36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 8
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 21, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| GOVERNMENT RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTS
|
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1005
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-259. Introduction and first reading
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| PETITIONS
|
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Nisga'a Final Agreement Act
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1055
(Division 44)
| Motion agreed to
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Ways and Means Motion No. 1
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1100
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| The Deputy Speaker |
1105
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Nisga'a Final Agreement Act
|
| Bill C-9. First Reading
|
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Second reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. John Maloney |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Amendment
|
1240
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1245
1250
1255
1300
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1305
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1310
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1335
1340
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1345
1350
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| UNITED NATIONS DAY
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| FOOD
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1400
| SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
|
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| LUPUS AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Mr. Bernard Patry |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1405
| COPERNICUS LODGE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| SEMAINE DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES DU QUÉBEC
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| CO-OPERATIVES
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1410
| GAIRDNER FOUNDATION
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| BRUNY SURIN
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| JULIUS K. NYERERE MEMORIAL PROJECT
|
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| ROYAL 22ND REGIMENT
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1415
| JEUX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE CANADIENNE
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
1420
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. John Cummins |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADIAN FARMERS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| AIRLINE INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1430
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1435
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1440
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| PAY EQUITY
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1445
| Hon. Robert D. Nault |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1450
| GRAIN
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| BILL C-6
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1455
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| PLUTONIUM IMPORTS
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1500
| INTEREST RATES
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Comments during Question Period
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1505
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Canadian Security Intelligence Service
|
| The Speaker |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1515
| The Speaker |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| The Speaker |
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
1520
1525
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Randy White |
1530
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| THE LATE HON. ALAN MACNAUGHTON
|
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1535
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1540
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1545
| The Speaker |
1550
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
|
| Bill C-3. Second reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1555
1600
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1605
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1610
1615
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1620
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1625
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1630
1635
| Mr. John Duncan |
1640
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1645
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1650
1655
1700
1705
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
1710
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1715
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1720
1725
1730
1735
| Mr. René Canuel |
1740
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1745
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1750
1755
1800
1805
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1810
1815
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
| Bill C-6
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 8
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 21, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTS
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
order to provide hon. members and the people of Canada with an
update on government achievements, I have the pleasure to table,
in both official languages, a report entitled “Managing for
Results 1999”, along with performance reports from 82
departments and agencies.
* * *
1005
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-259, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal
liability of corporations, directors and officers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity today to reintroduce a bill that establishes the
criminal liability of corporations, of their executives and
officers, for criminal acts or omissions carried out knowingly by
them which put the health and safety of their employees at risk.
This is a bill that arises out of a recommendation from the
public inquiry into the disastrous Westray tragedy in Nova Scotia
that killed 26 miners unnecessarily. It will establish once and
for all the public responsibility to protect employees in the
country against any such disastrous outcome.
The bill is long overdue. It is specifically a recommendation
of the Westray inquiry and Canadians will benefit from such
protection in the future.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour and a pleasure
for me to stand, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a
petition on behalf of a number of my constituents.
They are very concerned about the fact that we have a Senate in
our country. They consider it to be undemocratic and composed of
unelected members that are unaccountable to the people of Canada.
They point out the fact that there is a $50 million price tag
attached to this. They say that this is something from another
era and should not be taking place as we enter the 21st century.
They also say that we need to modernize our parliamentary
institution, Mr. Speaker, which is something I know you feel
strongly about. They are calling upon the parliament of Canada
to take whatever measures are necessary to abolish the Senate of
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that a ways and means motion to
implement certain provisions of the Nisga'a Final Agreement and
the Nisga'a Nation Taxation Agreement, laid upon the table on
Tuesday, October 19, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1055
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
|
Cardin
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
|
Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
(Windsor – St. Clair)
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mercier
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Volpe
|
Wappel
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 196
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Bailey
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
| Casson
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Penson
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Vellacott
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
– 47
|
PAIRED
Members
Alarie
| Bellehumeur
| Brien
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Discepola
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Fournier
| Fry
| Ianno
| Loubier
|
Minna
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Rock
| Sauvageau
| Serré
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Venne
| Wood
|
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
WAYS AND MEANS MOTION NO. 1
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. The adoption of this ways and means
motion which is the first step in implementing legislation in
regard to the Nisga'a agreement is out of order.
Not only is this issue very controversial and will have a
precedent setting impact on the entire country, the House should
know this agreement is before the courts. Beauchesne's sixth
edition, citation 505 states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are
before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record. The
purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties
in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to
be affected by the outcome of a judicial enquiry.
The government should not be allowed to proceed any further with
Nisga'a legislation since it affects one of our most fundamental
rights of free speech.
Beauchesne's also talks about respecting the sub judice
convention in the interest of justice and fair play.
Notwithstanding the fact that legislation enabling the Nisga'a
agreement was passed by the most unpopular government in the
history of British Columbia with a paltry 35% of the vote of the
electorate, we in this House must respect the objections and the
objectives of the other 62% of British Columbians and many other
Canadians, including parties to several litigations on the
matter, including the B.C. Liberals.
When considering this point of order, Mr. Speaker, you must
understand that we will stand up for the equal rights of all
Canadians, including the Nisga'a. We will do our utmost to
convince the Liberal government to reconsider its position and to
inform Canadians of the very significant mistakes that are being
made.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order. The
hon. member of course has a right to feel very profoundly about
any issue, just as I have a right to disagree with him and any of
us who similarly feel about an issue. That is not what is before
us today. It is whether or not the ways and means motions that
was just passed is in order or out of order.
1100
First of all, the speech we just heard is actually a reflection
upon a vote in the House and I would say that in itself offends,
at least in my view, our standing orders. The standing orders
say that the adoption of the ways and means motion—and that ways
and means motion has now been adopted—is an order of the House
to bring in a bill based thereon. Therefore, this gives the
minister the right, and some would say the obligation, to give
first reading to the bill.
The hon. member made a reference in his remarks with respect to
issues that are before the courts and how we should refrain in
debates from taking sides on issues when, at a criminal level,
charges have been laid, or at the civil level once an issue
reaches trial stage. That is meant to ensure that members in
their remarks in the House do not prejudice the outcome. It does
not have application to the adoption of a ways and means motion
by this House. The entire House, I am sure, knows that.
Therefore those points that were raised are not valid. This
motion is indeed in order and has in fact been passed in the
House. I believe that now is the time to introduce the bill
pursuant to the motion that we have now passed by a vote of this
House, democratically held.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in reviewing some of the sections of Beauchesne's
one is hit square in the face with the fact that the sub judice
convention deals specifically with debate, and that is not the
case with the matter that is before the House. There is no bar
whatsoever on the House itself considering legislation.
Mr. Speaker, you would be well aware of the fact that if that
was the case every time a matter wound up before the courts
parliament would be completely impotent and paralysed from
considering legislation.
I would suggest that the point of order from the hon. member of
the Reform Party is completely out of order.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would want to concur in the opinions offered by the government
House leader and by the House leader of the Conservative Party.
I find it very odd that a party that is always talking about
power seeping away from parliament to the courts is today arguing
that parliament cannot deal with an issue as important as the
Nisga'a treaty.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since first
being elected to this place in 1993 I have witnessed over and
over again that the government is not willing to respond to
questions in this House when the matter is before the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you, how can we properly debate this
fundamentally important issue to all Canadians and the Nisga'a
people when the matter is before the court? This flies in the
face of the conventions that I have understood since I came to
this place in 1993.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair would like to thank all
hon. members who have participated in this for their assistance
in dealing with this point of order, which was raised by the hon.
member for Langley—Abbotsford.
He cited at the opening of his remarks citation 505 of the 6th
edition of Beauchesne. I would also draw to his attention and to
the attention of all hon. members citation 506, which reads:
I skip on to citation 507, which reads:
No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil
cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not
in others.
In civil cases the convention does not apply until the matter
has reached the trial stage.
The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has not brought to the
House any indication that there is a criminal proceeding
involving this case, nor is it possible to imagine how there
could be at this time.
Accordingly, I feel that given the past practice of the House and
given the fact that the House is master of its own procedure, I
do not believe the House is bound by proceedings in the courts
until the court has made a ruling that binds the House. Until
the court has made a ruling that has bound the House under the
constitution of Canada, I feel that the proceedings so far today
are entirely in order and I intend to proceed with the bill
pursuant to Standing Order 83(4).
* * *
1105
WAYS AND MEANS
NISGA'A FINAL AGREEMENT ACT
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-9, an act to give effect
to the Nisga'a Final Agreement, be read the first time and
printed.
(Motion deemed adopted bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice) moved that
Bill C-3, an act in respect of criminal justice for young persons
and to amend and repeal other acts, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure this morning to speak at second reading of Bill
C-3, the youth criminal justice act.
[Translation]
In the throne speech, the government indicated its intention to
work with Canadians to ensure that our communities continue to
be safe. Its focus will be balanced, combining prevention and a
community-centred approach with action to deal with serious
crime. This balanced approach is clearly reflected in Bill C-3
which we are debating today.
[English]
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs extensively
studied our youth justice system, travelling to all regions of
the country and listening to Canadians. The members visited over
23 sites, involving a variety of facilities and programs. The
committee also held a number of round table discussions at which
it heard from many interests, both inside and outside the youth
justice system. The committee produced an excellent report
entitled “Renewing Youth Justice” and the government has
responded to that report with excellent legislation.
The minister of justice first introduced the youth criminal
justice act during the last session of parliament as Bill C-68.
The minister has had the benefit of having heard views on the
bill in this House and from others with an interest in the
complex issues surrounding youth justice.
While a range of views has been expressed, some find the bill too
harsh. Others find that it is not harsh enough. The government
and many others continue to believe that the bill reflects a
comprehensive, balanced and flexible framework for youth justice.
The minister of justice has reintroduced this bill and looks
forward to hearing the views of Canadians through the
parliamentary process. We believe this legislation will
establish a youth justice system that strikes the best balance to
deliver fair and effective measures that Canadians want and
deserve.
Canadians believe that our current youth justice system is not
working as well as it should in many significant areas and it
needs to be overhauled. We know that it will take a sustained
effort, involving all levels of government and many other
partners to tackle the complex problem of youth crime and to
build a fair and effective youth justice system. We look forward
to their participation in a constructive fashion for the benefit
of our children in crisis. That process is under way.
In 1998 the minister of justice and the solicitor general
launched the government's national crime prevention program.
Since then several millions of dollars have been invested in
community based crime prevention initiatives across the country,
dealing at the front end with the root causes of crime, with a
special focus on children and youth at risk.
Since its launch the national strategy has supported more than
600 crime prevention and community safety projects throughout
Canada. These projects are the products of communities and of
Canadians. The Government of Canada is proud to support these
grassroots efforts to make our country a safer place for all its
citizens. These are investments in our communities and in our
youth.
1110
Replacing and repealing the Young Offenders Act with the youth
criminal justice act is the next step in a process of tackling
youth crime. The new legislation signals to Canadians that a new
youth justice regime is in place. The new legislation reflects
in its preamble and principles the message Canadians want from
their youth justice system: that it is there first and foremost
to protect society; that it fosters values such as respect for
others and their property; that it insists on accountability;
that it provides both violent and non-violent young offenders
with consequences that are meaningful and proportionate to the
seriousness of the offence; that it be a youth justice system
that is inclusive and that engages Canadians in their response to
youth crime; and that it does a better job of responding to the
needs of victims.
That being said, the needs of youth will always be considered.
The new regime will be one which offers hope to youth and will
give those who get in trouble with the law a chance to turn their
lives around, for their sake, for the sake of their families and
their communities.
As the minister of justice has made clear in the House on many
occasions, we on this side of the House are not prepared to
criminalize 10 and 11 years olds. This is not the best way to
address the needs of children who are faced with situations
involving unacceptable behaviour. We believe that in those
circumstances where a formal approach is required child welfare
and the mental health systems are the preferred approaches. These
systems have access to a wider array of services that are more
age appropriate, family oriented and therapeutic than those
available through the criminal justice system.
We are committed to working with our provincial and territorial
partners and non-governmental organizations on developing a
comprehensive strategy for dealing effectively with children
under 12, particularly the small number of children in this age
group who are involved in serious offences.
I attended a conference sponsored by the minister of justice on
September 27 to 29 of this year. It was called “Working
Together for Children: Protection and Prevention”. The
conference was an important step in developing a collaborative
approach to address problem behaviour by children. Participants
from across the country exchanged information and ideas regarding
best practices in dealing with the interrelated issues of child
offending and child victimization. Again, prevention is always
the ultimate objective.
The youth criminal justice act includes provisions for more
meaningful consequences for the most serious violent young
offenders. It expands the list of offences and lowers the age at
which youth would presumptively receive adult sentences. In the
legislation, youth 14 years and older who are convicted of
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual
assault will receive an adult sentence unless a judge can be
persuaded otherwise.
In addition, a fifth presumptive category for repeat violent
offenders would be created. Young offenders aged 14 and older
who demonstrate a pattern of violent behaviour will receive an
adult sentence unless a judge can be persuaded otherwise.
Bill C-3 contains an important change to what may be the most
controversial aspect of our youth justice legislation, the
publication of names. The debate on this issue essentially
involves two legitimate and competing values: the need to
encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of
publicity on the youth versus the need for a greater openness and
transparency in the justice system.
The proposed legislation now before the House strikes an
appropriate balance between the competing views. It will permit
the publication of the names upon conviction of all young
offenders who qualify for an adult sentence. Publication of the
names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for one of the
presumptive offences could also be permitted. However, the
legislation provides the crown with the flexibility to give
notice at the beginning of a trial that it will not seek an adult
sentence. Thus, at the provincial or territorial crown's
discretion a young person would receive a youth sentence and his
or her name would not be published.
The youth criminal justice act would also replace the current
procedure for transfer to adult court by empowering all trial
courts to grant adult sentences so that the youth retains age
appropriate procedural protections and justice can be provided
quickly, placing less of a burden on victims and their families.
This will also ensure that the offender, the victim or victim's
family and the community see a clear and timely connection
between the offence and its consequences.
1115
Bill C-3 contains other important reforms to the youth justice
system. In response to concerns by the law enforcement
community, judicial discretion would be permitted to allow
voluntary statements by youth to police to be admitted into
evidence. I spoke to many crown attorneys on this issue. This was
the only section of the previous young offenders act that they
would like to see changed. In response, we have done so.
Also in response to the concerns of victims, victim impact
statements would be introduced in youth court and victim's access
to information regarding proceedings would be improved.
The bill also provides for an increased sentence for adults who
undertake to the court to respect bail conditions involving
supervision of a young person who would otherwise remain in
custody and who wilfully fails to comply with those conditions.
The bill provides that provinces may recover the costs of court
appointed counsel from parents and young people who are fully
capable of paying. The record keeping system for youth records
would be simplified and would allow for greater access by
authorized people in the interest of the administration of
justice and research.
It is important to note that the majority of young people who
get in trouble with the law are non-violent and commit only one
offence. Unfortunately there are too many examples in our
current youth justice system of young people serving time in jail
for minor offences.
We incarcerate youth at a rate four times that of adults, a
statistic which is hard to believe but is true. We incarcerate
youth despite the fact that we knowingly run the risk that they
will come out more hardened criminals. We incarcerate them
knowing that alternatives to custody can do a better job of
ensuring that youth learn from their mistakes.
Bill C-3 includes criteria on the use of custody so that it is
used appropriately. Further, the bill includes provisions for
dealing with less serious offences outside the formal court
process. Police would be asked and encouraged to consider all
options including a formal alternative to the court process
before laying charges. The police, key partners in this
strategy, will be given more authority to use verbal warnings or
cautions to direct youth to informal police diversion programs
such as family group conferences or more formal programs
requiring community service or repairing the harm done to
victims.
While every effort would be made to reduce the over-reliance on
incarceration, where necessary youth will be sentenced to
custody. Bill C-3 includes provisions that respect an obligation
to ensure that all young people, particularly the most serious
offenders, receive effective treatment and rehabilitation.
That reminds me of a visit the standing committee on justice
made to the Pinel institute. We spoke with a number of young
individuals who had been involved in very serious crimes. One was
a young boy who had attempted to murder his mother and father.
That facility had worked very hard with the boy. In fact he had
been released when he spoke with us and was back living with his
mother and father. Rehabilitation works. Youth should be given
the opportunity to participate in such programs.
Furthermore, with respect to the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child, youth will serve their sentences in
youth facilities in almost every case. Successfully
rehabilitated youth means fewer victims, restored families, safer
schools and stronger communities. To this end Bill C-3 includes
an intensive custodial sentence for the most high risk young
offenders who are repeat violent offenders or have committed
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual
assault.
These sentences are intended for offenders with serious
psychological, mental, emotional illness or disturbances. The
sentence will require a plan for intensive treatment and
supervision of these offenders and will require the court to make
all decisions to release them under controlled reintegration
programs.
1120
The proposed legislation also makes an important reform to youth
justice sentencing to foster the safe and effective reintegration
of youth back into the communities. Under the new law, judges
will be required to impose a period of supervision in the
community following custody. This will allow authorities to
closely monitor and control the young offender and assure he or
she receives the necessary treatment and programs to return
successfully to the community. The period of supervision
administered by the provinces will include stringent mandatory
and optional conditions tailored to that individual.
Bill C-3 provides a comprehensive, balanced and flexible
legislative framework for youth justice. It was developed after
consultation with the provinces, the police, the bar
associations, youth justice workers, youth themselves, victims
and other Canadians.
The next important phase of the renewal of youth justice is
directed at implementation of new youth justice legislation.
Youth justice professionals, community members and others will
need information about the new system and sometimes training.
The best answers to the complex problems of youth crime lie in
integrated approaches. Effective youth justice involves
educators, child welfare and mental health systems, voluntary
organizations, victims, families, youth employers, neighbourhood
groups. It involves just about anyone who works with or cares
about kids, our communities and our country.
Additional federal resources have already been made available to
support this important challenge of renewing our system of youth
justice. The government's youth strategy opens the door to
greater public and professional involvement in dealing with youth
crime.
The minister welcomes input from Canadians who have an interest
in youth justice. I also urge members of the House to move Bill
C-3 into committee where Canadians' voices may be heard.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I get into the text of my remarks, because there
are no questions and comments for the first three speakers in
this morning's debate, I would like to refer briefly to some of
the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Justice, the member for Erie—Lincoln.
I note at the outset that the member's speech is virtually
identical to the speech of the minister herself when she spoke to
the bill on March 22. One of the member's colleagues across the
floor just heckled and said, “Why not?” I am trying to point
out to anyone who would care to assess the situation that there
is a pat Liberal line to this. Quite simply the parliamentary
secretary, the member for Erie—Lincoln, merely read what the
minister said. He probably had her speech sent to him, changed a
few things and then stood up and presented it as his own
position.
The hon. member said that first and foremost the bill is to
protect society. He went on to talk about consequences, of which
there are very few in the legislation. He talked about a new
regime, when everyone who studies the bill and compares it to the
Young Offenders Act knows it is the same old crap that is merely
dressed up and put forward with a new name. It does not change
anything. The member said that the government is not prepared to
criminalize 10 and 11 year olds. He went on to say in his
remarks that the minister listened and consulted with Canadians
from coast to coast and listened to the words of her own standing
committee, a Liberal dominated standing committee I might add.
What we find is that the government did not listen at all. Yes
it consulted and went through the motions of listening, but when
we look at what is in Bill C-3, we see that it is just the same
old stuff. I say at the outset that not much has changed.
I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the official opposition
to address this important issue of youth justice. Reforming the
Young Offenders Act was one of the cornerstones of the Reform
Party's movement. It is an issue close to the hearts of
thousands of concerned Canadians, many of them victims, or the
families of victims which of course makes them victims as well.
1125
The role of a responsible government is to listen to the
concerns of its citizens and to respond promptly with legislation
that is fair, effective and in the best interests of those same
citizens. The role of a responsible opposition is to critique
the actions of the government, to offer support in areas of
agreement, to criticize the areas where we disagree and to offer
constructive alternatives to resolve those areas of disagreement.
I intend to address the status of youth crime in Canada,
identify the areas in which Canadians want change, commend the
minister on those areas addressed in this bill, bring to her
attention the areas of the bill that do not live up to the
expectations of Canadians and list the changes Reform wants to
see in the bill. Those changes will be moved as amendments in
committee.
I will first discuss the state of youth crime in Canada. I have
spoken many times in the Chamber about communicating with my
constituents through a weekly newspaper column. I began writing
this column long before I became an MP. I have written several
times on the issue of youth crime, approximately 10 times over
the past seven years. The response to these columns has been
overwhelming in support of the changes Reform has been advocating
for well over a decade.
In my column of February 10, 1993, about eight months before I
was elected for the first time to the House, I said:
What greatly disturbs me is not just the increase in the number
of crimes being committed by our young but their apparent total
disregard for authority. Almost daily we can find instances
where truly heinous crimes are committed by these young people
with no outward signs of remorse. In fact quite the opposite,
because they know their punishment will be very minor, if any,
they actually boast of their crimes and how they're above the
law.
In my view this attitude has been created and laws presume that
criminals are not really “bad” people but rather simply
products of “bad” social conditions. Why is it most of us
believe we live in the best country on earth and yet we persist
in mollycoddling our criminals because it's not really their
fault they do the things they do?
The Reform Party believes that our justice system must place the
punishment of crime and the protection of law-abiding citizens
and their property ahead of all other objectives. This is not to
say that other objectives such as the protection of the rights of
the accused or rehabilitation of criminals, are unimportant. It
is simply to say that protection of society is the reason for
having a criminal justice system in the first place.
It is amazing that these words were written almost seven years
ago and that nothing substantial has been done to fix the
problem. Canadians are fed up with young people who have no
regard for authority, the community or the law. These young
people need to be taught that there are consequences to their
actions. In my opinion, the YOA created more criminals than it
ever cured.
Let us be honest. The majority of us were not angels growing
up. I believe that sometimes kids must be kids. In about a week
it will be Hallowe'en which traditionally is a time when kids
like to play pranks. It comes from the very statement children
make when they come to our doors, trick or treat. If we do not
give out a treat we might get a trick played on us.
I remember being a youngster growing up in rural Canada, in
northern British Columbia. We used to like to go around, tip
over the odd outhouse, soap a car's windshield and things like
that. The reality is that we have moved far beyond that over the
past 30 or 40 years. Now we see outright acts of vandalism
because of a gradual deterioration of consequences for criminal
activity.
It is not the pranks that are the problem. It is the crimes
that erode communities, damage property and destroy families. It
is the acts of violence that strike fear in the hearts of the
elderly and the children who endure the harassment and brutality
of a generation held unaccountable for its actions. It is the
families that hold dear the memories of lost loved ones and the
scars of a justice system that slaps the wrists of young
offenders who beat, rape or murder.
1130
In my home province of British Columbia, the names of Reena
Virk, Dawn Shaw, and Trygve Magnusson represent just a few
victims who died at the hands of violent youth. Their senseless
deaths demand laws from the government that punish and deter
those who commit violent acts and provide mandatory
rehabilitation programs during incarceration.
On the subject of those types of cases, I am reminded of
something that seems to be quite new in our society, tragically.
It has been referred to in different newspaper articles as
swarming. This is where children, for no apparent reason, band
together as a group and kick some unfortunate person to death or
stab someone in a wanton act of violence. Something serious must
be done about this. We cannot continue to allow these acts of
random violence by youths to go unpunished with a slap on the
wrist. Because these people who commit these crimes are young or
are teenagers, they end up serving only a few months in
incarceration, if that. It is not right that there are no
consequences.
Young people naturally think they are invulnerable. Some would
argue that this is due to inexperience or an inability to
understand the consequences. This may be true for some, but many
young offenders are fully aware of the limits of the law and feel
they have a free ticket to do as they please until they turn 18.
Police officers themselves tell me stories of kids who say, “You
cannot touch me, I am only 14. What are you going to do about
it?”
This attitude is the direct result of the Young Offenders Act. A
piece of legislation intended to give troubled kids a second
chance at a successful future has become a means of abetting
criminal behaviour. The Young Offenders Act failed to establish
a deterrent to crime and, I would suggest, it helped promote it.
The tragedies of Taber, Alberta, Columbine High School in
Colorado and several other places are horrific reminders of just
how bad things can get and how vulnerable we are to senseless
acts of violence whether by youth or adults.
The emergence of video games, the Internet and the subject
matter emphasized on television, movies and music dictate that
parents, society and government must work together to establish
parameters for our children. As parents, we must take an active
role in screening what our kids see and do and intervene before
things get out of hand.
The role of society is to establish standards by consensus and
ensure that these standards are represented in the laws passed by
our governments. I believe the government's role in this is
twofold; first, to provide a justice system that protects
society, truly deters crime and rehabilitates criminals; and
second, it must address and repair social flaws, dysfunctional
families, economic hardships and deficiencies within the
education system through effective programs.
It is important to state that it is not the role of the justice
system to fix the social inadequacies of society. That has been
the major fault with the Young Offenders Act. Its purpose was to
deter people from breaking the law and to punish and rehabilitate
those who do.
I would like to move on to what Canadians want changed. It is
interesting that the minister chose to add the word justice to
this act because that is exactly what Canadians want. They want
justice. They want sentences to be just, to balance the need to
protect society by deterring and punishing crime with the need to
rehabilitate offenders and get them back on track. There are no
shortcuts to this goal.
There is no greater deterrent than fear of the consequences.
Young offenders laugh in the face of authority due to the lack of
deterrents. That must change.
Canadians have waited a long time for the government to deliver
on their promise to make youth justice a priority and to deliver
a youth justice system that actually works. Canadians want:
first, sentences to fit the crime; second, violent criminals
removed from society; third, effective crime prevention programs;
fourth, safe schools; fifth, younger children brought into the
system; sixth, older teens and violent criminals to face adult
court; seventh, names of violent sexual assault criminals to be
published; eighth, the rights of victims to be paramount to that
of the criminal irrespective of age.
1135
That is what Canadians are looking for. That is what we hear
daily when we consult with them. That is what the government
heard, if only it would listen and respond appropriately with
meaningful legislation.
It will not take long, but I would like to briefly address what
we agree with in Bill C-3.
While much of the bill is a reconstituted YOA there are a few
notable changes. These were outlined by the hon. member for
Surrey North when he spoke to the bill the last time it was
introduced. Anyone interested in a thorough analysis of the
issue of youth justice and the bill should look up his speech in
Hansard, March 22, 1999. I strongly recommend that people
should look up that speech and read it.
I am disappointed that the bill was reintroduced in the same
form it was the last time, with only technical changes. The mere
fact that the bill languished for months on the Order Paper is a
testament to the level of priority the government gives it.
When the House prorogued and the bill was still on the Order
Paper, I rather foolishly hoped that the government had seen the
light and would have introduced a new version that better
represented the concerns of Canadians, the concerns that I just
outlined.
Aside from that, there are some small victories in the bill for
Canadians. The increased emphasis on police discretion will
ensure that minor youth indiscretions can be addressed by police
officers with warnings rather than laying charges. This
initiative was proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot in his
minority report.
The minister makes a big deal out of dealing with violent and
non-violent offenders differently. I believe this is an
excellent initiative as well, but it was also outlined in the
Reform minority report.
Young people who commit non-violent crimes are more suitable for
programs such as diversion, restorative justice and community
service. It is not necessary to remove these individuals from
society, only to ensure that they learn the error of their ways
and develop a healthy respect for authority and the law.
In March 1995, in response to the first so-called changes to the
Young Offenders Act that the now health minister made in Bill
C-37, I wrote in my newspaper column the following:
Our justice system must distinguish between young, first time
offenders who commit minor crimes and those who engage in
habitual or violent criminal behaviour with no respect for
property or even life itself. Despite what some advocates would
have us believe, not all young offenders who commit non-violent
property crimes are harmless. Many are already habitual
criminals with no moral conscience and a warped value system.
They do not understand why they should respect the lives and
property of other Canadians.
These youth need to know the punishment for their crimes will
not be a slap on the wrist like raking leaves at the local park
on weekends. These youth need a stronger reason to think before
stealing another car. We need to strike a balance between
deterrents and accountability, between punishment and
rehabilitation.
Most non-violent offenders are excellent candidates for
alternative measures, such as conditional sentences, for they
pose little or no threat to society, only a need for restitution.
The third area I would like to commend the minister for
including is the issue of holding parents and legal guardians
responsible for breaches of court ordered conditions by an
offender under their care. This initiative was introduced by the
hon. member for Surrey North in his private member's bill, Bill
C-210, in the first session of this parliament. I know he is not
seeking acknowledgement for that, but I certainly know he
deserves it.
I want to commend the minister for taking the first steps in
publishing the names of those young offenders who commit serious
crimes, although I am not convinced that the minister is going to
actually get that accomplished. In her speech on Bill C-68, Bill
C-3's forerunner, on March 22, 1999 she had the following to say
about the publication of names:
The names of 14 to 17 year olds given a youth sentence for
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault or
repeat violent offences could be published in certain
circumstances.
1140
What does that mean? The use of words like “could” and
“certain circumstances” did not give the impression that the
minister is serious about this matter. She has once again
abdicated her responsibility to the lawyers and the courts. These
may be loopholes that she as a lawyer would like to see in
legislation, but I can tell her that these words are the last
thing that victims of crimes and their families want to see in
legislation.
Referring to the minister's comments in Hansard that day,
I would also draw attention to another comment she made in
referring to the publication of names. She said:
The debate on this issue essentially involves two legitimate and
competing values,
I heard the parliamentary secretary say much the same thing in
his remarks a few minutes ago.
the need to encourage rehabilitation by avoiding the negative
effect of the publicity on youth versus the need for greater
openness and transparency in the justice system.
Let us look at this. She referred to the need to encourage
rehabilitation by avoiding the negative effect of the publication
on our youth. I would contend, and I think most Canadians would
contend, that in some way the only thing that is going to
rehabilitate these youngsters is if their peers and their
community know who is committing the crimes. If their name is
perhaps splashed on the front page of the paper when they commit
a violent crime like this, they will be held accountable by their
community, their peers, their parents and their families. It
would be a bit of an embarrassment factor if nothing else. I
think it is very misguided to state that.
Young people themselves are among the most outspoken, demanding
the necessary change to the publication ban. If for no other
reason than to protect the majority from the minority, our young
people must know the identity of their violent peers.
I will move on to what the Reform Party recommended. I will
begin by congratulating two of my colleagues for the tremendous
amount of work and time they have dedicated to the issue: the
member for Crowfoot, who just yesterday reintroduced a private
member's bill on this very issue; and, the member for Surrey
North, whose tragic life experiences and need to implement change
in this area motivated him to actually run as a member of
parliament.
I will pause and remark that I am blessed with a son who is 16
years old right now. That is the very age that Jesse Cadman was
when his life was tragically snuffed out by a young offender. As
a parent who also has two daughters aged 20 and 18, I do not want
to imagine the horror of finding one of my children murdered. I
worry about it every night and pray to God that my children are
safe. I cannot understand a government that turns its back on so
many senseless deaths and does not bring forward meaningful
legislation.
As a member of the justice committee, the member for Crowfoot
travelled across Canada hearing from concerned Canadians
frustrated by the system. It is puzzling to think that Liberal
members heard the very same testimony but only Reform party's
recommendations reflect the concerns of Canadians. The Liberal
recommendations reflected the concerns and interests of the
justice minister and her bureaucrats.
The following are just some of the recommendations the Reform
party presented in its minority report: first, make the
protection of society the first and guiding principle of youth
justice; second, allow police officers to use discretion in
resolving minor incidents without laying charges; third, lower
the maximum age of the youth justice act from 17 to 15 years of
age; fourth, lower the minimum age limit of the youth justice act
from 12 to 10 years of age; fifth, differentiate between
non-violent and violent crimes; sixth, increase the maximum
length of all sentences; seventh, youth facilities need mandatory
rehabilitative programs; eighth, minimum six month probation
after all prison sentences; ninth, move all 14 and 15 year old
violent offenders automatically to adult court while limiting all
other transfers; tenth, the person who commits two or more
violent offences must be designated a dangerous offender;
eleventh, allow for community based juvenile committees in every
jurisdiction for non-violent and first time offenders; twelfth,
establish federal standards for alternative measures with well
defined parameters; thirteenth, publicize the names of violent
young offenders, all of them and not just some of them;
fourteenth, adult young offender records to be treated the same
as those of adults; and fifteenth, require parents or legal
guardians to appear at all court proceedings.
