CONTENTS
Monday, February 20, 1995
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 9798
Bill C-37. Motion for third reading. 9800
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 9808
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 9818
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9820
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9820
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9821
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9821
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 9821
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9821
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9821
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9822
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9823
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 9823
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9827
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9827
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9828
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9828
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9828
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9828
Bill C-304. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 9829
Bill C-305. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted. 9829
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9829
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9831
Bill C-37. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 9832
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 9832
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9844
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9847
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 9851
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9852
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 9859
9791
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 20, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should condemn in the
strongest possible terms the inhumane embargo of Cuba by the United States;
that the condemnation be made at the United Nations, the Organization of
American States and directly to the U.S. administration; and, that Canada
restore full bilateral aid and trade with Cuba.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to
raise in the House an issue of fundamental importance to the
relationship between the people of Canada, the people of Cuba
and, in particular as my motion points out, to the impact on the
people of Cuba of the blockade by the United States.
The motion before the House this morning has three
components basically. First, it calls on the Government of
Canada to condemn in the strongest possible terms the inhumane
embargo of Cuba by the United States. It calls for that
condemnation to be made at all possible opportunities, both
bilateral and multilateral; at the United Nations, the
Organization of American States and directly to the United
States administration. Finally, the motion calls on Canada to
restore full bilateral aid and trade. There is trade now but we
should promote, strengthen and support that trade with Cuba.
This is a significant time in the relationship between Canada
and Cuba. In fact, 1995 is the 50th anniversary of the
establishment of diplomatic relations between Canada and
Cuba. Those diplomatic relations have remained unbroken since
1945, a fact of which I as a Canadian am very proud. Canada was
one of only two countries, the other being Mexico, that did not
break diplomatic relations with Cuba following the triumph of
the revolution in 1959. We celebrate that this year. In fact, there
will be a number of celebrations, both in Canada and in Cuba
next month.
(1105)
As well, 1995 is the centenary of the death of the great Cuban
revolutionary hero, José Marti, who died on May 19, 1885.
This is also an important week for this motion to be debated in
the House. Today the Secretary General of the OAS, the
Organization of American States, Mr. Gavaria, is in Canada.
Later this week the President of the United States, President Bill
Clinton, will be visiting as well. I trust that the government will
take the opportunity, in particular the Prime Minister, to raise
directly with President Clinton the destructive impact of the
United States blockade on Cuba. I hope that he will take that
opportunity this week.
[Translation]
I also regret that the Bloc Quebecois will apparently not
support this motion. Frankly, I find it surprising that the Bloc
Quebecois, although several Bloc members are taking an active
role in the Canadian parliamentary group on Cuba, will speak
against a motion to lift the embargo against Cuba, to promote
free trade and bilateral aid for Cuba. I can only presume that
once again the Bloc Quebecois took this surprising position
because of the priority it gives to relations with the United
States.
The Bloc supported cruise missile testing; the Bloc supported
the free trade agreement; the Bloc now supports the United
States' immoral and illegal embargo. This is unbelievable and
unacceptable, especially because many groups in Quebec, for
example Carrefour culturel de l'amitié Québec-Cuba and
Oxfam Québec, are demanding, like other Canadians, that the
inhumane and cruel embargo against Cuba be lifted and that the
Liberal government put this issue high on the list of items on the
agenda for the upcoming meeting with the American president.
Once again, the Bloc Quebecois does not speak for Quebecers
on this fundamental humanitarian issue of rights for Cubans. It
is a pity that we have had to do this in their stead.
[English]
I would note as well that at a major international solidarity
meeting last November in Havana, 1995 was declared the
international year of José Marti and the struggle against the
blockade. This is a motion which is of particular significance in
this important year.
9792
Last month I had the honour of participating in the first ever
Canadian parliamentary delegation which was hosted by the
National Assembly of Cuba. I see a number of my colleagues
from all sides of the House who participated in that delegation.
[Translation]
Unfortunately the hon. member for Laval East was not able to
take part, but she supported us. She supported the requests, as
did many other Bloc Quebecois members. The member for
Bourassa, for one, would be surprised to see the position taken
by the Bloc today.
[English]
We met with many groups. We met with Cuban organizations,
with individuals and with ministers. We had the opportunity to
meet with Fidel Castro. We visited schools, hospitals and
research centres. Our group was hosted on this historic visit by
the president of the corresponding group in Cuba, the Minister
of Education, Luis Gomes. During that same time frame, a large
number of NGOs were visiting Cuba under the auspices of the
Cuba-Canada Inter-Agency Project made up of some 36
Canadian NGOs and churches and 25 community based
organizations.
(1110)
These NGOs have played an extraordinary role in helping to
promote greater understanding, awareness, and solidarity with
the people of Cuba. They include groups such as Oxfam Canada,
the Saskatchewan Council for International Co-operation,
CUSO, the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church of
Canada, as well as many groups based in Quebec.
I want to take this opportunity in speaking of NGOs to also
pay tribute to the many Canadian NGOs, churches, groups and
individuals who have demonstrated their solidarity with the
people of Cuba at this very difficult time for that country. Last
August a group from across Canada, the brigadistas, travelled to
Cuba to demonstrate their solidarity by working directly with
the people of Cuba. The friendship groups assist in helping to
provide desperately needed aid, particularly humanitarian aid,
to the people of Cuba.
Many different elements of the labour movement have
demonstrated concrete solidarity. I salute here the recent
leadership of the Canadian Labour Congress on this issue, the
Canadian-Cuban Friendship Association in British Columbia,
in my own area, and many others. All of these groups, without
exception, have called on the United States government to lift
the illegal and immoral blockade which has been in force since
1963.
At the most recent vote of the United Nations, 101 countries
voted in favour of the lifting of the blockade and only two, the
United States and Israel, opposed the resolution. Instead of
responding to this appeal from around the world, what is the
response of the leaders of the United States congress? The new
chair of the Senate foreign relations committee, Jesse Helms,
says he wants to strengthen the blockade. That is absolutely
unbelievable. He wants to effectively put an iron noose around
Cuba. The test will come with the response of the United States
president.
It is time for President Clinton to stop listening to the right
wing reactionary forces based in Miami, the Cuban American
National Foundation, the Mas Canosas, and start listening to the
progressive voices of the American people, including a number
of Cuban Americans. It is time he started listening to the voices
of his closest neighbours, the Canadian government and the
Mexican government, that have called for a lifting of this
blockade.
It is time he started listening to some of his own legislators,
democratic senators, members of the House of Representatives,
like Claiborne Pell, Charles Rangel, José Seranno and others.
Even the Wall Street Journal is calling on the United States
administration to lift the embargo.
The impact of the blockade has been devastating. Together
with the collapse of trade with Russia and eastern Europe, and
some admitted inefficiencies in the Cuban economy, the impact
has been devastating. Dr. Benjamin Spock, when he visited
Cuba in 1993, wrote on his return: ``When I visited Cuba I
discovered pediatricians at otherwise splendid hospitals who
spent every morning counting medication for the children. The
director of a day care centre dreaded that the milk supply would
dry up for her preschoolers, as it has for all Cuban children older
than seven. How should we feel about an embargo that is
keeping food and medicines from Cuban children?'' I feel
ashamed.
There are widespread hardships as a result of the embargo.
One of the ironies is that these hardships even affect the
American people. My colleagues and I visited a research facility
in Havana which makes drugs that assist in traumatic heart
attacks. These drugs, called recombinant streptokinase, would
save American lives. Are Americans allowed access to them
under the blockade? No. It is the same with a vaccine against
meningitis B developed in Cuba. It cannot be distributed so it is
hurting the United States as well.
(1115)
In the midst of all the hardship as a result of the blockade, the
Cuban government and the Cuban people have maintained a
commitment to fundamental human and socialist values. For
example, infant mortality rates in Cuba are the lowest in Latin
America. They are lower than in many American cities.
According to the most recent UNICEF figures it is about 9.9 per
cent, one of the best records in the world. It is sort of ironic that
the United States lectures Cuba on human rights.
9793
Yes, we acknowledge there are concerns around human rights
particularly in the areas of freedom of speech and freedom of
association. There are concerns with respect to the treatment of
gays and lesbians in Cuba. The situation is better but the history
in that country is certainly not a happy one.
For the United States to lecture Cuba on human rights when it
has a record of child poverty, of homelessness, of 37 million
Americans with no health insurance whatsoever and of people
with AIDS begging for funds to survive in the streets with
unprecedented levels of crime, reeks of hypocrisy. It is not good
enough. When they raise concerns around human rights in Cuba
and are silent with respect to massive human rights violations in
Guatemala, East Timor and elsewhere, it is not good enough.
In the midst of some of the most difficult economic times in
the history of Cuba, Cuba is able to maintain its international
solidarity. Over 13,000 children victims of the 1986 disaster at
Chernobyl were assisted by the Government of Cuba. I
personally saw a number of these children at a rehabilitation
facility at Tarara just outside Havanah. This speaks probably
more eloquently than anything else to the sense of international
solidarity of the people of Cuba. Even at a time of difficult
economic circumstances they are prepared to extend a hand to
the poorest, to the most vulnerable in our communities.
Canada has an opportunity to play an important bridging role
at this time to promote direct dialogue at last between the
Government of Cuba and the Government of the United States.
If the Government of the United States can maintain most
favoured nation status with China, if it can end its embargo
against Vietnam, if it can begin negotiations with North Korea,
why this absurd and destructive obsession with Cuba?
What can we do? In the couple of minutes remaining I want to
set out some alternatives. Canada can play an important role by
extending and strengthening trade. I commend the Canadian
ambassador to Cuba, Mark Entwistle, for the leadership and
energy he has shown on this front.
