old son and we had a flat tire. For those who
know a little bit about cars, I took the bolts from the wheel and
put them in the hubcap, which I left on the road. While I was
removing the wheel, my son took the hubcap containing the bolts
and threw it as hard as he could into the woods. What was he
thinking? I was not very happy, but it is hard to predict what a
child will do.
As our colleagues from the Alliance, we are all appalled when we
hear about a criminal act or a brutal assault like the one that
happened in England a few years ago when two boys aged 10 or 11
killed a two year old boy. Of course we were all appalled. We see
these kinds of things once in a while.
However, is revenge society's right? Rather, should it not act
to protect itself and individuals, especially when they are as
pretty as my party's assistant whip? Kidding aside, society must
protect itself. But should it bear a grudge? Should it punish,
and vengefully so? I believe we are heading in the wrong
direction when we claim society should exact some kind of
vengeance on individuals, in particular young people, since they
are at issue today.
I did not read or see the statistics, but I heard them and they
tell me, and all the experts and those versed in this area, that
in Quebec youth crime has really dropped. Earlier the member for
Portneuf very convincingly said that youth crime fell by about 23
p. 100. This is worth noticing, and I believe we should stay the
course.
I had the opportunity to work with someone who made a mistake
when he was young, he killed someone. Fortunately it happened in
the early 50s. He spent several years in prison, and when he came
to work with us in Sept-Îles, on the North Shore, he kept it a
secret, he talked to no one about it. Unfortunately, it became
known, eventually, which was a real heartbreak for this man who
was sincerely sorry for what he had done in the past and wanted
to keep it a secret. He claimed he had paid his debt to society,
and I believe he had. He behaved in an exemplary manner, was a
hard worker, but had made a mistake when he was young, and he was
the first one to be sorry about it.
We are living at a time of rapid communications, when we can fax
a photograph. Some 20 years ago, the RCMP and the QPF had bought
a publicity slot during Hockey Night in Canada to show what was
the ancestor of the modern fax machine.
They wanted to show how it was possible, with the methods of
communication then available, to send the picture of someone
wanted in Halifax to Vancouver in record time.
1740
With the amazing speed of all these methods of communication,
imagine what will happen if the name of a young person who has
made a mistake and often regrets it immediately is released to
the public. How will he escape the condemnation of the community
if the facts of an affair are made public by the media? Only one
avenue remains. If he wishes to rebuild his life, he could
perhaps leave the country.
Society protects itself and I am not against it being able or
wanting to do so. But this bill goes further than protection. We
have not asked that heinous and highly reprehensible crimes be
allowed to go unpunished. That is not what the Bloc Quebecois is
calling for. It is simply asking that all the chances be put on
the side of those young people who can be rehabilitated.
What I find surprising is that Canadian Alliance members, whom I
respect, are asking elected representatives to lower costs,
taxes, just about everything. Now that they have an opportunity
to take up the call for less, they are calling for more.
It is expensive to keep young people in prison, and experience
has shown that those who end up there are more hardened criminals
than those who were spared. Spending 10, 12 or 15 years of one's
life drinking coffee, playing billiards and being bored does not
do anything for one's compassion. Prison is the best school for
crime.
We all know that. I am not saying anything new to the members
opposite.
We want to keep our youth out of there as much as possible, in
order to save those who can be saved. I believe this will be
better for society. The role of justice is not to take reprisals,
to play the role of avenger and to substitute itself to victims.
Justice must administer matters in the best interests of the
public.
I am surprised, and all the more so when I see the government
House leader attack us in the newspaper by saying that the Bloc
Quebecois has chosen a path which will cost the House of Commons
a lot and that he would not have done that.
I would simply remind him that the cancellation of the
privatization contract of the Pearson airport was supposed to
cost $225 million. I believe this is what it has cost for Air
Canada alone. The last time we checked, I believe the amount had
already reached $700 to $800 million. I also remind him of the
cancellation of the famous helicopters, which the government now
plans to buy once more. How much did that cost?