1145
I would like to highlight the recommendations calling for the
reduction of the minimum age to 10 years old and the
recommendation referring to alternative measures, as they are of
particular importance to me.
The minister and members opposite have portrayed Reform members
as mean and nasty because we want to lower the minimum age to 10
years old. I have news for the minister. Despite her
accusations, Reform would never lock up 10 year olds, throw away
the key and feed them bread and water. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
However, by including 10 year olds in the legislation the
government would be protecting these youngsters from those who
use them to perpetrate crimes. Many drug dealers use 10 and 11
year olds to sell drugs for two reasons. One is access to other
kids. The other is because 10 year olds are exempt from the law.
These kids are targets and their participation is a crisis on the
rise, especially in lower mainland of B.C.
The minister refuses to acknowledge that the provinces and the
police were interested in these changes and that even the Liberal
dominated standing committee supported the idea. It was a
recommendation from their own standing committee.
Bringing 10 year olds under the act is a head start to setting
them on the right path from a early age. Sadly too many kids are
experienced criminals by the time they reach 12 years old and by
then it is almost too late to set them straight.
Another recommendation is alternative measures. Alternative
measures include several initiatives such as diversion,
restorative justice and community service. I am most interested
in what is known as conditional sentencing because this is a
particular area of critic responsibility for me.
There have been a number of horror stories from adult courts
regarding the use of conditional sentences. I state emphatically
that those convicted of violent crimes, whether adult or child,
must not be given conditional sentences. It is imperative that
violent offenders be removed from our society to protect society
and provide punishment and rehabilitation and thus a deterrent.
What is conditional sentencing? Conditional sentencing is a
criminal code amendment giving judges the authority to impose a
sentence to be served in the community. This means the offender
would not go to jail but would remain living at home and going on
with his or her daily routine of work or school under certain
conditions. That is the title.
When does it apply? Conditional sentencing applies in cases
where an offender would have normally been sentenced to less than
two years in custody. This amendment was the attempt of the
Liberals to ease the burden on Canada's overcrowded prisons.
Conditional sentences were never intended to be used in violent
crime cases. However the sentencing guidelines are vague and
have been interpreted to include all crimes. In an August 1997
decision the B.C. Court of Appeal stated that “if parliament had
intended to exclude certain offences from consideration under
section 742.1 it could have done so in clear language ”.
Many judges have interpreted this law broadly, allowing violent
offenders to serve their sentences in the community. Judges have
handed down conditional sentences for crimes such as sexual
assault, impaired driving, rape and even murder.
Our communities are at risk. I will cite a few examples. In
Montreal three men were given 18 month conditional sentences
after raping a 16 year old pregnant women and holding her upside
down from a balcony. The judge thought that this was part of
their culture.
1150
In Winnipeg a youth previously convicted of theft and seven
armed robberies and on temporary leave from a Manitoba youth
centre received a one year conditional sentence and three years
probation for the drive-by shooting of a 13 year old. This is
horrific.
In Edmonton a 57 year old man who swung a machete at a 21 year
old male, cutting his face and cutting a third of his ear off,
got 240 hours of community service and a curfew for that crime.
In Orleans, close to home here, Paul Gervais confessed to
sexually assaulting nine boys. He got a two year conditional
sentence and a curfew. He is serving his sentence at home.
In Ottawa, right here in the nation's capital, Robert Turcotte
strangled his mother to death. He received a two year
conditional sentence, 100 hours of community service and a
midnight curfew.
The Liberal government's conditional sentencing law allows some
convicted violent criminals to serve their sentences in the
community, not in prison. What message does this send? It sends
the message that in our justice system there are minor
consequences for major, serious crimes. Eighty-four per cent of
Canadians believe that people convicted of violent offences
should be ineligible for conditional sentences, according to a
recent national poll.
Amending the legislation is as simple as changing one clause. If
the justice minister really wanted to change the law she could do
so in one day with the co-operation of the House. Rather than
responding to the clear will of Canadians she prefers to let the
courts decide these issues.
I am about to reintroduce my private member's bill which lists
the crimes that if passed would be excluded from consideration
for conditional sentencing.
Along with a large majority of Canadians we support amending the
criminal code to exclude dangerous crimes from conditional
sentencing eligibility. Someone convicted of a dangerous crime,
including murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual
assault, assault, domestic violence and drug trafficking, should
be ineligible for conditional sentencing.
A recent survey of 450 Canadian judges revealed that 80% of them
were leery of imposing conditional sentences due to lack of
supervision. They are effectively giving criminals a slap on the
wrist. If we cannot supervise criminals we cannot protect
society from their acts.
If a child commits a violent crime and causes pain and hardship
for another person, what lesson is learned from being grounded?
We are not talking about a minor incident of shoplifting or a
minor incident of vandalism, perhaps by a temporary wayward
child. We are talking about serious crimes. Being grounded is
effectively what a conditional sentence is because it limits
freedom. That is all it does. How can those who have been
injured by a youth feel justified if the offender is allowed to
go home and play Nintendo or watch television?
What about other youth who see the lenient sentence handed down
to their friend for hurting someone else? What have they
learned? Will they consider the consequences prior to committing
a crime? The answer is no, because that is what the YOA did and
that is what Bill C-3 will continue. It will not change that.
The minister must learn from the mistakes of conditional
sentencing for adults and ensure that those mistakes are not
repeated with our youth through the legislation.
I want to move on to the minister's actions. As I just
mentioned there are three initiatives in the bill which address
the concerns of Canadians. I have to wonder what the heck took
so long when there are only three.
The justice minister was appointed 864 days ago when she stated
that the overhauling of the Young Offenders Act was her top
priority and that changes were to be made in a timely fashion.
The bill is on pace to hit 1,000 days. I guess we should all be
thankful that this is her priority.
The figure of 864 days seems like a pretty obscure one and it
does not mean much. It is just a statistic. What significance
does it serve? In the 864 days Canadians have been waiting for
new youth crime legislation, which they were hoping would include
deterrents, over 30,000 violent crimes have left more than 30,000
victims in their wake.
That is about 34 violent crimes per day and unfortunately Bill
C-3, about which the government is so busy bragging, misses the
mark and provides little in terms of real solutions like most
justice initiatives of the government. In order for Bill C-3 to
be deemed a success it must stand up to one test, and one test
only: Does it address the concerns of Canadians?
1155
I will run through them again. Do sentences fit the crime? No.
Are violent criminals removed from society? Not likely. Does it
implement effective crime prevention programs? Some. Will our
schools be safer? No. Are younger children brought into the
system? No. Do older teens and violent criminals face adult
court? At the discretion of the courts they may. Will the names
of violent and sexual assault criminals be published? Maybe. Are
the rights of victims paramount to those of criminals? No. They
are not.
In conclusion, I am informing the House that the official
opposition is, reluctantly I might add because we have waited as
long as Canadians have waited for the legislation, unable to
support the bill without serious amendments. Our members on the
justice committee will be moving amendments that are in the best
interest of public safety, deterrence and rehabilitation
respectively.
I can just hear the minister in future question periods when
asked why violent young criminals are still out reoffending due
to lenient sentencing. The minister will probably say something
like the government made significant changes to Canada's youth
justice system but the Reform Party voted against them.
Let me set the record straight right at the outset. Bill C-3 is
deeply flawed. It is not good enough for Canadians who have
waited so long. The legislation does not go far enough to
protect society. It does not include any measures to ensure
mandatory participation in meaningful rehabilitation programs.
The minister again has brought forward a bill that is full of
loopholes and allows lawyers and judges to maintain the status
quo when it comes to youth justice. Status quo is not what
Canadians were hoping or praying for in the area of youth
justice.
In summary, Bill C-3 is not good enough. It is not good enough
for the Reform Party of Canada. It is not good enough for
Canadians, and most important it is not good enough for our youth
who cried out the loudest for change. Bill C-3 is simply not
good enough.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
whole issue of young offenders is extremely important, because
everyone knows that young people will eventually be part of
society. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has paid keen attention
to everything surrounding the debates on the Young Offenders
Act. It has repeatedly called on the minister not to touch the
bill, which works successfully in Quebec. I will explain that
in detail in the time allotted me.
I am going to try to prove that it is a good law, that it must
not be touched and that it must simply be implemented as Quebec
has done since its passage.
The results in Quebec have been very good. I think everyone in
this House agrees with that. Even the former Minister of
Justice acknowledged this at a first ministers conference. He
even expressed the hope that all the provinces would implement
this legislation like Quebec. Unfortunately, we have before us
a bill that is changing some things. I will speak of that in a
few minutes.
1200
I listened with much interest to the speech by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice—I find it all odd that the
minister did not come to the House to defend the bill herself at
second reading, instead of her parliamentary secretary—but I
think he has failed to grasp the problem.
The government seems to have understood nothing of Quebec's
approach. Worse yet, the parliamentary secretary is quoting
people from the Institut Pinel, who have said repeatedly they do
not want Bill C-3, or Bill C-68, as it was called during the
previous session. The parliamentary secretary quotes people
from the Institut Pinel. One has to be in a really difficult
situation to have to quote people opposed to this bill in order
to sell it in this House.
I also listened with interest to the comments made by the Reform
Party. True to their vision of justice and to everything they
have done since 1993, Reformers unfortunately gave a twisted
picture of the situation. The Reform Party member called upon
God and prayed. He does not want his children to get attacked by
young people, and so on. This is a very negative and demagogic
speech, one that should not be made here on legislation on young
offenders.
To make such remarks is to mislead the public. These comments do
not reflect the actual figures, which are not those of the Bloc
Quebecois nor of the Government of Quebec, but those of the
federal government and they show that the crime rate is
declining among young people.
That rate is dropping even for violent crimes, not by much, but
it has been steadily falling in recent years, to the tune of
about 1% to 2% per year. Quebec is the only province where this
legislation is fully applied, and Quebec has played a major
factor in that decline, since it has been getting very good
results.
In English Canada, the further west we go, the higher the rate
of recidivism and the percentage of young offenders. This is
interesting, because application existing Young Offenders Act is
less consistent as we move from east to west in English Canada,
and least of all in the west.
Strange as it may seem, under the Liberals' current system, the
less a province applies the Young Offenders Act, the more money
it gets. I will get back to this later on.
There is a bill that has been outstanding for years for which
the government opposite has not reimbursed the Government of
Quebec.
The Government of Quebec has decided to invest in people, and
particularly in young people so that they can regain their
anonymity as quickly as possible on leaving custody and become
full-fledged members of society, while westerners are investing
in concrete. The way the program is set up, the folks investing
in concrete and prisons in which to hold young offenders as long
as possible get money from the federal government, while those
who enforce the legislation passed by the federal government,
the government opposite, are penalized.
I can see why the former Minister of Justice did not keep his
post for long: he supported the Government of Quebec's claim.
I will come back to this a bit later.
To conclude my remarks about what the previous speaker said, I
would like him to take a closer look at the statistics. I would
like him to take a closer look at what is going on in his
immediate surroundings and try to depersonalize the debate, look
at objective figures.
1205
Let him come to Quebec and see what is going on. Let him talk
to people like those at the Institut Pinel. Let him read what
eminent criminologists and university professors have written.
Let him observe the approach taken by crown lawyers in cases.
Let him examine the results in Quebec. I am certain that he
will see that the approach he is recommending is not the right
one.
That having been said, I will develop my argument further. I
will begin with an extremely important quotation, just to make
the point that it is not only recently that Quebec has been
addressing the issue of young offenders.
After several years of application of the Young Offenders Act, a
judge was mandated by the Government of Quebec to investigate
how the legislation was being implemented, whether there was
room for improvement in its day to day application. This made
it possible to see whether the government could provide more
support, more backing, to the agencies applying that act daily,
and whether the legislation could be improved in order to help
them more.
I refer to the report by Justice Jasmin addressing the young
offender issue. His report was released in 1995. The debate
has been going on for some time. Today we are discussing Bill
C-3, which was numbered C-68 during the last session. Nothing was
done over the summer, but I will get back to that later. I have
a great deal to say and I doubt 40 minutes would be enough. I
will try to give hon. members the main thrust.
The quote I am about to read from the Jasmin report fits in very
well with today's debate. He writes:
It is often easier to amend legislation than to change our
approach to a problem. It may be tempting to think that tougher
legislation is the answer to the problems of delinquency.
Simplistic responses blind us to the full extent of complex
problems and create the false impression that we are doing what
is necessary to resolve them. One such simplistic response is
substituting get-tough measures for educational approaches. This
loses sight of the fact that adolescents are still in the
process of evolving and laying the entire blame for their
delinquency at their door is implying that society and their
environment were of no importance.
It was no weak conclusion that Mr. Justice Jasmin reached
following his consultations. I support his conclusions 150%.
If a young person 14 or 15 years of age commits a violent crime
or kills someone—at the start of his life—I think society's
approach is at fault. I think society is responsible for that
somehow.
I am not saying that society must assume all the blame. When we
look at the case a little, when we see a 14 year old or 15 year
old committing such a crime—repugnant, I agree—when we look at
this young person's situation, level of education, community and
friends, we realize quite often that the parents are totally
absent,. We realize that the young person has committed a very
serious crime but is not the only one responsible.
Is “being locked up”, as they say in the lingo, going to resolve
the problem?
In the short term perhaps.
1210
A 14 year old going to prison will be released one day, but the
problem will not be resolved when that young person comes out.
Unfortunately, this is the approach advocated by the Reform
members and, very disappointingly, no doubt in order to garner a
few votes in the upcoming elections in Alberta, represented by
the Minister of Justice, the minister gave in to the very right
wing demands of the Reform Party.
As far as justice is concerned and especially as far as young
offenders are concerned, Reformers and Liberals are tarred with
the same brush. It makes no sense.
Earlier, I said that this was not the first time we have debated
this bill, because it was first introduced by the Minister of
Justice on March 11, 1999 as Bill C-68. Immediately after the
bill was introduced, just reading the preamble and the first few
clauses I felt that a major amendment was called for and that
the government was tearing down huge portions of the Young
Offenders Act, when there was nothing wrong with it.
Little by little, support grew.
In Quebec, there was a significant public outcry at the time—we
are talking about the months of March, April and May, 1999. The
Government of Quebec defended its stand and then kept the heat
on the Department of Justice. It brought out quotes from the
former Minister of Justice in the same Liberal government to
show that there had been a change in approach and that what one
minister had said was plainly contradicted by his successor.
I would have thought the Minister of Justice would have given
this issue some thought over the summer, because it is without a
doubt one of the most important bills she will introduce in this
parliament. What is passed today will affect generations to
come.
We cannot amend the Young Offenders Act every six months, or
whenever the government appoints a new justice minister. This is
probably the most important bill that the hon. member will
introduce in her capacity as Minister of Justice.
I thought, wrongly, that the summer vacation would help the
minister come to her senses. But no. Today, she is coming back
with her old Bill C-68, which, through some administrative
sleight of hand in the House, has now become Bill C-3. Nothing is
changed in this legislation, even though many people clearly
showed that it should be amended and even withdrawn, so that the
current Young Offenders Act would remain in effect.
I told members that, as early as in March, April and May 1999,
people in Quebec were unanimous in their opposition. In fact, I
challenge the government to quote or to name a single Quebec
organization applying the Young Offenders Act on a daily basis
that supports the amendments proposed by the minister.
Criminologists, social workers, police forces, legal experts,
everyone is saying that the minister is headed in the wrong
direction.
1215
In Quebec, opposition is significant. It is very significant
within the provincial government and I believe it will grow even
more in the next few days. It may be that we have to send an
even stronger message to the federal government. The Liberals
may not have got it the first time.
I am told that, while opposition voiced in Quebec and the
message sent by the coalition against the reform of the Young
Offenders Act was ignored by the Minister of Justice and the
Quebec Liberal caucus, it was well received by certain groups
outside Quebec.
Opposition to this bill is increasing, not for the reasons
advanced by the Reform Party but for the ones advanced by the
Quebec coalition, which is against the amendments the minister
proposes to make in this important area.
When a minister decides to intervene in something, no doubt this
is because he feels justified in doing so. I indicated earlier
that there had been a drop in the crime rate. It has dropped by
23% since 1991. In Quebec, where the young offenders
legislation is enforced, the results are even more conclusive .
The intention of the bill before us is not to amend the Young
Offenders Act. I say this because there are still members on
the government side who maintain it is so. They say “The bill
before you, members of the Opposition, is a bill to amend the
Young Offenders Act”.
This is not true. Bill C-3 repeals the existing young offenders
legislation. It starts completely from scratch. The government
ought perhaps to acknowledge this. Regarding the Young
Offenders Act as it is applied today—and I cannot get into it
clause by clause because it is a highly complex piece of
legislation—but I think that the hon. members will understand
clearly why we are opposed, just from its main thrust, its main
principles and orientations.
At the present time, it is section 3 of the Young Offenders Act
in its present form—all judges up to and including the justices
of the Supreme Court agree on this—that shows the true policy
thrust the legislator wished to give to the legislation and what
he intends to do with young people in conflict with the law.
Section 3 is very long and I will not read it in full, but I
will read some of the principles by which a judge must be guided
when he hands down a decision involving a young offender.
This section says:
Crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of
society and requires addressing the underlying causes of crime
by young persons.
It goes on to say:
a) 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.
b) Society must, although it has the responsibility to take
reasonable measures to prevent criminal conduct by young
persons, be afforded the necessary protection from illegal
behaviour;
It is not true to say that the purpose of the present act is not
to protect society. In the first three paragraphs of section 3,
that is most certainly put forward as its purpose.
This section also says:
c) young persons who commit offences require supervision,
discipline and control, but, because of their state of
dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have
special needs.
1220
“Special needs” is an extremely important phrase in section 3(c)
on which many judges, including those in the supreme court, have
commented, pointing out that Quebec approached things
differently by taking into account the special needs required in
a given situation.
It also says, and I quote:
The protection of society, which is a primary objective of the
criminal law applicable to youth, is best served by
rehabilitation.
I hope that members opposite, including the parliamentary
secretary who is paying close attention to my comments, realize
that the existing act, passed by this government, provides that
the social rehabilitation of young offenders is preferable to
any other measure. This is what the current act says. In some
cases, extrajudicial measures known as alternative measures
should be considered for young offenders.
It is also said that while the Young Offenders Act provides for
jail sentences, taking measures other than judicial proceedings
should be considered.
The act also says that “Young persons have rights and freedoms
in their own right, including those stated in the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms or in the Canadian Bill of
Rights”. And so on.
These are extremely important provisions.
Does Bill C-3 include anything similar? As members know, a bill
is made up of a title, sections, parts and schedules. The
content of the act itself is more important than what is found
in the explanatory notes or in the preamble.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this issue and stated
that while the preamble provides guidelines, one must look at
the wording of the act itself.
None of what I read, which comes from the declaration of
principle found in section 3 of the existing Young Offenders
Act, is to be found in Bill C-3, which is before us today.
Instead, the government has included, probably to keep people
quiet, a vague reference to these principles in the preamble of
its proposed legislation.
It is as if it were saying “Come on, you folks in the Bloc
Quebecois, the principles are there in the preamble”. It is a
meaningless sham. There have been court decisions that say so.
When the whole bill is read, it becomes evident that the
preamble is not reflected in the application of the legislation.
The judges will have to interpret it, that is certain, but they
will do so according to what is in the legislation.
It can be seen, then, that there is a considerable difference
between the two texts, the current Young Offenders Act and the
bill we have before us.
Another argument that is often raised by those on the other side
of the House is flexibility. The Minister of Justice, or her
department, has managed to cast a spell over a number of the
Quebec Liberal MPs, or maybe the Prime Minister himself, since
he must have had a hand in it all.
They, because there is more than one, have told me “What are you
complaining about? Quebec will be able to do as it pleases,
there is flexibility; there is the possibility of opting out”.
1225
Yet, upon examination, we find there is no flexibility. The
flexibility the Minister of Justice talks about, to the effect
that Quebec can do what it wants, the flexibility the minister
claims there is in this bill and would make it possible to
continue to apply the Young Offenders Act, is nowhere to be
found.
Let someone show me where it is stated. I have gone through the
bill more than once. I could not say how many jurists have
looked at it in Quebec, how many institutions have studied it.
No one, whether criminologist or lawyer, no one has found any
clause that offered this flexibility to Quebec.
However, there is an indication that, under some circumstances,
it could be done on a case by case basis. That is not funny.
The minister can do what she wants with the bill, may I say,
because she is introducing it, but she will not be applying it.
That will be left to the provinces.
She is putting undue pressure on the crown attorneys who are
going to evaluate, in each case, whether they will treat the
young person as an adult or as a young person, who is therefore
not fully responsible for his actions and deserves special
attention. The Minister of Justice is not going to be the one
to carry this burden. The Minister of Justice of this
“beautiful, great, finest country in the world” known as Canada
is not going to feel the pressure, but Quebecers will, because
they will be implementing this law in Quebec.
With all the demagoguery I am hearing today, it will be easy to
get a crowd together and put huge pressure on the crown attorney
who will have a given case, who will have to draw conclusions,
who will have to make recommendations. I think the minister
lacks courage. If she wants to act this way, let her take on
the burden and insist that young people in specific situations
be treated as adults. She should not put that burden on the
shoulders of one or more others. She should say so clearly,
which she has not done in her bill.
There is also the whole principle of our not living in a closed
society in Quebec. Even if we wanted—something I wish with all
my heart—Quebec to be able to do as it wished in all areas,
including justice, because we would be sovereign, we must for
the time being live with the tools we are given.
Quebecers must live with legislation passed by the Parliament of
Canada.
They cannot completely shut it out of and say “We will have
nothing to do with what is going on in English Canada concerning
the implementation of the new act”. Incidentally, the title of
the bill is rather telling. It reads “An Act in respect of
criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other
Acts”.
It refers to “criminal justice”. Whatever happened to the
guiding principle of the Young Offenders Act? We will not be
able to remain silent. We will not be able to say that we will
completely ignore what is going on. The lower and upper courts
in the other provinces will interpret this legislation. Some
day, their rulings will have a bearing on what goes in Quebec.
Comparisons will be made and it will be difficult to reconcile
flexibility with the imposition of similar sentences.
Indeed, the imposition of similar sentences is also a principle
included in the new legislation. What does it mean? Does it mean
that Quebec will have to impose a jail sentence on a young
offender because Ontario does it? What does it mean in concrete
terms?
Frankly, this is a useless and dangerous bill. It provides for
harsher sentences. The government obviously decided to crack
down on young offenders, but this bill does not reflect today's
reality.
1230
Let us take something else that is completely ridiculous, the
publication of names. In what way will publishing the names of
young offenders in newspapers help their victims? How will it
advance the justice system to brand these young people for life?
There are no studies indicating that it would do any good to
make their names public. There are no experts who think that
publishing names will in any way reduce crime. I have never
heard anyone say “I think that victims would feel better if they
saw the name of the 14-year old who attacked them, raped them or
killed someone's child in big letters in the newspaper.
I think it would do me good. I think it would help me to get
through all this”.
The ones pushing for this are the ones looking for
sensationalism, the ones looking for easy votes on the backs of
those dealing with these situations. What I fail to understand
is that the so-called Liberal government across the way has
decided to go along with them and allow the publication of names
for certain crimes, specific ones I admit. This is completely
unnecessary.
Let us look at the cost of a radical change in approach where
young offenders are concerned. Even the minister admits that
the reform she is proposing in Bill C-3 will involve additional
costs. Even the Department of Justice is prepared to pay, since
the government is getting tough and it looks good. How it is
perceived by the public is more important than whether the
public's real interests are being served.
It is so easy to use a bill like this one for political gain.
I do not support that. I believe there is a better way of doing
things.
Before introducing a new system, before introducing new
principles, seeking new interpretations, trying to get the young
people locked up, printing names, trying to solve the problem by
getting it out of sight behind prison doors—when everyone agrees
that prisons are the universities of crime—why not instead,
keeping that in mind, say “We will free up $343 million more
over three years for crime prevention and application”. I see
the parliamentary secretary nodding in agreement, those are his
department's figures. But before the government thinks of
putting new funding into that, it ought perhaps to think of
paying its bills.
The federal government owes the Government of Quebec the tidy
sum of $87 million, because the Young Offenders Act is being
enforced in Quebec and prisons are not being built as they are
in western Canada.
The former Minister of Justice acknowledged at a
federal-provincial conference of ministers of justice that the
federal government owed Quebec money. The government ought to
give some thought to paying us. It ought to think about writing
us a cheque before it starts investing new money in a piece of
legislation no one in Quebec wants.
In western Canada, the harmful effects of this legislation are
becoming more and more evident, and people are beginning to
understand the non-repressive approach used in Quebec. Ours is
an approach of social rehabilitation. We believe that we are
helping young people by investing in them when they are having
problems with the law.
When they are given help, I believe that 90% or 95% of them go
back to being regular members of society, after their release.
1235
There are very few repeat offences when the young people have
properly followed the mandatory plan mapped out for them, when
they have had the proper follow-up by specialists.
Since my time is getting very short, I will address my remarks
particularly to all the Quebec members of this House sitting on
the government benches. Where are the hon. members for Beauce,
for Laval-Ouest, for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, for
Verdun—Saint-Henri, for Outremont? Where is the former president
of the Quebec bar association and now the member for
Brome—Missisquoi? Why are they not opposing this?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must remind the hon.
member that we do not speak of the absence or presence of
members in the House.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I think you perhaps
missed this subtlety of the French language. It means: where do
they stand with respect to this bill and not whether they are in
the House or not. I know; you did not need to remind me, but I
hope that you will give me back the few moments you took away
from me.
Where do these members stand? Why do they not rise to criticize
this bill? The member for Brome—Missisquoi, a member from Quebec
and the former president of the Quebec bar association, which is
supposed to represent its members properly, where does he stand?
“Elect me, I will defend you, the legal community, in Ottawa”.
I heard him say that at a forum, perhaps he should be reminded
of that.
I will close very succinctly, by listing the persons or groups
who have spoken out in Quebec against this bill: the Commission
des services juridiques, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse,
the École de criminologie of the University of Montreal
represented by Jean Trépanier, Aide communautaire juridique de
Montréal, the Fondation québécoise pour les jeunes
contrevenants. The Institut Pinel, quoted by the parliamentary
secretary in support of his bill, spoke out strongly against it.
The police chiefs' association, the Conférences des Régies
régionales de la santé, the Association des centres jeunesse du
Québec, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits
de la jeunesse, the Quebec Crown Prosecutors' Office, the
Association des CLSC et CHLSD du Québec, l'École de
psychoéducation de l'Université de Montréal, the Regroupement
des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, the Ligue pour
le bien-être de l'enfance du Canada, the Canadian Criminal
Justice Association, the Association des avocats de la défense
du Québec, the Société de criminologie du Québec, not to mention
the Government of Quebec and all the judges who, through the
messages they are sending, stress the merits of the current
Young Offenders Act.
In conclusion, I move:
That
the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
“That” and substituting the following:
“Bill C-3, An Act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and to amend and repeal other Acts, be not now read a
second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn
and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Human Rights.”
The government must go back to the drawing board. It must do its
homework and consult, among others, the Government of Quebec,
which has been asking for weeks to meet with officials from the
Department of Justice. The Minister of Justice must also realize
that things are done differently in Quebec, and she must come to
her senses.
1240
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion, the amendment
is in order. Debate is now on the proposed amendment.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
after the passionate comments of my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois and his reference to the demagoguery of the Reform
Party, I am afraid my salty comments from the east coast may not
be quite so dramatic.
I do think it is important that we reflect upon the nature and
the reasons for the introduction of the new youth criminal
justice act.
It was stated by a member earlier that the old Young Offenders
Act was appropriate, that it worked well in Quebec. I concur with
the member. I think he is right. I think Quebec took the Young
Offenders Act when it was introduced, applied it in the way it
was to be applied, spent the resources in the areas where they
needed to be spent and showed how that act could work.
Unfortunately other provinces did not have the resources, or
chose not to implement the Young Offenders Act in the same way. I
say that having had some experience with it.
I began my career as a lawyer just as the Young Offenders Act
was introduced and became law. I can say unequivocally that in
the province where I practised it was an exercise in frustration
to appear day after day in the courts with young people charged
under the Young Offenders Act. It was an exercise in frustration
for the judiciary who did not have access to the types of
programs the Young Offenders Act envisioned. It was an exercise
in frustration for the crown. It was an exercise in frustration
for the defence counsel, to say nothing of the frustration felt
by both the families of the young offenders and the victims of
crime.
As we approach a new piece of legislation it is important that
we examine whether or not that legislation can correct some of
the problems that have arisen over the last few years.
I do note that this legislation is now Bill C-3. It was Bill
C-68 in the last parliament. Perhaps the government changed the
numbering because it always seems to have problems with bills
numbered C-68.
The symbol of justice is the scales of justice. They are an
important symbol for a number of reasons. They indicate the need
for balance. They indicate the need to balance the rights of the
accused against the rights of society. They indicate the need to
balance what goes on in the courtroom against what is perhaps
demanded by society.
Justice is not a simple matter; it is complex. Justice and crime
affect all communities and all the people in those communities.
Children are a responsibility. All of society has a role in the
upbringing and concern for our young people. When we deal with a
bill that affects justice, crime and children, that bill requires
careful examination by those people who represent all of the
people in this country.
There are some things in the bill which I wish to address. I
should point out this is the third time I have addressed this
piece of legislation in some depth.
The legislation will continue to apply to young offenders
between the ages of 12 and 18 years. There was some call for the
bill to apply to children who were 10 and 11 years old. I say
unequivocally that is not the position of the New Democratic
Party. We believe that for children who are 10 or 11 years old
the appropriate place to deal with them when they do not follow
the rules of society, when they appear to be misled, is through
social services and help to the family by the community. I am
glad to see that the Minister of Justice listened to those many
groups who came before the justice committee, of which I am a
member, and argued that the law not apply to 10 and 11 year old
children.
It would be interesting to contrast that with the children's
agenda in the Speech from the Throne which we heard two weeks ago
the focus of which was on children.
1245
To somehow say that 10 and 11 year old children have the
capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in the way that
we demand of those who are charged with criminal offences is a
stretch. The Minister of Justice listened to those groups and I
can say that we concur.
There is an emphasis on prevention and alternatives to jail for
non-violent offenders. They are found at clauses 4 and 5 of the
proposed legislation. Those too are appropriate issues for the
minister to introduce.
We know, and again I can give some evidence of my own, that in
many cases what happened with the old Young Offenders Act is that
there was an absence of discretion, that police officers, school
teachers and people who routinely came in contact with young
people ended up referring matters to the courts, even if they
were the most simple matters where some cautioning or some
exercise of discretion may well have dealt with the matters.
I have seen in the courts young people coming in charged with
damage to property because they got into an argument with a
schoolmate over a school locker or where young people end in
court on trespassing charges because they walked across a
neighbour's lawn. There is no need to clog the courts up with
these kinds of offences when we have serious matters that have to
go before the courts.
We applaud the sections of the act that provide for cautioning
by police and for the exercise of discretion by those in
authority. It increases the emphasis on community based
sentencing with which we concur.
There are some other areas that are perhaps more contentious and
some areas that require further debate and examination. There is
a reverse onus in the legislation on young people between the
ages of 14 and 17 years who are charged with serious violent
offences.
When I say there is a reverse onus I mean for particular
prescribed offences these young people will be tried as adults
unless they can prove to the court that they should not be. That
is a fundamental change from the other Young Offenders Act where
the burden was on the state to prove that the young person should
be tried as an adult. It places a reverse onus on young people
to make the case that they should not be. It is a heavy and
onerous burden.
When we talk about resources to the provinces one thing we have
to think about is that the young person is also given the right
to counsel in the legislation. That is appropriate. It is very
difficult for an adult lay person to argue a reverse onus without
legal counsel, let alone a 15 year old.