We can strengthen EDC financing. We can ensure that we
meet the kinds of standards other countries have set. We can
promote support for environmental projects. Cuba has the
opportunity to be an international environmental leader. Dr.
Patricia Lane in particular from Dalhousie University has shown
leadership in this regard. For example, they are trying to clean
up some of the pollution in the Almendares River and others.
This is the kind of role that Canada can play and play effectively.
We can promote strengthening bilateral aid and moving it
beyond partnership and establishing a central co-ordination
point within the foreign affairs ministry for responding to Cuba.
Perhaps one of the key components or priority in the trade
area is negotiating now a foreign investment protection
agreement. Other countries are far ahead of Canada in this
regard. Spain, Mexico, Italy, Russia and the United Kingdom
have already negotiated agreements. We have heard one
message loud and clear from Canadian businesses. It is to get
that in place. We have heard the same message from our
diplomats. I hope the government will move soon on that.
Finally, we should ensure that Cuba is fully reintegrated into
all multilateral organizations: the OAS, the World Bank and the
IMF. It was shameful that Cuba was excluded from the Miami
summit. I was pleased the Prime Minister spoke out against that.
(1120 )
In closing, I hope we as Canadians take advantage of this key
year, the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between
Canada and Cuba, to send a strong message to our friends in the
American administration that it is time to end the illegal and
immoral blockade.
We will be hosting the foreign minister in the near future,
Roberto Robaino. We will be hosting the president of the
National Assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, and hopefully Minister of
Education Gomes as well. I hope our Minister for International
Trade will be travelling soon to Cuba.
Canada has a historic opportunity here. I urge the House to
join in sending a message today to the American administration
and to our government that the time has come to lift the
blockade, to respect the strong, proud and dignified people of
Cuba and to reintegrate them fully into the community of
nations.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to
the motion introduced by the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway regarding the United States embargo on
Cuba and Canadian policy.
His motion reads at the end:
-and, that Canada restore full bilateral aid and trade with Cuba.
I do not know where the hon. member has been over the last 10
or 20 years. We have full bilateral trade with Cuba that I
witnessed personally and will mention later.
I believe Canada and the United States share similar long term
goals in Cuba, including the need for peaceful political and
economic reform that will allow more liberal economic policies,
the development of democratic institutions and full respect for
human rights. However Canada has clear reservations about how
the United States policy seeks to achieve these goals. I will
explain what I mean in a moment.
Let me begin by pointing out that Canada and Cuba have had
an official relationship stretching, as the hon. member said, over
50 years. Even at times when we had considerable differences of
view with Cuba on Africa, east-west relations, the nature of
9794
political change in Latin America and more recently human
rights and good governance, we have maintained our ties and our
discourse. I personally have met with the former and present
ambassadors of Cuba. We keep very close ties and
communications open between our two countries.
There is also a web of unofficial private links that many
Canadian organizations, companies and individuals have
pursued with their Cuban counterparts over the years. When our
review committee was in Saskatchewan I was very pleased to
hear Friends of Cuba make a presentation to the foreign affairs
review committee.
Some of these unofficial links are concrete and measurable.
Cuba is Canada's second largest trading partner after Puerto
Rico in the Caribbean-Central American region. Our two-way
trade was over $300 million in 1993. It is also a country in which
a number of Canadian firms are pursuing investment
possibilities.
Cuba is a country that over 120,000 Canadians visit each year.
Out of 600,000 tourists 120,000 come from Canada. I was in
Cuba recently to open an honorary consular office in Varadero to
help Canadians in difficulty. It is a country in which a number of
Canadian universities, research institutes and
non-governmental organizations have longstanding linkages
that benefit both Cubans and Canadians.
We enunciated Canadian objectives in Cuba in June 1994
when the Canadian government announced several policy
adjustments. First, we are in Cuba to promote normal Canadian
interests including commercial and cultural activities. I
underline cultural because when I was in Cuba in the fall well
known jazz musician Vic Vogel was teamed with Noche
Habanera. It was a performance that Cubans and the Canadians
who were there will never forget.
Second, we wish to support positive peaceful change in Cuba,
both political and economic. We agree with Cuba on some
issues, in particular in the areas of human rights and democratic
development. However we will continue to pursue the
discussion at appropriate levels.
Third, we wish to encourage Cuba's full, constructive
participation in international affairs.
Finally, we wish to support Canadian organizations and
individuals who are pursuing development activities in Cuba.
(1125 )
The Canadian government has supported Canadian businesses
in their pursuit of opportunities in Cuba. Last fall at Havana
International Fair we were pleased to see more Canadian
companies than ever. Canadian government involvement was
more visible. I witnessed 26 companies from Canada involved
in this fair. Fourteen were companies from the province of
Quebec. None of them had fleur-de-lis flags; they all had the
Canadian flag. They were there as Canadians.
I travelled to Cuba at that time to meet these business
representatives. I will never forget the warm reception the
Cuban government and the Cuban people gave me. Because of
the difficult economic circumstances in Cuba our trade has
declined in the past year but Cuba's rank remains as I indicated
earlier.
We also wish to encourage and support political
developments in Cuba. Cuba has human rights accomplishments
notably in the areas of economic and social rights. Cuba's health
care and educational systems have been models for other
countries. As a former educator I was impressed with the
standard of education in that country and the standard of health
care.
At the same time we have very real concerns about Cuba's
respect for civil and political rights, including freedom of
expression, freedom of association and freedom from arbitrary
detention. We have also expressed our concern about Cuba's
unwillingness to co-operate with the United Nations human
rights system, in particular the special rapporteur appointed by
the UN commission on human rights. We have welcomed the
visit to Cuba by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
and hope this can lead to greater Cuban co-operation.
Thus Canada will continue to make human rights and
democratic development areas of continuing discussion with
Cuba in order that Cuban accomplishments in the areas I have
mentioned can be mirrored in full respect of political and civil
rights.
In the area of development co-operation the government has
made available the full range of partnership programs of the
Canadian International Development Agency to Canadian
NGOs and others in the non-governmental sector for their work
in Cuba, including academic institutions and Canadian
businesses pursuing developmental objectives.
By the end of the current fiscal year Cuba will have received
over $1 million in Canadian development assistance through the
various programs we support, again demonstrating no need for
such a motion as the one tabled today.
These examples make clear that Canada is pursuing its
objectives in Cuba through a policy of engagement and
dialogue. I would add that this is very much in the tradition of
Canadian policy regarding Cuba. As the government noted last
June we are making adjustments in our policy, not turning policy
around.
The United States is clearly pursuing its objectives in a
different adversarial manner. We have made it clear to the
United States and publicly that we do not agree with its
approach. For example, during the parliamentary debate on
Canada's foreign policy review on March 15, 1994 the Minister
9795
of Foreign Affairs referred to the government's hope to see the
end of the American commercial embargo against Cuba.
The Canadian vote last year in support of the United Nations
General Assembly resolution critical of the embargo reaffirmed
that point. At that time we indicated that in this post-cold war
period isolation was not the most effective means of fostering
economic and political reform in Cuba.
For Canada the central concern regarding the embargo is its
extraterritorial reach. The way in which the United States
through its laws and regulations governing the embargo seeks to
constrain the freedom of trade of third countries such as Canada
is not acceptable. Canada has always taken a vigorous stand
against such measures and in 1992 issued a blocking order to
ensure that Canadian companies were not subjected to foreign
laws on trade with Cuba.
We shall remain watchful of other efforts to bring Canadians
under the ambit of U.S. laws and regulations. Accordingly I
believe Canada has implemented a policy on Cuba which takes
into account Canadian interests and Canadian perspectives and
responds to the concerns of the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway. I therefore do not believe that the motion
is necessary and I do not agree with the tone in which it was cast.
I am very pleased that the Canada-Cuba parliamentary
friendship group has been established and a visit has already
been made. Hopefully parliamentary exchanges will be speeded
up. I know that our Minister of Foreign Affairs intends to meet
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba.
When I was there in October I met with five ministers. They
welcome Canadians to Cuba. They welcome Canadian
investment. You have to be there, Mr. Speaker, to get a feeling
for the love and respect of Cubans for Canadians. I appeal to
Canadians, if they want a place to invest, to invest in Cuba.
(1130)
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on
Motion No. 281 presented by the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway.
The aim of the motion essentially is to induce the Canadian
government to denounce the American embargo on Cuba in the
strongest terms possible at the United Nations, at the OAS and to
the American administration directly. It also supports the
re-establishment of full aid and bilateral trade ties with Cuba.
It is one thing to express solidarity with the people of Cuba;
but it is another matter altogether to interfere in United States'
foreign affairs and to support a dictatorship. The member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, in an analysis that was hardly more than
an expression of emotion and without even having heard our
arguments, condemned the position of the Bloc Quebecois. I
would ask him, therefore, to take note of the basis for our
position. Perhaps he knocked down a door that was open much
more than he thought.
The Bloc Quebecois will vote against the motion. Now allow
me to set out the reasons behind our position. There are two
reasons for our disagreement.
First, we do not believe we should force the United States to
change their foreign policy to meet the objectives of Canadian
foreign policy, especially because we, ourselves, are
particularly jealous of our own sovereignty.
Second, we do not believe the state of human rights in Cuba
would permit the re-establishment of bilateral aid with it.
With respect to our first objection, we do not see how the
Canadian government could dictate rules of conduct to the
American government. Canada has always refused to interfere
in the internal politics and diplomatic conduct of foreign states.
We do not see why Canada would change matters now, and
believe, furthermore, that it would not be in Canada's interest to
do so.