The government House leader says nothing about those issues. He
blames the opposition because it does its work, because its
opposes a measure which will be totally unjust and harmful to our
youth. The present system already works well in Quebec, where the
government administers justice in accordance with the established
constitutional order. Why not let the government administer the
system the way it does, since it does it so well?
1745
I support my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. Even if I am
not very familiar with this kind of legislation—we each have our
qualities and weaknesses—being more skilled in economic matters.
I support them on this issue. We should never allow ourselves to
be guided by grudges or by vengeance, which are bad advisers.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, like everybody else, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3,
which is the final response by the government to what we said
during the 1993 election when we said that the Young Offenders
Act had to be toughened up. We talked about it and hammered on
it. We ranted and raved in this place to bring about changes to
the Young Offenders Act.
Then we got the new Minister of Justice, the hon. member for
Edmonton West. In 1997 when she was appointed the Minister of
Justice, she said “Right on. We are going to bring in changes
to the Young Offenders Act”. Here it is the fall of 2000, seven
years after the Reform Party and now the Canadian Alliance began
talking about the fact that we need changes to the Young
Offenders Act and finally we have a document in front of us.
If one has been reading the papers and listening to the rumours,
there could be an election before this bill is passed and we
would be right back to square one. That would not be quite so
bad because then we would be on that side of the House. We would
make sure that a young offenders act was introduced in short
order. It would be a clear instruction to the young people in
our country that we do not like to mess around with kids. We are
going to instruct young kids who think they can mess around with
the laws of the country and that they can abuse people and commit
property crimes and so on that young people should not be doing
these things.
A short sharp lesson to young kids at that impressionable age
sometimes can speak wonders and can get them right back on the
straight and narrow. That sums up the position of the Canadian
Alliance: something short, sharp and productive that lets young
people in Canada know we want them to be good, productive, dare I
say taxpaying citizens, rather than a drain and a drag on our
society as we have to incarcerate them and haul them through the
court process month after month. It drags on. Sometimes by then
they have even forgotten why they are up in front of the judge.
They scratch their heads and say “Oh, yeah, I remember. Gee,
that was a long time ago, wasn't it?”
That is unfortunately how our justice system works. It takes
months and months and sometimes years and years before the young
kids get before a judge. And what do they get? A little smack
on their fingers and a reprimand from the judge saying “Excuse
me, but we really do not like you doing that. Can you please
refrain from that kind of behaviour from here on in. Off you go
and be a nice little kid from here on in”. And they laugh as
they go out the door.
There is lots wrong with the Young Offenders Act. While the
Minister of Justice says that she has made some changes and
recommendations in the bill, from our perspective it is woefully
inadequate.
We heard the minister say today that there is no way that she
would touch 10 and 11 year olds, but we know that 10 and 11 year
olds need to be brought under some kind of supervision when they
get totally off track. They need to be advised even at 10 and 11
years that there is good behaviour and bad behaviour.
Talking about bad behaviour, there are the amendments tabled by
our colleagues on this side of the House, notably the separatist
party, the Bloc Quebecois.
The number of amendments tabled by the Bloc Quebecois looks to be
about 50% more than the total bill itself judging by the
thickness of the document. I think they are playing games.
1750
We are serious about changes to the Young Offenders Act. We
think this is a serious issue. The country thinks it is a
serious issue. The Bloc members obviously do not think it is a
serious issue because they have tabled irrelevant amendments.
They filibustered the bill in committee for 10 hours so that
there was no intelligent legitimate debate. Unfortunately that is
the type of debate we get from the Bloc Quebecois, without
intelligence and without relevancy.
I am looking at one page of their amendments. It seems that in
their some 3,000 amendments they suggest that each and every
clause be deferred for three years, five years, ten years before
coming into force and that the minister report on each and every
clause every year, second year, five years, or whatever it is. If
that was their intelligent intention, they could have called for
the Minister of Justice to table a report in the House on the
operation of the Young Offenders Act, but obviously the way that
they are doing it is not for the benefit of society. It is not
for the benefit of the people who are victimized by young kids.