If we are to ensure that a young person has the right to counsel
it begs the question who will pay for it. Where is counsel to
come from? There is some provision in the act that when parents
can afford to pay they will pay the legal costs of their
children, but the statistics will tell us that there is a huge
portion of young people who come before the courts whose families
cannot afford to pay for legal counsel, never mind the ethical
considerations as to whether or not a non-accused person should
be paying the costs of counsel.
We see the beginnings of what flows through the act and that is
a downloading of costs on to the provinces. While there is some
contribution by the federal government toward legal aid programs
across the country, we can see that the role of legal aid lawyers
will increase dramatically with the legislation and its reverse
onus, and that will be a further cost to the provinces. We have
to examine that very carefully.
In addition, there is a provision that requires some other
consideration, and that is special sentencing for young people
who suffer severe psychological problems. We have to question
whether or not the place for people who have severe psychological
problems is in the courts in the first place.
In the criminal code there is an understanding that adults can
be found not criminally responsible because of psychological
problems. That is an area I will be examining carefully on the
justice committee.
1250
We do not have a problem with the publication of names of young
offenders convicted of serious offences unless a judge determines
otherwise. The public has called for and demanded that in some
situations the names of young offenders be published so the
community and other young people will know if there is a serious
offender among them. My party and I concur with that.
Members of the Reform Party objected to the minister's comments
when she said “in certain circumstances”. The act provides for
some judicial discretion in that regard. I comment on that
because it has been said that there ought not to be that
discretion, that these are loopholes. I think that is how they
were referred to.
In reality we have to provide some discretion to the courts. We
cannot foresee each case that will come before a court. That is
why we have judges. If it were easy to say that every person
charged with this crime will face this penalty, we would not need
the judiciary. We would have a clerk who could tick off the list
and say what is the absolute penalty for someone charged and
found guilty of violating a certain section of the criminal code,
and nothing else would have to be taken into account.
The sentencing process is a complicated process because no two
offenders are the same. Nor are two victims. Nor is the impact
of a crime the same on every person. Within parameters the court
needs some discretion on how it deals with offenders, especially
young offenders.
In terms of the publication of names each case will require
certain thoughts, which may well be best left to the judge who
hears the case. That is why the discretion is there and why we
would consider it important.
I have some concerns about the sections of the act that change
the rules governing confessions of young persons and the
admissibility of those confessions in the courtroom. I say that
only because young people are not as sophisticated in many ways
as adults. They do not understand their rights in the many ways
adults do. We must be somewhat careful when we make a
determination of a confession given to a person in authority. The
way it worked under the old act was that any statement to a
person in authority, whether or not a police officer, had to be
examined very carefully by the court. We will examine that very
carefully.
I began by talking about the right to counsel of the young
person and the downloading of that cost on to the provinces. I
am afraid that many of the positive aspects of the legislation,
and there are some, will simply not be affordable for the
provinces. I am afraid we will make the same mistake with this
legislation that we made when the Young Offenders Act was
introduced. We said that there were all kinds of principles. The
government said that there were ways to deal with young people,
but the provinces did not have the resources to do that.
This act provides even more methods of dealing with young
people. I have mentioned police discretion and community
sentencing are good ideas but they cost money. Let us be frank.
To have special sentencing provisions for young people who suffer
from psychological problems will cost money.
Unfortunately many people do not realize that the cost of the
administration of justice falls to the provinces. For a province
like Nova Scotia, which faces a huge deficit and has just
cancelled programs for charities, it is questionable whether or
not it will have the funds to prepare for some of the positive
aspects of the legislation.
The Minister of Justice and the government will say that they
have committed funding to help the provinces, that they have
committed $206 million. What they do not say is that it is over
a number of years. It is not in one year that $206 million will
be given.
1255
There is no clear indication of how that funding will be
distributed across the country. I have made this statement
before. The last time I spoke to the legislation I indicated my
concern was that the $206 million committed by the government
were not enough, especially if we looked at it on a per capita
basis.
If the money is to be distributed to the provinces on a per
capita basis, it will mean very insignificant funds for provinces
with smaller populations and there will not be enough funds that
are necessary to fulfil the purposes of the act. That would
represent perhaps $2 million in Nova Scotia. For that province
with its debt load to administer what the federal government is
asking it to administer will simply not be possible. Again we
will have an act that will frustrate the victims, the judiciary,
the families of young offenders and counsel.
My party and I have some concerns about other aspects of the
act. I will indicate to the House some of the statistics. Right
now provinces are paying upward of 70% of the costs of
administering the youth justice system. As we implement a more
complex system with wider parameters those costs will escalate
and the provinces will have a very heavy burden in trying to
fulfil their responsibilities under the act.
There are other areas that cause us some concern. Life
sentences for youth convicted in adult court give me some
concern. I know I differ from my colleagues in the Reform Party
on this point, but we have to wonder whether or not sentencing
young people to a full life sentence will ever serve to
rehabilitate them. My colleague from the Bloc Quebecois said
that the prisons are our training schools for further crime. We
know that.
We support measures to increase the emphasis on youth in
community based diversions and alternatives and the increased
focus on rehabilitation. There are not as many details as we
would like to see in the act and I am concerned about the costs.
It has been said that it is not the role of the justice system
to deal with social problems. When we deal with young people in
particular we cannot divorce the two. It is no accident that
there are huge numbers of young people who come before the courts
from families in poverty. It is no accident when we look at
jails, especially those south of the border, that they are full
of people from poor sections of the United States, especially
minority groups. It is no accident that our prison populations
have a greater proportion of aboriginal people who come from poor
reserves.
We cannot address the problems of dealing with crime unless we
can also deal with what causes crime. The prevention of crime
should be our ultimate goal. Clearly, when someone breaks the
law and commits a heinous crime, it has to be dealt with swiftly,
in a meaningful way as stated in the act and in some cases
severely. However we cannot say there is no room for social
issues in justice issues. The two are so inextricably linked
that it is almost impossible to talk about one and not the other.
We have to recognize the groups such as the Church Council on
Justice and the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs that
appeared before the justice committee. They have been mentioned
in the Quebec context by my colleague from the Bloc. All of them
had recommendations. They had my word, and I think the word of
members of the justice committee, that we would take into account
their concerns when we examined the bill.
I also want to say that the provinces addressed concerns to the
Minister of Justice which have not been addressed.
We will now have an opportunity to see how Manitoba responds to
this with its new government, which has expressed concerns about
youth gangs, about young people 10 and 11 who were coerced into
crime and how we could best deal with them.
1300
Given the fact that my time is at an end, those are just some of
the concerns we have. I can indicate at this point, given the
costs associated with the program and the inability to implement
it because of funding, that we have serious questions about
supporting the legislation.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
listened to what my colleague from the NDP has said with regard
to this bill and I always appreciate his comments. I sat on the
justice committee with him for a short time and I was always
impressed with his clarity of thought, although at times we
differ from a political point of view.
He touched upon the fact that we cannot separate the role of the
justice system from dysfunctional families and the problems in
society that lead to youth crime. I would like to ask the hon.
member this question. If poverty contributes to youth crime,
inasmuch as we have seen, according to the statistics, that there
has been a dramatic increase in youth poverty since the Liberal
government took over in 1993, does he suggest that the policies
of the government have contributed to the extent to which youth
crime has either grown or remained constant during this period of
time?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to
respond to the question. As indicated by the hon. member for
Crowfoot, we did work together on the justice committee. In
fact, I remember us having a debate, I think at the University of
Ottawa, on the proposed legislation. I think it is helpful to
always hear two sides of the argument. When I talk about a
balanced approach, I like to think that sometimes we manage to
find that ground.
He raises an important question. We know that the economic
policies implemented by the government have resulted in more
children and more families in this country living in poverty than
was the situation when the government took office. We know that
despite a pledge to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000, in
fact the gap between the haves and the have nots has increased.
When I talk about poverty and community, I mean more than simply
ensuring that all children have the same material goods.
I would like to talk about what is happening in my part of the
country, which I think is happening in other parts of the country
as well.
If we look at children and children who are at risk of
committing crime, the most important thing we can do is to make
sure that they have a sense of community and community values.
If children belong to a community, then they respect that
community. Children need to have a sense of place, a sense of
connectedness to place and they need to have a sense of history.
We know that in the maritimes and I think other communities know
it as well.
Children in my community know who their grandfather and their
great grandfather was and they have an extended family. While
they may not have all the material things that are necessary,
they have that sense of value from the community.
We are creating a nation of migrant workers. That is what the
economic policies have done. People from the east have to move
to the west and people from the north have to move to the south
and leave behind their values, their communities and their sense
of place. As that happens children are affected. It is serious
when that happens to children.
There are two kinds of poverty. There is the poverty that
happens to a child when they are deprived of their community and
their community values. When we say to people in certain parts
of the country which are not in the centre “Too bad about your
economic problems. Move.”, we do something to those children.
There are also the material things. There are children who live
without adequate shelter. We know that homelessness is
increasing in this country.
There are children who live without adequate food. I commend my
colleague, the member for Crowfoot, who introduced a motion
concerning headstart programs to make sure that children in this
country have breakfast before they go to school.
1305
We know that without those things children have no reason to
have input into their community. Why would they respect the laws
and values of the community if the community does not respect the
needs and requirements of those children?
They are linked, and I thank the hon. member for the question.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am the next speaker, so I will ask a brief
question. I would address it to my colleague and fellow Nova
Scotian. I have listened very closely to his remarks. As well,
the intervention by my friend, the member for Crowfoot, was very
timely and well placed.
I embrace much of what the hon. member said when he spoke of the
feeling of disconnected children in the country, in particular in
places that he is familiar with, the maritimes, where there is a
transitional way of life that often leads families to move
elsewhere, to uproot from their communities, perhaps in the hope
of returning some day. This often leaves children drifting.
We know as well that the commentary with respect to the economic
impact on those who get involved in criminal activity is very
real.
No matter how far-reaching and how interventionist the
legislation may be, without the proper funding it is not going to
achieve the desired effect. Throughout the commentary on the
bill, both in the House and later at committee, I think we will
see that the emphasis and the philosophy is perhaps correct, to
put it on the front end and to try to address the root causes and
intervene in an early fashion, as opposed to waiting until a
crime has been committed. However, without the resources it is
going to be virtually impossible.
My friend touched on this in some detail in his speech. I am
wondering if he could elaborate on where those resources should
be placed specifically, as well as the programming that is
envisioned by the bill, the programming that talks of getting
children involved in sports programs, for example, locating
difficulties with respect to education, perhaps diagnosing
psychological illnesses, perhaps even going to the drastic step
of removing a child from a home, which child welfare has the
authority to do.
It appears to me that this legislation, as well intended as it
may be, is simply going to further download the responsibilities
that are already being carried by the existing agencies. It is
going to put further pressure on these agencies, which are
currently underfunded. We know, and the hon. member touched on
it, that the legislation does not carry with it sufficient
financial backing to accomplish all of these wonderful goals and
these airy principles that are to be accomplished.
Would my hon. friend comment on that?
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I will be as brief in
my response as my colleague was in his question, because I know
he is speaking next and I am always anxious to hear what he has
to say.
Let me give an illustration as to where the funding might be
placed. Community group after community group has come to see me
in my office with ideas on how to deal with the issues of youth
crime. These are grassroots communities. These are people who
come together and say “We know there is a bit of a problem and
we want to deal with it”. They have put forward all kinds of
plans, some of which I have given to the minister of justice,
dealing with youth centres.
One of the best examples that is tragically falling short of
funding in my community is having a police officer in the junior
high school; community based policing where young people have a
role model who is an officer of the law, who can help them work
out problems, who can relate to them on a day to day basis.
This program has operated in a junior high in my community,
Sherwood Park Education Centre, and it has been an excellent
program. Unfortunately, as money dries up there are real
questions as to whether that can continue.
Those would be some of the programs which I think would help at
the community level to deter crime.
1310
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise to speak to Bill
C-3. I am pleased as well that the reconvening of parliament and
the gathering of members of parliament back to this place will
allow us to continue the debate of the Liberal government's youth
criminal justice act, now known as Bill C-3, formerly Bill C-68,
which was another poorly put together bill.
The proposed replacement of the current Young Offenders Act is
one which has received a great deal of attention, and rightly so,
and a great deal of consternation throughout the country. It
will be an entirely new piece of legislation that pertains
specifically to youth in this country.
Youth justice is certainly a matter of great concern for all
Canadians, for the Progressive Conservative Party, the government
and all opposition parties. In my riding of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough I hear regularly from people who
are affected and who are extremely concerned about the direction
in which youth criminal justice is going in this country.
I also find that the concern that is expressed very often by the
government has resulted in an extremely lengthy waiting period
with respect to the introduction of this legislation. We know
that it was throughout many election campaigns a priority that
was spelled out in documents. However, it took the government 18
months before first introducing this bill in its original form,
Bill C-68. With much fanfare, in March 1999 the bill was finally
tabled by the minister of justice. We also know, as is very
often the practice, that much of it had been media tested and
leaked prior to its introduction here in the House, or I should
say its introduction through the press gallery.
Then, on the eve of parliament reconvening this fall, there was
a prorogation. This delayed the opening of the House by three
weeks and we know that there were huge issues burning in the
country at the time: the proposed hostile takeover, the
fisheries crisis that is absolutely a tinderbox which is about to
explode on the east coast, as well as the refugee crisis. We
also know that there are problems within our justice system. It
is absolutely shameful that the government again chose to delay
dealing with problems which I have mentioned, as well as the
introduction of this very necessary legislation.
One would have thought that throughout the summer months of
reflection this might have prompted the minister of justice to
strengthen or perhaps revise some of the act. This did not
happen. There are no sweeping changes in the legislation that
appears before us. Bill C-3 is the mirror image of Bill C-68,
but for the fact that the justice department did, in fairness, go
through the problem of spell-check to correct some of the
language so that at least the French and English languages
correspond.
We have waited an eternity for Bill C-3, but it is, we are quick
to acknowledge in the Conservative Party, an attempt to replace
what was a very ineffective and in many instances a very
dangerous piece of legislation. I am talking about the former
Young Offenders Act. However, this particular bill, I personally
feel, will not live up to much of the billing that has been
placed before the Canadian public. In response to overwhelming
public pressure to toughen up the act the Liberal government has
employed a process of smoke and mirrors to give the appearance
that this is in fact what is happening.
I say with all honesty that this is not the case. That is not
to say that simply toughening up the act is going to address the
problems that exist with youth crime in this country. That is
not to say that there are not any positive elements in this bill.
In fairness, all opposition members and government members who
have preceded me in speaking in this debate have indicated that
there are indeed some very positive elements in Bill C-3.
These are not new nuances. These are not changes that have not
been contemplated in the past. In fact I find it almost ironic
that much of what we are talking about in this debate is actually
a return to philosophies and methodologies in the criminal
justice system that we have used in the past under previous
legislation such as the juvenile offenders act, legislation which
has come full circle now in terms of how we react to young
persons who become involved in criminal activity.
There is certainly one very positive element of this bill that I
would be quick to recognize and that is the concept of parental
responsibility. This bill attempts to bring adults, and parents
specifically, more into the system.
One can agree very quickly that this is a necessary element.
There has to be a more holistic approach, a family style
approach, to the problems that often lead up to and continue to
exist when a young person runs afoul of the law.
1315
This degree of accountability, not only for the young person but
for the parent, is crucial in addressing youth crime. It is a
fair question, I suggest, for a judge to ask a parent in a
courtroom in an open fashion, “Where were you when your 14 year
old was breaking into your neighbour's house? Why was your child
out on a school night under the influence of alcohol or drugs
committing a criminal offence? Why is your child acting out in
such a violent way?” These are relevant questions, and questions
that I feel a parent should be held to account for as well.
The entire issue of the age of accountability is something that
is dodged by this particular piece of legislation. I am quick to
point out that it is a suggestion that has been certainly echoed
by members of the opposition, but it originated in a report that
was commissioned by the government itself. This was an idea that
was not just floated by opposition members and it is not just an
attempt I suggest to try to find fault with the act. This was a
recommendation by an expert under the financial auspices of the
government.
It raises the hackles on the necks of government members when
they hear the suggestion, and they point out that we already have
many agencies in place to address youth under the age of 12 who
are not encompassed by the old act or the new act, that these
agencies are the ones most properly suited to deal with youth in
contravention of the law. However, I am very quick to remind the
government and the House that the legislation does not bolster
the support that is needed in the areas of child welfare and
early intervention.
There are an increasing number of youth under the age of 12 who
are completely untouched by our criminal justice system. It is
the rapid response, I would suggest, that is most important in
dealing with crime at an early age, and allowing our criminal
justice system to react. This is not a bar on placing children
into those agencies. We already know that our justice system
works very much hand in glove with those social services, with
those agencies. This is not to suggest for a minute that the
criminal justice system will be solely responsible for children
under the age of 12 who run afoul of the law. It is simply to
suggest that we have to have a mechanism that will bring them
into the system in a quick and effective way.
Police officers are often faced with an extremely frustrating
situation where an 11 or sometimes even a 10 year old—and it
seems unthinkable but it does happen on occasion—is involved in
a very serious offence perhaps involving a weapon, perhaps
involving threats or a violent act. Under the current system and
under the system that the new legislation will put in place,
police officers are virtually powerless. They can contact the
agencies, but they do not have at their discretion the same
elements that would exist under the criminal law.
This is one of the many reasons that I have introduced a private
member's bill that would do just that. I know other members of
the House have some reservations about this, but it is not solely
to hammer youth under the age of 12. It is simply to widen the
net, to broaden what the act encompasses.
If there are positive elements, and there certainly are positive
elements in the act, why would we not want to have those early
interventions, those elements that will hopefully focus our
attention on the root problems of crime, applied to a broader age
group of young people in the country?
There are other sections of the act that I would like to address
as well. Bill C-3 certainly does not address the financial
responsibilities that are also encompassed by the administration
of criminal law in the country, and that is true of the old act.
It has been declining since 1984. It has been getting steadily
worse when it comes to the federal government's commitment to the
provinces and the administration of criminal law in the country.
I am not going to broaden that by discussing criminal law
generally, but with respect to the administration of the Young
Offenders Act, the federal government has completely abrogated
its responsibility in holding up its financial end of the deal.
That is true in the province of Quebec, Nova Scotia and right
across the country.
1320
This is something I know the province of Quebec, in many
instances, has focused its attention on. It has in fact
initiated more programs and put more provincial funding into it,
perhaps at the expense of other programming, because it
recognizes the importance of it. The province of Quebec is
perhaps a leader in many of the areas of programming that the
government envisions will be brought about as a result of changes
in the act.
[Translation]
Bill C-3 gives the provinces increased responsibilities; they
will have to offer with more programs and become more involved
in the administration of this legislation.
For now, there is no new funding in sight from the federal
government. A number of experts, including the government's,
agree that the age of accountability should be lowered from 12
to 10. This is not designed to punish young people, but to make
them accountable to the justice system.
[English]
Intervention at the earliest possible juncture is the most
effective way to get youth back on track before its too late. The
government says that it will do this with the new bill and, to an
extent, it does focus its attention on that area of the law.
Clause 34, for example, is the medical and psychological report
clause to determine if a youth is in fact suffering from some
affliction or disorders that need to be treated and not
necessarily punished.
This is not a new concept. It is certainly one that the
Conservative Party, others in the House and those in the criminal
justice system are quick to embrace and recognize. However, we
do know that there is a lack of federal commitment to provincial
rehabilitative programs and to mental health counselling. This
commitment is what are needed. This is where the focus has to
be.
What the act does, in simple terms, is to identify the problem
as a priority and drop it in the provinces' lap and walk away.
That is simply not good enough.
Young females in conflict with the law is a rising problem in
the country. There was a very serious case that drew a great
deal of attention across the country involving a young woman
named Reena Virk in the province of British Columbia. This again
is something that is highlighted across the country. Young women
are becoming more increasingly involved in the criminal justice
system as a result of many of the other social problems that
exist.
This is again why I hearken back to earlier comments. If the
government, through this legislation and this initiative, wants
to focus its attention on the front end problem and on bringing
about change that will assist young people to stay out of
difficulty with the law, the preventative side of justice, the
restorative justice side which is at the end but which puts
greater emphasis on personal interaction with victims and those
who can truly assist, identify and perhaps cure or treat some of
the problems that led to the difficulty in the first place, that
is fine. Philosophically, members of the House would agree that
that it is the right approach.
However, the government is not putting in place the resources
that are necessary. It has identified what it wants to do. It
has made a great deal of fanfare and drawn a great deal of
attention to itself as having brought this bold new initiative
about, yet it is not prepared to pony up and pay for the
programming that is going to be necessary. It has increased the
responsibilities and the burden that is going to be carried by
the provinces, the agencies, the police and the judicial system
for those programs that are specifically aimed at addressing the
problem. It has walked away because there is not one dollar more
that is going to go into this program as a result.
The difficulty itself is a very complex one. Sometimes in this
place we suffer from oversimplification in telling people what
they want to hear. This is not a problem that is going to go
away quickly.
As with previous legislation aimed at the criminal justice
system, I would suggest that there is going to be a lag time. The
true effects of the legislation may take years to actually
develop in the country.
1325
Because of the complexity and diversity of the country, it may
have a different affect in some provinces. I am focusing
specifically on the ability of the provinces themselves to
administer the act because we know there is a huge discrepancy in
the country currently as to the financial ability of the
provinces to provide services to their people.
It only stands to reason that if we increase the provinces'
responsibility without increasing the proportionate resources
then it will be exacerbated further. The differences that
currently exist means that the have not provinces will be further
burdened and will fall further behind. This is truly a very
broad sweeping problem.
The focus in the Chamber is most often between the province of
Quebec and the provinces in English-speaking Canada. I come from
a region in Atlantic Canada where we are suffering grave
differences between our ability to provide for our people through
social services, through criminal justice and through employment
than the rest of the country. This will be played out through
this legislation as it is with all legislation.
Canadians expected more and they were led to believe that they
would get more through the legislation. They were led to believe
that there would be a tougher response in certain instances for
youth involved in violent acts, acts involving the use of weapons
or sexual violation. That is not the case.
The transfer provisions that were touched on by many of the
previous speakers are a bit of a ruse in a way. They give the
impression that we are taking a young person into the adult court
system. This may cause many people to shudder and think, “Oh, my
goodness, we are bringing a 14 year old or 15 year old into an
adult court where he or she will be treated in a much harsher
way”.
The reality is that in many instances the sentences that are
handed down at the end of the day are actually less in terms of
the time that the person would be incarcerated as a young
offender because—and I hate to use this expression because it is
somewhat of a misnomer—but truth in sentencing existed under the
old Young Offenders Act. That is to say that if young persons
were sentenced to 18 months they would serve every day. They
would remain in a young offender facility for that full period of
incarceration. We know that is not the case in the adult system.
This is not to say for a moment that incarceration is always the
way. We know that the programming that is often available is not
sufficient. We also know that simply removing a person from
society will not fix them. It is often the last resort brought
about to protect society when necessary from a person who has
exhibited violent, anti-social behaviour.
The concept of simply bringing a person into adult court and
saying that it will fix the problem because he or she will be
treated in a harsher fashion is not necessarily the truth of what
has happened. I believe it is incumbent on the government to be
very up front about what the system change will really amount to.
The programming that is available in a youth facility is often
the more appropriate one. Often times bringing them into adult
court exposes them to this atmosphere that has been discussed,
which is that they will learn more sophisticated ways to commit
crimes. They may be further victimized in an adult facility.
There is an extremely dangerous element to this quick fix type
solution that is being proposed.
As has been stated many times, there are elements where this
particular legislation has moved in the right direction. I, like
all members of the justice committee and of the House, look
forward to participating at the committee level and to the
changes that may be brought about through that level of
participation.
I congratulate the participants who have taken part in the
debate, as well as those who participated at the committee with
their testimony. I look forward to further following the
legislation as it moves through this place.
1330
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say and I
note that he at least admits that we do things differently in
Quebec and even that it is a model the government should follow,
and that Quebec is a leader in this field.
Does the member know that no one in Quebec wants the amendments
the minister is proposing? Does he know that the people in the
Crown attorney's office, those who initiate proceedings under
the law, do not want the minister's bill?
Defence counsel in Quebec, those who defend young people, do not
want it either. According to some retired judges, if the law
passed by this parliament is applied, this law will be
disastrous for the 16 year investment, in Quebec, in an
approach, a very Quebec model.
I provided a list earlier of all those who are opposed, and I
think that anyone involved to whatever extent in applying the
Young Offenders Act would repeat it before a parliamentary
committee. Not one organization, lawyer or person working daily
with the Young Offenders Act in Quebec today supports the
minister's bill, or this amendment.
Is the hon. member aware of that?
Should the government not budge, not do anything, the Bloc
Quebecois will try to introduce an amendment to have Quebec
exempted from the application of Bill C-3 so it may continue to
apply the Young Offenders Act as it stands.
Can I count on the support of the Conservative Party, since it
recognizes that we apply the law in Quebec and are leaders in
the area? Can I count on the support of the Conservative Party
in the ultimate attempt to exempt Quebec from this law, which
will be devastating for all young offenders and society as a
whole?
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who
is also a member of the justice committee and a fine contributor
to the same.
The simple answer is no. I certainly would not support, and I
know members of the Progressive Conservative Party would not
advocate, a system of justice that was different in one province
as compared to the other provinces in Canada.
I am very quick to recognize the fact that the province of
Quebec has very much been a leader in the administration of
justice and the administration of many of these innovative
programs, restorative justice model programs that are most
effective when dealing with youth. Why should we and the rest of
the country not celebrate that and embrace some of those
initiatives that have been taken by the province of Quebec? We
draw a great deal from Quebec in all sorts of areas as do they
from the rest of Canada. It is part of the great partnership
that we enjoy.
I would not in any way envision why the province of Quebec would
want to opt out of this legislation. I do recognize that there
are many elements of the justice system in Quebec.
I was part of the committee which heard from many witnesses. I
know there are groups within the system that do not want to see
all of the changes that are encompassed by this bill. But there
are very positive and practical elements that I think even the
member would admit are necessary. Changes with respect to the
admissibility of statements. Changes with respect to the
inclusion of parents in the process. Changes that in some
instances are going to require greater attention and a shift of
focus from the current way things are done in the country.
Quebec is a very adaptable province. I am sure Quebec is going
to see that there are positive elements that it can work with. I
am sure all members of the House look forward to bringing some of
those other changes forward that we would like to see happen at
the committee. I have every confidence that my learned friend
will do the same.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to thank the member for presenting his feelings and thoughts
on the bill. He is a member of the standing committee on
justice. I have always accepted his interventions with a great
degree of interest and respect.
1335
The Young Offenders Act has created such strong responses over
the years from the people of Canada. They signalled the changes
they wanted so strongly to the government and to the justice
committee of which I was a member when we travelled about the
country and listened to them. However, this bill is couched
almost entirely in terms of what the legislation will allow the
courts to do. It does not grant authority to the courts to move
16 and 17 year olds who commit serious offences into adult court.
It says that the trial will occur in juvenile court and then the
crown prosecutor will have the opportunity to argue that an adult
sentence should apply.
The courts in this land are under the gun right now from certain
circles, including members of the House, for being judicially
active. Even the business of releasing the names of those who
have been convicted of violent offences is not something that is
directed by the legislation or by the elected representatives of
this country. It is going to be left in the hands of the courts
to decide based upon the circumstances, regardless of what the
people want, whether or not the names of those convicted of
violent offences will be published.
I wonder if the member, being a former crown prosecutor and I
understand a good one, would be prepared to comment on this
aspect of the bill. Is it not leaning to greater complaints,
whether right or wrong, of judicial activism? The courts are
going to be left with having to make a decision that the
legislators, in this case the Liberal government, have refused to
make and implant within the legislation. Rather than the
legislators telling the courts what we want done on behalf of
Canadians, again we are going to leave it in the hands of the
judges of this land.
Would my hon. friend be willing to comment on this aspect of the
bill in light of the criticism some of the courts are receiving
concerning judicial activism? This is simply because legislation
is being passed by the government, legislation that is so open
ended that the judges can go in a number of different ways. In
this case it is contrary to what we have heard Canadians say they
want done about the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Madam Speaker, I will try to address
the points made by my colleague from Crowfoot who was a valued
member of the justice committee. I know he has tremendous
practical experience having worked as a police officer within the
justice system for many years. I will not comment as to my own
abilities as a crown prosecutor.
I will try to address the issue with respect to transfers. I
personally took part in a number of transfers from youth to adult
court under the old system. They were extremely cumbersome,
perhaps even more so than a trial itself. At the end of the day,
one was left to wonder whether one could even call upon the
victims who were often forced to testify two, three and four
times as a result of those old provisions. I welcome this change
in terms of having one trial.
However, I take issue, as the hon. member has pointed out, with
the decision being made at the very end of the trial after it has
taken place in youth court, which is often subject to different
rules of admissibility, and with whether this is actually the
proper focus.
The question addressed to me is more specifically aimed at
judicial activism. This perhaps should form the focus of an
entire debate. It is not something we can deal with very quickly
in this context. I agree we have to empower judges, but with
legislation such as this we sometimes have to put parameters in
place. The way to do that in some instances is to have
definitions of certain crimes that require mandatory minimum
sentences.
1340
I do believe that for the most part judges themselves behave in
a responsible way. Unfortunately, there are some that do not.
When that happens, perhaps we should look at methods of dealing
with judges.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-3, the youth
criminal justice act. At the very outset, I want to indicate
that it is a very important piece of legislation. It underscores
the commitment of the Government of Canada to deal with a very
complex issue as it relates to youth justice.
As the former chairman of the Waterloo Regional Police, I sat on
that board for 10 years. I can tell the House firsthand that the
senior officer and rank and file levels, along with all members
of the police service, worked diligently in this area to ensure
that we had a justice system in place, especially as it related
to our young people. With 700 police officers and civilians, we
were cognizant of the fact that this was an important area and
one that required the kind of attention the Government of Canada
is now prepared to move on. From that sense I am very pleased to
see this legislation proceed.
By quick way of review, I remind all members of the House that
our government launched a strategy for the renewal of youth
justice on May 12, 1998. This process has been going on for
quite a while. Subsequent to that, the youth criminal justice
act was introduced. Then the federal budget announced $206
million over three years to ensure that programs were put in
place to help achieve the objectives of this legislation. The
point in indicating that is to say that now is the time to move
on with this, get it to committee and let Canadians have their
say with respect to this area. I am pleased that we are moving
in that direction and doing so expeditiously.
The government's strategy for the renewal of youth justice
recognized the foremost objective of public protection. It
distinguishes legislation and programs appropriate for the small
group of violent young offenders and those appropriate for the
vast majority of non-violent youth offenders. It takes a much
broader and more integrated approach that emphasizes prevention
and rehabilitation. That is very key to this whole debate.
The issue facing those of us who are interested in the youth
justice system is not whether the system should be tough or
lenient, but whether it should be made to deal with crime in a
sensible way. The proposals as outlined indicate clearly that
youth crime should be met with meaningful consequences. What is
meaningful depends in large part on what the young offender has
done.
For example, most of us believe that youths who commit minor
thefts or have been in possession of stolen property should be
held accountable for their actions and rightfully so. However,
last year we sent 4,355 youths into custody when their most
serious offence was one of the minor property offences. Another
4,332 youths were put in custody for the offence of failure to
comply with a disposition, typically violating a term of a
probation order. These are both offences. Those who are found to
have committed these offences should be held accountable and we
know that. These two groups of offences constituted over
one-third of the custodial sentences handed down to youth last
year. That quite frankly is unacceptable. Being the lead jailer
of children in the western world is surely not the preferred
answer to youth crime.
The median custodial sentence for youth is 45 days. As
taxpayers this will cost us as much as $9,000. No one is saying
that these youth should not be held accountable for their
actions. They should be and they must be. Their offences should
result in meaningful consequences, but we must ask ourselves
whether taking these youths to court and sending them to prison
is invariably the best way to accomplish this. We need to ask
ourselves whether it makes sense to spend $9,000 locking up a
minor thief or someone who has violated a curfew.