If Canada undertook the action proposed by our NDP
colleague, we would have to be consistent and adopt a similar
attitude toward a multitude of other countries whose foreign
policy objectives do not coincide with our own.
In any case, the Canadian government already has enough to
do to look after its own foreign affairs, without taking on the
task of advising its partners.
In this regard, we would like to mention that a number of
questions are currently awaiting action by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade, such as the case of Tran
Trieu Quan, which I have mentioned on several occasions in the
House. The minister should do everything possible to have this
Canadian prisoner released from Vietnam rather than attempting
in vain to influence American foreign policy.
Moreover, while the American embargo against Cuba is
certainly harming that country's economy, Castro's regime is
clearly also responsible for the present economic crisis in Cuba.
Would Canada not be better advised to attempt to convince
Cuban authorities to truly liberalize their economy, rather than
attempting to convince American authorities to raise their
embargo? Cuba's state run economy carries a very high price
and the few liberalization measures implemented recently, such
as making the peso convertible, will not be enough to stop the
Cuban economy from nose diving.
Cuba needs help in initiating the unavoidable transition to a
market economy. The best thing for Canada to do in this regard
is to support such reforms through dialogue and trade. Such
9796
action on the part of Canada would be welcome in view of its
new foreign policy direction.
Economic reforms must nevertheless be implemented
concurrently with political reforms. Dictatorship and the culture
of fear must be eliminated in Cuba. Since the Bloc Quebecois
strongly opposes the philosophy of trade at any price, human
rights in Cuba should be taken into account in shaping our
relations with this country. I will return to this later.
(1135)
That said, we would be against Canada participating in the
embargo against Cuba. The Bloc Quebecois expressed its
approval when the Canadian government announced its decision
to resume aid to this Caribbean state last June.
Let us keep in mind that, following Cuba's involvement in the
Angolan conflict in 1978, Canada decided to stop providing aid
to, while maintaining diplomatic relations with that country.
Now that the cold war is over, the new international order calls
for a reorientation of Canada's relations with Cuba. The time has
come to end that country's diplomatic and trade isolation. At
stake is the very survival of its people, who have been hit
extremely hard by Cuba's severe economic crisis. Therefore, it
would be quite appropriate to resume our humanitarian aid to
that country.
However, this new decision by the Department of Foreign
Affairs does not include restoring bilateral aid. The Bloc
Quebecois agrees with the government on this. The motion put
forward by our colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway calls for
restoring bilateral aid. That is another reason why we cannot
support it.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that Canada should give priority to
partnership-based aid programs and that international
co-operation through NGOs is by far the safest and most
efficient way to deliver aid to needy countries. This principle
should be implemented especially when human rights abuses
preclude any sustainable human development effort.
In our dissenting report on the review of Canada's foreign
policy, we were very clear on this. The majority of witnesses
who appeared before the special standing committee agreed
with us.
In this report, we recommended that ``Canada discontinue all
bilateral aid to states that UN agencies or any other agency
recognized by the UN have identified as having committed or
been responsible for gross and reliably attested human rights
violations''.
So far, Cuba has shown no sign of being on the road to
democracy and establishing a state based on the rule of law. The
Cuban government did however make real progress in some
areas, particularly social and economic rights.
But as regards civil and political rights, which are
systematically violated by the Cuban regime, there is still
serious cause for concern, as evidenced by UN resolutions on
the matter as well as constant inquiries about Cuba at the
Commission of Human Rights in Geneva.
On this subject, I would like to remind the Canadian
government that Cuba is not the only latin-american country to
violate human rights and that, in fact, matters are considered to
be even worse elsewhere in that area. In January, a slew of NGOs
expressed concern to the Canadian government about the
situation in Guatemala, Mexico, Columbia and Peru.
At that time, the Canadian government was asked to denounce
the human rights violations going on in these countries at the
51st session of the UN Commission of Human Rights in Geneva.
It matters more to us, the Bloc Quebecois, that the Canadian
government take this kind of action in the case of Cuba rather
than condemn the conduct of the U.S. foreign policy.
In a nutshell, it might be a better idea for Canada to provide
technical assistance and to do so though NGOs, because Cuba,
which is currently facing a major food shortage, really needs
humanitarian assistance. Any assistance sent directly to the
Cuban government is not likely to serve Canadian official
assistance objectives as well as if it were granted to
humanitarian and non governmental organizations.
This is basically why the Bloc Quebecois opposes Motion No.
281 and why we will be voting against this motion.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In trying to facilitate
debate for and against the motion, I will now recognize the hon.
member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan for a maximum of 10
minutes. Of course I will return to a member from the Reform
Party, if anyone should choose to speak and I have an indication
from the hon. member for Red Deer.
(1140 )
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this House regarding
M-281, a motion condemning the U.S. embargo on Cuba
proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway. It is a
pleasure for me to be in a position to second that motion.
The red book states that ``Canadians want their national
government to play a more active, independent, internationalist
role in this world of change. They do not want Canadian foreign
policy to be determined solely through special personal
relationships between world leaders. Canadians want a national
govern-
9797
ment that takes pride in its tolerance, openness and common
sense, and that reflects those values in its foreign policy''.
As a member of the Canada-Cuba Interparliamentary
Friendship Group, I acknowledge openly my pride in the
tolerance Canadians reveal in their attempts to understand the
differences between and among the nations of the world. There
is also our use of common sense in defying the pressures of
special interest groups as we encourage, develop, nurture and
enhance our relationship with Cuba and other peaceful societies.
It is interesting to note that shortly after the freedom fighter
Fidel Castro overthrew the diabolical regime of Batista, the
majority of ambassadorial representatives left the island.
Recognizing and doing business with the new Government of
Cuba were the governments of Mexico and Canada. As a result
these countries were permitted to operate from their original
embassies and continue to do so to this very day.
Since the revolution, Canada's relationship with Cuba has
continued to strengthen even though the Cuban government had
to turn to the U.S.S.R. for substantial support. As American
influence in other countries intensified and strengthened, so did
its network of trade embargoes.
Due to the diminishing supply of goods, it was necessary for
the Cubans to introduce rationing early in the 1960s. This
practice continues to this very day.
Although the U.S. trade embargo has always deterred
economic development in Cuba, it was not until the removal of
the annual $5 billion Soviet aid package five years ago that the
embargo began to have a dynamic impact on the lives of the
Cuban people. There is a shortage of everything and there is no
guarantee that the goods will appear in the near future within
this tightly controlled economy. There is a serious shortage of
instructional materials for the educational system. Certain
medical practices must be curtailed or cancelled due to the
absence of medical supplies. As people lose hope, despair
overcomes and the crime rate rises.
Priorities are established and strictly adhered to in this fight
for survival. As wars fan the spirit of nationalism, so grows the
spirit of common good against common evil.
Although it may be classified as a third world country, as a
member of the Community of Nations, Cuba has never abdicated
its responsibility toward others. A good example of that is
Chernobyl. Over 35,000 victims of Chernobyl have been
brought to Cuba for treatment in one of the most advanced
centres for the treatment of radiation. Over 13,000 of that
number were children, and with the children came the mothers
and fathers during the treatment period.
Three years ago the American dollar economy was introduced
in order to glean as many American dollars as possible for
foreign trade. This was achieved chiefly through the
introduction and enhancement of the tourist business.
The free market economy is beginning to blossom in Cuba.
We heard recently that privatization of land is possible.
Companies can purchase the land. There are other options
available as well. Investment is increasing. Canadians are
investing.
The situation was further aggravated two years ago with the
introduction of the Cuban Democracy Act, also known as the
Torricelli act by the U.S. Congress. The main thrust of the act
was that of extending the embargo to American subsidiaries
abroad. This of course applied to Canadian based U.S.
multinationals.
(1145)
Lifting the embargo now would allow Cuban exports to the
U.S. and permit foreign investment in Cuba, having a
substantial effect on the Cuban economy.
With the election of the new Congress in the States, however,
it appears that the hard line of Cuba may continue. This is
unfortunate because the present embargo leads the U.S. down a
very lonely path.
For three years the UN has voted overwhelmingly to end the
embargo, most recently in 1994. The result was a lopsided vote
of 101 for and 2 against with 48 abstentions.
Furthermore, Canada, Spain, Britain, Sweden, Germany, Italy
and others are now expanding their links with Cuba. We were
very fortunate in our visit to Cuba to meet quite a few
representatives from these countries. They were business people
who were in various stages of negotiating deals with the Cuban
government.
Obviously absent from the negotiating tables were American
representatives. As well, private groups across the U.S. have
been sending more and more humanitarian aid intentionally
challenging official American policy.
The cold war has been over now for five years. Cuba's
situation in the present global context is radically different than
during the 1950s and 1960s. Cuba is broke, crippled but not
down. It is of no threat whatsoever to anybody and there exists
no danger in lifting the trade ban.
However, there are those who still refuse to dispose of their
1950 style cold war mentality. It is time to stop trying to destroy
Fidel Castro by destroying the people of Cuba. The main
problem of American policy toward Cuba is that it is made in
Miami, not Washington. Cuban expatriates are extremely
powerful and are deemed crucial to ensuring whether the state of
Florida swings in favour of the government during the
presidential elections. As a result, they hold considerable clout
in shaping American foreign policy vis-à-vis Cuba.
In any nation or society where within a special interest group
we find that the truest form of love is self-love, where greed is
the major source of energy, where avarice and gluttony are
esteemed to be honourable personal goals, we find that others in
9798
their relationship with these groups usually are identified as
victims in that relationship.
I find that the embargo restrictions imposed on Cuba and
other societies are the results of such special interest forces.