It is not for the benefit of young kids who need to be brought
under the Young Offenders Act. They have done this strictly for
their own political gain. That is why I would hope that after the
next election there are a lot fewer Bloc members in the House
than there are today.
I am looking at Bloc Motions Nos. 2231, 2232 and 2233. Motion
No. 2231 calls for the deletion of lines 1 to 13. It gets rid of
the whole clause. Motion No. 2232 calls for the deletion of
lines 5 to 8. The next motion calls for the deletion of lines 9
to 13. There are three motions dealing with the same issue. That
shows the petty political games our Bloc friends are playing with
a serious issue.
The Canadian Alliance is concerned about safe streets. We are
concerned about safe communities. We are concerned about
ensuring that Canadian society continues to be respected as one
of the best in the world.
We hear in the crime capitals in the United States, for example
New York City, that crime is down 10% to 20%, that murders are
down 10% to 20%. In the United States serious inroads into crime
are being made. They are tough on crime. Perhaps there is a
correlation there that the Liberal Party and the government have
missed. If we are tough on crime, if we punish crime, then
people get the message. They should not do it and it should not
happen again. That is not with disregard to rehabilitation.
There are myriad reasons for crime. We cannot point to one
single issue: broken families, alcohol, drugs, lack of
education, cultural problems. There are myriad reasons that
people resort to crime. One of them is a lack of education and
the capacity for people to live, work and prosper in this complex
technological world we live in. The other one is the lack of
moral instruction to differentiate between what is right and
wrong.
We have heard in other debates in the House about the fact that
we cannot talk about morality. Then we find that young children
cannot differentiate between what is right and what is wrong, and
what society considers to be respectable behaviour and what
society considers to be behaviour that is reprehensible.
1755
Somewhere along the way, through our soft and fuzzy and pat them
on the head and ask them not to do it again concept, we have lost
the notion that we have to teach our kids the difference between
right and wrong. We have to teach them how to survive and
prosper and take advantage of the complex technological world we
live in. Other issues enter into it but these are the types of
things we need to work at.
The rehabilitation of young criminals pays dividends for the
rest of the young child's life. We can take someone who is
falling off the rails and keep them on the rails, keep them
productive and a contributing taxpaying member of society.
Compared to someone who is a continuous drain, the rewards and
benefits are immense.
Unfortunately the minister has fallen far short in this bill. We
wish we had more time to debate it. I would love to have more
time to debate it but let us get this bill in place before the
election.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased also to speak to this bill. I must say that
I made a special effort to be present today because I believe
that it is extremely important for me to comment on this bill.
To begin with, I would like to congratulate the Member for
Berthier—Montcalm. I have watched him these last few month and
I know he has done a considerable amount of work on this bill. In
our caucus, he has kept us correctly and adequately informed. In
committee, he has moved and debated many amendments and tried to
play a positive role. He has done an extraordinary job and I
wish to congratulate him.
I followed the debate from its start. We all know that Bill C-3
is a rehash of Bill C-68, which died on the order paper when
parliament was prorogued. We started all over and the bill was
examined for a long time in committee.
I was elected in 1993. During my first mandate I was my party's
critic for training and youth, even though I am a little older
today. I met with youth groups who were anticipating the bill.
Their concern was its approach, which was different from the one
used in Quebec. Consequently, I have been aware of the problem
for a long time.
As a former service director in the field of recreational and community
activities, I remember the approach in
Quebec, which favoured community work instead of imprisonment
for delinquents; municipalities and recreational
services made much use of this approach, which has proved very
effective in Quebec.
Let us talk about statistics.
It must be said that Quebec has the lowest youth crime rate in
North America. As mentioned by the member for Portneuf, that rate
has not increased since 1991 under the existing legislation.
Usually when a new bill is introduced it is in response to a
growing problem. In this case, the youth crime rate has decreased
by 23%. Where is the logic?