The choice is not one of doing nothing or putting a young person
in prison. There are programs in all parts of Canada, including
my area, for holding young people accountable for what they have
done that do not involve courts or jails but involve the victims.
The youth criminal justice act recognizes that extrajudicial
non-court measures are often the most effective way to deal with
less serious youth crime.
1345
The act supports the use of such measures wherever and whenever
possible that would be capable of holding the young person
accountable. The act clearly provides that these measures should
encourage the repair of harm caused to the victim and to the
community. They should also promote the involvement of families,
victims and the community in ensuring an appropriate, meaningful
consequence for the young person.
In order to encourage the use of creative and effective
consequences for young people, the act supports the appropriate
exercise of discretion by police officers and prosecutors. The
act also recognizes that a range of approaches can provide
meaningful consequences, including police warnings, formal police
cautions, referrals to community programs, cautions by
prosecutors and extra judicial sanctions, for example apologies
to victims, restitution and community service.
When the formal court process is required many sentences other
than custody can provide meaningful consequences for youth crime.
Community based alternatives, for example, are often more
effective than custody. They are encouraged by the new
legislation, particularly for low risk, non-violent offenders,
alternatives that require young people to repay victims in
society for the harm done, teach responsibility and respect for
others and reinforce societal values, Canadian values. When
these front end measures and non-custodial sentences are used
effectively the provinces can reinvest the money saved into crime
prevention strategies that will address the legitimate concerns
of Canadians about crime.
As part of its strategy for the renewal of youth justice the
federal government has committed itself to a wide range of
prevention programs. In this context it was not surprising to
learn that public opinion polls show that over 85% of Ontario
residents would prefer money to be invested in crime prevention
than in additional prisons for youth. Almost as many, 79%, would
prefer us to invest in alternatives to prison for youth rather
than prison construction.
The other side of the coin is that by dealing sensibly with
minor crime we can refocus the system on serious crime that
Canadians have legitimate concerns about. The new act's
sentencing principles make it very clear that youth sentences
should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the degree of
responsibility of the young person. Custody, then, will be
targeted to youth that commit violent and serious repeat
offences.
In the new legislation judges will be required to impose a
period of supervision in the community following custody that is
equal to half the period of that custody. This will allow
authorities to closely monitor and control the young person and
to ensure that he or she receives the necessary treatment and
programs to return successfully to the community.
The period of supervision administered by the provinces will
include stringent mandatory and optional conditions tailored to
the individual. If a youth sentence, for example, would not be
adequate to hold a young person accountable, the court may impose
an adult sentence. The new legislation would make it easier to
impose adult sentences for the most serious violent crimes. We
are expanding both the list of offences and lowering the age at
which youth can receive an adult sentence.
When the legislation is passed, youth 14 years of age and older
who are convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or
aggravated sexual assault will receive an adult sentence unless a
judge can be persuaded otherwise.
We are also creating a fifth presumptive category for repeat of
violent offences. This too underscores a commitment of the
Government of Canada to move in this area and do it in an
appropriate Canadian kind of way.
The proposed legislation also provides for a new sentencing
option for the most violent, high risk young offenders. The
intensive rehabilitative custody and supervision order provides
greater control and guaranteed treatment to address the causes of
the young person's violent behaviour. This is a kind of
individualized treatment of intensive supervision which must be
approved by the court and will assist us in curtailing youth
crime in these areas.
I want to conclude by saying that youth crime cannot be
legislated away. I think we all know and understand that. We
can, however, deal more appropriately with it than we do at the
moment. We can set up an effective set of programs outside the
youth justice system and custodial and non-custodial
rehabilitation programs within it which would reduce crime and
hopefully will.
1350
I believe Canadians think that in this sense we are on the right
track. Our method of criminal youth justice is appropriate. It
is a complex issue and I think we are doing it in a very
effective way.
Let me simply conclude by saying that certainly the residents in
my area of Waterloo—Wellington, and I believe those across
Canada, support our balanced approach to this very complex issue.
Now is the time to act. Let us move the bill on to committee.
Let us have Canadians have their say with respect to this area.
Let us do so expeditiously. With great foresight we have brought
forward legislation in the best interest of all Canadians.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington on his remarks and his contribution to the
debate. As a former police officer he speaks from a very
practical viewpoint, which is extremely important when dealing
with matters of criminal justice. He also brings a very
non-partisan tone to the debate, which I applaud. It is
something that we need more of on matters of criminal justice.
My question for him is with respect to the elements of the bill
that would put greater power into the hands of the police to
exercise discretion in the field, that is for them to make
judgment calls on whether this is a matter which should proceed
through the criminal justice system. The police are put in the
often unenviable position of making that first call, making the
decision on whether it is something for which they lay a criminal
charge, lay an information, or perhaps proceed to a crown
prosecutor for greater advice.
Does the hon. member agree that increased discretion also
carries with it obvious increased time, increased resources and
increased necessity of the police to spend time doing something
that perhaps they traditionally have not been entrusted with?
Does he believe therefore that the requests of the Canadian
Police Association, many of the stakeholders and many of the
provinces in calling for greater resources to be attached to the
bill are on the right track and that his government will have to
respond by laying down more dollars?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for the very good question.
Those of us who are working with community based policing know
full well the importance of getting out into the community,
especially with respect to young people, to ensure that we deal
with them in an effective and meaningful way. We have done it in
the past and we continue to do so. It underscores the commitment
of not only the police but also the wider community to do the
right thing when it comes to young people wherever they live in
Canada.
With respect to resources and the kind of commitment that are
necessary to deal with young people, the hon. member makes a very
good point in terms of the local police agencies having the kind
of resources necessary to do the job effectively and well.
When we give the kind of discretion that is being proposed it
requires additional work, but I have to tell the hon. member that
the policing profession is very professional. It carries out its
duties with a great sense of loyalty and dedication, knowing that
it must do the right thing, especially for young people. The
kinds of training programs that are put in place underscore that
kind of commitment to professionalism and dedication.
I am convinced that with the proper and necessary resources the
police will act in the appropriate way. They really are unsung
heroes. They put their lives on the line daily for all of us.
We need to congratulate them repeatedly for the kind of work that
they do, especially in the all important youth area.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the government member's speech and we agree on one
thing: when it comes to the Young Offenders Act, Liberal,
Conservative and Reform members all see problems where there are
none.
All the hon. member said in support of the bill, with his quotes
and statistics, is that Ontario taxpayers were in favour of
reinvesting, of the rehabilitation and reintegration of young
offender. But this can already be done through the Young
Offenders Act, and I am wondering if he is aware of it.
1355
All the examples he gave in support of Bill C-3 are things that
can already be done through the YOA. This is why, in Quebec,
there is a unanimous consensus against the justice minister's
bill.
The problem with the YOA is not its wording, but its
enforcement. In Ontario as in the western provinces, it is not
being enforced. However, when it is, the re-offending rate for
serious crimes such as murder and armed robbery is less than 5%—I
believe it is 2%, but I do not want to mislead the House.
These are the statistics you get when you enforce the Young
Offenders Act properly. And the fundamental changes being
proposed here will not improve the legislation. The government
is taking the positive aspects of the current legislation and
adds to it such ridiculous provisions as the publication of the
names of young offenders in the newspapers.
What purpose would that serve? It would only brand them for the
rest of their lives. One day, the 14 year old who was sent to
prison or went through the highly repressive system we want to
set up, will get out. And he will be what, 24 or 25 years old?
But once he is out, what will he be able do after having been
branded a criminal for the rest of his life?
This will not in any way help the society whom we claim to be
fighting for, whom we are trying to better protect by improving
the legislation.
The existing legislation does. Did the hon. member take the time
to read the current Young Offenders Act and did he notice the
so-called major changes the minister wants to make?
Also, does the hon. member realize that the only province where
everyone agrees the legislation is enforced properly, and I am
talking of course about the province of Quebec, has a very high
success rate? Why change the law, when it is in the western part
of the country that things should be changing.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite
for the question. I have read the existing legislation and I am
also very cognizant of the new proposed legislation.
When the government launched the strategy to look into the whole
youth justice initiative and the renewal we are now presenting we
certainly looked at the Quebec model as a model that had a lot to
offer in terms of what it represented for Canada and Canadians,
wherever they are.
So it is that we incorporated those kinds of facets into the new
legislation, recognizing that we have a lot to share and a lot to
offer. We did so in a spirit of co-operation, knowing that for
young people across Canada we could bring the best from all areas
including Quebec and do so in a very positive way.
That is exactly what we have done. We have done the kinds of
things that are necessary for our young people to put systems in
place that benefit them and society as a whole.
The Speaker: We still have a few minutes remaining. I
will come back to questions and comments, if members wish, after
question period. However I would like to go to Statements by
Members now as it is almost 2 o'clock.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
UNITED NATIONS DAY
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on October 23, the eve of United Nations Day, citizens around the
world are organizing a vigil. Their goal is to put pressure on
their respective governments to provide adequate funding for the
United Nations.
Many national governments do not pay their dues to the United
Nations, which seriously weakens many organizations in that body.
For example, the United States alone owes more than $1 billion in
dues. Canada is in the minority, having no debt toward the
United Nations.
This vigil has been organized for the past three years. In 1998
it was hosted in 42 cities around the world. This year the event
is called the millennium mobilization, to recognize the entry of
the United Nations into the 21st century. It is an organization
which has done much to help our intergovernmental relations, to
help rehabilitate war torn countries, and to fight poverty and
starvation.
The United Nations needs not only moral support from its members
but also financial support to continue its projects and programs.
Therefore I urge all members of the world body to contribute
accordingly.
* * *
FOOD
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
give the Liberal government a lesson on the value of work. It is
said that we can live a minute without air, a day or two without
water, and a week or two without food.
Some of us might last a little longer.
1400
Food is a basic essential for life. We can do without a doctor
for years if we do not get sick. We might get by without a
lawyer for years. We might get by without politicians for a
century or maybe a millennium, but we cannot live without
farmers.
The farmer's work has huge value because without the farmer, we
starve. Where is the equal pay for work of greater value here?
Why is the government ignoring the plight of farmers on whom we
depend for our very lives?
History shows clearly that a nation can lose its sovereignty if
it loses its independent secure food supply.
It is food. It is farmers. It is pay for work of immense
value. It is time we recognized farmers for what they are worth.
* * *
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is celebrating National Science and Technology
Week from October 15 to 24.
Canada has made a commitment to become the world's smartest
natural resources steward, developer, user and exporter, the most
high tech, the most environmentally friendly, the most socially
responsible, the most competitive and productive.
During National Science and Technology Week, Natural Resources
Canada opens its doors to the community to communicate the
importance of the sustainable development of our energy, forest
and mineral resources. Through public open houses and educational
sessions for students, departmental staff provide an up close view
of everything from rocks, minerals and mapping to forests and the
insects that inhabit them, from metals and energy resources to
GPS technology.
More and more Canadians look to science and technology to
improve their lives and address important issues such as climate
change.
I call on all members of the House to join with me to salute the
men and women who help make Canada a world leader in science and
technology.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's balance of
trade is continuing its momentum. In January, it was at the
$22.1 billion level, and had already exceeded the total for
1998, which was $18.9 billion for the same month.
A performance like this shows that our government's economic
choices are good ones. They show that the climate is
encouraging the economic agents in key sectors of activity to
invest in this country.
News like this is certainly not pleasing to the opposition
parties, but they will have to accept it. The economic decision
makers feel that the conditions are right to ensure sustained
and sustainable economic growth for Canada.
* * *
LUPUS AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to bring to the attention of the House and of all
Canadians that the month of October is Lupus Awareness Month.
Lupus is a chronic autoimmune disease which affects
approximately 50,000 Canadians. Lupus is characterized by a
malfunction of the immmune system, which attacks different parts
of the body itself, causing inflammation in those tissues.
Lupus develops most frequently in women between the ages of 15
and 45. In this age range, lupus is eight times more common in
women than in men.
The cause of lupus is unknown and, as yet, there is no cure.
Research is actively seeking to change this.
The mission of Lupus Canada is to help the Lupus community,
their families and caregivers by providing them with the latest
information, support and education, regardless of income,
culture or religion.
I invite all hon. members to congratulate Lupus Canada and to
wish it every success with its awareness campaign.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the foreign affairs minister has no business calling for Pakistan
to be expelled from the Commonwealth following the military
takeover.
Last year the sanctions were counterproductive. The people of
Pakistan knew the government was corrupt. No one supports
military coups. However, since the military took over, there has
been calm and peace in the country. Parliament has not been
dissolved. The president still holds office. Fundamental rights
are in place. There is no bloodshed and no martial law. The
nuclear and missile restraint policy continues. The military has
promised to return the country to democratic civilian rule as
soon as possible.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs does not practise what he
preaches. He does not clean up corruption in his own department,
embassies and passport offices. He bent over backward to support
Suharto. He continued foreign aid to Algeria after the military
interfered with the democratic election process. He condemned
the U.S.A. for isolating Cuba. His policies are inconsistent and
hypocritical. He talks soft power but applies hard power. The
foreign—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
* * *
1405
COPERNICUS LODGE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, located in the heart of the Polish community in my
riding, on March 14, 1979 Copernicus Lodge opened its doors as a
retirement home with 100 self-care apartments. Within four years
phase two was built.
Now 20 years later, Copernicus Lodge is much more than a
retirement residence, it is a home. It is a place of comfort,
friends and familiarity for both the residents and their
families.
Copernicus Lodge is a place where the self-worth, self-esteem
and the dignity of the individual is maintained at the highest
level. Meeting the physical, social, medical and spiritual needs
of its residents is its most important priority.
On Sunday, October 24 the residents, their families, the staff,
volunteers and the board of directors of the Copernicus Lodge
will celebrate 20 years of caring and serving our community.
I commend and applaud Copernicus Lodge on its exemplary care. I
wish it continued success with its new phase in the future.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES DU QUÉBEC
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Semaine des
bibliothèques publiques du Québec, which is taking place this
week, seeks to make Quebecers aware of the multiple resources
provided by libraries.
Public libraries are no longer the austere and cold places that
some of us may remember. Quebec's 974 libraries offer such
resources as books, records, videos, CD-ROMs and the Internet.
Libraries are user-friendly and accessible. They rely on modern
technology, while acting as keepers of our culture.
Also, as pointed out in a Statistic Canada study, there is a
connection between reading to young children and school success.
In Laval, for example, libraries organized L'Heure du conte pour
les bambins, public dictations, including the famous Dictée du
Nord, and readings by well-known authors.
I am taking this opportunity to thank all those people in Quebec
who help make public libraries lively and thriving places to
learn, discover and dream.
* * *
[English]
CO-OPERATIVES
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
International Credit Union Day. All of this week millions of
Canadians are also celebrating National Co-op Week. The theme
for this week is “Co-operation—Shaping our Future”,
emphasizing that the co-operative model is a potent economic
force in the Canadian economy and a leading source of jobs,
incomes and community stability in many regions of the country.
As the world moves toward a global economy and downsizing
continues to claim jobs, co-operatives bring about a sense of
equilibrium in meeting the social and economic needs of
Canadians. Co-operatives aim at building a strong Canada and
offer an alternative business model.
For this reason I would ask members to join with me in
recognizing and congratulating the co-operative sector which has
and continues to make such a large contribution to our country.
Currently co-operatives, including caisses populaires and credit
unions, have a membership of 15 million Canadians and have
combined assets of over $167 billion. Co-operatives employ over
150,000 Canadians and over 70,000 volunteers offer their time.
For co-operatives, serving the needs of members always takes
precedence over the bottom line. It is for that reason
co-operatives have grown.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today's issue of the Western Producer reported the
statistics on AIDA payouts to date. In Alberta 88% of payouts
were made. In British Columbia the figure is 98%. No one will
be surprised to hear that these two provinces manage their own
programs. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan the Liberal government is
in charge. Well, sort of. Payouts there are 44% and 43%
respectively.
The Saskatchewan agricultural sector, which is the hardest hit
in Canada, is reeling from years of low prices, high input costs,
high taxes, weak-kneed interventions at the World Trade
Organization, and it has no friends in this Liberal
administration. Events have shown that western interests are of
no interest at all to this government. The agriculture minister
promised money to get the crop in. Now it is off and 57% of
Saskatchewan farmers still have not seen any money.
Saskatchewan voters will deliver an indictment on this smug
Liberal government through the Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
byelection. We cannot wait.
* * *
CORPORATE MANSLAUGHTER
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
the leader of the New Democratic Party tabled a private member's
bill to make corporate manslaughter a crime. I am proud to be a
seconder of this bill.
Each year hundreds of Canadians are killed on the job and over
one million are injured. On average, two Canadians are killed on
the job every day. That is two families every day where a
mother, father, spouse or a child does not come home.
Many of these deaths and injuries could and should be prevented
but are not because of negligence by company managers who care
more about profits than lives. Company managers who knowingly or
negligently allow workers into unsafe conditions are criminals
and should go to jail. The New Democratic Party bill will make
sure that they can be charged.
The Liberal government still has not learned from the Westray
disaster. Negligence by company managers caused the deaths of 26
miners in Westray but no charges were laid.
1410
Safety, not profit, must come first in the workplace. The real
possibility of criminal charges will finally force company
officials to make safety the top priority.
I urge the Liberal government and all its members of the House
to make the safety of Canadian workers their top priority.
* * *
GAIRDNER FOUNDATION
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to ask the House to join me in congratulating the
Gairdner Foundation of Toronto as it celebrates an important
anniversary.
For 40 years, the foundation has been recognizing and rewarding
those in the medical world who, through unselfish devotion of
their time and efforts, have been successful in making major
contributions to research for the conquest of disease and the
relief of human suffering. Over time, international Gairdner
awards have been presented to 249 recipients, including 51 who
have gone on to win the Nobel prize.
On behalf of the House I congratulate the founders and trustees
of the Gairdner Foundation on this distinguished record of
achievement.
The more than 50 Gairdner winners gathering in Toronto and 13
other centres across Canada this week for the Minds That Matter
symposium to mark this occasion provide an eloquent testimony to
the success of this important institution.
[Translation]
We salute their past and wish them a great future.
* * *
BRUNY SURIN
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, Quebec
sprinter Bruny Surin will receive the Maurice Richard award.
This award for excellence was created in 1979 by Montreal's
Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and is given to an athlete who is an
honour both to his or her sport and to Quebec.
Recognized for his integrity, determination, courage and
perseverance, Bruny Surin is one of Quebec's great sports
figures. He has run the second fastest 100 metre dash in
history, and he is a true inspiration and model for all young
people.
The Bloc Quebecois congratulates this great athlete, not only
for his outstanding performances, but also for persevering in a
sport he loves, sometimes against all odds, through the good
years as well as the more difficult ones.
Bruny, our hearts will be beating for you when we watch you race
in the Sydney Olympic Games. Congratulations and good luck in
the pursuit of your brilliant career.
* * *
[English]
JULIUS K. NYERERE MEMORIAL PROJECT
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today the world will mourn Julius Nyerere, the former
president of Tanzania, who passed away last week.
Mr. Nyerere was the president of Tanzania for 24 years. He was
highly respected for his honesty and dedication to development at
the grassroots level and for his role as a leading African
statesman.
Throughout his country he was known simply and affectionately as
Mwalimu, which means teacher. Today the Minister of
International Co-operation is representing Canada in Tanzania at
his funeral.
Canadians should know that CIDA will honour Mr. Nyerere's memory
and legacy by naming one important community project every year
in Tanzania the Julius K. Nyerere Memorial Project.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, while the President of the Treasury Board is studying
the federal court decision on pay equity, I am going to give her
additional material she should take into consideration in this
regard during her deliberation process.
First, this is the fourth decision in favour of 200,000
employees from the federal public sector, mainly women.
Second, taxpayers are paying millions of dollars per week in
interest because of the government's refusal to respect the court
decision.
Third, it is time for her government to provide equality to all
Canadians as we approach the new millennium.
Fourth, the President of the Treasury Board has an obligation to
the millions of women of this country who are anxiously awaiting
her decision.
Women in the minister's own caucus have publicly stated that it
is time to finally respect and recognize the court decision and
pay up. As the court ruling states, let us not forget that
justice delayed is justice denied.
* * *
[Translation]
ROYAL 22ND REGIMENT
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October 21 marks
the founding of the Royal 22nd Regiment. This military unit
comprising primarily Quebecers has existed and brought us honour
for 85 years, as of today.
This regiment was awarded over 550 decorations and insignia for
its bravery and heroism in the two world wars and the Korean
war. In addition, a number of the members of the Royal 22nd
joined UN peacekeeping forces and were awarded the Nobel peace
prize in 1988.
Their loyalty has never been questioned either. As proof, 250
soldiers from the Royal 22nd left Quebec City Friday to join the
international mission sent to East Timor, thus reaffirming their
tradition of commitment.
1415
On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like
to pay tribute to the Royal 22nd regiment, to the men and women
there in the service of peace and to those like them.
* * *
JEUX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE CANADIENNE
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
first Jeux de la Francophonie canadienne were held in
Memramcook, New Brunswick, between August 19 and 22.
Thirteen delegations of young francophones and francophiles aged
between 15 and 18 came to celebrate their association with the
French Canadian culture. They numbered nearly 1,000 young
people and they came from all the provinces and territories.
In this Année de la Francophonie canadienne, the games afforded
a fine opportunity to show off the vitality of our young
francophones and to help instill the French language and culture
in their hearts.
The Government of Canada and, more specifically, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage is proud to have supported the first edition
of the Jeux de la Francophonie canadienne and congratulates the
Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, which was the
force behind this grand celebration that brought together young
francophones—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we
must now proceed to Oral Question Period.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today is a
sad day for the individual rights of aboriginal people in Canada.
The Nisga'a agreement fails to provide Nisga'a people with
private property rights, fails to provide Nisga'a women with the
same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadian women
and puts in peril the charter rights of each and every Nisga'a
individual.
How can the government and the minister ignore the fundamental
rights of aboriginal Canadians?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. We are respecting the rights
of aboriginal Canadians and all Canadians to live together in
peace and harmony in British Columbia and all over our country.
It is the Reform Party that is disturbing the tranquillity of
Canadians with its approach to this fundamental matter.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members of
the Reform Party have a fundamentally different position than the
government. We have a positive vision for aboriginal people. We
want a new start for aboriginal Canadians in this country. We
want aboriginal women to be full and equal partners, both on
reserve and off reserve. We want aboriginal people to have the
same rights and protections which all other Canadians enjoy.
How can the government continue to ignore these fundamental
rights that aboriginal people are crying out for in this country?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate
to the member across the way that the first thing he should do is
read the agreement. We purposely sent the agreement over to the
member a number of months ago in order for him to have a chance
to read it. In the agreement it states specifically that it is
under the constitution, the people are under the charter, the
Nass Valley and the Nisga'a people themselves. Also the member
will notice in the agreement that aboriginal women are under
provincial law and they will continue to be under provincial law.
I want to make one more point. This member said in the press
not too long ago—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows that no private property rights are created under this
agreement. He knows that without private property rights
aboriginal women cannot possibly hope to enjoy the same rights
and protections as all other Canadian women in the event of a
marriage breakup.
Why did the minister agree to sign on to this treaty when there
is no provision for private property rights for Nisga'a people?
Why did he do that?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before I state why
there are property rights, let me read what the member said not
too long ago. On Saturday, September 11, Mr. Scott said that the
successful negotiations of recent treaties in British Columbia
are a good indication the system is working.
Let me make one further point. In this agreement land is held
in fee simple, which allows people to go to the provincial
registry to register land, which allows individual people to
register their land. In fact it is not communal. The member
should read the agreement.
1420
The Speaker: I would remind hon. members not to use each
other's names in the course of either questions or answers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty assigns 25% of the salmon in the Nass
River to the Nisga'a.
Given that there are four other bands that have claims to that
fishery, virtually all Nass River salmon will be transferred to
aboriginals under treaty.
If this government, the NDP and the Conservatives are willing to
assign virtually 100% of Nass River fish to natives, why should
non-native east coast lobster fishermen trust the government to
keep a place for them in the fishery?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just as in the House the Reform
represents a minority view on Nisga'a, across Canada it also
represents a minority view on Nisga'a.
Reform has been against every aboriginal initiative that has
come forward in the House. Canadians know exactly what Reform
stands for. That is why it is moving below 10%.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is small comfort to the Nova Scotia lobster
fishermen.
Uncertainty directly related to the Nisga'a treaty is hurting
the economy of northwestern British Columbia. Concerns from
loggers and fishermen were ignored. We now see the same lack of
investor confidence resulting from the handling of treaty issues
on the east coast, where a large Yarmouth based lobster buyer
cannot obtain operating funds for this year because of
uncertainty over the Marshall decision.
Why is the government proceeding with a policy that is
destroying investor confidence and killing jobs in the fisheries
on both coasts?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a federal representative
who is trying to create certainty. If the hon. member clearly
wants certainty, then he should be voting for the Nisga'a
agreement because that is what will create certainty. Everybody
will know what the rules are.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage advised the House
that there would be a meeting today between members of the MUC
police, officials from the departments of National Revenue and
Canadian Heritage, and representatives of the RCMP.
If she has asked the RCMP to conduct another investigation, are
we to understand that she has decided that it should be
Canada-wide?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did not ask the RCMP to conduct another
investigation. I asked the RCMP to conduct an investigation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there
was an investigation done between 1995 and 1997. There was also
one done by the MUC police.
I wonder whether she should not, in fact, have consulted and
studied this investigation between 1995 and 1997, and had the
courage to take action so that such practices did not recur.
She did nothing.
Can she explain why she did nothing following the serious
allegations in the 1995 to 1997 investigation, and why she is
now requesting that the same work be done again, even though it
has already been done by the MUC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, Monday and last week, the Bloc Quebecois
made serious allegations. I felt it was my responsibility to
respond to those allegations, and the best way of getting at the
truth of the matter was to turn to the RCMP.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the beginning of this case, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage has been accusing us of inventing problems and starting
rumors, as did Mr. Macerola from Telefilm Canada, who said,
somewhat prematurely, that the whole issue was an urban legend.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will the
minister admit that since Friday, when she claimed not to know
anything about this issue, she has learned, thanks to the Bloc
Quebecois, that there are at least four cases of people whose
names were used, that other producers might be implicated, and
that, for the time being, this whole thing only involves
Telefilm's Montreal component?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member made allegations on Friday. Today, he
is making more allegations. Again, I would ask him to contact
the RCMP to inform them of his allegations.
1425
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
how could the minister tell us that she found out about the
whole issue of Friday, considering that an investigation took
place in 1997, that shocking statements were made early in the
fall by some prominent figures from that sector, that the Quebec
Minister of Culture decided to order an investigation through
SODEC to shed light on this issue, and that her deputy minister
had been aware of the issue for two or three days?
Is the minister being kept in the dark by her officials, or is
she simply refusing to assume her responsibilities?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is the one who is making allegations.
He did so on Friday, then on Monday, and again on Tuesday.
I asked him to contact the RCMP about his allegations, and I am
asking him to do so again today. If he has allegations to make,
then he should go directly to the RCMP, which is there to
investigate.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FARMERS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Farm families are facing the worst crisis since the great
depression and still the government stalls. It is not just
farmers who are affected; it is suppliers, equipment
manufacturers and dealers who are being forced to lay off
workers. Everybody is holding their breath waiting for the
minister to respond.
When will the minister stop stalling? When will this minister
end the anguish and introduce a decent farm aid package?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government started to act nearly a
year ago when we contributed $900 million before the budget was
introduced last year. That is being used by producers. It will
all be used. It will also be added to by $600 million from the
provinces. We made changes to the net income stabilization
account which made another $121 million available across Canada.
There is still more money in the net income stabilization account
that has been triggered by farmers as well. I am encouraged by
the fact that they are now using that account.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about an adequate response. We are talking about a
decent response. No one is buying the minister's line. No one
believes that this government has responded adequately to this
crisis.
How many farms will go under? How many small businesses will
fail? How many families will be driven off their farms before
this government puts aside its arrogance and puts forward the
kind of farm aid that will save our family farms?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over $1.5 billion is certainly a
significant amount of money. Unfortunately, there are always
limits to resources. We are trying to find every way, shape and
form that we can to help.
We have made changes to the AIDA program. We have made
additions to the AIDA program. We continue to do all we possibly
can within the limit of the resources that are available.
* * *
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Obviously there is now a power struggle between the Minister of
Industry and the Minister of Transport. The Minister of
Transport is proposing legislation to let him have a final say in
all Competition Bureau tribunal reports.
I want the Minister of Industry, on behalf of consumers, to
assure the House that no power will be transferred to the
Minister of Transport on airline merger issues.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should read the Canada
Transportation Act because he will see that the use of section 47
is done so only with the authority of not only the Minister of
Transport, but the Minister of Industry.
My colleague, the Minister of Industry, and I have worked on
this file in concert from the beginning. We continue to do so.
The section 47 process that we brought forward on August 13 is
working because we now have private sector proposals that allow
the restructuring of the airline industry.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has only one answer for every question and
it is the wrong one.
I want to read to the House a tribunal report dated 1993. If
the minister has the final say in future reports, we will never
hear words like these. The tribunal report states that if
Canadian Airlines is forced to merge with Air Canada, the
tribunal finds that competition in domestic airline markets will
likely be substantially lessened. It goes on to say that charter
carriers cannot compensate for Canadian's removal.
It is absolutely unacceptable for the Minister of Transport to
now be able to doctor up Competition Bureau reports.
1430
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is really quite odd that the hon. member is
quoting from past reports of the bureau, which certainly were
very reflective of the situation at the time.
However, the bureau is now working on a new report, which will
be made available to me very shortly and will be made public. It
will help us in the restructuring process. These are the
guidelines being issued by the bureau under the auspices of
section 47 of the Canada Transport Act.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
non-Nisga'a residents who live on Nisga'a land will have no right
to vote for the government but they will be subject to Nisga'a
laws and taxation. Why is the Liberal government endorsing
taxation without representation?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not about the
Nisga'a people leaving Canada. It is about the Nisga'a people
entering Canada.
One of the most important aspects of the treaty is that all
non-Nisga'a will still be Canadian citizens and will still be
able to vote for their MLA and their member of parliament. They
will be able to participate on all the boards, including the
education board and the health council of the Nisga'a people.
They will have better representation than they are getting from
the Reform Party.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
non-Nisga'a will soon have to send their tax dollars to their
local government for which they have no right to vote. I know the
government does not care about taxpayers but I never thought that
it would go as far as denying taxpayers the right to vote.
Why is the government denying non-Nisga'a residents the right to
vote for the government that levies their taxes?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage
Reform Party members. As we get into the debate, it will be very
important for them to read the treaty. They should also ask us
for a briefing, which will be very helpful.
As we talk about representation, I will give the Reform Party
members an example of what representation means to the Nisga'a
people. The member representing the Nisga'a and the people of
the Nass Valley has 25 first nations. Out of those 25 first
nations, 17 have not seen their member of parliament in six
years.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
as far as the future of air travel in Canada goes, there are two
offers on the table: one a legal one from Air Canada, and the
other an illegal one from Onex, which would require the law to
be changed before it could be entertained.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Are we to
understand from the statement made by the Prime Minister on
Monday that it is up to Air Canada's shareholders to decide, and
that his government is prepared to change the law if Air
Canada's shareholders chose to accept the Onex offer?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, obviously we have two offers. It is up to the Air
Canada shareholders to decide which is best for them. After,
when the government has received a conditional agreement, we
shall see whether the offer is in keeping with the government's
principles. In our opinion, the process is working, and working
fine.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on the one hand the Minister of Transport says he wants to
introduce a bill to change the legislative framework, while on
the other the Prime Minister is saying that there must not be
any change because this is solely up to the shareholders of Air
Canada. Is there not a contradiction here?
1435
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this has to be done in stages. There is a process
involving the shareholders of Air Canada, then one involving the
government and the members of this House. Obviously, the Prime
Minister and I agree completely with this process. As I said,
the process is good for the Canadian public, because it will
bring about the restructuring of this industry.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of British Columbia cut off debate on the
Nisga'a treaty before many of the provisions were even debated.