This embargo which is a blatant example of central authorities
catering to special interest, provincially minded political forces,
is being maintained without regard for the suffering borne by the
innocent.
Our government's position with regard to Cuban foreign
policy is very clear. Our ambassador to the United Nations has
indicated that we need to engage with Cuba, not isolate it, in
order to achieve our goals.
Also, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our Secretary of
State for Latin America have clearly indicated the need to end
Cuban isolation. I applaud our government in this regard.
However, as concerned Canadians we must increase our
efforts to have this embargo curtailed and promote practices
based on sound, realistic, humanitarian values and
inter-relationships.
The U.S. has lifted its embargo on Vietnam, so why not Cuba?
Sure enough the time is right for a change of attitude. Let us
work together to encourage Mr. Clinton to repeal the
three-decade old embargo on all non-military items.
The proponents of this embargo must be made aware of the
fact and never forget that as man's relationship with his fellow
man is positively enhanced, so is man's relationship with his
spiritual leader or God.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to talk to M-281. I have had a long interest in foreign
affairs and certainly in bringing Cuba into the modern world and
the OAS.
I visited Cuba, travelled around and realized some of the great
potential of that country.
(1150 )
This motion asks us to make a strong statement against the
U.S. policy on Cuba. I do have problems making a strong
statement which directly relates to the foreign policy of another
country.
The U.S. is one of our most important trading partners. Even
if it were not, how would we like to have another country, let
alone our closest neighbour, threatening us and demanding we
change our foreign policy? The preservation of one's
sovereignty has been and always will be an important part of any
country's foreign policy.
Let us examine Cuba. The hon. member wishes to support and
commend the actions of Mr. Castro and the country. If we are
going to try and change the U.S. point of view it should be done
by negotiation, not by threats or innuendo from Canadian
members of Parliament. Threatening the U.S. will certainly
guarantee a negative response and slam the door on what else
might have occurred.
Let us examine a few of the facts regarding Cuba. Why do the
Americans feel so strongly threatened by that country? The
history, the Kennedy missile crisis, the fact that it is 90 miles
away from their boundary, the fact that the mafia used this as a
headquarters for gambling, prostitution and laundering money
are examples. However, when it comes to present history we
must recognize that Cuba is ruled by a dictator. Cuba was not
part of the summit of the Americas in Miami in December
because it is the only country in the Americas that has not moved
toward democracy.
Human rights abuses abound in that country. My experience
in that country was there was totally no freedom of expression
except that controlled by the government. The people love to
talk; they are friendly, great people, but they had to talk out on
the water where they were sure that their secret service would
not be listening to the conversation.
I was able to visit a jail. I watched the prisoners working in a
cane field and going back to their crowded conditions. It is quite
different from the country club atmosphere of Canadian prisons.
I attended a three-hour speech given in Varadero by Mr.
Castro. I found it very interesting that for the three hours the
people were told when to cheer, when to be quiet and exactly
what to do. That is not exactly freedom of expression.
People in Cuba are prepared to sacrifice almost anything to
get on a board and cross 90 miles of shark infested waters just to
get out. If the country had any kind of human rights or any kind
of freedom of expression, I doubt that would be the case.
There are severe shortages because Russia stopped its aid
because it collapsed. Sugar cane production has decreased
dramatically. In 1991, seven million tonnes; in 1994, down to
four million tonnes. As I have mentioned, the infrastructure is in
decay. The black market is running rampant throughout the
country.
I found it very interesting to visit the Tropicana show and see
the people finally expressing themselves in terms of music and
their culture. They were wearing 40 and 50 year old costumes.
They certainly deserved some credit for at least trying to express
themselves. How about a Sunday in Cuba when they take out the
1950 cars for a drive? It is just more for show than for any
practical means of transportation. What about the little kids who
love to play baseball? They find that one way they might have to
get off the island. There are ice cream stands on every corner.
People told me that milk from Canadian Holstein cows was used
to make the ice cream.
9799
The friendship toward Canada is certainly very obvious
throughout that country. Anyone travelling around the country
can see just how primitive the country really is. The last speaker
said it was still in the 1950s. I would put it there or below.
There are flight irregularities. Nothing seems to work
properly. The hotels are acceptable, usually without toilet paper,
white and sterile in nature.
(1155 )
The management is also very typical of a true communist
country. There is really no incentive, no pride of ownership.
There is really no drive left in the country because of the
socialist way.
The sanctions are not hurting the Cuban people as much as the
dictator who holds them captive by military force. The hon.
member should make the motion to condemn dictator Castro and
demand his removal if he wants to interfere in another country's
foreign affairs.
The U.S. and Canada certainly have interests in Cuba. That
country could prosper. In terms of Canadian, American and
South American tourist business there would be no better place.
If that were instituted the jobs and money would return. There
would be an incentive to work. The ideal location of that country
I have mentioned before.
This sort of motion sends the wrong message. It is the
mosquito approach versus the diplomatic approach to solving
the really big problem. We can work and hold our own with the
Americans. I do not think we have a problem. We have to help
other OAS countries to deal with that American elephant.
This motion makes us sound like spoiled kids with a temper
tantrum. It is full of holes and would only be accepted by those
who believe socialism would ever work any place in the world.
We must work to gain respect and equal status with the
Americans. We can show leadership. Certainly in the OAS we
have a great opportunity to show leadership.
Most of the South American countries are looking to us to
show leadership in dealing with the powerful U.S. In NAFTA we
have taken a role and will take an increasing role. The WTO will
only increase our trade. Hopefully some day Cuba will be part of
that.
It would be nice if Cuba would join the other 34 members of
the OAS, joining the 21st century in the whole UN reform and
the new global community we are going to create. Cuba will be
left in the dark ages if it does not change the infrastructure, the
government within.
As we have talked about many times, when it comes to trade
there are three world areas: the European community; the
Americas and Asia-Pacific. Cuba is part of the Americas and we
should make it a part. Cuba is a part of our world and therefore
we have a responsibility to help it get out of the dark ages of
socialism. We do not have sanctions on Cuba now, never will
have, and should never have.
Remember, Castro is a dictator. People are held hostage.
Socialists have tunnel vision, only seeing one side of the issue.
They will never reach a solution by their antagonistic approach.
It is like a horse with blinders. One thing the member can take to
heart is that sanctions do not really work anyway. They are
probably not as effective as he might think.
Finally, to attack a neighbour, our largest trading partner, and
strain our relationship for an aging dictator who persecutes his
own people for the sake of the impossible socialist utopia makes
no sense. I expect the next thing the hon. member might suggest
is a special day for Che Guevara.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to support the motion put forward by the
member for Burnaby-Kingsway regarding Cuba. It is obvious
that the Reform member who spoke before me had blinders on
when he went to Cuba. It certainly was a change of scenery, but
it obviously did not help him change his mind.
I think that the description he gave is exaggerated and that
Cubans are not slaves to a dictator. I saw people who are trying
to build a future for themselves, who are standing tall instead of
being down on their knees as they once were. Cubans have
shown a lot of courage. I would like to say that successive
governments here in Canada have had the wisdom to stay in
contact with Cuba, and to maintain diplomatic and trade
relations with that country.
(1200)
They have done it because Canada is a humanitarian nation
that will always stand up for justice. Of course, anybody who
has had the opportunity to visit Cuba and to meet with
politicians there is well aware of the situation. Those politicians
did not try to make us believe that they live in a paradise. They
know that they have problems. They know that Cubans are
making sacrifices but that they have the motivation to succeed.
The embargo imposed on Cuba by the United States is
inhumane and we hope the United States will soon come to its
senses and realize that making a whole country suffer is insane.
Cubans are trying to protect what they have. They know that
they do not live in a paradise, but they stand tall and want to
preserve their values.
[English]
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to speak on this motion. First of all, let
me congratulate the member for Burnaby-Kingsway for giving
9800
us an opportunity to speak on this subject. I am going to get right
to the major points because time is very short.
We had a great opportunity to visit Cuba in January, myself
along with a number of other parliamentarians. We spent a week
in Cuba and met with all the major leadership there, including
the president, Fidel Castro.
Back on December 5, I wrote to President Bill Clinton and
asked him to remove the embargo. The embargo that is put on
Cuba by the Americans really does not make sense in the 1990s.
What are the reasons for the embargo?
The original reason was security. The Americans said it was
for security reasons, but is that still relevant today? Is the
superpower of the world, the United States of America, afraid of
Cuba? Does it have something to fear? I do not think so. There is
no security threat to the Americans from Cuba. That is not a
reason to have the embargo.
Is the embargo there because of human rights? Are the
Americans concerned that there are human rights violations? If
that were the case, surely there are other countries that have
serious human rights violations and the U.S. has traded with
them and continues to trade with them. Therefore that is not the
reason the Americans should have an embargo.
There is no logical reason that an embargo should continue on
by the Americans against Cuba. The rest of the world has said
that as well. Looking at the UN, 102 countries voted to have the
embargo removed and the U.S. has not listened.
In conclusion, I hope we send a strong message from this
House that this embargo is unjust, is not necessary and should be
removed as soon as possible to help the people of Cuba.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9800
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of Justice,
Lib.) moved that Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young
Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the third time and
passed.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to stand in this Chamber today to talk about the
youth justice system in Canada. It is a system that is going
through change. It is a system that needs Canadian
understanding.
I often have felt over the past years that the public perception
is far removed from the reality of the legislation and of the youth
and their lives in Canada as they come before the courts every
day across this land. Youth 12 to 17 years of age are captured in
this act. That represents roughly 8 per cent of our 28 million
population.
In today's society it must be very difficult to grow up in
Canada. It is much different from when I was a child. It is much
different from when many members of this House were children.