I went back to read what the former justice minister, who is now
Minister of Health, used to say on this issue. For a long time,
during question period, he used to answer that he did not think
it was a good approach, that the existing legislation was
effective, as evidenced by a decrease in the youth crime rate.
Why this sudden change? The new minister comes from an area that
seems to focus more on this issue. We just have to listen to the
speeches made by members of the Canadian Alliance. There was a
time when they talked about youth violence every day.
1800
The Minister of Justice, wanting to be re-elected in her part of
the country, probably decided that she should change direction
and take harsher measures with regard to young offenders.
Let us talk about one particular aspect of the bill. The main
change is that from now on 14 and 15 year old offenders would
be considered as adults under the criminal code. They would be
incarcerated and treated as adults. As if incarceration were the
answer.
I will make a comparison. Australia is now hosting the Olympic
games. We see that the Australians are doing very well; granted,
they are at home. We also see that the Canadians are not doing so
well.
We realize that our efforts are perhaps misdirected. As a
recreation professional and a former director of leisure
activities, I have always thought that the educational approach,
participation in different activities and the avoidance of
idleness are a good solution. The more the young are busy, the
less prone they are to commit crimes.
This bill goes against common sense. I am not surprised by this
position. Members of the Alliance, who represent a specific area,
have a certain position, and it perhaps is a reflection of their
constituents' concerns, and I can respect that.
As the hon. member for Portneuf said earlier, it is obvious in
this regard and so many others like the education of the young,
that we have two nations in Canada. In Quebec, a perfect
consensus has emerged between all stakeholders. I think it is
worth repeating their names.
The Commission des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de
la jeunesse, the Centre communautaire juridique de Montréal, the
Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes contrevenants, the Institut
Philippe-Pinel, the Association des chefs de police et pompiers
du Québec, the Conférence des régies régionales de la santé et
des services sociaux and all its members, the Association des
centres jeunesse du Québec, the Commission des droits de la
personne et des droits de la jeunesse, the Bureau des substituts
du Procureur général, and the attorney general herself, Linda
Goupil, who happens to be the MNA for my riding, are all against
this bill. Incidentally, the minister did all she could to oppose
this bill.
Quebec's solicitor general adopted the same approach against this
bill; the Association des CLSC et des centres hospitaliers du
Québec, the Regroupement des organismes de justice alternative du
Québec, The Child Welfare League of Canada, The Canadian Criminal
Justice Association, the Association des avocats de la défense du
Québec, the Société de criminologie du Québec, the 125 members
from all parties in the Quebec National Assembly are all opposed
to this bill. There is a perfect consensus in Quebec.
Nothing illustrates this better than the fact that no Liberal
member from Quebec has yet risen during this debate to speak in
favour of the bill, because they know that parents, young people
and youth organizations in their ridings are all opposed to this
bill. But, because of the party line or the impending election,
they keep quiet, if they show up at all in the House.
I can see one Liberal member from Quebec, but his colleagues are
not in the House. They cannot bear to listen to what we have to
tell them. They would rather stay in their offices than hear Bloc
members, who are really speaking for Quebecers on this issue.
They prefer to stay away. They do not wish to speak on this
issue. They are not true representatives of Quebecers. It is time
for a change and it will change soon.
The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has just come in, he
is getting closer. The government House leader said that we were
only wasting public funds.
1805
The finance minister's last budget provides for $343 million
more over three years, supposedly for crime prevention, but most
of it is for this bill.
However, a closer look shows that the present government still
owes the Quebec government $87 million for its application of the
current legislation since 1989. What a scandal. How does it dare
say it intends to spend more while it is not even able to pay
its debts, while it refuses to pay the Quebec government for
what it is doing very adequately. This is unacceptable.
One last point, since my time is almost up. Some are saying that
the Bloc Quebecois is playing petty politics over this. This is
absolutely false. There is a consensus. I will not repeat the
list, as it is a long one. Thousands of our constituents who talk to
us about this cannot believe that the government wants to do
this.
To conclude, let us not forget our young. Is it the right
approach to lock up 14 year olds to rehabilitate them into
society? It is the right approach, since, as everybody knows,
prison is the best school for crime?