Today the federal minister stated that he too plans to cut off
debate if he does not feel that he likes the tone. There is
democracy is action.
Will the Government of Canada commit to a more democratic
process and assure the House and concerned British Columbians
that full debate will be allowed and that time allocation and
closure will not cut off debate on this critical subject?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the bill will soon be called for second reading debate.
It will be followed by committee stage consideration. There will
be report stage and third reading. The debate will continue
according to the rules. Obviously the rules include a means of
coming to an end at one stage of debate and moving to the next.
Together, we in the House will decide if those stages are
required. A lot depends on how the debate goes.
Let us all take part in the debate in a meaningful way and
hopefully we will reach prompt decisions that will be in the
interests of the Nisga'a people, the people of British Columbia
and all of Canada.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in other words, the government intends to cut off fair
debate and deny the public the right to hear what is going on in
the treaty.
The Liberals spent a fortune of taxpayers' money on polling and
then ignored the results. Extensive polling in British Columbia
indicated widespread concern over the Nisga'a treaty as it is
written.
Will the government commit to holding hearings in British
Columbia, as part of this so-called democratic process, to enable
all British Columbians to voice their concern, a right that was
requested by the B.C. Liberal Party and denied by the NDP
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that there have been committee hearings in
British Columbia. When the bill gets to the standing committee,
it will be up to the committee to make the decision on future
travel.
If there are decisions on time allocation, the decisions will
come into place because there will be a majority vote for them by
the House according to our rules.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the reform of
EI with respect to parental leave announced in the throne speech
will not benefit all parents, far from it. Women have great
difficulty qualifying because of the number of hours of work
required.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Will the minister admit that the problem of qualifying must be
addressed first, so as to give parents access to benefits and,
to that end, will she agree to lower the number of hours
required to qualify for parental leave from 700 to 300?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are very happy with the
announcement we made last week. The president of the Fédération
des femmes du Québec told us that, when she heard the
announcement, she told herself that it was certainly a step in
the right direction.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a step
in the right direction, but one that will miss its target.
Will the minister finally admit that there are several problems
with her parental leave proposal that must be sorted out,
including the number of hours needed by women to qualify, which
must be lowered to 300 from 700; and the level of benefits
which, at 55% of income, is not enough to meet the needs of
families.
I ask her in all sincerity whether she is going to solve these
two problems.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without question, the undertaking of the
government is extremely significant. In our view, it will change
the whole context of Canadian society. The government is
committed to families and we are proving it.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Indian affairs minister has publicly stated that accountability
is the top priority for his portfolio.
I have been to hundreds of reserves across the country. I know
how grassroots natives define accountability. How does the
minister define accountability? You guys don't even know the
meaning of it.
1440
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, accountability is a duly
elected chief and council on reserve who are elected by their
constituents.
An hon. member: How many reserves have you been to, Bob?
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I have 51 first
nations and I know I have been to all of them, contrary to some
of these guys.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
certainly does not tell the grassroots people much with an answer
like that.
One thing is for certain, I am sure we could count on one hand,
if at all, the number of times the word “accountability” is
mentioned in the Nisga'a agreement. The money will not be given
to all Nisga'a people. It will be given to a handful who may or
may not share the benefits equally.
Could the minister please explain how placing this land and
money in the hands of a few will benefit the greater population?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is why the
members un-united alternative across the way is just not getting
it.
Let me answer the question for them. The fact remains that the
assumption—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We have heard the question and now I
would like to hear the answer. The hon. minister of Indian
affairs.
Hon. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Speaker, it is below this place
to try to answer a question that suggests that aboriginal people
somehow are not accountable when they are elected by their own
peers. That is the most disgusting comment I have heard from
that member for almost a week.
* * *
[Translation]
PAY EQUITY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
federal court's pay equity ruling was announced, there has been
a general call for the government to implement it without delay.
Even members of the Liberal caucus are beginning to feel
ashamed of the minister's attitude in this affair.
The message seems clear to me. When does the minister intend to
take action?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): In a few days,
Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Since the conclusion of the conflict in Serbia, we have
witnessed attempts by many Serbs to build a democratic society.
We have witnessed a pro-democracy rally, a budding opposition
movement and many attempts to establish a free press.
What is Canada doing to encourage democratic development in
Serbia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just this week we announced that we will reopen the
embassy in Belgrade at the level of chargé d'affaires, along with
the resources of the Canada fund, specifically to promote
democracy and reform and to establish links with the
pro-democratic movement in Serbia. It will also give us an
opportunity to maintain effective links with the Canadian
presence in Kosovo that is working on peacekeeping and
humanitarian matters.
This is one clear indication of our commitment to try to promote
democratic reform in that country.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is bad enough that the Nisga'a agreement entrenches taxation
without representation. It is incredible that it gives
aboriginal women fewer rights than non-aboriginal women. It is
mind-boggling that there are 50 sidebar agreements yet to be
negotiated. It is shameful that there are overlapping land
claims on this same area. It is pitiful that British Columbians
have never been allowed to affirm this agreement in a referendum.
It is incomprehensible that the minister would stand at a press
conference and say that he looks forward to limiting the debate
here in the House.
Why has the government decided that democracy also has to be a
victim of the Nisga'a agreement?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, democracy will be reflected by what goes on in the House
because we will debate the bill on second reading. There will be
hearings on it in committee. There will be debate on report
stage and on third reading. This is democracy in action.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there will also be closure and time allocation, I am sure. After
two weeks of work, the minister has quite a track record.
He decrees that parliament will not be allowed to fully debate
the Nisga'a agreement. He accuses British Columbians of being
unable to understand this agreement. He refuses to allow
amendments that will protect aboriginal women. He forces one
group of Canadians against another. He intrudes into provincial
jurisdiction and gives away mineral and timber rights. He
destroys the economic prospects on both coasts.
1445
That is not bad for two weeks' work. He now has divisiveness
down pat. What does he hope to accomplish in his second and
third weeks in office?
Hon. Robert D. Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to accomplish keeping the Reform alive but
it is not doing a very good job of helping me.
Let me make one point that the hon. member is again suggesting.
We have now gone as far as to brief all major media, so they will
not get away with this in the House any more.
The fact remains that aboriginal women are represented in the
legislation through provincial legislation and will have their
rights protected. Now the hon. member should stand in his place
to apologize for making statements that are not factually
correct.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
here is a factually correct statement. Residents and local
governments across Ontario, including Thunder Bay, Sault Ste.
Marie and Nepean, have all understandably voiced objections to
the federal government's plan to ship MOx fuel containing weapons
grade plutonium through their communities. It is unacceptable
that such a potentially hazardous scheme is being undertaken
without the support of the public or indeed parliament.
Why will the government not address the legitimate safety and
environmental concerns of Canadians and put an end to the
project?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we both have and are addressing those concerns. We have
held public consultations with all the local officials. We have
held public open houses to provide complete information. We have
provided a public comment period to the Department of Transport,
which ended a week or so ago.
Now the Department of Transport will take all that information
into account before it makes a final decision on whether all the
laws are being properly respected to ensure that the public
interest is fully protected.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the minister may want to have a public discussion with Ontario
Power because it appears today that Ontario Power and the
province of Ontario oppose the federal government's plan to burn
MOx in Ontario nuclear reactors.
Ontario Power is not even studying the option. Given that the
main purpose and rationale for the federal government's plan was
to import it for use in Ontario, something Ontario does not even
want, why is the government still considering this action?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the hon. member forgets that this is very much a
foreign policy initiative in the interest of promoting world
peace and reducing the threat of nuclear weapons.
We have said we are prepared to consider the principle and to
conduct the tests. We are not committed to anything beyond the
testing. The testing is covered under existing regulatory
authority. If there is ever to be any further commercial
activity, it would be subject to a full environmental health and
safety review. The proponents would need to negotiate a
commercial contract with the utility in Canada that was prepared
to undertake the activity, and that would be a decision to be
taken by the utility.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
air transportation issue, is it true that the Minister of
Transport wants to appropriate more power, at the expense of the
Competition Bureau, to ensure that he is the one and the only
one to decide whether to accept or reject any proposal?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that we have section 47 of the Canadian
Transportation Act in place. It provides for a certain process
that allows the Competition Bureau to give its advice. That
advice will be tabled very shortly and will help us in the
restructuring of the airline industry.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister will probably wait until next Tuesday before
announcing, probably with great fanfare, something
extraordinary.
However, in the meantime, and out of respect for parliament, can
the minister assure all parliamentarians that his department and
his government will not go against any ruling made by the
Canadian Competition Bureau in the air transportation issue, yes
or no?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the bureau's advice will be very
helpful in dealing with this very difficult file.
As for disrespecting parliament, what more respect can one have
than to go to committee where there can be hours of questioning
and debate and looking into all the details rather than deal with
things in a cursory way in the House of Commons?
* * *
1450
GRAIN
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for the wheat board.
Well over 70% of the grain produced in western Canada is
exported out of the country. Therefore the next round of WTO
negotiations beginning in Seattle next month raises several
critical issues ranging from those damaging export subsidies to
support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
What is the minister doing to ensure that farmers will gain
maximum benefits from the international marketplace?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada-U.S. grain trade is bedevilled by far too
many myths and sterile debates about marketing ideologies.
I have met with the U.S. wheat associates organization and with
the representatives of 13 American wheat producing states. This
weekend I will be meeting with most of the major U.S. grain
milling companies.
The message is always consistent. We are each other's best
customers. We have a huge amount in common. Let us not batter
away at each other. Instead, let us make common cause against
the subsidies, the distortions and the unfair market access rules
of the European Union which are the most pernicious source of
damage to both Canadian and American farmers and the world's
grain trade.
* * *
MERCHANT NAVY VETERANS
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
after 54 years of denial of equality of opportunity for our
merchant navy veterans, a Liberal committee offers an empty
handshake and a promise that the veterans will be studied by
college kids.
Who would seriously believe that this would be fair? The
minister must do more to resolve the issue. We simply cannot
have this bitterness taken to the graves of our veterans.
Will the minister confirm that he will provide these veterans
with a more respectful and just settlement?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with four organizations
concerning the question of the merchant navy.
[Translation]
I consulted four groups on this issue, and they all support the
Liberal government's actions.
* * *
BILL C-6
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterdaty
two Quebec ministers wrote the Minister of Industry to ask for a
meeting on the legislative duplication the minister is preparing
to create with passage of his Bill C-6 on the protection of
personal information.
Does the minister intend to agree to meet with the Quebec
ministers, and consequently to suspend consideration of the bill
in this House until such time as that meeting has taken place?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill introduced
by my colleague the Minister of Industry is necessary in this
age of e-commerce and the Internet.
I would like to point out that my colleague has already
responded to numerous requests from the Government of Quebec
precisely in order to avoid any form of duplication and to
ensure that, when the legislation is passed, it will respect the
Government of Quebec's legislation.
I believe that the two governments can work together in order to
serve the interests of the entire population well, and to
protect their privacy.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government may be party to a conspiracy to cover up use of toxic
and lethal depleted uranium in Kosovo.
The chair of the UN-Balkans environmental task force says NATO
is refusing to co-operate with its investigation into DU use
which has been linked to stillbirths, children born with defects,
childhood leukaemia and other cancers, and the gulf war syndrome.
Is the minister aware of this NATO coverup and will he commit to
Canadians that he will do everything in his power to ensure NATO
fully complies with the investigation into depleted uranium use
in Kosovo?
1455
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have not used depleted uranium.
Our CF-18s did not use depleted uranium when they were involved
in Kosovo.
We have taken steps to ensure the safety of our troops in that
area. They are given personal radioactivity dosimeters and other
steps are taken to ensure that their safety and health are looked
after.
At the same time scientific studies to this point have not
indicated that depleted uranium and illnesses including cancer
are in fact related.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans says that he is sensitive to interest of
those who rely on the fishery for their livelihood and that he
has the authority to regulate the fishery.
How long will the minister wait before implementing regulations
that would have native and non-native fishers fishing at the same
time?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are regulating the fishery at
this time. Under the aboriginal fishing strategy we do have
native fishing at times, when the commercial fisheries are not in
place, through their food fisheries. We have those but we have a
regular fishery.
There is one thing I want to make clear on the treaty right,
that the long term solution in terms of the treaty right will not
be at the expense of traditional commercial fishermen or their
families. I want to make that clear. This is a long term
solution that we all have to work with.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently
there was a report out of the United States suggesting that an
antidote given to protect our troops in the gulf war is actually
the cause of their ailments.
Is the Minister of National Defence aware of the report and, if
he is, what is his department doing about it?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are aware of the report. It is
being extensively studied at the moment. While the report from
the Rand Corporation is inconclusive, it does raise some very
important questions with respect to illness during the gulf war.
We are having our consultant, Goss Gilroy, also look at the
matter and update the report to us with respect to the matter.
What is most important is that we look after the health and
welfare of our troops. We have established post-deployment
clinics, gulf war clinics, 1-800 numbers, and a centre for the
injured and the sick. These are all important matters in looking
after our troops.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier in
question period the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans lamented
that Reform does not support his aboriginal policies.
We have had 132 years of aboriginal policies from the federal
government and it has been a litany of failure. Who has been the
governing party for most of the last 132 years? The Liberal of
Party of Canada. Why should anybody trust it to get it right now
when it has got it wrong so much in the past?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals are proud of what they have done to build
Canada over the last 132 years. If the Reform Party continues
the way it has been, it will help the Liberals to be in power for
the next 132 years.
* * *
[Translation]
PLUTONIUM IMPORTS
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
present time, Transport Canada is studying plans filed with it
by Atomic Energy Canada for importing plutonium from American
and Russian nuclear weapons into Canada.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. How can it
be that the government is already at the stage of deciding how
to ship the plutonium when there has been no public debate on
the very principle of importing it?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no decision has been taken. Obviously the
transportation plans are just now being reviewed and no decision
could be taken until Transport Canada makes a determination in
this matter.
We have indicated our agreement in principle subject to that
technical approval from the Department of Transport. The testing
procedure to be conducted at the AECL lab at Chalk River is fully
covered by the existing licence granted by the Atomic Energy
Control Board, and that licence was granted subject to public
hearings.
* * *
1500
INTEREST RATES
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the acting Minister of Finance. Household
debt now is at a record 101% of after tax income in this country.
We have the highest mortgage rates now in some 42 months.
I wonder if the minister will screw up his courage and make
representation to the Bank of Canada to hold the line on interest
rates in this country?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we took
office, Canadian interest rates were 250 basis points across the
board higher than the American rates. Today they are at or lower
than the American rates. This is because of the very strong
fiscal policy that we have brought in, putting our economic house
in order and a monetary policy which has kept inflation down. We
will continue to follow those policies.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Contradiction and lack of leadership are consistent traits of
the government. It has forced non-violent demonstrators to sign
a message to the minister on appropriate material. There are
more than 700 names on this message and it is not a
contradiction.
What will the minister do to protect the fishers? That is
the message.
The Speaker: Order, please. That will bring to a close our
question period for today.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to know from the government House leader the
business for the remainder of this week and the balance of next
week as well. I would also like to know if there is room in the
agenda for the Nisga'a debate. Will time allocation be necessary
or will we have lots of room for the Nisga'a debate?
[Translation]
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will proceed
with Bill C-3, the youth justice bill, which hon. members
opposite have been calling for so fervently for the last several
days. We will see if they are willing to let it go to a
parliamentary committee.
Tomorrow, we shall begin debate on third reading of Bill C-6, the
electronic commerce bill.
Next Monday, October 25, and Thursday, October 28, shall be
allotted days.
On Tuesday, we shall commence debate on second reading of Bill
C-9, the Nisga'a legislation, introduced earlier today.
On Wednesday, subject to discussions between the parties, we
shall likely begin consideration of Bill C-8, the marine
conservation areas bill.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify something
I said during question period. I made reference to hearings in
the province of British Columbia. I misunderstood some
information I had been given. These were hearings of a committee
of the provincial legislature.
1505
Also, in answering a question on whether the committee of this
House would travel to British Columbia to hold hearings, I said
that this was a matter for decision by the committee. I should
have added that in order to go into effect, such a decision would
be subject to consultation among the House leaders and the
ultimate approval by this House.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
The Speaker: I will deal with the question of
privilege which was raised by the hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley. She brought up a question of
privilege the other day. I said I would hold any decision in
abeyance until I heard if there was a response from any other
members who wanted to deal with that specific question of
privilege which was brought up.
I also said at the time that I would not limit myself to simply
a question of privilege but that I would hear her representations
also with the possibility that there might be a contempt of
parliament. I am looking at this particular intervention by a
member on two aspects.
If there are people who want to contribute to this question of
privilege, I will hear them. I notice that the government House
leader does have something to add on the specifics.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for South
Surrey—White Rock—Langley. In her statement she referred to
the misconduct as she alleges, and general misuse of authority
she further alleges, by the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service in the exercise of extraordinary powers.
She further noted that in her view CSIS deliberately misled the
federal court and frustrated her ability to resolve her lawsuit.
She alleges that this was done to intimidate her as a member of
parliament and it is therefore in her view a breach of privilege
and she contends, a contempt of parliament.
It is a matter of public record that this lawsuit by a private
litigant stems from the actions taken by an hon. member outside
of the House of Commons. In her statement the hon. member in
question raised three broad allegations: one, that CSIS
improperly collected and disclosed information; two, that CSIS
took an active and thereby inappropriate role in the preparation
of a lawsuit against the hon. member; and three, that CSIS
misused its authority to protect national security and
deliberately misled the court, so she said.
With respect to the collection and disclosure of information by
CSIS, document 17 of the documents provided by the hon. member
indicates at Q.36 that CSIS was collecting public information to
maintain an awareness of current events and public issues that
may affect its mandated investigative responsibilities. It then
disclosed this public—I add public—unclassified information to
the plaintiff who, as indicated at Q.10, was a former employee of
CSIS.
None of the documentation provided any prima facie evidence, in
my view, that the behaviour of CSIS in this case was contrary to
law nor motivated by any desire to affect in any way the
behaviour of the hon. member, let alone intimidate her, in her
capacity as a member of parliament.
I now turn to the express desire of the hon. member to have this
matter heard by a committee of this House. I believe that the
information provided by the hon. member does not amount to prima
facie contempt of the House, nor does it constitute a prima facie
breach of privilege. Any actions taken by CSIS during the course
of this private lawsuit were completely unrelated to the ability
of the hon. member to perform her duties in parliament, I
contend.
The hon. member may have a complaint about CSIS and of course
with time we will judge whether or not that complaint is valid.
However, on the basis of the evidence submitted, I maintain that
any such complaint is not within the realm of parliamentary
privilege or contempt.
1510
The most appropriate vehicle for an examination of this matter
is the recourse mechanism established by parliament for all
Canadians who disagree with the conduct of CSIS, including its
collection and disclosure of information. It is our view that the
far more appropriate course would be for the Security
Intelligence Review Committee, better known as SIRC, to examine
this matter. This committee was established by parliament to
review all complaints against CSIS, including those from members
of the House. It is composed of a number of distinguished
Canadians, including former members of the House, and a person no
less than the former House leader from the opposition party.
In conclusion, I submit that the hon. member has not submitted
sufficient evidence to justify a prima facie finding of contempt
or breach of privilege but that, if otherwise there is a
substantive complaint against CSIS, the proper recourse is to the
Security Intelligence Review Committee. We believe this process
was established by statute law to protect the rights of all
Canadians, including members of parliament and that it ought to
be properly followed.
The Speaker: As I asserted before, I want to hear direct
submissions with regard to this question of privilege. I do not
want to get into a debate about what was said or what was
interpreted. I will do the interpretation. I will go to the
opposition House leader for comment.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like some clarification from the Chair. Was the member
for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley given notice that this was
going to come up? She is not here to hear what the members in
the House are saying about this issue. Did you make contact with
her?
The Speaker: In direct response to the question, no. The
hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley was not
notified. If the question was posed, this is my statement and
not the hon. member's, I will not be taking a decision at this
very moment. It is not my intention to take a decision at this
moment. I want to review everything that has been said in here
with regard to this question of either contempt or privilege.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, my point is if this were a
court of law or any other such tribunal in this nation, the
individual would rightly be requested or advised to be there. The
government House leader has made statements which to the
individual's knowledge may or may not be accurate. I think she
has the right to hear them.
The Speaker: I offer this as a counterproposal as to what
we might do. These statements made in the House not only will be
made available to the hon. member who raised the question of
privilege or contempt, but she will also have time to study them.
I will go this much further. If there is something further she
would like to add without entering into a debate per se, but to
give me more information on which I could make a decision, then I
will wait until I hear from her.
That the hon. member was not notified is my responsibility. I
take responsibility for that. It was an error on my part but I
did not get the information until just today and I thought it
best that we had a response of some kind. I did not know the
member would not be here, but that is my responsibility and I
take full responsibility for this error on my part.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will leave it to the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley
to get a hold of you and go through Hansard.
I think that is a poor way overall for this to be handled.
Suffice it to say that the points the House leader brought up
were covered in the documentation, most of which the hon. member
gave to the Speaker some time ago.
1515
The hon. member is not protesting the fact that it was private
litigation against her. She has never said that there is
anything wrong with that, nor should there be. She is not saying
that CSIS was able to collect information that was classified or
top secret. What the hon. member is saying is that after they
got the information together, people at CSIS gave to the
plaintiff in a private law suit help. That information was given
to this private individual to conduct a private law suit. In
other words, people at CSIS helped another individual. They
collected newspaper articles. They collected clippings from
newscasts. They collected all of this and then, unsolicited,
gave it to a plaintiff in a private law suit.
Further, after that the CSIS lawyer was in contact with a
private lawyer to a private litigant, the plaintiff in a private
case, to help them with their case.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the House leader is coming
from, but what he is trying to argue does not jibe at all with
the facts that the hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley gave you late last week.
The Speaker: That is precisely the point, my dear
colleagues. I want to review myself what has been said by the
hon. member who brought forth either the point of privilege or
the point of contempt. I will also look at all of the other
interventions in this particular case.
If the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill has something which
deals specifically with this point of privilege, I will hear it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, briefly, I would point out that the government House
leader kept saying that there is no evidence, there is no
evidence, there is no evidence.
I, and I am sure all members of the House, as well as yourself,
Mr. Speaker, have the greatest respect for the hon. House leader
of the government. However, as a member of this House I would
submit to you that it is not for the House leader to decide what
evidence there may or may not be, but for a committee of this
House to make that finding.
The Speaker: As I said, I will undertake to review
everything that has been said and I will get back to the House in
due course.
I have received notice of a second question of privilege.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla on a
question of privilege with respect to interference of members of
this House by Aldege Bellefeuille, who National Defence memos
indicate was a special assistant to the Minister of National
Defence and to the assistant deputy minister of finance and
corporate services at National Defence, and Mr. David Robinson,
former executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Bellefeuille's role at National Defence was to intentionally
delay the issuance of responses to access to information requests
from members of parliament in order to prepare the minister for
question period. Mr. Bellefeuille deliberately delayed this
information for reasons that this information was intended for
use in parliament by members of the opposition.
Mr. Robinson interfered with the release of access requests by
knowingly issuing an instruction to senior officials at the
Department of National Defence to not release access requests
until communication needs of the minister had been dealt with.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada at page
70 defines a proceeding in parliament as follows:
Since two of Parliament's constituent elements, the House of
Commons and the Senate, were established for the enactment of
laws, those events necessarily incidental to the enactment of
laws are part of the “proceedings in Parliament”.
However, parliament has also always been a forum to receive
petitions and the crown's satisfying the grievances of members
before granting supply eventually led to straightforward requests
for information.
Therefore, the events necessarily incidental to petitions,
questions and notices of motions in parliament in the 17th
century and today are all events which are part of “proceedings
of parliament”.
1520
Since Mr. Bellefeuille and Mr. Robinson intentionally delayed
information with the full knowledge that this information would
be used in preparation for question period, they are in contempt.
On February 5 I wrote a letter to the information commissioner
charging that Mr. Bellefeuille's position was an unwarranted
infringement on the rights of Canadians to obtain information
through access to information in a timely manner. I made three
specific allegations: that Mr. Bellefeuille's position caused
delay in obtaining records, was political interference and
resulted in improper disclosure of access to information in the
applicant's name.
On September 30 I received the results of the information
commissioner's inquiry. The investigation took over six months
because my allegations contributed to, and I quote from the
information commissioner's report, “improvements in access to
information policies and processes at National Defence”.
With respect to delay, the information commissioner agreed that
Mr. Bellefeuille caused a bottleneck in the access process as he
reviewed 95% of all requests by the Canadian public. This
process resulted in delays of several months for documents that
were otherwise ready to be released.
Additional delays at the public affairs division of National
Defence were the result when Mr. Bellefeuille identified the need
for a media line.
When sent to the minister's office, delays of several months
were noted while the minister was briefed about the upcoming
access to information release and possible response lines for the
minister in order for him to prepare for questions by the media
and opposition members of the House of Commons.
With respect to political interference, in addition to the
interference caused by the delays imposed by Mr. Bellefeuille,
the information commissioner also concluded that the minister's
former executive assistant, David Robinson, issued instructions
to “departmental officials not to answer access requests, no
matter how late they may be, until the minister's communication
needs had been met”.
The information commissioner goes on to say: “In my view, this
instruction constituted improper interference with the lawful
processing of access requests at National Defence”.
With respect to disclosure of the identities of access
requesters, the information commissioner confirmed that Mr.
Bellefeuille had routinely informed the Minister of National
Defence of the names of access to information requesters that
were members of the House. The minister used this information to
help prepare for questions. The information commissioner
concluded that this was not “a consistent use of this
information as defined by paragraph 8(2)(a) of the Privacy Act”.
The Privacy Act prohibits departments from using or disclosing
personal information except for the purpose for which the
information was collected. The information commissioner said
that the minister should not have the name of an access to
information requester to avoid the appearance of political
influence or bias against the requester.
The information commissioner said that only the access to
information office at the Department of National Defence needs to
know the identity of the access requester. The minister's office
should only be informed if it is necessary and only if it is
necessary to process the request, and definitely not in
preparation for question period.
Since I received this response from the information commissioner
it is my understanding that the minister has replaced Aldege
Bellefeuille with someone else who will perform a similar
function as Mr. Bellefeuille.
In conclusion, my question of privilege deals with the
deliberate delays in information for the purposes of proceedings
in this parliament, in particular the scrutiny of a minister in
the House of Commons.
I remind this House that contempt, as Erskine May describes it,
is any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either house of
parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such house in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results that may be treated as
contempt, even though there is no precedent for the offence.
1525
I would argue that deliberately delaying information to a member
of parliament obstructs the member and the House in the same
manner as omitting information or offering misleading
information. The intent is to obstruct and impede members of
parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if you so find a prima facie case of contempt of
parliament, I would also move an appropriate motion so it can be
dealt with.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea as to whether the
accusation by the member against an official who previously
worked there and no longer does is valid. That in itself does
not constitute privilege. If indeed the privacy commissioner,
the information commissioner, or both have ruled in this matter,
that does not constitute privilege in itself.
I draw the attention of the Speaker to citation 31 of
Beauchesne's, which states in part: “The failure of the
government”, if there is such a failure, which I do not admit,
“to comply with the law”, which again I do not admit, “is not
a matter for the Speaker, but should be decided by the courts”.
If he alleges that someone did not obey the Access to
Information Act, or even another statute, that does not
constitute privilege. There has to be an argument regarding
privilege, not as to whether someone obeyed the law per se.
Finally, citation 27 states that a question of privilege ought
rarely to come up in parliament and that it should be dealt with
by a motion. Citation 28 states that it is clear that many acts
which might offend against the law or the moral sense of the
community do not necessarily offend the privileges of the House.
We really are stretching it. If we are going to start saying
that every time someone thinks, rightly or wrongly, that an act of
parliament, in this case the allegation that something that was
judged by an officer of this House, so there was a remedy,
constitutes privilege, that is really overstating it.
The Speaker: I want hon. members to stick to this
question of privilege. Please do not go too far astray. I do
not want to get into a debate.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will not get into the debate as to whether this House leader is
right and that one is wrong. Let me put a little better
perspective on what that one said.
The government really could argue that the minister dealt with
the matter, so it is no longer an issue. Or, there is the
argument that members have the option to question the minister in
question period. Or, it could argue that the official is no
longer working with us, so it is no longer a problem.
To address the issue of ministerial responsibility, I draw
members' attention to the Speaker's ruling of November 9, 1978 at
page 966 of Hansard. The then Speaker said:
—while I do not think there is a procedural significance to the
doctrine of ministerial responsibility, it appears that we are
now embarking on a different course in having the House, through
a question of privilege, reach around the minister and examine
directly the conduct of an official.
The Speaker went on to say: “It seems to me that it is not a
procedural matter”.
The Speaker did not consider ministerial responsibility as a
consideration when he determined that there was a prima facie
question of privilege in that case. There is no procedural
significance in this case either. The gist of the question of
privilege today is that someone deliberately impeded a member of
parliament from carrying out his duties. That is really what
this is about.
The former official committed an act which constitutes a prima
facie question of privilege and that act must be considered by
the House. The House must determine if further action is
necessary to protect itself from this sort of activity in the
future. We should not leave the impression that interfering with
opposition members of parliament is a career advancing move.
1530
Last week we had a member of parliament on her feet seeking
protection from the House and the activities of CSIS. If members
are being watched, intimidated or interfered with, and
information is deliberately withheld from them, then what is next
in the House, Mr. Speaker? That is why we have come to you with
the appeal. That is all I have to add.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will, in my own small way, attempt to frame this matter of
privilege that has been put forward.
The hon. member knows and all members know that they have the
ability in the House to request documents through established
procedures in the House. In this particular case, it appears
that the member did not so request. The member chose to rely on
the provisions of the Access to Information Act, an act and a
procedure set up by parliament for all Canadians.
In electing to use the access to information process, the member
or any member of the House who uses that process are essentially
using their shoes as a citizen to make access requests to
government. They are simply making access requests as citizens
not as members of parliament.
There may have been a dysfunction in the process. I am advised
that from time to time there are dysfunctions and there may well
have been in this case. If there was a dysfunction in the
process, a delay or whatever, I do not think it is correct for a
member here to say that a dysfunction in a procedure becomes a
matter of privilege just because he or she is a member of
parliament. That would allow the House procedures inside this
place to be cast out throughout the whole country. Every time
there was a dysfunction on a Bell telephone line involving a
member of parliament it would essentially be a case of privilege.
I would not want to deal with the issue of just what happened
with the access request in this case or in other cases. There
may well be a real dysfunction and the commissioner may wish to
advise parliament. It may be a real issue for the House, but in
my view it would be important, before it becomes a matter of
privilege, that a direct parliamentary function be directly
impaired by the problem that the member brings to the House's
attention.
The Speaker: I thank members for their interventions. I
will review what has been said and I will come back to the House
with a decision.
We will now proceed to tributes for a former Speaker of this
House, Mr. Alan Macnaughton, who was the Speaker of the House
from 1963 to 1965.
* * *
THE LATE HON. ALAN MACNAUGHTON
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a former Speaker of the House,
the late Alan Macnaughton.
Alan Macnaughton was born in Napanee, Ontario, in 1903. He
graduated in law from McGill University and after post-graduate
study at the London School of Economics he began practising law
in Montreal. He was a crown prosecutor for many years. But more
important for us, in 1949 he won his first of six consecutive
elections as a Liberal. In fact, in the Diefenbaker sweep of
1958, he was so regarded by his constituents that he was the only
English speaking Liberal to win a seat in Quebec.
After 1958, Mr. Diefenbaker decided to adopt the British
practice of having an opposition member chair the public accounts
committee. Alan Macnaughton was the first member of parliament
who chaired that committee as an opposition member, which he did
with great distinction.
When the Liberals won the 1963 general election, it was not
surprising that he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons.
He served as Speaker during the Liberal minority government of
1963 to 1965, a very difficult and fractious period in the House.