There is an increasing culture of violence in Canada and I
believe Canadians have an increasing appetite to change that
culture of violence.
(1205)
Most kids in Canada today are good kids. We have to start
with that premise. Most youth who are faced with drugs,
alcohol, violence and fears for the future still turn out fine. They
still manage. Their parents cope.
It is difficult to be a parent in this society as well. I have three
young children of my own. The first became a teenager a couple
of months ago and I have already noticed a change. He questions
a lot more. He does not accept things the same way he did when
he was five.
It is going to be a challenge for society, a challenge for the
child, a challenge for our schools, a challenge for our court
systems to cope with the difficult times these children go
through.
We talk about violence in society. It is there in the fantasy life
of our children. It is there in the video games they play, on TV,
and in the news they see every day. And it is not only fantasy.
They see the atrocities of Rwanda. They see the ongoing wars in
Europe and no peaceful times. They have more knowledge of
violence at an immature stage of their development. We have to
work against that backdrop to send different signals to
counteract the violence, to counteract the prevalence of those
signals.
There is public concern both by adults and by youth. They are
fearful of crime. They are fearful of young offenders. That is in
part, I think, because crime sells papers. We read and hear a lot
about crime in the media. Seventy per cent of the population
believes everything they read in newspapers. I do not believe
everything I read in newspapers and I am sure members of this
House know there are often a few details added.
That is the other backdrop we have to deal with. We have to
address the reality of the fear of violence and put the fear of
violence from youth into perspective. With this piece of
legislation and with phase two which will come after it, we have
to find a way to address the concerns of Canadians.
The issue of young offenders is a hot topic. Everywhere I go
people tell me that they have a problem with the Young Offend-
9801
ers Act and that there is a problem with our youth today. We have
some problems and we can do much better.
We also have to realize that 86 per cent of violent crime
committed in Canada in 1993 was committed by adults, not
youth. Only 14 per cent was committed by youth. Of that 14 per
cent, a full 50 per cent was the schoolyard punch and shove. A
lot of that comes because of the new reporting and new zero
tolerance programs in schools.
There is a gradual rise, an increase in violent crime in youth.
Depending on how the stats are read and the time periods of
those stats, it can be seen as a significant rise, but it is rising and
we have to address that.
In this act we will delineate the very necessary harsher system
for violent crime. There is a group of incorrigibles in our
country who need to be given a very clear, strong message. This
act in part deals with that message.
It also delineates the other side of the coin. It also
acknowledges that there are some less serious offences that
bring youth before the courts. In fact, 60 per cent of them deal
with property crime, often for the first time.
When we talk about the violent offences reported in the
papers, on average over a decade there have been about 40
murders per year involving charged youth. Last year there were
22. Somewhere between 115,000 and 130,000 young people go
through the young offender system every year. A lot of those
youth are saved by our system. We have to acknowledge that.
(1210)
We have a national law, the Young Offenders Act. We also
have provincial and territorial situations that interpret the act
differently.
We heard testimony in the justice committee which sat from
September through to the end of November last year. The
committee sat up to four times a week. We heard many different
witnesses. We heard from school associations. We heard from
parents. We heard from judges and lawyers and people who deal
with youth in the probation and correctional facilities.
We heard from young offenders themselves. Some of them
had come through the system and had been saved by it; some had
been hurt by it. Their testimony was very revealing and
informative. We heard from victims groups. The victims groups
are now going to be more thoroughly addressed by this
legislation. There will be an allowance for victim impact
statements to be made.
This was a difficult task for the three-party committee. All
the members sat around the table looking for appropriate
solutions. I believe that very little time should be spent in saying
what is bad and a lot of time has to be spent in asking what we
should be doing better. We have to give credit where credit is
due.
If I were a child in trouble with the law in Canada today, there
is no doubt in my mind that I would wish I were in trouble in
Quebec over any other province. Quebec has interpreted its
young offenders acts much more progressively than a lot of
other areas in this country and with much better success. It has
employed more diversionary tactics away from the courtroom.
We can learn from that experience. It is essential that we learn
from that experience.
When I first started my law career in 1979 the Juvenile
Delinquents Act was in force. I spent many days in courtrooms
as duty counsel. Seven-year-olds were in those courtrooms. It is
more appropriate now that there is this age. Phase two will
revisit the question of age because Canadians want us to. We
have had one debate in this House and the age question was
defeated. Many people think we should lower the age for young
offenders. I do not believe that. I think the ages are appropriate.
We have to consider the level of maturity and understanding
of youth today. We are dealing with a very malleable and
impressionable age in this Young Offenders Act. That has good
and bad points. One bad point is that kids are impulsive. They do
not think the consequences through. They think they know
everything. They think the Young Offenders Act is a joke and
that nothing will happen to them.
They think our system has no teeth. In fact the teeth are the
same for youth as they are for adults. It is very important that
youth understand that. It is very important that people
understand that some of the breaks we give to adults in
sentencing are not available for youth.
Many members opposite like to say that if you do the crime,
do the time. In youth court that is exactly what happens. There is
no mandatory supervision or early parole. When a youth gets
three years, he or she serves three years for the most part. It is
important to understand that time is a different concept for a
child in the developmental years. A year for an adult seems to
fly by, but a week drags on for a child.
Today in Canada when our youth come before the courts, of
those found guilty roughly one-third will end up with a
custodial sentence. I believe, along with many of my colleagues,
that a custodial sentence, just locking somebody up and putting
them away, is not a good short term answer and certainly is not
the best long term approach.
(1215 )
It is important where we do lock people up and lock children
up in a custodial setting that we provide some treatment while
they are there; make sure that we are not just not warehousing,
make sure the time, the money and the effort spent are directed
to a change in the behaviour that in the long term will be much
more effective in changing society, in safeguarding society,
protecting citizens of Canada, and in changing the life of the
individual who came before the court. We have to ensure that we
9802
take the time that we take from these children and put it to good
use. To me that means behaviour modification.
There will be difficulties because a lot of people say that is
being too soft, that is not tough enough. It is a lot tougher to sit
down at a program and work through your problems and address
those problems than it is to sit and watch a TV set or lull around
the house or just pass the time away counting the days until you
can be free again, than it is to work with the members of your
community, with the members of your family, with the
professionals put there for your assistance into changing
behaviours.
My community of London, Ontario, works very well with the
young people diverted to it through either court order or
alternate sentences. In particular I would like to commend the
St. Leonard's Society of London because it puts programs into
effect in the community that integrate the youth who have
problems back into the community, paying back the community
in ways that are meaningful in situations in which they are not
pulled apart but integrated into the community, often without
the community realizing it. Therefore the community helps in
restoring their sense of self-worth, their sense of discipline,
their sense of accountability. I will give one example of a project
that works well in my community for youth and has met with
success.
In the spring, summer and fall a group of youths who have
come into contact with the law go to plots of land in London and
grow vegetables. They work those gardens. They hoe. They do
the physical labour. They do the planning. They do the
nurturing. They are there helping other people around them with
their vegetables gardens. At the end of that time period they
deliver the harvest back to the food bank.
One of the people who worked in this project last summer
reported to the counsellor who was working with them that it
was a very good feeling for him because he had to come to that
food bank, he and his family, to get food.
A lot of our youth in trouble with the law are not all
necessarily poor. Just like crime goes across all sections of
society for adults, it also goes across all sections of society for
youth. It is important to understand that the socialization
process has an affect on youth.
I am going to point out one thing that has bothered me. Maybe
it is so obvious that we do not see the forest for the trees in this
point. If I could predict what is the best predictor of getting into
trouble with the law in this country it has to be being male. Our
federal penitentiaries, all of our penitentiaries, are
predominantly housing males.
Recently in the youth system it used to be roughly 80 per cent
male, 20 per cent female. We are seeing right now a significant
increase in female participation coming before our courts. It is
significant and disturbing.
In the committee in phase two when we go on the road after we
have these amendments through for our overall evaluation
looking at what we can do better, looking at the 10-year review
of the act, we can also take a look at what happens in our social
culture differently between males and females because there are
different results.
This is a minor point but it is certainly very obvious when you
look at the number of people using our systems. The problems of
females with justice are on the rise admittedly but it is still
substantially less than what happens to boys. I believe we are
born equal, therefore something has to happen socially.
(1220)
It does not happen socially, magically when one hits age 12.
Something had to go wrong long before that and we have the
expertise in this country to understand what went wrong. We can
predict with very young children that they are getting into
trouble, that there is aggressive behaviour that needs attention.
We have the expertise with our psychologists, teachers,
preschool teachers, neighbours and parents. They can see it.
What in my opinion is criminal is that they see it and nothing is
done. The answer often is the criminal justice system should get
in there and fix it.
There are problems putting really young kids in the criminal
justice system. The problems have to do with understanding,
with process. We have a very formalized process for serious
offenders in the criminal justice system. It is necessary because
there are rights of individuals, there are rights of youth. That
was one of the big changes between the old Juvenile Delinquents
Act and the Young Offenders Act, that we did give children
rights.
I go back to the analogy of a parent. If my child offends the
rules of my household, I do not want to say: ``I am going to see
you next week and we will talk about it for the first time. Then
we are going to adjourn this conversation for a month. Then you
come back and another month later we will look at it again and
then we will do whatever''. I want immediacy. I want some fast
action. I want to be able to cope better and faster and that is what
is necessary in our youth courts.
They have a tremendous job and when we look at the funnel of
people going into this very formalized process, we have to make
sure that we are funnelling in the right people, the right youth, to
the more formalized, stricter process and we safeguard their
rights.
With lesser offences, lesser violations of the community, we
should try now through this act to funnel more of them back to
the community for it is the responsibility of all of us in that
community to fix the problem.