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we are back again debating the Young
Offenders Act or, as it is now called, the youth criminal justice
act.
I want to say a couple of things about our youth. The first
thing is that we can very clearly distinguish the two kinds of
youth. The vast majority of youth are law-abiding young people
much like their parents or adult friends, and indeed most people
in Canada, who are struggling to try to make their way in life.
They want to look forward to the future with some hope but they
do worry about their personal safety when they go out at night,
when they wait at a bus stop or when they interact with other
young people.
We also have a very small minority of young people who choose a
life of crime, to break the laws, whether it is a lesser crime,
such as property offences, or more serious offences.
The thing that most concerns me and Canadians is what I
would call a lack of respect. I have heard over the past number
of months my new leader, the leader of the Canadian Alliance,
talk about respect and the need to instil respect not only in this
institution in the way we do politics and government but the need
to instil respect at every level.
What concerns me the most is the lack of respect young criminals
have for the law, private property, other people's rights and,
sadly and tragically in some cases, even the lack of respect for
other human life.
However, I will focus for a moment on the young people
themselves. If we are going to address the need for young
offenders' legislation, what is now called Bill C-3, the youth
criminal justice act, we have to talk about the young people in
the sense that they are the most vulnerable because they are the
most at risk from their peers. Who interacts with young people
more than young people themselves?
1810
I can speak from experience in that regard in that I have three
young children. I am very fortunate to have three beautiful
young children: a son who is 17, a daughter who is 19, and my
oldest daughter will be 22 within a month. I am extremely
fortunate that they have never been victims of crime. I thank
God every day of my life that they have not been victims of
crime, because I cannot imagine a greater pain for any parent or
grandparent than to have a young person they are related to
become a victim of crime.
The great failing of this bill is that it does not address the
fundamental issue of the protection of the vast majority of our
young people, who as I said are law-abiding citizens, our
youngest citizens, the future leaders of our nation. The bill in
its present form will not address that fundamental issue in any
meaningful way. It will not hold young criminals accountable and
responsible for their actions, and it will not protect the vast
majority of our youngest citizens who are law abiding.
If I were to sum up the bill, right at the outset I would have
to say it is a colossal waste of time, energy, and effort and a
betrayal of the trust and faith the Canadian people put in their
elected parliamentarians.
We have to take a look at the history of youth justice, or what
the government chooses to call youth justice. For my entire
lifetime as a politician, which admittedly is not all that long I
have been speaking and writing on this issue. I was only elected
in 1993 so it has been about seven years now. I am fortunate
that, with the co-operation of the newspaper in my riding of
Prince George—Peace River, I have been writing a weekly column
for over seven years. I have probably written a dozen times on
this single issue of youth justice and the need to reform the
Young Offenders Act to accomplish those two important goals: to
hold young criminals accountable and responsible for their
actions while at the same time respecting the rights of and the
need to protect the vast majority of young people who are law
abiding.
To me it is a bit of a sad testament that all of us, regardless
of what party we are from, have had to talk and talk and talk
about this issue for so long with so very little happening. In
the last parliament a lot of work was done by the Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights as it travelled across the
country holding hearings. Dozens, hundreds, of Canadians
participated in those hearings. They came as witnesses
willingly. They gave up their own time to come and relate their
feelings about this important issue to parliamentarians, in the
hope that something would change. That was back in 1996 and
1997.
The present justice minister was appointed following the
election of 1997, so she has been in this position now for over
three years. She said her number one priority was to bring about
these changes. Finally in March 1999, almost two years after she
took the office, she introduced Bill C-68, not to be confused
with the infamous Liberal gun registration bill. Of course that
bill died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued in the
fall of 1999, and it was reintroduced as Bill C-3.
Clearly what Bill C-3 means to people and what it proves to
people is that the government simply is not listening. It is not
listening, and what clearer way to demonstrate that.