It was marked by such acrimonious debates as the famous flag
debate. But Mr. Speaker Macnaughton was able to preside over
these debates and these tensions with a great deal of skill, tact
and diplomacy and was able to keep the House on an even keel.
1535
One of his great achievements as Speaker was to start a wide-
ranging process of parliamentary reform. Many of the things we
take for granted in our procedures and our committee system, for
example, were first developed and proposed during his
speakership. Many of these reforms came into effect after he
left the chair, but he was the precursor, the instigator.
In 1965, Alan Macnaughton did not stand again for parliament.
His successor was none other than Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Alan
Macnaughton went on to serve, again with great distinction, in
the Senate of Canada to 1978. After he left the Senate, he was
active in the business community, but most important, in 1967 he
founded the Canadian branch of the World Wildlife Fund.
I want to conclude by saying that Alan Macnaughton was a person
of great warmth and charm. He was especially helpful to new
members of the House of Commons, as I once was. I had the honour
of serving in the House with him. As an MP, as the first
opposition chair of the public accounts committee and, above all,
as Speaker, he treated everyone with the greatest tact and
courtesy. But underneath it all was an essential firmness and a
strong belief in the importance of the centrality of our
parliamentary institutions. He certainly made an impressive mark
when it came to the reform of the House of Commons.
I want to say to his family and his many friends that, on behalf
of the government and all MPs on the government side, we want to
express our profound sympathies on their loss.
[Translation]
I want to extend my most sincere sympathies to the family of
Alan Macnaughton.
[English]
Alan Macnaughton was a great Montrealer, a great Quebecer, a
great member of the House, a great Speaker and a great Canadian.
His record will live on in the smooth functioning of the House
because of the reforms he undertook and the work he did in his
years as Speaker.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Her Majesty's Official
Opposition to pay tribute to a former Speaker, Alan A.
Macnaughton. He presided over the Chamber from 1963 to 1966.
Mr. Macnaughton is remembered as a man and a Speaker who
displayed a fairness in his deliberations and rulings, a deep
love for democracy and a diligence to his task. Mr. Macnaughton
was Speaker of the Chamber during some very turbulent and bitter
times. More than once his quiet but compelling nature pulled
proceedings from the brink of catastrophe.
I had some pages talking about his background, but the Deputy
Prime Minister has done that and I will not repeat that because,
as a Speaker, he would not want me to be longer than I should be,
even in a tribute to him.
He was a great Canadian and the scope and breadth of Mr.
Macnaughton's professional activities were impressive. He was a
former president of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association,
the Canada-France Parliamentary Association and he served more
than 30 years as a director-adviser to European and American
banks. He was chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, chairman of
the Roosevelt Compobello International Park Commission and deputy
chairman of the historic 1973 United Nations Conference on the
Environment.
Mr. Macnaughton also served on many corporate boards after he
left Ottawa. Alan Macnaughton was a gifted gentlemen. His
unassuming and distinguished manner was respected by all who knew
him. As a lawyer, politician, Speaker, businessman and
philanthropist, Mr. Macnaughton brought a dignity and a
competence to whatever he pursued.
In 1995, his contribution to this institution and to his country
was acknowledged when he was awarded the Order of Canada. There
was nothing mediocre about this man. The words brilliant,
refined, dignified and accomplished will mark his contribution.
We will all miss him, but appreciate the great job he did for
Canada.
We offer all our sympathies to his family and his friends, and he
had many of those.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, we
heard of the passing away of Alan A Macnaughton, on the eve of
his 96th birthday.
He had a remarkably long life. His professional and political
accomplishments were many.
He obtained his law degree from McGill University in 1926 and
went on to post-graduate studies at the London School of
Economics.
1540
Mr. Macnaughton then practised law in Montreal before being
elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1949,
under the Liberals of Louis Saint-Laurent, in the Montreal riding
of Mount-Royal. In 1958, he became the first opposition member to
chair the public accounts committee.
In 1963, he was appointed Speaker of the House of Commons and,
in 1966, he was called to the Senate where he was to sit until
the mid-1970s.
Mr. Macnaughton will be remembered as a highly talented man who
is said to have had the greatest respect for democracy and its
institutions. He will leave his mark as a skilled businessman
and an expert in Quebec and Canadian law.
Until very recently, he was still working at his Montreal
office.
On behalf of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I would like to
extend to his friends and family our sincere condolences.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on behalf of our party to pay tribute to Alan
Macnaughton who was the Speaker of the House from 1963 to 1965.
He was first elected in 1949. He stayed in the House for seven
terms until 1965.
Even though I did not know him personally when I came here in
1968—of course the member for Windsor West was here at that
time—I heard about Mr. Macnaughton's reputation, which was a very
positive one. He had a great influence on members on both sides
of the House of Commons.
The reason he stepped aside in 1965 was to make way for a
gentleman who some people may have heard of from the riding of
Mount Royal, a fellow named Pierre Elliott Trudeau who became the member
of parliament for that riding at that particular time.
When Mr. Macnaughton was the Speaker of the House, we should
remind ourselves that it was only for two years but it was during
a very difficult time in terms of being in your chair, Mr.
Speaker. That was the other time in history when we had five
political parties in the House of Commons like what you have
today, Mr. Speaker. This makes refereeing this place a
bit more difficult.
It was also during the days of the famous Diefenbaker-Pearson
debates which became rather acrimonious at times and, as I
understand, very heated. Mr. Pearson had just won the election
from Mr. Diefenbaker in 1963. Mr. Macnaughton, who was respected
by both sides of the House, was made the Speaker of the House of
Commons by the prime minister of the day, Lester Pearson.
It was also a time when the House had a very divisive debate on
the flag. I understand the debate went on for weeks and weeks
before the days of time allocation or closure. Mr. Macnaughton
made a very controversial but wise ruling at that time to split
the resolution in two. He made his mark as a Speaker after only
two years in the Speaker's chair.
He was a lawyer and a very successful business person. He was a
very learned person, a very good academic and a very fine
gentleman.
On behalf of our party I express our condolences to his family
and to his many friends. He was a great Montrealer, a great
Canadian, a great Quebecer and a great member of the House of
Commons for 16 years.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in paying tribute to the late
Alan Macnaughton.
For those of us who sit in the House today, and as has been
previously mentioned by speakers, the late Alan Macnaughton
presided over the House at sometimes very contentious times. The
flag debate, which was a lengthened version of the debate similar
to that which the Speaker has presided over, and the pressures
that were facing Speaker Macnaughton at that time were certainly
historic in 1964.
With emotions running high during the months of parliament
proceedings, the Speaker's job would certainly have been
extremely difficult. It is a measure of Alan Macnaughton's
ability that historians have judged him so favourably. During
such a contentious time in our history, he contributed greatly to
the House, conducted himself with class and dignity as both a
member and a Speaker. He contributed greatly to the country at
large.
After a distinguished career in law, he pursued his career as a
parliamentarian with the same vigour and the same level of
decorum and class. Canada is fortunate to have people of the
calibre of Alan Macnaughton prepared to serve in parliament.
In a 1965 speech delivered at a dinner at the Guild Hall in
London on the occasion of the 700th anniversary of Simon de
Montfort's parliament, Speaker Macnaughton reflected on the
democratic spirit which for him connoted equality, the
brotherhood of all men and his definition of the civilized
person.
1545
To him that meant “one who understands human values, who
appreciates the importance of high quality, and who knows the
need for sacrifices and for putting oneself in the service of
one's country”.
The annals of the House and the Senate as well as the records of
the communities which benefited from his charitable work all
testify to the fact that Mr. Macnaughton was by his own
definition a civilized man. He was a man who gave to the world
more than he took from it, which fits Governor General
Tweedsmuir's definition of a true aristocrat.
We rejoice in Mr. Macnaughton's long life. We are thankful that
he chose to enter public life, and on behalf of the Right Hon.
Joe Clark and the Progressive Conservative Party we send our
appreciation and our condolences to the family of the late Alan
Macnaughton.
The Speaker: I will permit myself a few words on this
occasion of the passing of a brother Speaker who did indeed
preside in this chair. I would like to put a human face on Alan
Macnaughton. I am sure that parliamentarians and all Canadians
who are watching today might appreciate this.
About a year and half ago there were eight living Speakers who
had occupied this chair and presided over the debates of the
House of Commons, but it seems in rapid succession we have lost
two of them. In July 1998, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux died very
quickly.
I had an idea for some time to convene the Speakers from
wherever they were across Canada just to bring us together to
share an evening. This is where the human face of Mr.
Macnaughton comes into it. Of the seven of us who were still
alive, one of them was not able to make it. That was Mr. Speaker
Lambert from Edmonton. However six of us did come to the dinner.
When I called the former Speakers, one could not come in the
month of October and another could not come in the month of
November. Although I knew of Mr. Macnaughton, I had not been
that close to him before and I did not know how old he was. When
I called Mr. Macnaughton I said “Speaker Macnaughton, I am
having a dinner for the former Speakers. Would you care to join
us?” He said “Oh, yes, I would like to do that'.' I said
“You have two choices, sir. Would you like to have the dinner
on September 30 or December 5?” He said to me “At my age I
would rather go sooner than later”.
I did not know exactly what he meant so I looked him up in the
parliamentary guide. Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on July 30 of this
year was to have been 96 years old. He lived through a great
deal, virtually all of this century.
I was at a hockey game with him in Montreal. When I was a boy
growing up I said that Rocket Richard was my hero. I asked him
if he remembered Rocket Richard. He said “Rocket Richard? Heck,
I remember Howie Morenz”. That goes back into the early part of
this century.
All that is to tell you that none of us here except the Deputy
Prime Minister had the honour to serve with him. I am not sure
if the Prime Minister did. I take great pride in saying that I
am one of the great admirers of Speaker Alan Macnaughton.
As the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle mentioned, in a time
of turbulence he remained calm and he brought us as a House and
us as a nation through the very déchirant flag debate that we
went through. He served the House well. He served the members
of parliament well by giving them the best that he had.
I can only reiterate what all speakers today who have taken the
floor to remember Mr. Macnaughton have said. In my view he was
one of our outstanding Speakers.
He was a wonderful member of parliament and ever so human.
1550
In your name and in my own name, my colleagues, I extend our
very deep condolences to members of his family in their time of
sorrow. I am always reminded that they did have him and he was
with us for almost a century, and that of course is to our
benefit.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, an
act in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend
and repeal other acts, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
with the consent of the House I would like to split my time with
the member for Surrey Central.
In addressing this bill I would talk about a number of matters.
The question of what exactly makes young offenders or how do they
get to be young offenders always goes through my mind. One has
to ask these days if it is parents, family problems or an
educational system where people fall through loopholes and do not
get picked up. Is it the drugs that menace society today which
encourage more and more crime to feed a habit? Is it the fact
that role models are different today? Is it television and all
those other things young people watch and are influenced by? Or,
is it government legislation that more or less encourages or
motivates certain things to happen?
I would suggest that it is a bit of all of those things. Having
worked with a number of young offenders, it comes out that all
these things put together creates a problem in society. The job
of the House is to try to deal with all those issues and package
something called legislation for young offenders that is
meaningful and tries to change their ways, if individuals become
young offenders, as fast as possible so they do not get too far
down the line, become incorrigible, and we end having to
incarcerate them.
I will get something off my chest, to start with. I can
remember in 1991 setting out things we would like to see changed
in the Young Offenders Act. We even fought an election in 1992
on that.
When the new Liberal government took office in 1993 I really do
not think it understood the difficulties Canadian were having
with the Young Offenders Act. It took us quite a while to
convince them. It was not just the Reform Party. It was many
people: young offenders, victims rights groups and so on. It
took time to let it sink in over there.
What particularly galls me is that once the government saw there
was a problem it went the route of promotions, public relations
and media advertisements saying that it would do something. All
along since 1993 and here we are in 1999 on the eve of the new
millennium still debating this issue in the House. It is just
amazing to me how the government gets away with that with the
Canadian public. It is extremely disappointing.
There is another point I want to make. One member from across
the way in the Liberal government said that the Young Offenders
Act hit on the hard crimes and was lenient on the soft issues.
1555
The problem with the government and what it does not understand
is that it would not be bad if it was one B and E by an
individual. Then we could say do not do this again or we will
escalate it, much like progressive discipline in a business or a
home.
There are individuals, young offenders with 10, 20, 30 and 40
convictions and little or no progressive discipline. This is a
serious problem. They fail to acknowledge that perhaps five or
six break and enters, three or four possessions of a weapon, one
or two robberies, and two or three minor assaults amount to
something that is far more serious.
In the courtroom today lawyers will say that their young clients
do not understand. They will say it is simple possession, a
minor robbery or a B and E, and the judges say “Yes, I know.
Poor young fellow”, and off they go. They do not tend to look
at the cumulative effect of consistently not making a serious
issue out of it for the individual. It is a flaw in the whole
issue of justice but in particular with young offenders. It is
not being addressed here. Accumulation of numerous minor
offences means there is a problem and it is more serious than one
minor offence.
In one year we had 14,035 B and Es from young offenders, 2,077
possession of weapons, 2,338 robberies, and on and on it goes. We
had 30 murders. We must remember that those who murdered
probably had a lot of B and Es, a lot of drug charges and so on.
We failed to deal with it at that level and that is what is wrong
with the young offenders philosophy.
I want to talk briefly about some of the issues in my area in
British Columbia that are not being addressed by the bill. Joey
Thompson of the Vancouver Province wrote:
Overheard during proceedings in the second storey temporary
courtroom were artful methods of sucking in a judge, offered by
sharpened pros to the cub offenders waiting outside for their
case to be called.
One quick study eventually got before the judge and laid it on
thick about how sorry he was for his crimes. The judge turned to
the citizens in the public pews and delivered a heartfelt speech
about the sincerity of the poor lad. Then he gave him a slap on
the wrist and sent him away.
Minutes later, the offender was seen out the window running
across the parking lot shouting to his friends, “Hey, it
works”.
This is what I mean about cumulative issues. An article from
the Abbotsford News entitled “Team crime rally cry: When
I'm 18, I'll quit”, quoted the police and indicated in part:
Repeat B & Es by teenagers is a disturbing trend...“It tends to
be the same kids, which indicates that whatever punishment they
are getting from the court isn't serving as a deterrent”...“The
majority of times it's the same guys we're dealing with, They're
released on conditions—and although the judges mean well—the
kids do not uphold the conditions”.
It's not unusual to hear a kid say: “When I'm 18, then I'll
quit”.
Another article entitled “14-year-old charged in cocaine sale”
read:
A 14-year-old Abbotsford girl will be returning to Abbotsford
provincial court on March 12 after she was arrested this week for
allegedly selling cocaine in Clearbrook.
It continued:
Under provisions of the Young Offenders Act, the girl's name
cannot be published.
Another article read:
With parliament...at his back, Mike Harris demanded yesterday
that the prime minister get tough on young offenders.
On and on it goes. Another one entitled “Boy too drunk to
convict of murder, lawyer says” read in part:
Wetaskiwin, Alberta: A 13-year-old Hobbema boy who beat a cab
driver to death with a baseball was too young and too drunk to be
convicted of murder, says his lawyer.
1600
Recently a teen in my area pulled a pistol on a police officer.
It was really an air gun pellet pistol but he could have been
shot very easily. He was lucky he was not. This young fellow
was charged but his name cannot be published due to provisions
under the Young Offenders Act. He was arrested twice in May for
threatening to blow up two east Abbotsford schools, and on and on
it goes. Many of the parents were concerned about this. They hit
roadblock after roadblock after roadblock trying to make sure
their school was safe from this young fellow.
This young fellow's parents were good parents but there are
problems. Nowhere today does society look after this young
fellow. People everywhere want information on this and they are
stymied because of the privacy provisions of the Young Offenders
Act.
The government has to deal with reality with young offenders.
The government has to do it this time. We have a litany of
suggestions and they are not being addressed. We should allow
police officers to use discretion in resolving minor incidents
without laying charges. We should lower the maximum age of young
offenders from 17 to 15. We should lower the minimum age from 12
to 10 and on and on it goes.
Where have these people been? Prior to the next election or
maybe in the year 2000 we will be back here again talking about
the Young Offenders Act. The government has to take better
action than it has taken in the past, which has been nothing.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
after the great long police beat report from the west, I would
like to make a few comments.
I would like the member to hear the speech he made.
He is very critical of cases happening in his own riding or in
ridings in western Canada.
Everything he says points to there being a problem. I agree
with him, there are problems in western Canada, because the
Young Offenders Act is not being properly applied.
This is so true that even in Ontario—he spoke of Mike Harris—a
pilot project has just set up. There are figures to show that
repression has been increased. Camps where repression is
abusive have been established for young people.
What are the results? Thirty per cent of these young people
become repeat offenders after their release.
Members should look at what is happening in Quebec. There, the
focus is on rehabilitation, returning to society. There is
practically no recidivism. The opposite is the case. Young
people who have been duly followed under the law and the powers
accorded us under the Young Offenders Act are returning to
society. They are becoming ordinary citizens.
In Quebec, we do not see the horror occurring in western Canada,
which the member has just described. The member should perhaps
look to see what is happening outside his province.
1605
I would hope that the Reform Party never comes to power, because
their policy on justice would be awful. The Reform Party is
mistaken, and what I find deplorable is that by crying wolf they
have frightened the government, which has given in to Reform
Party policies.
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, that comes from an
individual standing in the House of Commons who wants to separate
from Canada. Is that not interesting. I find it ironic that the
member may find the Young Offenders Act satisfactory to him in
Quebec, but I can assure him that in my area the individuals do
not. The difference is that the people in my area want me to
come here and change it, not to quit and separate.
We asked for some things in this bill. We said that young
offenders facilities need mandatory rehabilitation programs. Does
that not sound like a rational thing to do? What does the
government say? The government says that with the charter of
rights and freedoms that sort of thing cannot be mandated. In
fact, many young offenders say that if they had a little more
discipline in their lives, that if they had been taught the right
way, they could have learned a little better and changed
themselves. But no, the government will not take that step.
We asked to establish a victims bill of rights under the YOA.
This was not done. We asked that a person who commits two or
more violent offences be designated as a dangerous offender.
This was not considered. We asked for established federal
standards for alternative measures with well-defined parameters.
This was not considered. We asked that young offenders records be
treated the same as adults. This was not considered. We asked
for the publication of the names of violent young offenders. The
government left this to the discretion of the courts, in other
words, status quo.
Does the government really think that leaving things to the
discretion of judges today is a good idea? I cannot believe it.
If we want good legislation, if we want things to be consistent,
then we should have the courage in the House of Commons to say it
and do it. We should not say, like on the child pornography
issue, that we will be a little general about this and we will
leave it to the courts to determine whether or not the possession
of child pornography should be legal. That kind of cop-out is
really hurting our country. It is hurting the issue of youth
crime.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
for over 10 years Reform members have been calling for reforms to
the youth criminal justice system. It has taken at least four
years, more like six years, for the Liberals to reach the point
where we are at today.
In terms of changing our youth criminal justice system, it has
been 864 days since the current justice minister was appointed to
her cabinet position. Ever since, she has been saying that she
would change the Young Offenders Act in a timely fashion. I do
not know what is timely about 864 days. We know that 35 violent
crimes are committed each day in Canada and 864 days is a long
time for my constituents and all Canadians.
How many violent crimes committed by youth could have been
prevented in the last three years if the government had provided
youth crime legislation sooner rather than later? The Liberals
spent millions of dollars, had months of hearings and promised
for years that it was coming.
1610
Extensive committee hearings were held on the bill last spring,
yet the government allowed the changes to our youth criminal
justice system to die before third reading in the last session of
parliament. That is an indication of how unimportant this bill
is to the Liberals.
Now we have Bill C-3, the government's proposed changes to the
Young Offenders Act, that will create a new youth criminal
justice system. Now we are back in the House debating at second
reading stage of the bill. It has a new number but it is the
same old bill.
The parents and families of the victims of youth crime become
victims too. I have two young sons, Mr. Speaker. You met with
my younger son when he was here. When I put myself in the shoes
of the hon. member for Surrey North whose family has gone through
a tragedy, and when I put myself in the shoes of the parents and
families of victims, I feel like going home every weekend. I
worry because the government is not doing enough. I can hardly
imagine what it must be like when a young person is a victim of a
violent crime.
The reforms to the Young Offenders Act called for by the public
and advocated by Reform have been numerous in detail but the most
substantive reforms can be grouped under eight categories which I
will discuss. There is clarification of the purpose of the act;
strengthening parental responsibility; recognition of victims
rights; the provision of support services for victims; stronger
differentiation between violent repeat offenders and non-violent
first time offenders; strengthening sentencing provisions;
publication of the names of young offenders; changes to the age
of application in the Young Offenders Act; and provisions for
rehabilitation and prevention.
To be fair, there are some positive changes offered in the
proposals before us but there are areas in which we feel the
government has been inadequate or misguided. We must continue to
urge constructive alternatives and amendments to the act.
The first category is clarification of the purpose of the act.
The old juvenile delinquents act made it clear that its primary
purpose was the welfare of society, whereas the Young Offenders
Act introduced by the Trudeau government focused more on the
welfare of the young offender.
One of the commendable features of the bill is clause 3.1. It
states that the principal goal of the youth criminal justice
system is to protect the public, a protection to be pursued
through the prevention of youth crime through the punishment of
convicted offenders and through efforts to rehabilitate. That is
progress.
The official opposition has been carrying the flashlight for the
Liberals who have been walking in that direction. I am happy
that at least they got that right. However, the bill does not go
as far as Reformers would like. The Liberals have not seen the
full light of day yet.
With respect to reforming parental responsibility, the bill
contains at least two steps in the right direction. It requires
compulsory attendance of a parent at court if it is considered by
the judge to be in the best interest of the young person. It
increases the penalty for a parent who signs a court undertaking
to supervise a young person upon release and who wilfully fails
to fulfil that obligation.
The third category is the recognition of victims rights. Victims
of youth crime are frustrated by the government's lack of concern
for them. The bill before us contains several provisions that
represent a step in the right direction. For example, clause 52
has the provision to order a surcharge to be levied on any fine
payable by a young person. I assume these funds are to be used
to provide assistance to victims of offences.
Clause 113 permits a youth justice court, a review board or any
court to keep a record of proceedings of young persons.
1615
Clause 118 permits victims access to the clause 113 records.
Clause 39 states that the pre-sentence report is to include the
results of an interview with the victim.
These measures fall far short of the demands of the official
opposition, supported by this House, for a full-blown victims bill
of rights. My colleague, the member of parliament for
Langley—Abbotsford has already spoken on this. I commend him
for being the champion on the victims bill of rights. On the
other hand, the minister and her government still assign a low
priority to victims rights in relation to the rights granted to
persons accused or convicted of crimes.
The fourth, fifth and sixth areas of concern to the public and
on which we consider the provisions of this bill to be
inadequate, are the provisions pertaining to the differentiation
of violent offenders from non-violent offenders, the sentencing
of young offenders and publishing or prohibiting the publication
of the names of the young offenders.
It is the position of the official opposition that a
disproportionate number of non-violent offenders are locked up.
This limits the space and resources needed for violent offenders.
It increases rather than reduces the probability that these young
people will be drawn into a life of crime rather than being
protected and liberated from criminal influences.
We have consequently advocated a stronger differentiation both
in law and in treatment between violent and non-violent young
offenders and between first time and repeat offenders. We
advocate a stronger differentiation than what is in the bill we
are debating today.
On tougher sentencing, I believe strongly that our punishment to
criminals is just a slap on the wrist. Appropriate punishment
creates fear. That fear acts as a deterrent to any violent
crime. On the other hand, if there is no fear and no punishment,
that acts as a motivation to commit a crime. At this time when
there is not adequate punishment, that acts as a motivation for
young people to commit crime.
In conclusion, the bill contains a few steps in the right
direction, but falls far short of what we wanted to see in the
bill. We want a victims bill of rights. The Liberals do not
want that. With respect to the bill's provisions for
differentiating between violent and non-violent offenders, its
provisions for the sentencing of young offenders and its
provisions for publishing the names of young offenders, we find
there are major deficiencies. With respect to changing the age of
application of the Young Offenders Act, we think the government's
approach is wrong.
Finally, the government has not gone far enough with measures
concerning the treatment of young offenders, namely, the
importance of prevention and the crucial role of the family with
respect to youth crime prevention.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
debate we are having today is rather incredible.
To quote Albert Jacquard “If a city needs a prison, it means
something is wrong in this city”. Listening to my colleagues
opposite, but mostly elsewhere on this side, I have the feeling
prison is the solution for young offenders.
I was offended a little while ago when my Bloc Quebecois
colleague, who is a separatist, gave some credible statistics,
but was told he was not making any sense because he is a
separatist.
If I were an Australian, I would still be interested in taking
part in this debate because I believe that young offenders must
be dealt with the same way wherever you live. We all share the
same goal, making sure we deal with them in the best way
possible.
Statistics show, and I believe we get good results, that
prevention is by far better than incarceration and heavier
sentencing. Sometimes I have the feeling that putting young
people behind bars, telling them they are no good and always
punishing them makes things worse. The results are there to
prove it; they are most disappointing.
1620
Why are young offenders sent to prison? Because they have
trouble living in society. In prison, they will be thrown in
with other people who, for the most part, had trouble living in
society. So I often think that prisons can sometimes be schools
for delinquency.
Instead of punishing them even more, let us do the exact
opposite of what is proposed in this bill and try to make them
understand what they did wrong and rehabilitate them, so that,
once their sentence is served, they can be reintegrated into the
community. This is what a prison system should do.
I am very disappointed today.
A young person who commits a crime probably comes from a tough
neighbourhood, from a poor family or maybe a broken family. Do
members really think that, before committing a crime, such a
person would stop and think, along these lines “I have to be
careful, because under Bill C-3 I will be given a longer
sentence”? Do members think that will stop such a person? Let us
get serious here. This measure will not solve crime.
I want to put a question to my Reform colleague. Does he really
believe that a young person would stop and think about the
consequences before committing a crime. Usually, 14 year olds do
not watch the news, they would not know about the new
legislation and they do not even have the right to vote. Does
the hon. member believe that such a young person would stop and
think about what could happen to him?
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, either the separatist
member does not understand, or he did not listen to what I was
saying. We on this side of the House are differentiating between
violent and non-violent offenders. We also emphasize the
importance of prevention and rehabilitation.
The fact is there is no appropriate punishment when the
punishment by the court is only a minor slap on the wrist. That
indicates to our youth that there is no deterrent to commit
crime. They do not understand the importance of not committing a
crime. There is motivation to commit a crime because there is no
punishment.
If there is severe or appropriate or reasonable punishment for
someone who commits a crime, this will put fear into potential
criminals. There is a deterrent for them. The hon. member
should understand that.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had not really intended to take
part in this debate now, but I find it absolutely unbelievable
that at the end of the 20th century, almost at the beginning of
the 21st century, the Reform Party would still trot out the
theories of justice of yesteryear.
I still cannot believe that someone would still say “To solve
the problem of crime we just have to put people in jail because
that will scare them”.
This is beyond belief. It is as if these people had never heard
of restorative justice, presumption of innocence and the very
foundations of modern justice.
I am really extremely disappointed.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should
know that as we are entering the new millennium we want to build
a strong bridge between this millennium and the next millennium
where all of us can progress toward safety and freedom of
expression and thus create a society where all of us can live
peacefully. To do that the government has to get it right. The
government has to have measures in place. Someone who commits a
crime must serve the time. If someone commits a crime but does
not serve the time, where is the justice?
The hon. member of the government should ask his justice
minister to make the appropriate amendments quickly. This bill
should only pass when all the amendments wanted by Canadians are
made.
1625
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing
Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member
for Témiscamingue, Bill C-6.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak in support of the government bill
dealing with youth issues.
It is a balancing act. Hearing my colleagues on both sides of
the issue speak on the question of youth in the justice system, I
cannot stand by without saying thank God I am a Liberal and thank
God I am part of a government that balances the needs of society
along with the needs of individuals. It balances the needs of
youth and the need for proper security for our people. In this
bill we have seen just that.
I am extremely delighted to see the approach that has been taken
by the minister, in particular the approach dealing with
rehabilitation. That is the most effective way of dealing with
the whole issue of offences in our society. It does not make any
sense to put all youth who commit crimes or offences in one room
and keep them there for 15 or 20 years. If at the end of the day
we do not do anything with them, when we let them back out on the
street, they are going to commit other offences. There is no
doubt in my mind.
This government has said there is a price that those who commit
offences have to pay. In the meantime we have a series of
requirements we expect individuals to follow. If they follow
those requirements and meet the requirements as set out by law,
then at the end of the day they will do well for themselves and
for society.
I am delighted with an example in my constituency of Ottawa
Centre. Debra-Dynes has been an incredible and extremely
successful initiative. The police force in conjunction with the
community, the private sector and youth have set up a team. They
have approached this whole issue on a team basis, on a joint
effort basis. The results have been exceptionally good.
Not everything in our society is bad news. There is a lot of
good news. I hope my colleagues in the Reform Party are taking
note. For example, from 1991 to 1997 there has been
approximately a 25% decline in youth crime in our society. That
tells me one thing, that what this government has been doing
along the way has been good. All issues of prevention have
served our youth well, have served our society well and have
served justice well.
Having said that, there is still a lot of work ahead for us to
do. There is still very high unemployment when it comes to youth.
Still over 15% of our youth cannot find jobs. We still have a
dropout rate of over 25% of youths who do not finish high school.
That is tragic. That is not just the responsibility of the
federal government. We are doing our fair share. We have to do
more and we are doing more. But it is also the responsibility of
the provincial government, municipal government, school boards,
parents, of everyone collectively in our society.
Looking at the statistics, in particular when we look at the
ages between 16 and 18, approximately 24% of all crimes being
committed by youth are committed by those who are of age 17.
Another 22% of all crimes committed by youth are committed by
youths of age 16, and 30% of crimes committed by youth are by
those over the age of 14, between the ages of 14 and 15.
I say this because I see a huge crack in our system and that is
in the definition of a child. The definition is that a child who
turns 16 can tell his mom and dad goodbye and he is on his own.
No one is responsible for him; he is on his own. If he comes
from a broken family, from a situation where there is abuse at
home, the support that exists for him between the ages of 16 and
18 is minimal.
1630
There is not enough support for our youth, for those in
particular who are between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Those
youth are falling between the cracks. As a result a person over
the age of 16 years is no longer a child and has somehow become
an adult in society. Yet the person cannot vote, cannot collect
employment insurance and cannot legally drink alcohol.
We define our children in different ways. Under certain laws we
define a child as anyone who is under the age of 14 years. Under
other laws we define a child as anyone who is under the age of 16
years. Under other laws we define a child as anyone who us under
the age of 18 years. There is a lack of synchronization and
harmonization of our laws, not only federal but also provincial.
There is a need all across this land for us to say that a child
is anyone who is under the age of 18 years.
By doing so we would be saying to families and to society that
they have a responsibility, mandate, role and objective to
support children until they turn 18 years of age. It would then
be society's responsibility to support a child from a broken
family or an abusive situation until he or she turns 18 years of
age. By doing so we would have each child either in school, in
an apprenticeship program or in vocational training until he or
she becomes an adult under the law.
That is presently not the case. When somebody turns 16 years of
age he somehow becomes an adult but falls between the cracks. As
a result we have to follow the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child which is unequivocally clear that a child is
anybody under the age of 18 years and that is the end of it,
because it is well known that children need the support of their
families, the support of society and the support of the community
as a whole until they become adults. Only then can we treat
children as adults and only then can we say they are on their
own.
It is not fair for us as a society to look at somebody between
the ages of 16 and 18 years who is falling between the cracks and
crack the whip like some of my colleagues in other parties
wanted. We cannot do that. We have to stand up to our
responsibilities and our accountability to the people and to our
youth. We must have a system whereby we can do all the necessary
and important things to ensure fairness and justice in society
and to ensure our youth are getting the support they need.
Then we would not have the 25% dropout rate we have in our
schools now for youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Then
we would not have the high crime rate that exists for our youth
between the ages of 16 and 18 years. Then we would not have the
high unemployment rate for youth between the ages of 16 and 24
years. Because they are not in the educational system and are
not receiving the necessary support from the different levels of
government in society they are falling between the cracks.