9803
They are not our children to be shipped out of our
jurisdictions and sent away and forgotten, hopefully not to
return. We know in our federal system part of the reason that we
want to do a rehabilitation program is that on fixed term
sentencing 80 per cent of the population is going to come back
and reintegrate into society. Kids for the most part are all going
to be reintegrating into society unless there is an unusual case
where there is a murder by a youth who gets bumped to adult
court and has to stay most of his life in the adult system. If that is
the case, that youth is going to be subject to stricter sanctions
than are there right now for the adult who commits an offence of
murder.
We have to understand that kids are open to change and how
difficult changing behaviour actually is. It has to be done from a
base of knowledge. There have to be values put into that base of
knowledge that include words like respect and accountability.
There also have to be other words present like compassion and
understanding.
Retribution is part; rehabilitation is a better part. If one wants
to fix in the long term one's society, then one had better put some
attention to the detail of changing that underpinning,
interdisciplinary approach of why things went wrong. It is not
that this offence merits this amount of time and we will only talk
about paying back for that crime.
As a society we really have to address more and more crime
prevention which is now in the preamble. We have to address
long term rehabilitation which is also in the preamble. We have
heard evidence at committee level that those things are
counterproductive.
I submit that they are not counterproductive. They are going
to be a challenging base on which our justice system for our
youth will change over time.
(1225 )
People will say we are not tough enough. There are going to be
many people in this debate today who will tell us about the tough
measures in this bill. I will deal briefly with them because it is
important that people understand that we did address the
concerns of the public. We have increased from five to seven
years the time for those offences. That is a significant increase,
especially given the fact that judges throughout Canada today
are not even going to the maximums on the times allocated to
them under the old provisions.
We have to talk about who needs to know when the youth gets
in trouble. That also was a concern of the public. It wants to be
aware of who is offending and why this is happening in its
communities.
Again, we have taken a responsible and reasonable approach
in this area. The area of providing information about offenders
has been widened, has been increased. The professionals, the
school officials, the welfare officials, the people who are
dealing with the best interests of that offender will have an
ability to get that information.
This is far removed from branding a child by a label and
giving broad based public information and shaming some child
back into the right course which I have heard advocated in this
Chamber. That is not what we are doing. We are going to have
judicious use of information. If there is a need for protection of
the public there will be a vehicle through the act and through the
court system to get a wider distribution of information. That is
necessary in some circumstances.
I want to take a minute to make sure that I talk about another
provision of the bill. We have had the ability since 1908 to take a
child and move him up to the next level, to adult court. In this
bill we have moved a further step. We have reversed the onus for
some 16 and 17 year old offenders. It is called a presumptive
transfer. It is saying that when one commits five very serious
offences in this country one is going to be taken very seriously
by the system: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter,
aggravated sexual assault and one other in the list.
Basically in those instances we are going to make the young
offender prove to a judge that he should not be transferred, that
the youth system is a better system to deal with him. The
presumption will be a reversal. I think that is very harsh but
these are very big offences. The reality is that people need to
understand that the options will be there.
We in committee heard much testimony on presumptive
transfers. It is not a concept of reverse onus that I am very
comfortable with. I think it should be used sparingly. Over time
it has been used sparingly in our systems. It is expensive. It will
create delays. It makes process very time consuming.
It is necessary in some cases but what is important is again the
delineation between harsh, strong, compassionate and
behaviour modification. We have streamlined very effectively
in this bill two different paths that are available. Judges will
have to say why they do not choose the path of community if it is
not one of those very strong offences.
It is not only the offence, though. It always has to be the
individual. If I say that theft under $200 is a summary
conviction offence, maybe that is not that serious in the
magnitude of the Criminal Code. But if it is the 15th time there
has been theft under $200, maybe stronger intervention with
different tactics relating to behaviour have to be changed.
(1230)
This act will still give a judge the ability to look beyond the
charge, to look at all the circumstances. Consent to treatment
will be changed and the ability to put more programming before
an individual will also be there.
9804
I can only reiterate it is an ongoing process that will come
with phase two. By the spring the Standing Committee of Justice
and Legal Affairs will take the time to go into communities and
talk to those groups that have knowledge and interest in youth.
We will be looking for better partnerships with the people who
are involved, who have strengths in these areas.
At the London Family Court Clinic in my riding they have
developed a handbook for schools funded through the
department of health which was distributed to all
superintendents of school boards across Canada. It dealt with
integrating anti-violence messages into the curriculum from the
low level grades right up to high school. It has been discovered
that integrating these messages into the lesson plan on a daily
basis can have a dramatic effect on violent attitudes. Studies are
being done all the time and if these situations are not taken care
of they will show up in our prisons later on.
During these rounds of testimony we are hearing from people
who are very concerned and have different ways of looking at
their problems. Specifically I think of some of the First Nation
witnesses that came before the committee. They talked about
sentencing circles and appropriate ways of dealing with
corrections for their people. It is quite different.
They do not want to see the overpopulation of their youth in
our prison systems. They have an alternate system they can
engage. Perhaps in our sentencing it is time for us to look at
some of those alternate systems. When we are talking about
sentencing circles for native youth, we are talking about
responsibility to the elders, responsibility and reparation to the
community. The youth are accountable before their peers and
the immediate family group.
In phase two we need to figure out a meaningful way to get
parents involved in their children's lives again and to restore the
harmony that has been lost in a household. We have to know that
justice is more than punishment. Justice for youth has to be
meaningful and include reinvolvement, rehabilitation,
reintegration into a community that cares for these children and
wants them back as tax paying, hard working, responsible
adults. We want to make sure we have more saves than losses.
Along with my colleagues I look forward to spending time
trying to figure out how we can develop better systems for
youth. Bill C-37 goes a long way in addressing the concerns of
the public. Violent crime needs to be addressed more strongly
but we must leave a door open so that our communities can deal
more meaningfully with the youth justice system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
subject before the House today is the third reading of Bill C-37,
an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.
This bill was tabled by the Minister of Justice on June 2 last
year. The Bloc Quebecois was frank and forthright in its
criticism. During the first debate, I said that I would not vote for
a bill that tries to punish crime by creating criminals. I moved
that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-37, the
purpose of which is repressive. Unfortunately, my motion was
defeated.
(1235)
Bill C-37 is part of the Liberal government's policy on youth
crime. This strategy has two components. Bill C-37 is the phase
one of the proposed reform, while phase two is to be a
comprehensive review of the system by the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs.
On June 6, 1994, the Minister of Justice said that he had asked
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to
undertake a comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act
and of the youth justice system in Canada in general. He went on
to invite Canadians to take part in the discussion on the subject.
The Minister of Justice should have requested the review
before tabling this bill. I have already said that the Minister of
Justice is a minister of consultation, and in this particular case,
he is the minister of indiscriminate consultation. Whether these
consultations are held before or after a decision is made is
irrelevant, since they will have no effect on his decision.
The minister proposes to change some important aspects of
legislation that subsequently will be the subject of a
comprehensive review by the Standing Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs. The Minister of Justice has put the cart before
the horse. At this rate, the Liberal government's strategy will
produce a law lacking any consistency it may have had.
The Minister of Justice was in such a hurry to table a bill in
response to increasing pressure from some members of his own
caucus and from the Reform Party that he forgot to apply the
most elementary principles of logic, according to which changes
should not be made until one has a full understanding of the
problem. The Minister of Justice panicked. He decided to amend
legislation without realizing what was involved.
The Young Offenders Act has been amended before. On May
15, 1992, a major amendment on sentencing came into effect.
This amendment increased the maximum sentence in youth
court for a young person convicted of murder from three to five
years. Today, the Minister of Justice wants to increase
sentencing. They would be increased to seven years in the case
of second degree murder and to ten years in the case of first
degree murder. Furthermore, the minister is going after a very
specific group of young offenders-the 16 and 17 year olds.
They will now have to prove, if they are accused of violent
crimes, that they should be tried in youth court, otherwise, they
will be sent to the court that would normally have
jurisdiction-adult court. This reversal of the burden of proof
means, in other words, that an adolescent may no longer be
considered as such,
9805
depending on the type of crime he has committed. In addition,
his criminal liability increases, not as a function of his age,
either, but as a function of the crime.
However, the preamble to the Young Offenders Act seems
clear, and the one to Bill C-37 is even more so. This section
provides that young persons should not in all instances be held
accountable in the same manner or suffer the same
consequences for their behaviour as adults. How do we explain
this nonsense? On the one hand, it is agreed that degree of
responsibility should be measured in terms of age, on the other,
16 and 17 year olds are being treated like adults.
Does the minister have some hidden statistics to which only
he has access? Do they indicate a disturbing increase in violent
crime among 16 and 17 year olds? If the answer is yes, let him
show them to us, because he needs a lot of justification for
proposing such a bill.
The approach of the Minister of Justice is similar to that of the
members of the Reform Party. He supports the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby, who stated the following in the House
and I quote: ``The juvenile justice system in its operation should
mirror the adult system as much as possible if it is to be
understandable by the community and develop general
deterrents''.
(1240)
What is the point of having an act for young offenders when a
third of those it targets could be treated as adults? We might just
as well propose revoking it. At the rate things go, this could well
happen in the very near future.
I shiver at the idea of a single system touted by the Reform
Party. If we listen to the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby, we should label young offenders in
kindergarten. On June 6, he made the following statement:
``Violent patterns in children are identifiable at the kindergarten
level. By identifying young offenders before they graduate into
the teen world of crime set before them, we drastically reduce
the number of young adults we are forced to deal with six years
down the road. This is social engineering at its best''. I wonder
where he took his courses on social engineering.