Bill C-3 is the Liberal effort at youth justice. There are the
3,133 amendments to Bill C-3. What is important is not that
there were so many amendments, because obviously political
opposition parties will use the process of amendments as a
delaying tactic, or that the Canadian Alliance put forward
roughly 50 amendments to Bill C-3 which were well thought out and
well intended. What is really notable is that the government put
forward 150 amendments to its own bill. This must indicate how
badly flawed its legislation is when it had to bring forward 150
amendments.
1815
What frightens me is that Bill C-3 and its amendments,
undoubtedly because of the sheer enormity of the task ahead of us
as parliamentarians to try and sort through over 3,000
amendments, will be passed by the government because it has a
majority. I suspect it will bring in time allocation, as it has
countless other times, and will ram a bill through the House that
it very well knows is deeply flawed. It will then be up to the
courts to try and deal with the mess later. What an absolutely
ridiculous way to pass legislation.
What do Canadians want? I believe it is not a long list.
Canadians want sentences to fit the crime. They want violent
criminals removed from society. They want effective crime
prevention programs in schools to save younger children brought
into the system so they can get the help they need. They want
older teens and violent criminals to face adult court. They want
the names of violent and sexual assault criminals to be published
so that everyone knows about them. They want the rights of
victims to be paramount to that of the criminal irrespective of
age.
The reality is that Bill C-3 does not contain any of the
priorities that Canadians want to see addressed with the reform
of the Young Offenders Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the time when
the Liberal Party could describe itself as a social democrat
party is long gone. Everybody remembers the time when Prime
Minister Trudeau bragged about being a social democrat and
introduced in parliament many bills taking into account the
concerns of those members of parliament who were sincerely
interested in their constituents.
How did the Liberal Party become a right wing party almost
overnight and to everybody's surprise? I submit that the change
can be explained by the imminence of an election. On the eve of
an election, the Liberal Party has the unfortunate habit of
spending indiscriminately and of adopting specific ideas to try
to please different groups, be it from the west, from Quebec or
from the maritimes. That is what the Liberal Party does.
This has to be said, and people have to know and remember it.
Quebec's approach young offenders is much more humane and more
focused on rehabilitation. Curiously enough, the area of Canada
where the repeat offence rate is the lowest is Quebec, where we
take these young people, we work with them, we help them, we
support them and we try to put them back on the right track. The
members opposite like to say how beautiful and great Canada is,
but as for young offenders, it is Quebec that gets the best
results.
1820
Why should we, as lawmakers, change what is being done in Quebec
to implement a Canadian model that is more rigid? Is there an
hon. member in this House who can explain to me what principle
dictates that we should legislate the wrong way around? They do
not care about what works, while they should. I say this not to
play party politics, but to inform our viewers. We should take a
look and ask ourselves some questions. Where is the situation
best dealt with? Is there a place in Canada where we get better
results?
It just so happens that Quebec gets better results with young
offenders. There are statistics and data supporting this, and the
approach is different. Would it not be smart to follow the
example of the government that has the best results? Would hon.
members not be commended for taking Quebec's approach? They could
decide that, since the results are better, they could
improve their system.
Well, no, they make it harsher. Not only do they make it harsher
in the rest of Canada, to please voters in western Canada who
share this view, which is really inconceivable, but they also
want to influence Quebec's system. They want Quebec's system
to become harsher.
Did anyone ever see a government that legislates the wrong way
around more than this one? The government will go even further. In
the one place that gets the best results, the government will
ensure that the same rules will apply as in the rest of Canada.
We do not want the lowest common denominator. We do not want it.
The government House leader made the unfortunate mistake of
saying that we were wasting the money of the House of Commons
with all our amendments.
Here is the government House leader's reasoning on the Bloc
Quebecois amendments “All your salaries, the electricity, the
fact that parliament is kept open, this is a waste of money”.
However, when the 200 amendments introduced by the Minister of
Justice, because she did not do her job right, are being
examined, this is not a waste of people's money.
Interestingly, for the Liberal government—I hope that
citizens who are listening will take note—when Bloc amendments
are being examined, we are wasting the government's money; when
Liberal Party amendments are being examined, this is good. I am
baffled.