We have to commend the government and the minister on their
initiatives in trying to put forward an approach that takes into
consideration the need for rehabilitation and the importance of
prevention. An ounce of prevention is worth five tons of cure.
It is not an easy situation. It is an extremely complex but we
have to work collectively. We cannot hit a kid on the head with
a two by four and say that he has to obey the law. We must have
a cohesive and holistic approach. We have to balance the needs
of the child and those of society. We have to deal with the
needs of the child. We have to provide the support necessary for
the child through the educational system, the family system and
society as a whole.
I am delighted to see the family being asked to get involved
when it comes to a child getting in trouble with the law. I am
extremely excited about the fact that we can tell children
through this act that we want them to go to school as part of
rehabilitation. We want to make sure they do not hang around
with gangs. We want to make sure they come home every night at 8
o'clock, 9 o'clock or whatever time the court may decide.
1635
By doing so we are going to the root of the problem. In a sense
that is rehabilitation at the highest level. We are required now
to tell the child, in particular the one who is at risk, to go
back to the educational system, an environment where he or she
will receive the necessary support to build a better life.
That is why I have put over 32 private members' initiatives
before the House asking the government to amend every piece of
legislation at the federal level so we can harmonize our laws and
change the definition of a child to be anyone under the age of 18
years. By doing so we will be sending out a signal saying that a
child needs the support of his family and society until he or she
is aged 18 years. Only then can we say that we have done what we
have set out to do, and that is to continue to build a better
society.
We have one of the finest societies on earth, but it could be
and will be an even better society. It is not fair that every
year illiteracy costs us over $10 billion on a regular basis in
terms of lost productivity. It is not fair that over 25% of our
population still has difficulties reading, writing or filling out
application forms. It is not fair that we still have the highest
level of unemployment in our youth population. It is not fair
that we have the highest amount of crime committed by our youth,
those between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are without the
necessary support required from us collectively.
To that extent I just want to end by thanking the Minister of
Justice for putting the bill before us and for once again putting
forward something that is fairly balanced. Nothing is perfect
and the bill will go before a committee. It will come back here
at report stage. It will go through the consultation that is
necessary for every bill. If somebody somewhere has a proposal,
suggestion or amendment that meets the objectives of the bill I
am absolutely confident the minister will be receptive to looking
at it and if it fits the objectives we will deal with it then.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that was an excellent speech in support of the member's
private member's bill in the House of Commons.
We have to recognize the difference between punishment and
rehabilitation. When one wants to talk about rehabilitation,
which is the most important part of the project when talking
about young people, one wants to ensure that people are not left
out of the ability to be counselled in the right way and in the
right place and to have those resources available.
I have family involved in the rehabilitation of people in the
corrections system. It is certainly my opinion that the way the
system works is not adequate. The courts or other institutions
dealing with young people do not have the option of sending those
people for proper rehabilitation because they are not a part of
the age group to which the Young Offenders Act applies.
I would like the member to address that point and to address the
fact that it does not matter what we say or do in this place
there is an obvious shortage of resources available when we are
talking about correcting something that has gone wrong. We
really need something for many of our children that starts long
before that. If the hon. member who spoke would like to address
those issues I would appreciate it.
1640
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
sensible question. If anything, this is what the bill deals
with. There is a whole notion of the bill that deals with the
question of rehabilitation and trying to identify what is best
depending on the situation we are dealing with.
According to the bill we would work in a partnership or in
consultation with all the stakeholders, whether we are talking
about the provincial government, if they are involved; whether we
are talking about the justice system as we know it, the courts;
or whether we are talking about the communities where there are
community initiatives.
I mentioned the Debra-Dynes project as one example that is being
used. It is as an extremely successful initiative that is being
brought about by the Ottawa-Carleton Police Service Board. It is
extremely successful. The youth who are very much at risk are
brought in. They have exercise rooms. They have teams of all
sorts. They have community projects of all sorts.
In a sense it creates a diversion. It keeps the youth busy.
When we keep them busy in athletic activities or by getting
involved in community projects and other things, we are taking
their minds away from doing drugs or getting involved in trouble
again or other potential problems.
Those kinds of initiatives are required of us as a society. We
do not have to always rely on the government to provide and come
up with the solution. We as a community and as a society have a
responsibility to put forward initiatives that could help, could
improve the quality of life of our youth, and could ensure that
we have a safer community and a better community.
To that extent I want to say to my colleague that his question
is dead on. It is very much dealt with through then bill when it
talks about the importance of partnership with the different
levels of government and when it talks about the rehabilitation
aspect to address the specific needs of the child.
I am grateful for his question and I am quite pleased with what
the government is proposing to deal with the rehabilitation
aspect of the issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Two things, Mr.
Speaker. First, it is false to say that Bill C-3 represents a
balance between what the Bloc Quebecois wants and what the
Reform Party wants. That is simply not true. Everything the
Liberal government put in this bill is designed to meet the
objectives of the Reform Party. That is altogether another
matter.
Second, the hon. member spoke about responsibility. On that
subject, we can agree. One has to be irresponsible to change
legislation that works. When dealing with legislation that
works, the minister's responsibility is to try to improve it.
We are not saying that the Young Offenders Act should be left
alone because it is the best act in the world. There are things
that could be amended, simplified. Right now, there are cases
where young offenders are tried twice, and presumptions of
innocence are suffering. There are things that need to be
clarified and improved. However, the entire act should not be
scrapped in favour of amendments that could be technical.
I would like the member to tell me the minister's justification
for repealing an act that is working. When we look at the
statistics, we see that there is a 23% decrease in youth crime.
Since 1995, violent crimes have decreased by 3.2% and sexual
assaults by 1%. Fifty-three per cent of charges against young
people involve property offences, not violent crimes against
persons.
I think the government is getting it all mixed up. The system
is not perfect. It can be improved. But, please, let us not
make the mistake of throwing out 16 years of enforcement, 16
years during which judges have established an interpretation
that is well known in Quebec, that is being enforced, and that
is yielding results.
I appeal to the members from Quebec across the way to wake up,
to tell the Minister of Justice that this does not make sense.
The government must not throw out 16 years of experience for the
sake of a few votes in western Canada. I call on the members
from Quebec to wake up and oppose this bill. We cannot pass it,
because it flies in the face of everything being done in Quebec.
There is a consensus.
1645
Who do the Liberal members from Quebec represent in the caucus?
Western Canada or Quebecers? The Canadian Association of Chiefs
of Police, the Canadian Police Association, the Quebec bar
association and 18 organizations have formed a coalition against
the bill. Where are the Liberal members from Quebec today, when
they should be telling the minister that they do not want this
bill?
I know the member is bright, that he is reasonable and does his
homework before he speaks. I would like him to tell me that he
agrees with me: Quebec is enforcing the Young Offenders Act
with very good results.
I am sure that, deep down, he does not want to see western
Canada throw away all Quebec's experience with respect to this
legislation.
Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question deals more or
less with matters of jurisdiction. He is asking what happens
with this bill in a case where Quebec already has laws
concerning young people.
I am not a constitutional lawyer. I think that when the
consultation process gets under way, it will be interesting to
consult with the provinces about the way this piece of
legislation could be implemented. Besides, this bill will be
referred to a committee. It is probably best that these issues
be dealt with at that stage.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been
listening to this debate since the end of question period, and I
am flabbergasted at some of the things I have heard. For
example, a member of the Reform Party said that this bill does
not go far enough.
Actually, the bill is going in the wrong direction. It has
already gone far enough, and even too far. Still, the Reform
Party is not satisfied with a bill that is going in the wrong
direction, it would like the bill to go even further in the
wrong direction. Let me explain.
One of the purposes of this bill is the general protection of
the public, of course, but its primary purpose is to ensure the
welfare of young people who have committed a crime or an
offence. Obviously, we do not want to cheer these young people
for their wrongdoings, but we not want to turn them into
criminals for life either.
After all, these are our children. They are not strange beings
from a distant planet. They have been brought up by their
parents, here. They have been brought up by a community that
has, or has not, given them certain resources, of sources of
interest, of motivations. Those children have studied in our
schools and have, or have not, received the training, the
upbringing and the values they needed. Those young people are
our children.
When they were born, they all had the same opportunities. Most
of them are doing well, very well even, but a minority of them
have problems. It is not necessarily their fault, very often it
is not their fault at all. Society, the community and their
family often have an important impact on how they have turned
out. Fortunately, in such situations, solutions can usually be
found.
1650
As a matter of fact, the Young Offenders Act has allowed us to
take action and come up with some positive solutions. As my
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm was saying earlier, since the
current law was passed, the youth crime rate has dropped by 23%.
Quite a decrease. The rate of repeat offences has also dropped.
Since other laws also give us the means to support a young
person having difficulties and help him or her in the
rehabilitation process, it is in Quebec that the youth crime
rate is the lowest and the rehabilitation rate the highest.
What we have is a situation that is both rather remarkable and
ironic. We have in the current legislation everything we need to
intervene and help young people reintegrate society in a
meaningful and responsible way. The current legislation is
working. However, the Liberal government has introduced a bill
that is headed in the opposite direction from the current, which
is working and produces results.
This is reverse engineering. This bill is doing the opposite of
what allows us to reach the desired goals. Public security and,
more importantly, the rehabilitation of our young people should
be at the heart of the bill before us today.
However, according to every study done so far and all the data
we have, this bill is a step backwards. It will not help to
lower the youth crime rate, nor will it facilitate reintegration
or maintain the excellent rehabilitation rate we have now. This
bill is regressive.
Earlier, a Reform Party member, answering my colleague, the
member for Berthier—Montcalm, ridiculed what he had said because
he is a sovereignist. I am going to tell House something. In
Quebec, things are working. We have the best results with youth
crime, namely the lowest rate. We have the best rehabilitation
rate.
The federal government opposite wants to enact legislation that
is going to set us back in the pursuit of this cause, coast to
coast.
If this bill becomes law, it will be one more reason for Quebec
to want to become sovereign and to separate from a country that
wants to mistreat its children.
Quebec has followed a very different path over the last 20
years, and since the Young Offenders Act took effect, we have
had the best results. But the federal government refuses to use
legislation from Quebec and the situation in Quebec as a model.
It refuses to heed the advice of experts from all over the
country.
To win votes in western Canada, a Reform stronghold, it is
willing to sacrifice—and this is the right word—our young
people with iniquitous and punitive legislation that does not
favour rehabilitation and that will not steer young offenders
away from a life of crime.
1655
Members will agree with me that this situation is absolutely
unacceptable. I find it hard to understand how it is that the
Liberal government, that usually has a better grasp of these
kinds of issues, does not realize that this bill will lead us
straight to disaster.
Do we want Quebec and Canada to become a place where people feel
unsafe on the streets, like the United States? If that is what
we want, then the Liberal government is proposing the right
bill. And if we want the situation to be even worse, we just
have to follow the Reform Party.
But if we want safe communities, where it is possible to
rehabilitate young people who have strayed from the straight and
narrow so they can become full-fledged citizens, reintegrate
society and make a positive contribution to our life, then we
must not change the law. Let us enforce it as it stands now,
with all the measures that lead to the full rehabilitation of
offenders.
Quebec has set a good example in this area, and nobody has ever
denied that. What I am saying has never been denied. Witnesses
who appeared before the committee during the last session
explained at length what I have been telling the House for the
last few minutes.
I would like to quote what some people said, because I think it
is important for the House to understand that the bill before us
is going in the wrong direction.
I will quote a criminologist from the University of Montreal,
André Normandeau. This is taken from an article published in a
Quebec City newspaper, Le Soleil, on March 13, 1999.
Mr. Normandeau said “People in western Canada”—he is talking
about British Columbia and Alberta—“always react as they did 20
years ago, at a time when the crime rate increased each year.
They have kept more of a punitive approach. Changing the law is
the easy way out, but, more importantly, it does not work.
Violent criminals, who represent 10% of offenders, do not react
to coercion”.
Those are the words of a criminologist. He says that the law, as
it is now, has worked. If we change it in the way the government
wants to do now, we will be going in the wrong direction.
Not only will it not work, it will have the opposite effect.
Mr. Normandeau goes on “The behaviour of prosecutors and police
officers in other provinces will influence what goes on in
Quebec. For instance, a Quebec police officer will quickly start
acting like his colleagues from Saskatoon. He will then need the
same complicity from the crown prosecutors, and then we will end
up in a vicious circle”.
Let me quote from another criminologist, Cécile Toutant, a
member of the young offenders sub-committee of the Quebec Bar
Association. The Quebec Bar Association represents all of the
lawyers in Quebec. Ms. Toutant is a highly competent
professional who knows first hand what is going on in the field.
In an interview she gave on J.E., a very popular television
program in Quebec that the rest of Canada has probably never
heard about—which is another of the characteristics of our two
cultures and our two nations who live alongside each other, and
someday there will be a political solution to this situation—Ms.
Toutant stated that she was concerned about the reform
because some measures will become automatic, like the transfer to
adult courts.
This criminologist argued that, even with what the Liberals call
the flexibility of the system, the measures that we condemn will
be applied. She concluded by saying “Why allow what is
unjustified? Why allow what is inappropriate? In fact, why pass
this legislation?”
1700
On March 19, during a press conference of the group of
organizations that are concerned with the situation of young
offenders, Mr. Jean Trépanier, another criminologist, and a
member of the Barreau du Québec sub-committee on young offenders,
also condemned this false flexibility of Bill C-3.
According to him, this so-called flexibility we were talking
about before the bill was introduced is in fact a political
trap. Unfortunately, Quebec judges will have to fully enforce
the law, since they will not be able to ignore sentences that
will be imposed in other provinces.
In conclusion, because of your legislation, members of the
Liberal government, young people from Quebec will not be treated
fairly, they will no longer have the opportunity to be
rehabilitated, and the safety in our society as a whole will be
affected. The reason for this is that young offenders who are
not rehabilitated become criminal adults. We must not forget
that. They do not disappear because they are put in jail. They
will get out, one day or the other, with vengeance in their
heart.
Of course, prevention is good, but when a young person has
committed an offence, rehabilitation becomes essential to ensure
the long term safety of the community and to ensure that we have
a citizen who will work with us toward social objectives,
instead of having one who will be in and out of jail all his
life.
I would also like to tell the House about a representative of
the Quebec youth centres association, André Payette, who said it
all in a nutshell “It will be a real mess if the bill is
passed.”
What could be clearer? The bill is going in the opposite
direction from what should be done. I recall what my colleague
from the Reform Party said earlier “The bill does no go far
enough”. The bill is going in the opposite direction, and that
is already too far.
Let me quote also from a court that everybody knows well around
here, the Supreme Court of Canada. In a recent decision, the
court agreed unanimously that too many offenders are put in jail
in Canada, particularly native offenders, and that happens not
in Quebec but in the central and western provinces.
The supreme court said that judges should get more involved in
reducing the incarceration rate, for the rate in Canada is one
of the highest in the western world.
Members do not have to be very good at maths. The government
wants to lower the age limit to 14. You were once 14, Madam
Speaker. Think about it for a moment: to be behind bars at that
age, does it not make the system look a bit stupid? As
lawmakers, we should have enough common sense to realize that
there are other things to do with a 14 year old to educate him,
instead of putting him behind bars. We are not in the Middle
Ages. I am not surprised that members of the Reform Party say
this kind of thing, for they have a somewhat reactionary
mindset, if I may say so.
But when members of the Liberal Party talk that way, I am sorry,
but I do not understand. Somebody somewhere is asleep. They
should be able to stand up and say “No, wait a minute, it is
true, we are going the wrong way, all the statistics show it”.
The supreme court tells us that our jails are already too
crowded. If we put 14-year olds behind bars, there will be even
more people in jail, and for a long time, because by the time
these young offenders get out, at age 16 or 17, they will have
attended crime school instead of CEGEP. CEGEPs may not be
perfect but, frankly, I would rather send a young person to
CEGEP than to crime school.
When it comes to choosing between helping a young person get
back on the right track or seeing him acquire all the skills
necessary to remain on the wrong path, common sense dictates
that we invest in reintegration.
1705
This young person who is sent to jail at age 14 and is released
at age 17 will go back again at age 18 and will end up in a
penitentiary. An inmate in a penitentiary costs $100,000 a year
to taxpayers. A social worker hired to look after a number of
young persons for two or three years, or a social worker hired
to look after teenagers for a time would cost much less, even
with full pay. They would save money to our society. Common
sense clearly dictates that we invest in reintegration. For
every dollar invested in reintegration, we will probably save
$10 in incarceration costs.
This is about your money and my money but, more importantly, it
is about our young people. Let us use our judgement. This bill
goes against common sense. It goes against human decency. It
goes against the history of humanity, which seeks to improve the
way human beings treat one another. The best way to start
treating one another properly is to show respect for our
children.
If Canada and the Canadian parliament cannot respect our
children, this will be yet another reason for me to separate my
Quebec from a country that does not respect its children.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to the words from the Bloc
member from Portneuf. He is a member of the Bloc who I have a
great deal of respect for, his separatist bent notwithstanding.
The member has been to my riding at my invitation. I said, with
my tongue very lightly in my cheek, that he should see what the
best part of the country looks like before he gives it up.
I have a youth diversion program operating in my riding which
has been very successful. The last time I spoke with the people
running the program, they had run over 100 young people through
the program and had only one incident of a repeat offence.
There is a lot of confusion about what the Reform Party really
wants for young offenders. Our whole approach is divided into
three categories. The first category is early intervention. I
believe that is the kind of thing the hon. member supports. Early
intervention would mean interceding early and perhaps preventing
people from turning to crime or to some anti-social behaviour
that might lead them to crime. It helps them to get the right
type of assistance and aid.
The second category is the diversion program, which I talked
about earlier. I am sure the hon. member supports that as well.
There is a third category that everyone likes to categorize the
Reform with, the tougher hand. We believe that stiffer measures
are appropriate for those young offenders who cannot be reached
through early intervention, through diversion or through any
other way, and who commit violent or anti-social offences over
and over again. For the protection of society, and for the
protection of other young people who are the number one victims
of young offenders, we believe there must be stiffer measures for
people who assault, rape, break into homes and beat elderly
people.
Would the hon. member support the concept of this sort of
tri-approach: early intervention; diversion to keep them out of
court and give them a second chance; and, strict measures for
those who will not benefit from the other two aspects and who
continue to break society's rules? Does he agree that we do need
to have some tough measures for the worst of the worst?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's
question.
It is true that I had the pleasure of visiting his riding, I
think it was in 1994. The hon. member came to visit my riding
too. That has been a very beneficial exchange and I have a great
deal of respect for this member of the Reform Party who, like
several other colleagues of his, is more open-minded.
1710
However, to answer the particular question he asked me, I will
say that, while his position appears to be consistent, the fact
of the matter is that the bill would destroy the very
foundations of that position. First of all, the bill focuses on
measures of the third category, which are aimed at the most
difficult cases. It is clear that it puts less emphasis on
measures of the first and second categories.
So, if less emphasis were put on these measures, that is on the
care of young people convicted of minor offences, if fewer
efforts were made in that respect, these young people run the
risk of committing more serious offences for lack of help. They
will then be facing measures of the third category because they
will have become difficult cases.
What the bill will do is merely create more difficult cases.
Following this reasoning, the present legislation would have to
be retained so that all of the emphasis may be put on the first
two measures, in order to have a minimum of individuals move on
to the third.
And now what can be done with that group? The last thing we
want to do—and I am sure that my colleague from
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan agrees with this—is to block their
rehabilitation. If not rehabilitated, when they are back on the
street, the semblance of security we enjoyed for the two, three
or four years of their incarceration will blow up in our faces
when they do get out again one fine day and, instead of being
rehabilitated, are really hardened criminals.
The tougher the cases, then, the more needs to be invested in
rehabilitating them. This is the only way, not just to ensure
the safety of our communities, not just to save money, but also
to save the young person himself.
The arguments being used by my colleague for
Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan are exactly the opposite of the
laudable objectives he wants to pursue. He must realize this.
In Quebec we have demonstrated the right way to apply the Young
Offenders Act in its present form.
I would invite him to come back to my riding with me and I will
show him directly how well things are working.
Perhaps then he will be able to remind the people in his part of
the country that, if we want the first two measures to work
properly, there must be more investment so that the third
becomes the exception. For those cases, we have to make sure
that the results are exceptional as well, so that public safety
is guaranteed and the young offenders become full-fledged members
of society.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, today,
I have heard all sorts of arguments in the House.
There were those who thought that a person almost had to be put
to death to be properly rehabilitated. Then there were those
who said that these young people had to be put behind bars if we
wanted them to be allowed back into society, but that there was
no certainty they would be rehabilitated in jail.
I also heard people, such as the member for Berthier—Montcalm and
the member for Portneuf, who explained what needed to be done
for our young people, for young offenders. The focus needs to
be on rehabilitation if we want to help them improve their
lives. We are legislators and we want—I think that this is what
all members here want—to improve society.
I do not think that a bill such as this is going to improve
society.
I have attended the opening of courts in my region. I have
spoken with the chief justice of Quebec. She told me that the
other parties in the House would have to examine Quebec's
legislation, sit down with us and take a look at it and, if
necessary, improve it. I think we have the deaf talking to the
deaf.
I hope that Reform Party members will sit down and ask the
member for Berthier—Montcalm to explain Quebec's young offender
legislation to them. I hope that they will keep an open mind.
1715
The Minister of Justice is a woman. Women sometimes see things
differently than men. They are the ones who bear children. It
is important to give children everything possible so that they
have a better life. I do not think that a bill such as this is
going to help them. I appeal to all parliamentarians here today
to think carefully about what is going on with respect to this
bill and to remember that we are considering a bill for the
future. The young people of today are the citizens of tomorrow
and we cannot jeopardize their future.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, my colleague
spoke so eloquently that there is nothing much I can add.
Nonetheless, I would like to say that this bill is quite
different from many bills introduced in the House.
When the subject is a treaty with aboriginals, it is important.
When the subject is legal issues, it is important. When the
subject is international treaties, it is important. But today's
subject is the most important of all. We are talking about our
children. I appeal to the good judgment of all members and,
especially of government members, in particular those from
Quebec, in the hope that they will bring the Liberal government
back to its senses and convince it to withdraw this bill, which
goes against the interests of our children.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I must say that it has been a very
interesting day today listening to a variety of points of view on
this legislation. I think it is fair to say that we are all
pleased that the legislation is finally before us. There has
been a feeling in the land, generally, that the Young Offenders
Act needed improvements. I think there is almost unanimity among
members in the House of Commons that this debate is long overdue.
I hope we can move this debate along quickly today and into
committee where we can get into some of the concerns that have
been raised by so many.
If I can generally summarize my party's position, it is that we
see this bill as a major step forward, and I will explain why I
say that in a moment. However, we also have some serious
concerns. I think they are very legitimate concerns and I want
to articulate them very clearly because there is a role for
opposition members, although it is probably distorted in the
public's mind generally as simply to oppose things for the sake
of opposing, that we are opposition and we are against everything
the government does.
However, I am prepared to acknowledge for my Liberal friends
that on rare occasions there are actually some good things that
come forward. Today we are talking about some of those good
things with this piece of legislation.
Bill C-3 is formally called the youth criminal justice act. We
are starting from a whole new approach, youth justice. I want to
take a few moments at the beginning of my presentation to read
from the introduction of the bill itself because to me it
summarizes what it is we are trying to do today. It states that
Bill C-3 is an act in respect of criminal justice for young
persons and that it will amend and repeal other acts.
The preamble reads:
Whereas society should be protected from youth crime through a
youth criminal justice system that commands respect, 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;
Whereas these objectives can best be achieved by replacement of
the Young Offenders Act with a new legal framework for the
youth criminal justice system;
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
multidisciplinary 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;
And 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;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
That is what this whole bill is about.
1720
In anticipation of this debate and the work that will take place
over the next number of weeks, I consulted a group of people in
my constituency. I went into the jails and talked to young
people who were incarcerated. It was an interesting experience
because I had not spent a lot of time visiting jails. I chatted
to young people in halfway houses and, in general, to young
people who were in some form of confinement. There were young
people who were being treated in various treatment centres for
addiction problems and so on.
I talked to young people on the streets of Kamloops who were
practising young offenders. I met with police officers, parole
board representatives, probation officers, judges, lawyers,
criminal justice advocates, correction workers and others who had
in some way come in contact with young offenders. I asked all of
them what they thought was the fundamental reason for some young
people becoming young offenders, because most do not. I think we
would all agree that if we talked to young people across the
country almost all of them would not be young offenders. They
are hard working, decent, creative, dynamic, enthusiastic and
optimistic young people who are accomplished in the sciences,
arts, sports and so on. It is really quite astounding. However,
there are a few people who do get into trouble with the law.
I asked all of these people if there was some commonality, if
there was some reason or if they could give me a summary as to
why these young folks got into trouble. Almost everybody said,
more or less, two things. One was that these folks got caught.
A lot of young people do unusual things and often flirt with
things that are illegal, but they do not get caught, or if they
do, they are released for some reason. They are caught but found
not guilty. The ones who are in jail were caught. That was a
small point.
The second point was that almost everyone agreed that one of the
fundamental causes of young offenders in our society is poverty.
Somewhere in their past, their parents, their guardians or they
themselves had lived for a period of time in some form of serious
poverty. They did not have the things that most kids want and
have. They did not have supportive parents, nurturing or
guidance. These young people were without that. They were on
their own to fend for themselves.
Those of us who have raised children or know children well all
appreciate that it is tough growing up. There are pressures from
peers and many other pressures. If they have no one to guide
them, to direct them, to care for them, to nurture them or to
give them a helping hand, it is no wonder they get into trouble.
I am not suggesting that if they are poor they are going to get
into trouble. Obviously there is no correlation there. The
correlation is that almost all of these young people, if traced
back, had some element of poverty in their family's past. That
is a crucial factor.
Many of us were here in November 1989 when Ed Broadbent posed a
motion, seconded by me, that we would do whatever was necessary
to eradicate child poverty in Canada in the next 10 years. It
was a very laudable goal. I see many of my friends opposite who
were here and remember that time. First, we set a goal which was
to eradicate child poverty in Canada in the next 10 years. We
did not do too well. As a country, one area where we have to
hold our heads down in shame is that we failed in reaching that
goal. As a matter of fact, statisticians have told us that in
the last 10 years the number of children who live in poverty has
increased by 50%. It has worsened for a whole lot of young
people.
Let us understand that the reason those young people are living
in poverty is because their parents live in poverty. We do not
have poor children living in rich homes. Because of that poverty
good housing and support are often not there. As we deal with
this new version of the Young Offenders Act and concern ourselves
with assisting young people, particularly those who are on the
edges of trouble, let us acknowledge that we cannot simply do
this through this legislation.
Other initiatives are required as well, such as alleviating
poverty in our country, particularly child poverty.
1725
There are some people in our country who assume that child
poverty is a reality, that nothing can be done about it, that
there is always going to be 5% of the population which is poor
and that is just the way the world is. However, that is not the
way the world is in some parts. There are countries where there
are no poor children. There are no children living in poverty
because there are no parents living in poverty. Those countries
exist. It is possible to eradicate poverty and it ought to be a
laudable millennium goal for us to have. We should eradicate
child poverty in our country.
Based on whatever kind of questionable statistics or images, a
lot of people do not feel that society is a safe place today,
particularly elderly people who watch the news on television.
Every bad kid in the world gets front page coverage, so we get
the impression of one large madhouse with thousands of people
killing, raping and murdering. In fact the opposite is true. By
and large the rates are going down in our country in terms of
violent crime. However, because of instantaneous communication
and the fact that people watching television are not sure if the
young people are from Canada or the United States, or from other
countries, there is a sense that we are living in an increasingly
violent society. People feel unsafe in their homes. There are
instances, of course, where that is the case and people have
committed heinous crimes, but we must keep in mind that these are
isolated incidents.
I listened carefully to my colleague who represents a riding
close to mine. He spoke about the intervention programs that
have been successful in his constituency. I could name a number
of programs that have been very effective in the Kamloops region
in diverting young people away from a life of crime, which carry
out all sorts of parole practices that result in people not
reoffending.
My friend talked about his experiences in Trail and Castlegar,
British Columbia where the intervention programs have been very
successful. I appreciate that kind of information.
We have to create the impression that we are talking about a
very small group of young people who get into trouble. Most of
them, if dealt with properly in the justice system, do not
reoffend. They learn their lesson, smarten up and do not do that
type of activity again, whether it is stealing a car, breaking
into someone's house and stealing a VCR or whatever.
We would all acknowledge the fact that there are young people,
very few in number, who really have to be set aside so that
society is protected from their behaviour. These are young
people who participate in murder and manslaughter, rape and
pillage and so on. We have to acknowledge that there are some
really troubled people and society has to be protected from them.
Those are the ones who we want to see in our jails.
There are a lot of people in jails who, quite frankly, we do not
have to be protected from. If a guy has been writing bad cheques
time and time again, do we really have to pen that person up in a
cage? I do not think we do.
Our friends from Quebec have been pointing out the success they
have had in dealing with young offenders in that province. In
terms of young people who re-offend, the province of Quebec has
probably had the greatest, most impressive track record of any
other province or territory and we have to acknowledge that.
Quebec has made tremendous advances in the area of native
justice, particularly native youth justice.
I had the occasion a while back to visit the Navajo reservation
in the United States. They have had a youth justice system in
place for some time and I wanted to see what it was about their
system that was so effective. I spent about four or five days on
the Navajo reservation with a number of lawyers and judges and
sat in on a number of sessions.
1730
I will explain how that worked. It was absolutely marvellous.
One day little Johnny stole a VCR from a neighbour's house on the
Navaho reservation. He was charged and the day was set for his
court hearing. I am not a lawyer so I do not know the proper
terminology, but the court was called and little Johnny was
there. He had to bring his entire extended family with him:
uncles, aunts, grandparents, brothers and sisters. They were all
lined up all over the courtroom. The whole family was there.
They were not happy campers because they were busy. They had
jobs and stuff but they had to set aside this time to go to court
because little Johnny had stolen their neighbour's VCR.
The old judge got up there and asked “Johnny, how do you
plead?” The kid was kind of mumbling. “Speak up”, the judge
told him, “so all the court can hear you”. “Not guilty, sir.”
“Okay”, said the judge.
It was something to see, Madam Speaker. You should have seen
it. The judge went to the kid and asked him if he could explain
who the older lady was sitting at the table with him. The kid
said “That's my grandmother”. “Speak up”, said the judge.
“That's my grandmother”, said the kid.
“Could you explain to the court how you think your grandmother
feels today about what you did,” the judge asked the kid. The
reply was not clear so the judge said “Speak up”. “She is
probably not very happy with me,” said Johnny. The judge said
“Tell me some more”. “She is probably embarrassed that I am
her grandson”, and the story went on and on.
The judge then went to the mother, the father, the cousins and
brothers and sisters, and they were all embarrassed by this kid's
activities. They said his actions were inappropriate. They were
sorry and embarrassed that their grandchild or brother had
behaved the way he had.
By the time they had gone through the entire extended family,
the little kid was just like a melted pile of wax. He was beaten
up, feeling like a complete idiot and wondering what he had done.
Obviously he was found guilty.
What was the sentence? He had to do some community work. Every
day after school for six months he had to take a plastic bag, go
around the reservation and pick up paper until he filled the bag
and then leave it at the judge's house door each night before he
could quit.
In the centre of the Navaho reservation the pueblos have a
central area where people hang out. Every Saturday he had to sit
on a chair by himself from sun up to sun down in the middle of
the reservation. Nobody could talk to him but everybody would
know who little Johnny was. They would have to keep an eye out
for him because he steals things from his neighbours and friends.
They all figured out who he was. He had to do that for a
certain length of time.
An hon. member: What would have happened had he stolen
two VCRs?
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend asks what would have happened
if he had stolen two VCRs. I have no idea but anyway this was an
interesting sentencing. I think there were a couple of other
things added on to that but I have forgotten.