The minister did not bother to check the impact of the 1992
amendments. He did not concern himself with statistics on
young people and criminality. He did not take the time to
examine how all those involved were applying the Young
Offenders Act. If he had, he would have understood that many of
the problems stem from how the act is being implemented, and
not from the act itself. But no, the minister once again caved in
to pressure. The winds of hysteria made the Liberal reed bend.
Bill C-37 is premature. It cannot answer questions that have
never been asked. The justice committee proposed some
amendments following its study. Most of the 28 amendments it
adopted were minor, and regarded style, terminology and
concordance of the texts in both official languages. Some of
them were more substantial, however. I do not intend to dwell
on these points, but they are worth mentioning, if only to define
what we are debating today.
To start, the first amendment removes aggravated assault
from the list of offences leading to automatic transfer to adult
court. In this way, we eliminate the danger that prosecutors lay
heavier charges than the evidence available at the time would
support. Without the amendment, a young person could almost
automatically be transferred to adult court but be found guilty of
a lesser crime which would not have merited such a transfer.
That was only the lesser of the evils, since automatic transfer in
principle remains intact.
The second amendment pertaining to transfers allows for
parents to be heard before their child is transferred to adult
court. This becomes one more element for the judge to consider.
The committee also agreed that in regard to proceedings brought
before a judge and jury, the Young Offenders Act is applicable to
young persons. Measures of the Young Offenders Act will
therefore take precedence over provisions of the Criminal Code
in regard to protecting privacy. The amendment emphasizes the
young person's right to legal representation when absent from
proceedings as a result of poor conduct or when his competence
to stand trial is being assessed.
These are significant amendments proposed by the
committee. Since these amendments do not in any way alter the
repressive nature of this bill or change the transfer procedure to
adult court, all the while retaining the severity of sentences, I
cannot believe that we are now debating an improved version of
what was presented to us last June.
The Liberal government has tried to smooth things over by
suggesting a few amendments at the report stage. In committee
and in this House, we have stressed a great many times the
procedural problems created by Bill C-37.
(1245)
By increasing sentences for murder, the minister has given no
thought to the confusion he will create. Section 11(f) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates, and I
quote, ``Any person charged with an offence has the right to the
benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the
offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe
punishment''.
Thus, the justice minister would increase the sentences for
first and second degree murder without considering for a
moment that a young person normally subject to the Young
Offenders Act, which does not allow for trial before a judge and
9806
jury, in fact has the right to a trial before a judge and jury under
the Canadian constitution.
There is no provision for bridging the gap between the Young
Offenders Act, which governs the appearance in court and the
request for bail, and the Criminal Code, which governs crime
proceedings in which the accused can choose to appear before a
judge alone or before a judge and jury, while a magistrate under
the Criminal Code will oversee the preliminary hearing if there
is one.
The minister's feeble response to this nonsense and legal
vacuum was to propose a hasty amendment at the report stage.
This amendment details the Criminal Code provisions that will
apply to preliminary hearings, when young people accused of
murder are transferred to youth court.
No one at the Department of Justice had a stroke of genius.
Although the amendment was intended to improve a lame bill, it
creates more problems than it solves. Once the young person
chooses or is deemed to have chosen a judge and jury trial, the
preliminary hearing will be held before the youth court. Fine,
but when does the defendant make the choice? When he appears
before the youth court or after the preliminary hearing, when he
can still choose to be tried before a judge alone?
What about the young person who is transferred to adult
court? Will the preliminary hearing still be held before the youth
court and will he then be summoned to appear before the adult
court?
Given the undeniable seriousness of the offences listed in the
section on transfer to adult court, the young person will be held
in custody while awaiting trial. However, the young person is
entitled to a bail hearing, which would allow him to be free on
bail until legal proceedings are over.
Before which court and when will the bail hearing be held? If
the election occurs when the accused appears in court, as is often
the case, will the bail hearing be held before a higher court? As
we can guess, the young person may well find himself in several
jurisdictions even before being summoned to trial. He could
appear before the youth court, have his bail hearing before the
adult court, return to the youth court for his preliminary hearing,
elect a judge and jury trial, and be summoned to appear before a
superior court of criminal jurisdiction.
If you have followed me so far, you will understand why this
bill and its amendments are nothing but hogwash to create a
situation that only judges will be able to untangle, judges who
should not have to take on a responsibility that falls to the
legislator in the first place.
But when the legislative power does not do its job, then we
have no choice but to defer to the judiciary, with the risks this
may involve. Instead of the legislator, you now have
jurisprudence deciding procedure and substantive law.
Bill C-37 is typical of the kind of bill moved by a government
that is reactionary and repressive. This is the coercive approach
this government is taking to respond to pressures from a
misinformed public and a right wing group that manipulates it.
Bill C-37 cannot be justified either in terms of substance or in
terms of the purposes it is claimed to have. Far from providing
the appropriate remedy, it promises on the contrary to be a major
source of procedural problems. It increases the costs to the
provinces and substantially changes the role of rehabilitation
centers in Quebec.
(1250)
We do recognize, on this side of the House, that the rate of
juvenile crime is cause for concern. Crime creates fear and
jeopardizes the quality of life in our neighbourhoods and our
cities. But it seems to us that the way juvenile crime is perceived
is quite far removed from the reality around us.
Reformers and some Liberal members are blind to this reality.
To justify their repressive stance, they cite extreme cases that
reflect in no way present trends.
The inflammatory remarks made by the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby on June 6 have certainly made many
people jump. He said, and I quote: ``We will be Her Majesty's
loyal, constructive opposition with advocacy for improvements
to Bill C-37 based on what the community wants''. And he went
on to say: ``Reformers are the true opposition -Let the people
speak and Reformers will bring their voice to this House''.
Not only do Reformers not know how many seats they have in
this House, but they crow over the idea of being the only
sensible representatives of the electorate.
Instead of caving into pressure from his colleagues and their
confederates in the Reform Party, the Minister of Justice should
take a closer look at the report by criminologist Julian Roberts,
which was commissioned by his own department.
Professor Roberts' study was about the public's perception
and knowledge of crime and justice. This criminologist
concluded, for instance, that crime is a serious problem in
Canadian society that gives rise to a great deal of concern and
controversy about the kind of preventive policies we should
implement. However, before determining whether the public
supports those policies, we must establish what the public really
knows about crime and criminal justice.
Professor Roberts wondered about the general public's
perception of the Young Offenders Act. His remarks are an eye
opener: ``Canadians have a very negative opinion of the legisla-
9807
tion but are not very familiar with its provisions and impact.
They do not understand the underlying principles or the specific
provisions of the legislation and probably see it as another
example of clemency being shown by the criminal justice
system. The public and certain criminal justice professionals
are wrong to think that the crime rate can be reduced by harsher
sentencing''.
One of the avowed objectives of Bill C-37 is to provide better
protection for the public, and the means chosen to achieve this is
to extend sentences for young offenders. What the Minister of
Justice is proposing is the exact opposite of what all studies on
the subject recommend. Those studies were done, in fact, by his
own department. It is surprising, to say the least, that the
minister should go the route of repressive measures to deal with
crime, if only to impress the public. No one in Quebec is
impressed.
Dealing with crime is not just a matter of sanctions or legal
procedures. Bill C-37 is an exercise in futility. There are no
statistics to justify a legislative change of this kind. Since the
bill deals more specifically with young persons of 16 or 17 who
have committed serious crimes, one would expect the statistics
to show a disturbing increase in the crime rate among this
population.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A review of the
records held by youth courts since the Young Offenders Act
came into effect reveals that the percentage of cases heard by the
court which involve this population has not varied.
(1255)
Another example of statistics the Minister of Justice appears
to be ignoring is to be found in a document on homicide in
Canada put out by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. It
reveals that 35 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 were
charged with homicide in 1993. This includes first and second
degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide. The figure
represents a 40 per cent reduction over 1992. Only 6 per cent of
the individuals charged with homicide in 1993 were young
people as against 9 per cent in 1992.
How can we justify increasing the sentences for first and
second degree murder, and in such a draconian fashion, when the
trend is decreasing? How can we justify such a repressive
approach? Is the aim of the exercise to impress?
Nowhere does the literature indicate any effect of lengthening
sentences on deterring or fighting crime. For example, robbery
is liable to a sentence of life imprisonment, but statistics
indicate that the percentage of robberies remains stable. The
minister, however, is increasing the maximum sentence for first
degree murder from five to ten years and the maximum sentence
for second degree murder from three to seven years. This
increase and the new provisions on parole eligibility are
creating some rather extraordinary situations.
It should be noted right off that the starting date used to
determine the length of detention varies according to whether a
young person is tried in adult court or in youth court. Thus the
confusion is compounded.
The most ludicrous situation is as follows: a 15-year old
found guilty of first degree murder would be eligible for parole
after five years in prison if judged in adult court. Yet this same
15-year old, if judged in youth court, would have to serve a six
year prison term before being paroled.
In spite of the new measures regarding transfer, a young
person in this position would do well to keep quiet, in the hope
of being transferred to adult court. Ironically, he could be
released sooner that way.
On the subject of transfer, the justice minister has drawn up a
list of offences for which the offender may be transferred to
adult court. It is odd that the justice minister has not increased
sentences for such offences he himself calls serious. This list of
offences seems entirely arbitrary to me and entails the real
danger that crown prosecutors might be tempted to increase the
severity of the charge for the sole purpose of reversing the
burden of proof.
As I have already indicated, the Standing Committee on
Justice has dropped aggravated assault from this list. The danger
remains for other offences, however, such as in cases of
aggravated sexual assault.