If we listen to the government, if we follow such reasoning to
its logical conclusion, let us close parliament, let us stop
talking about all these things, because we are wasting money.
We will have this debate because we deeply
believe that for a 14 year old who is sentenced to a minimum of
about 15 years in a penitentiary, that is a very long time.
We know how sentencing works for very serious crimes. An offender
with a life sentence will spend 15 or 20 years in a penitentiary.
Is there a parent in Quebec or in the rest of Canada who does
not understand that his child, a 14 year old, could end up in a
federal penitentiary for 15 or 20 year, if convicted of a
serious crime committed out of youthful aberration, out of total
carelessness or because of a more serious problem? Is there
anyone listening tonight who believes that when he is released
at 29 or 34, the young offender sentenced when he was 14 years
old will have any chance at all of becoming a normal citizen? No
one thinks so.
1825
We are being asked to scrap human beings. We are being asked to
destroy their lives. Out of rage, or lord knows what mental
process, they are asking us in Quebec to abolish a rehabilitation
program which is, by far, giving the best results in Canada, and
to replace it with a system that will put 14 year old
children—it could be your son, my son or my daughter—behind
bars, in a penitentiary, until they are 30.
This means a life completely thrown away, an unspeakable
reprimand, an indescribable approach, which has nothing to do
with patience, tolerance or the capacity a society has to support
its deviant members and to turn them into responsible citizens.
That is what we have done with young offenders in Quebec, and we
have succeeded in 98% of the cases. We must not forget that.
This is not a political issue, it is a human issue.
All the associations in Quebec that take an interest in these
issues are unanimous, not because they support the Bloc
Quebecois, not because they are all mean separatists, but rather
because they are human. They have an open approach, believe in
what we do, and want to save human beings, not destroy their
lives. They are profoundly convinced that our past is a
guarantee of our future, and they believe in good faith that
Quebec may have a contribution to make to the rest of Canada in
terms of rehabilitating offenders.
I am asking her colleagues to think about it. I am also asking
our colleagues of the other parties to do so. She said it dozens
of times in the House, and everybody heard it. It was in the
debates of the House, in Hansard. We heard it and people who
usually listen to us heard it. She repeated it on all television
stations, in all the newspapers of Canada and said it many times
to my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, who was
questioning her. She said “The bill is good. The member does not
understand it. Quebec does not have to apply this bill that way.
It will be able to apply its system, as it did in the past. The
bill will not compel it to use the new system”.
However, the member for Berthier—Montcalm, who is a lawyer, a
jurist, a serious man who has given it thought and discussed the
issue with people from Quebec, disagreed. He told the minister
over and over again “This is not true. This is not what we are
being told. This is not what the judges are telling us. This is
not what the lawyers are telling us. We cannot all be insane in
Quebec. There must be someone who is right somewhere. The
minister has to be wrong”.
Yet the minister kept saying “Quebec will not have to
enforce this act. There is no problem. It will not change the
system in place. It will only give the rest of Canada the means
to satisfy its needs”.
I am asking members opposite, particularly the Liberal
members from Quebec, in front of all the people watching us if
what the minister has been repeating dozens of times in the House
is true, why does she refuse to add a short sentence in the bill
to the effect that Quebec will not have to enforce the act. She
has said so in this House. Why not write it down, then?
Let me say in front of the cameras to the people in Quebec and
the rest of Canada, that I have personnally
offered to the government House leader to have the
bill passed in less than 30 minutes if he were to agree to
include in the legislation one little sentence that the minister
must have repeated 10, 15 or 20 times in the House, to
the effect that the system in Quebec will not be affected and
Quebec can choose to ignore this legislation. If the minister
were to put this in the bill, we would pass it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Our right to opt out.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: If our right to opt out is not upheld,
the government will be leading Canada right where we want it to go. Some
day, no one in Quebec, not even the federalists, will have a
reason to stay in this federation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.30 p.m., the
House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)