The long and the short of it is that the judge said young Johnny
would never be back in his courtroom ever again. Why? It was
because he realized the impact of his misbehaviour on his family,
community and friends and that it was not the way to behave in a
decent society.
I suspect that when he did it he was not thinking. Let us face
it. We have all been there. We have all done things in our life
for which we feel kind of stupid because we did not think about
them. When one thinks about it, one does not do it. The judge
guaranteed that young Johnny would never return to the courtroom
again because he learned a lesson.
We cannot apply that for everybody, but as part of the native
justice system in terms of dealing with young offenders it is
that kind of sentencing, that kind of approach to the judicial
system and so on that has proven to be very effective in certain
circumstances.
When I read the legislation this is what the bill is all about.
It looks to the various types of sentencing. Rather than just
saying the guilty party goes to jail for 40 days or 40 years or
whatever it give the judges some discretion. Let us face it.
Every case is different. Every kid who is out committing some
kind of a crime, gets caught and goes to court is different.
Every victimized person is different. The circumstances are
different.
That is why I oppose what my friends in the Reform Party are
suggesting, that we should not give the judges that kind of
discretion. That is why we have judges. They are hopefully very
intelligent people. They know the law. They understand the
legal system and society. They can mete out the appropriate form
of justice in their judgment.
That is why they are there. That is why we have them. Otherwise
we would not need judges if we just had straight laws and so on.
1735
My friends in the New Democratic and I have a concern. If we
are to have all these creative systems to rehabilitate young
people who have gone off the edge or try to get people redirected
back into the mainstream of society, those who the judge deems
can be, we need financial resources to have those systems in
place to follow through with that. We have to have the money for
the parole system, the community action groups and the community
organizations to ensure those young people can be rehabilitated
by carrying out the judges sentencing.
There is a major flaw in the legislation. I may be wrong, but
from what I can gather there are only $260 million over three
years. That is a drop in the bucket. It will not solve the
problem. We can have all the great rhetoric, all the great ideas
and all the great plans in this legislation possible, but unless
we have the financial resources to give to support that system it
will fail. For that reason I am loath to say that we have to
oppose the bill at this stage.
We agree with the theory. We agree with the thrust. It is a
major step forward, but we cannot handcuff our judges, handcuff
our parole boards and handcuff community groups that want to help
young people. Are they to say they are sorry and do not have any
money for them?
It is like what we heard the other day with the RCMP in British
Columbia. The spokesperson for the RCMP said “I know those
people have broken the law and I know they committed fraud, but
we do not have any money to investigate them”. In other words
the laws of the land cannot be enforced.
Obviously there are a number of other items that we should
identify as problems. My colleague who spoke earlier certainly
did that with some eloquence.
We oppose the bill reluctantly, but hopefully in committee we
will get some changes, particularly a commitment from the
Minister of Justice to adequately fund the system.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened attentively to my colleague, and he caught my ear when
he said “We must talk about poverty”.
I have known many delinquents personally. I asked myself “How
can a 12, 13 or 14 year old become a delinquent? Nobody is born
a delinquent”.
I have an answer, and I would like everyone to listen. If one
becomes a delinquent, it is obviously for one of many reasons.
The most important reason could be that the delinquent was not
loved enough or not loved at all. It has nothing to do with the
young person; it depends on whether the family circle give that
person the most important thing in life, love.
When someone grows up surrounded by hatred and violence, there
is little doubt that that person is going to become a
delinquent. Is it possible to legislate an end to the problem?
Absolutely not.
We have to take this young person and introduce him to somebody
who is going to love him. It might be a streetworker, someone
who works for the social services or a friend. By friend, I do
not necessarily mean another young person, it could be a teacher
or a friend who will take him under his wing.
I will give an example. In France, a man called Guy Gilbert
takes in certain delinquents on his farm. There are a number of
animals there: deer, cows, pigs, chickens and others. The young
delinquent chooses an animal, and the animal is his. Sometimes,
this young person, who is seething with anger, may try to
mistreat the animal. He is told in no uncertain terms “Listen,
you do not do this”.
1740
He is made to understand that one does not hurt animals.
If he understands that, how will he be able, later on, to hurt
an old lady just to get $50? He will have understood. Very few
come back or go back to prison because they have understood that
if they are not to mistreat animals, they are certainly not to
mistreat a human being.
We have to think in terms of prevention. And I submit that we
have to put up the money, especially at the elementary level.
Even in elementary schools children aged six, seven or eight are
sometimes tough, very tough on others, almost violent.
I hope my colleague is now going to tell me he favours
prevention over a more drastic measure.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I do not know if I can
add much to what my hon. colleague has just said. He has
identified what he believes is a fundamental cause of
misbehaviour. I would have to agree with him.
Perhaps I can add another point for thought. I think the hon.
member was asking us to think about this matter. I am a parent.
I am just going to stand in my place and pretend that my hon.
colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is my child.
Mr. John Solomon: He will have to use a lot of
imagination.
Mr. Nelson Riis: That is quite a leap. When a child
misbehaves a lot of parents whack him. Let us just think about
it.
If I whack this kid across the head or slap him a few times,
which is what parents generally do to discipline their children,
and if the child admires me as a parent and believes that I love
him but I whack him, spank him or give him a little boot or whack
across the head and keep doing that, what kind of symbol does
that present to the young child? The person who loves him is
hitting him. I would say that is the way a lot of violence
begins.
The reality is that if the people children think love them keep
hitting them day after day, month after month, year after year,
and then say to the children that they should not hit other kids
it is a little hollow and hypocritical. Rather than hit people
we need to comfort them.
I think I have made my point and I would like to thank my
colleague for his intervention.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
should remind the hon. member that we have a rule here against
the use of props.
The debate is going along quite well this afternoon. The hon.
member touched on a number of the diverse elements behind the
legislation, but I personally think the important part of the
legislation is its enhanced access to what I would call adult
measures.
The hon. member mentioned, as did previous speakers, the need
for intervention, diversion, alternate measures and sanctions for
young offenders. With the experience we have had in the last 15
years with the Young Offenders Act in many provinces but not all
there has been a need, a request and an indication from Canadians
that there is a need for enhanced access to new tools and firmer
adult measures in some cases. That is an important readjustment
in the current statute. It provides access to those even though
in some provinces, and not just Quebec, there have been good
results with the existing legislation.
I want to ask the hon. member if he accepts that principle. We
may be running out of time and ability to respond, but I would
leave the question on the floor. Does the member agree to
disagree conceptually or otherwise with the thrust of the bill in
providing access to courts that needed it or to judges who felt
they needed access to potentially harsher and firmer adult
measures?
1745
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon.
friend's intervention which was made in a thoughtful way as
usual. I must admit that I was not listening to his question. I
am sure it was a good one, but I am afraid any kind of answer I
would have would sound a little bit silly. I would say that yes
is probably the appropriate answer knowing the kind of questions
he normally asks.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have one comment and perhaps a question for the hon.
member from Kamloops. I trust he is listening this time.
He gave a very graphic example and demonstration that we all
feel toward his colleagues from time to time but he has had a
chance to vent. His demonstration was well put. Hitting a child
repeatedly on a day after day basis may create a tendency toward
violence. I would hope that we in the House do not confuse child
abuse with a swat on the backside at the appropriate time when
other measures have not been effective or when a parent deems
that to be effective. It would not be on a daily basis nor
repeatedly hitting a child each time the child says something
wrong, looks the wrong way or whatever. There is a time and a
place for everything. We should not take that completely out of
the hands of parents, especially when we tell them that we want
to hold them responsible for the actions of their children.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Madam Speaker, that thoughtful question
deserves a lot more attention than it is going to receive today.
One could make the case that there is little evidence available
to suggest that violence of any kind is ever helpful. I know my
friend and some of us might think it is, but we have to look at
hard evidence. What evidence is there that striking a young
person, in particular a little person, actually changes or
modifies that person's behaviour?
I will use one example. I train horses as a hobby. There are
two approaches to horse training. There is the violent approach
which is called breaking animals. You break a horse. The horse's
spirit is broken and then it decides to follow along with what
you want it to do. The Horse Whisperer, the individual we are
probably all familiar with from movies and so on, trained the
horse to do whatever he wanted it to do through kindness. There
is little evidence to suggest that violent horse breaking is
better than kindness horse breaking, but we can discuss this
matter further.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, there
will be no violence in the Progressive Conservative caucus. The
New Democratic Party, in distancing itself from its previous
policies of pacifism today in the House of Commons has surprised
and shocked all of us. It is a sad day for democracy in Canada.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3, the youth criminal justice
act. Canadians have been waiting for this very important piece
of legislation for a long time. I hear regularly from people in
my riding who are affected by and concerned about the current or
previous act.
It is important for us when developing public policy to focus on
reality and not simply perception. It is sometimes said that
perception is reality, but sometimes reality is reality. Far too
often in the House and in politics we focus public policy on the
perceptions of a situation as opposed to the reality of the
situation.
There is an increasing trend for governments and political
parties to focus action, public policy and legislation on what
the pollsters are telling them to do.
Of course polls are based completely on public perception as
opposed to reality. I am concerned that in doing so, sometimes we
overlook the more significant and root causes of some of the
problems we try to fix with very simple solutions.
1750
American humorist H.L. Mencken once said that for every complex
problem there is a simple, clean, precise solution that is wrong.
Sometimes we in this House come up with some solutions that
simply do not address the holistic and root causes of the
problems we are trying to deal with.
I was pleased to hear the member from Kamloops speak of some of
the root causes of youth crime. He linked youth crime to issues
such as poverty. Crime is often very much linked to opportunity
or lack thereof, and particularly lack thereof is linked very
closely to poverty.
If we are going to deal with the issue of youth crime in a
significant and long term way, we need to deal with some very
important economic issues in Canada. In Canada there has been an
8% drop in personal disposable income since 1990. On the other
hand, in the U.S. there has been a 10% increase in personal
disposable income.
In Canada homes, the pressures being faced by both parents where
there are two parents are significant. The pressures are even
more significant in single parent situations. That parent is
faced with trying to provide for the household, trying to provide
an adequate level of income for the household, and at the same
time is trying to be an effective parent by devoting not just
quality time but the quantity of time necessary in raising
children.
The difficulty I have with some of the band-aid approaches taken
by this government is that far too often we are ignoring some of
the real solutions. There are examples both in the U.S. and
Canada of very successful headstart programs which have achieved
a great deal.
The Fraser Mustard studies have demonstrated that $1 invested in
a child in a high risk situation before the age of three can
provide a return to society of $7 by the time the child is 30.
That return is based on the savings to society on the police
system, the judiciary, and in the worst case incarceration,
social welfare expense, the expense of dealing with somebody who
has fallen between the cracks.
The first three years are the most important years in a child's
cognitive development. Ninety per cent of a child's cognitive
adaptive skills actually close off after the age of three. It is
ironic in dealing with perceptions as opposed to reality that
those who develop public policy on the education front,
particularly on the provincial side, tend to focus on higher
education and on secondary and primary education and they tend to
ignore an important area, the preschool area.
Quite possibly it is a step in the right direction for the
government to indicate in the throne speech that there will be
more generous EI benefits for new parents. That is a step in the
right direction but again, it only addresses part of the problem.
Certain types of youth activities are important in providing a
way for young people to meaningfully spend their time.
Recreational activities such as hockey, softball, 4-H or scouts
are all wonderful activities that come with a price. Any parent
who has outfitted children in hockey in recent years will attest
to this.
For Canadians who have outfitted their children in sports gear,
it is a very expensive pursuit. Whether it is registration in
the leagues or buying equipment, there are barriers. Parents in
many cases lack opportunity and adequate income levels and
therefore children lack opportunities to pursue the types of
self-actualization and important activities that can prevent them
from pursuing crime.
1755
I represent primarily a rural riding. Many of the studies on
early intervention and headstart are focused on urban centres.
The fact is that for rural poverty and urban poverty the
demographics are strikingly similar. In many cases substance
abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, all these issues are linked
very closely to poverty. I am not saying that is always the case,
but living in a household with inadequate income certainly
increases the pressures on parents and makes things awfully
difficult.
If the government wanted to move in the right direction, it
would increase the basic personal exemption for taxation to at
least $10,000. Ideally it should be higher than that. It is
ludicrous that we are taxing individuals making $7,500 per year
which makes it even more difficult.
My colleague, the member of parliament for Shefford, has
co-chaired the PC task force on poverty and has travelled
throughout the country. I have travelled with her on some of
those trips to speak with and learn from those most directly
affected by poverty. The growth and pervasiveness of poverty in
Canada has never been greater.
The member from Kamloops quite rightly identified the motion
from 1989 to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.
Parliament's lackluster performance in meeting that motion
indicates a focus on perception and not on reality.
We should be delivering on some of these things. The best way
is to create more economic opportunities to provide Canadians
with opportunities to succeed and prosper and thus provide
Canadian children with an opportunity to actually break out of
the poverty cycle.
The poverty cycle is important. There is a fine line between
programs that benefit families and children and programs that
create a cycle of dependency. It is important that we become
more innovative in the types of social policy solutions we are
seeking in preventing that cycle of dependency which can be so
pervasive and deleterious in the long term.
Some elements of the legislation are very positive, such as
those which deal with parental accountability. The notion of
bringing parents into the courtrooms to deal directly with the
questions of where they were at a particular time or why they had
not taken a greater level of responsibility over the action of
the child is very important. There has to be parental
responsibility and that has been sadly lacking the past. It can
help significantly if parents and family members play a role
within a judicial framework in this regard. The bill addresses
that to a certain extent. I think that is very positive.
I am concerned relative to the cost of implementation of the
bill. It will be largely borne by the provinces. There has been
a decline in the federal government's commitment to assist
provinces to meet an increased burden on the judicial system. I
am concerned about that. Since the 1993 election the burden on
the provinces has been increasing for instance by reducing the
CHST. The provinces have been offloading on municipalities.
Ultimately there is one taxpayer. Ultimately provinces that are
enjoying less economic growth at this time will be put in a very
difficult situation to try to pay for some of the costs of
compliance with some of the provisions of the legislation.
1800
It is important that parents become more accountable. We are not
suggesting that jailing parents would improve the situation, but
we should recognize the importance of parents playing a role not
just within the realm of a courtroom but on an ongoing basis.
I enjoyed the member from Kamloop's comments. One thing he
mentioned was that in his study of the issue in his riding, many
of the young people who were incarcerated or who were in various
stages of rehabilitation had mentioned that the only thing that
differentiated them from someone else or one of their peers was
that they happened to get caught. I think there is a fair bit of
truth to that.
I think there are a lot of young people who do end up running
afoul of the law but are not of a criminal bent. These young
people will do what young people sometimes do because of the
intrinsic sense of mischief that exists. It is very important
that we find ways to identify those people and find ways to deal
with them relative to the crimes they have committed as opposed
to those who actually demonstrate sociopathic tendencies and are
capable of far greater crimes.
The opportunity to rehabilitate someone who has committed a
crime of mischief or an aberrational offence will be far greater
than it will be for someone who has more of a psychological
profile of a criminal.
It is also important that we work with parents in a preventative
sense and in a more holistic sense. We need to identify and
assist parents in developing the types of parenting skills that
are necessary.
I happen to believe that provinces are, in many cases, better at
some of the preventative remedies than the federal government.
Part of that involves constitutional and jurisdictional
boundaries, but the provinces would be far closer to the actual
situations, particularly in terms of strategic social investment,
than the federal government would be.
One example of a program that I think has great potential is one
that the provincial government in Ontario has been working on.
Dr. Fraser Mustard co-chaired a study on early childhood
intervention and headstart. I believe we will see the province
of Ontario pursue a policy of headstart and early intervention. I
hope that as part of that policy we will seek to identify some of
the situational commonalities between those that ultimately end
up falling afoul of the law. I think we will find significant
overlap.
That links very closely to economic factors and opportunities.
It is difficult enough for parents who have a relatively good
income to raise children. It is an increasingly complicated,
difficult and challenging world. For parents who do not have
adequate income and do not have economic opportunities, it is
evermore difficult.
We must be extremely careful to balance social policy and
economic policy. We must recognize that while all of us probably
agree on the end, some of us differ on the means to get there.
We use the justice system to deal with our young people as a way
to deal with those people who have fallen through the cracks, but
ultimately, this place and all the provincial legislatures in the
country should actually be preventing and reducing the number of
young people who do end up falling through the cracks.
We would all be better served by that. It would involve dealing
with the realities of the situation and the root of the problem.
1805
One of the best headstart programs in a Canadian context
operates out of Moncton, New Brunswick. The Minister of Labour
spent a great deal of her life working on building that headstart
program and deserves credit for her contribution to Moncton and
to Canada. I am certain that program has resulted in significant
change to the lives of those children who have gone through that
headstart program. Goodness knows how many young people have had
their lives and directions changed based on participation in that
program. How many parents are now proud of their children and
the young people they have raised partially because of the
assistance of that program?
It is very important that we take a look at not just examples of
headstart and early intervention programs in Canada but also
examples that exist around the world, particularly in inner city
communities in the U.S. that have pursued some of these things.
It is also important to create a culture of responsibility
through the education systems in Canada. This can be difficult
because the justice system is largely federal and youth criminal
justice is a piece of federal legislation. However, we are
dealing with a problem that emanates, to a certain extent, from
education and could potentially be ameliorated, diverted or
improved by a better educational focus on areas of
responsibility. There is a requirement for better provincial and
federal co-operation in some of these areas to ensure that,
across the country, provinces are pursuing education systems that
teach a little bit about responsibility.
How about citizenship? I continually hear from constituents
that there is very little today to teach young people about
citizenship. They talk about the importance of not just
responsibility to one's family and one's friends but of
responsibility to the country and of trying to devote some of our
young people's incredible amount of energy to build a better
community and a better country?
These are all things that can be achieved if there is a
co-operative effort to deal with the realities and the root
causes of the problem and not always with the big stick approach
at the end.
While we are pleased that the government has gone a ways toward
improving the youth criminal justice with this legislation, we
are not satisfied that it has gone far enough in certain areas.
On the real root causes of the problem, we do not think that the
government has really done an adequate job of approaching those
issues. There are members opposite who will point to specific
programs designed to benefit children, but Canadians need the
types of programs that provide for a culture of opportunity that
would benefit all Canadian families, including children.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
Conservative colleague mentioned the roots of criminality. This
is one of the main issues we have to address when dealing with
youth crime. What is the root of the problem?
We have heard some interesting arguments linking the increase in
crime to the increase in poverty. Unfortunately, in the bill now
before the House, instead of looking for the roots of
criminality, the government is going for a bandaid solution, not
a proper solution.
I do have some concerns when I see a child who was raised in a
low income family, or maybe a single-parent family or under a
number of circumstances that could have led him or her to commit
crimes and become a problem for society, being told “From now
on, you are going to be treated like an adult criminal”.
1810
The problem is that this young person, instead of being
rehabilitated, going to school and becoming a good citizen, will
be sent to prison, a school for crime, where he will be in
contact with confirmed criminals. My concern is that, when he is
released, he will be even more frustrated with society.
How could a young man have respect for society when he feels he
does not get any respect from it? I do not want to be too
categorical, but I think that in that school for crime, his
frustration with society will just build up, and he will learn
more about crime. When he is released, he will probably be a
much better criminal.
He could also have a thirst for vengeance, and the problem will
still be there. Since he will have become a young criminal, he
will remain a burden for society for many years.
This debate is very important. I am concerned when I hear some
people say that young people should be punished more harshly.
But I do understand the basic philosophy of the Reform Party. I
know many members of that party have been involved with or have
themselves been victims of young criminals. I can understand the
frustration.
This kind of frustration sometimes lead to a thirst for
vengeance, and we tend to say that we need more stringent laws
against young offenders. That reaction is quite normal, but I
wonder what the consequences would be for society and for young
people.
Since the prison systems are there, I hope, to protect society,
a more repressive attitude will not help us solve the problem.
Far from it.
A few moments ago, a member talked about prison systems in
aboriginal communities. I heard about one system where it is
agreed that young offenders have to be isolated from society for
a while but, instead of being sent to jail with other offenders,
they are sent to spend some time in the forest, which I think is
a basic aspect of aboriginal culture, to reflect on their
actions and to take responsibility for those actions.
There are alternative measures that have not been examined
carefully enough. They could yield better results than the
Reform proposals, which, unfortunately, have found favour with
the government.
I do not know if most members of the Liberal caucus believe in
this approach. I hope this is not the balanced approach
mentioned by the government, leaning to the left on some issues,
leaning to the right on others, and all that to score political
points.
I hope the Liberal members opposite are truly convinced this
bill will improve society by putting more young people in jail,
by treating them like adult criminals when they are not always
fully aware of the seriousness of their actions. I think this is
not the way to increase that awareness.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. He has been very articulate and vigilant in
speaking passionately about the young people in poverty in Canada
and the fact that typically in the House we do not really deal
with some of the deeper issues which deal with that reality, as
opposed to the perception.
In fairness to the government, this legislation deals with
justice. It is very limited in terms of the scope it can take to
address some of those issues.
We need to spend more time pursuing some of the social and
economic policies that can help reduce the poverty and dependence
that can lead to it.
1815
It was interesting that he mentioned the issue of natives and
the penal system in Canada. The situation exists as well in the
U.S. where there is a disproportionate percentage of visible
minorities in the penal system. Part of what happens in both
countries is a systemic racism that reduces opportunities for
minorities. Then there are opportunities through archaic drug
laws that create a loophole for people to make money.
If we look at the history of organized crime, or go back to
prohibition, typically those who participated in organized crime
were of an ethnic background that denied them opportunities in
the mainstream. They sought opportunities where they could find
them. In some cases those opportunities came to them because the
government had laws that did not make sense, whether it was
prohibition or the drug law.
Many people feel our current laws on recreational drugs may be
particularly tough and do not reduce the usage of those drugs
among young people. Instead they increase the number of young
people who ultimately end up running afoul of the law. They may
be decent people who get caught doing something that is a crime
of mischief more than a crime of misanthropy and ultimately are
penalized as hardened criminals.
There are a lot of issues to be discussed and I appreciate the
hon. member's question.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
a little question for the member from the Conservative Party, as
well as all the members from the Liberal Party.
Bill C-3 contains very dangerous measures. I would like the
member from the Conservative Party to tell us what he thinks
about two of them: lowering the age limit of young offenders
that could be submitted to adult sentences, and releasing young
offenders' names.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's questions. The difficulty in the limitation of this
piece of legislation is that it is justice legislation which has
to deal with the problem. Once it has gone too far preventive
measures cannot be met.
In terms of lowering the age of accountability there are some
reasons this is possibly a positive measure. The idea is not to
punish or to incarcerate 10-year-olds. The fact is that in many
urban settings organized crime is preying on young people and
utilizing some as young as the age of 10 years to pursue crime
because it realizes there is a loophole in the law by utilizing
young people.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to represent the good people of
Dewdney—Alouette by entering into the debate on the topic of the
youth criminal justice act, Bill C-3.
1820
I would like to start my speech today by talking a bit about the
philosophical perspective that underpins this piece of
legislation and many, if not all, pieces of legislation the
Liberal government brings forward in this place. We in the
official opposition have a differing philosophy which is the
reason we oppose much of what is in the legislation but not all
of it. There are some steps in the right direction.
We must acknowledge that the Liberal government moves forward in
some areas that are positive. There are some steps forward in
the legislation but many that simply do not restore the balance
of the justice system with regards to youth justice as could be
provided through this piece of legislation.
We have waited for the legislation for a great deal of time. I
believe my colleagues have been mentioning that length of time
all day today as being around the 864 days the current justice
minister has been justice minister and has talked about bringing
in the legislation in a timely fashion. If this is what is
called a timely fashion, I would hate to see what length of time
it would take if the justice minister were taking her time on
something. It is quite amazing it has taken this degree of time
to get to this point.
I would like to go back to the underlying philosophical
perspective that seems to be apparent in much of the discussion
today. The government talks quite a bit about offenders, their
background or what may have happened to them which may have
caused them to enter into an offence. That is a consideration
that needs to be taken into account. That is certainly something
we would take into account as well.
The scale seems to be tipped over a bit too far in that
direction. The current government is dealing with that rather
than restoring the balance within the justice system, which is
what we would seek to ask the government to address by putting
forward some positive, proactive solutions that we think are
missing from the legislation. I will touch on some of those
points a bit later.
Apparently it has become important to the Liberal government to
get its message out, the communication pieces out about what it
is doing. The message may go out that the government is acting
on youth justice and is firming up the law to make our streets
safer. It seems to be most concerned about getting out that
message rather than the actual tool of legislation which will
make an impact at the street level on the great concerns of many
Canadians in this area and many others.
The Liberal government's main concern seems to be its messaging.
If it gets the right spin, if it gets the right story out to
enough people, it can garner support by saying it has addressed
the youth justice issue, for example. I encourage Canadians to
look beneath the surface of not only this piece of legislation
but every piece of legislation that comes before the House to see
what is their effect and direct impact on people and on the
system.
This piece of legislation fails to meet its goal in many
different areas. That is too bad. The Reform Party will
continue to put forward some positive proactive solutions which
we hope the government picks up on. Failing that, we will
certainly work hard in every way possible to form a government to
put those solutions into place.
Personal responsibility, accountability and consequences are
issues that should be at the foundational level of the
legislation. If an individual participates in an action, he or
she should be held accountable for it. The Liberal government
seems to be too quick to excuse the behaviour of people based on
their age, their background, their experience or something that
has happened to them.
My party would advocate the idea of personal responsibility.
Young people should be held accountable for their actions. Our
position has been misrepresented by others in this place today.
We are not advocating harsh treatment of young people. We are
saying that it is harsh to ignore them, not to help them at a
very young age, not to include young people in the youth justice
system so they can get help and access to rehabilitative
processes at a younger age.
1825
My colleague from Kings—Hants mentioned earlier that if we wait
too long there is a group of young people that can be exploited
by the fact that older individuals can seek them out to
participate in illegal activities without any fear of reprisal or
fear of being held accountable for the action. That is simply
wrong and needs to be addressed but is not addressed in the
legislation.
It was mentioned in the House today that we are talking about a
small number of young people that choose to participate in
illegal activities. I agree that a small number of young people
choose to participate in those kinds of activities, but they
cause a great deal of damage and harm and are a concern to the
public safety. Even though it is a small number, when stacked up
against the number of offences that occur it is a concern which
we need to address. The Liberal government has failed to clearly
address it through the legislation. That is a shame. We will
continue to give the government some suggestions and solutions.
I will talk about some things that are happening within my own
community of Dewdney—Alouette. In the city of Maple Ridge there
is an individual who is very concerned about the youth justice
system. She is so concerned about it that many years ago she
took the time to go down to the local courtroom and monitor some
of the cases involving young people.
The minister responsible for amateur sport is very interested in
this discussion and I appreciate his concern. I hope he is
taking notes. I would be willing to send him a copy of my speech
right after I have finished. I know he would be willing to look
at it.
The individual in my riding is named Lola Chapman. She has
dedicated a lot of her own time to set up a very innovative and
successful court diversion program. It is based on the notion
that young first time offenders have an opportunity to go through
a diversion program rather than the regular court system.
I know diversion is mentioned in the bill. That is good. It is
one tool that can be used to address some very serious concerns
about young people. The court diversion program developed by Ms.
Chapman has become very effective.
When individuals are referred to the program there is a quick
turnaround between the time they commit the offence and the time
they come before the youth justice committee. Sometimes it is
within a week if not shorter than that. The longest period of
time may be two or three months. Rather than having to wait for
a court date a year or a year and a half away, this system works
quickly and effectively. It has garnered a lot of praise within
my own area and could certainly be used as a model throughout the
country.
It is a good program because it deals with the issue of personal
accountability. There are key individuals within the community
who sit on this panel. They include the mayor of one of the
cities, the inspector of the RCMP, a lawyer within the community,
a school principal and a member of the ministry. It is a good
representation of key influential people within the community.
Young people have to come before the group and talk about what
they did and then some suggestions are made.
I know my time is growing short and I will have an opportunity
to speak again. Might I ask for unanimous consent to table this
proactive positive solution which outlines the diversion program
within my own riding of Dewdney—Alouette so all can see what
great work is being done?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
BILL C-6
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, today,
during question period, I asked a question to the Minister of
Industry but it was answered by the Minister of Revenue, who is
also responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada.
It concerned the request made by two Quebec ministers to meet
with the Minister of Industry to discuss Bill C-6, which will be
superimposed on what already exists in Quebec for the protection
of personal information.
There is a law in Quebec that protects personal information, and
the Quebec government wants to be heard by the federal
government on this issue and express all the fears and
objections it has concerning this bill.
By the way, this position is not without support. Several
witnesses defended it before the committee. The Quebec access to
information commission, the Quebec bar association, the CSN, the
Chambre des notaires and the Conseil du patronat all said the
same thing, that is, they are very concerned about the impact of
this duplication, the problems it will create, when Quebec
consumers are probably the best protected of all. After passage
of this bill, these people will find themselves in a very muddy
situation.
Some things have to be said, and the House should not be misled.
The minister has alluded to the fact that there had been
discussions between governments and that the federal government
had responded to the fears and concerns of the Quebec
government.
I have here the correspondence between the Quebec government and
the federal government. First, on November 11, 1998, the
minister received a letter explaining why there were differences
and enforcement problems.
The minister replied. The Quebec government wrote another letter
on January 25. This time, two ministers of the Quebec government
signed the letter. I do not have time to read it in full, but I
will quote at least one part of it.
With respect to clarity and fairness, as we were saying in our
preceding letter, because of the overlap in standards and
procedures that Bill C-54, if passed, would give rise to in
Quebec, the bill is a step backward. It complicates the life of
members of the justice system, it causes uncertainty about the
rules and, thus, it penalizes both Quebec businesses and
consumers.
Consequently, the minister cannot tell the House that there were
satisfactory discussions with the Quebec government, that
everything is fine, that we are talking to each other and
harmonizing. There is no willingness to harmonize on the part of
the federal government.
In its brief to the federal government, the Quebec bar
association, in support of the recommendation of the access to
information commission, said the following:
To avoid all confusion and make sure that Quebecers can continue
to benefit from a comprehensive system of personal information
protection, we submit that Bill C-54 should be amended to say
clearly that the federal act will not apply to businesses
covered by the Act respecting the Protection of Personal
Information in the Private Sector.
That is the Quebec act. The Barreau went even further. It added,
and I quote:
We would go further. To avoid confusion and legislative overlaps
and duplications in Quebec, we believe that the bill should
include a specific reference to the Quebec act to establish that
it applies to areas of federal jurisdiction.
We favoured the reverse approach, that is that the Quebec act
should apply to all federal institutions and all federally
regulated organizations.
Why does the government want to railroad the bill this week?
There is very serious opposition to it in Quebec and also in
Ontario. I know that the Ontario Ministry of Health has problems
with the bill. Why refuse the meeting? Why not wait before
passing the bill?
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Bill C-6 will provide exemptions
for private sector activities governed by the provinces, if one
of them has already passed legislation essentially similar to
federal legislation to protect personal information.
1835
The Province of Quebec has already passed legislation to protect
personal information, legislation that is essentially the same
as that proposed by the federal government. The organizations
covered by the Quebec legislation will be exempted from the
application of Bill C-6 in the case of transactions taking place
entirely within Quebec.
The federal bill will add to the protection provided by the
Quebec law for consumers in that province. These laws apply to
different activities, and the federal law fills in the gaps in
the coverage provided by the Quebec law.
Bill C-6 resolves problems and situations that can simply not be
covered by provincial laws, however rigorously they are drafted.
One example might be a company with its head office in Alberta
that gathers information on consumers in Quebec. Neither of the
provinces is under the authority of the other and therefore a
federal scheme is required.
Once Bill C-6 has been passed, the privacy of Quebecers will be
the best protected in Canada, since they live in the only
province that has enacted legislation to protect personal
information in the private sector.
As far as national security is concerned, I would like to repeat
what has already been said and that is that the police and
government authorities will be able to do no more and no less
than they do now.
I think Bill C-6 is good legislation for Quebec and good
legislation for Canada.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)