I would like to stress at this point the inconsistency of the bill
as pertains to multiple offences. Such situations are very
common, unfortunately. Consider for example a young person
charged with both murder and robbery. On the count of murder,
the burden of proof in respect of transfer rests with the young
person, and on the other charge, with the crown. How does the
justice minister envision the application of this procedure? No
solution is to be found anywhere in this bill.
Will there be a joint inquiry exclusively in regard to transfers?
If so, who would begin producing evidence? The young person
in the preceding example might find himself in two separate
jurisdictions in respect of the same events. This situation could
lead us to make contradictory decisions. Imagine for example if
he were acquitted in one jurisdiction and found guilty in the
other.
If the minister had bothered to properly analyze the
amendments he is proposing, he would have realized that the
mere act of reversing the burden of proof coupled with the
increase in sentences would turn the whole system upside down.
(1300)
Bill C-37 ignores the fundamental differences between
Quebec and the rest of Canada. Once again, the federal
government is trying to impose legislation Canada-wide,
without taking into consideration regional differences and
systems already in place. The fact that the Minister of Justice
does not acknowledge that our system is distinct is not so bad,
but he adds insult to injury
9808
when he proposes a bill whose administration falls under
provincial jurisdiction and whose reforms will have to be paid
for by the provinces.
If the Minister of Justice had done things right and had
undertaken a general study of the penal system for young people
before amending the law, he would have noticed that Quebec
does things differently. He could have improved his reforms by
copying Quebec. The Quebec Bar Association presented a
thorough paper to the Standing Committee on Justice, which
summed up the situation in Quebec.
In an eloquent passage from the paper, the association said:
``Young offenders in Quebec can take advantage of an
alternative measure which entails referring the file to the youth
protection branch. An agreement can be proposed and
alternative measures imposed, such as reimbursement of the
victim or community work. In fact, close to 47 per cent of all
cases take this route. All other cases in Quebec are heard by the
youth court. Once the order of the court is issued, the health and
social services network carries out the sentence. Quebec's
choice of sending these young offenders to institutions reporting
to the Ministry of Health and Social Services illustrates its
policy in this area, the ultimate goal being medium and long
term rehabilitation rather than a repression oriented panacea
which would probably only protect society in the short term''.
That is how things are done in Quebec. I can already hear
Reform members accuse us of being too soft and encouraging
juvenile delinquency. They should know that the juvenile
delinquency rate in Quebec is the second lowest in all of Canada.
If passed, Bill C-37 would disrupt all Quebec institutions now
focused on rehabilitation.
Extending sentences for murder would mobilize
rehabilitation resources for longer periods. Quebec institutions
will focus more on protecting society by putting young
offenders away instead of rehabilitating them. On the other
hand, youth court trial applications by 16 and 17-year-olds who
have committed violent crimes and appeals of decisions to
dismiss such applications will result in additional delays, during
which the young person will be held temporarily in a
rehabilitation centre. This is compounded by the delays caused
by holding a trial before judge and jury.
Did the Minister of Justice try to find out if institutional
resources are prepared to accommodate these new clients? I
remind him that Quebec has chosen to place these young people
in the care of the protection and rehabilitation system. Quebec's
Youth Protection Act is a model piece of legislation which
reflects a forward looking policy and should be copied by the
other provinces. This approach was favoured long before the
federal Young Offenders Act was implemented. The
rehabilitation centre network took over the facilities used as
youth correctional centres a long time ago.
Today, the Minister of Justice is bluntly asking Quebec to
change its policy. He is asking Quebec to backtrack and convert
these rehabilitation centres into ordinary prisons.
(1305)
Quebec uses a different approach and methods. Convincing
results show that we are on the right track and should be held up
as an example. Faced with a complex problem, we opted for a
multidisciplinary approach and methods that have proven
effective. All in all, the Minister of Justice should have had a
better look at the Quebec experience before proposing his
reform.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find consent in the House for the
following motion:
That, notwithstanding the Order made February 16, 1995, during the
proceedings in the Chamber on February 23, 1995, two television cameras,
one operated by American networks and one operated by Canadian networks,
shall be permitted on the floor of the House in locations below the Bar of the
House, as directed by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal
Code, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in third reading of Bill C-37.
I begin by saying unequivocally that I am opposed to the bill
because it does absolutely nothing to address the causes of rising
criminal activity among the youth of our country. It does
nothing to protect our sons and our daughters from the vicious
attacks launched by their peers in school yards and on our
streets. It does not expand the Young Offenders Act to include
10 and 11 year olds. It does not mandate the raising of 16 and 17
year olds to adult court, except through the reverse onus
proposition that I will address later. Its disclosure clause is
insufficient to provide members of the public with the
information they need to protect themselves from violent young
offenders, including sex offenders that reside within our society.
The young faces in Canada's courts and jails are like masks.
They hide society's ugliest scars: poverty, drug and alcohol
9809
addiction, sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, learning
disabilities, fetal alcohol syndrome, racial and sexual
discrimination.
I am sympathetic to the many social adversities that confront
the young people of the country. However it is not the role of the
justice system to address what lies beneath these veils. It is not
within the boundaries of justice to treat the social problems that
are the root cause of crime.
I believe this government and past governments have tried to
mould the justice system to deal with the causes of crime. They
have tried to make the system address factors it was never
designed to deal with and they have tried to fool Canadians into
believing this can be achieved.
The justice system cannot prevent dysfunctional families.
The justice system cannot reverse the ever increasing high level
of taxation. It cannot change the fact that 50 cents out of every
dollar earned by a mother or father is taken by various levels of
government. It cannot stop the unacceptable level of
unemployment. The justice system cannot prevent the negative
aspects of society that lead to crime.
The areas where these factors must be addressed are the same
areas that are responsible for creating them: poverty, a lack of
money to meet the cost of living. This exists when a person is
unemployed or underemployed. This falls within the human
resources development minister's area. Providing Canadians
with better employment prospects will help alleviate poverty.
We all know how successful the minister has been in this regard
with his social policy reforms.
Taxation, the single most debilitating financial factor in the
country, falls squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of
National Revenue, while economic conditions such as interest
rates, the falling dollar and the ballooning deficit that continue
to pressure Canada are responsibilities of the Minister of
Finance.
(1310)
The greatest threat to the economic stability of the family is
the unrestrained power of governments to tax away the wealth of
the individual. This has been going on at an enormous rate over
the last 25 years.
The Minister of Health has on her plate responsibility for
dealing with the problems of alcoholism and drug abuse which
destroy families and greatly affect our youth. Provisions for
social services and programs designed to provide counselling
for families and youth remain within provincial jurisdiction.
These ministries are responsible for dealing with the negative
aspects of society, the root causes of crime. The objective of the
justice system is the protection of society. The justice system
was designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to protect
society against those individuals who move toward a life of
crime.
It was designed to protect Canadians from people who lack
self-discipline and respect for others. This objective can only be
met through deterrence and the application of just penalties.
Deterrence means ensuring penalties or the consequences of
criminal behaviour are sufficient to thwart criminal activity.
When crime occurs the justice system must provide penalties
proportional to the offence which will protect innocent
individuals within society.
The attempts by the social engineers over the last 20 years to
create a dual animal of some sort within the justice system has
created a sieve. It has corrupted the justice system to the point
where the rights of the criminal supersede the rights of the
victim, where there is absurdly light sentencing, out of touch
judges, easy parole, deportation orders that are an utter joke, and
an absolutely ludicrous belief that murderers should not have to
serve their full life sentence.
This two-tier animal fostered by a bleeding heart mentality
has led to the demise of the traditional justice system whereby it
is no longer protecting the lives and the property of Canadian
citizens.
It is very apparent that Bill C-37 does not move to discard this
problem. In fact it reinforces its foundation rooted in the parent
act, the Young Offenders Act. The first clause of Bill C-37
reads:
(a) crime prevention is essential to the long-term protection of society and
requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young persons and
developing multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively
responding to children and young persons at risk of committing offending
behaviour in the future;
Bill C-37, as is the Young Offenders Act, is the product of an
attitude that criminals are not bad people, that they are all
victims of poverty and a ruthless, competitive society who do
not require punishment but the infinite application of some
mysterious panacea that has never been found or defined.
The remedies are not defined within Bill C-37 as they are not
defined within the confines of other justice bills. Both the
causes and the treatment of criminal behaviour are beyond the
scope of justice.
A counsellor and youth worker in the youth correctional
system of Quebec and Alberta has provided profiles of the
young offender who came under his care. He said that the kids
came from homes where one or both of their natural parents did
not want to have them around. Many came from single parent
families, women on welfare or working at low wage jobs who
lost control of their children. Many were brought up by
grandparents, uncles, aunts or foster parents.
Common to all these histories was the impression that the
young inmates were raised in homes that were emotional junk
yards with fighting, screaming, drunkenness or drug abuse,
9810
violence and neglect. ``Definitely'', the author says, ``not a
warm and fuzzy place''.
These kids grew up angry. No matter how tough, no matter
how lenient, no matter what their rehabilitative efforts may be,
the Young Offenders Act and likewise Bill C-37 cannot change
the hostile environment that bred many of our young offenders.
That environment can only be changed by powers that fall
outside the justice system.
The government can move against the influences in society
that attack the moral fibre of our youth, influences such as
pornography. We have in Canada peep shows where adults go
into a room for a fee and watch naked women dancing and
gyrating through a peep hole. We have naked dancing and lap
dancing in bars where our daughters are enticed into so-called
occupations that contribute to moral decline.
I quote from a letter I received from one of my constituents.
``Last night'', he states, which was October 15, 1994, ``I went to
pick up my daughter and turned on CBC radio. Usually the
program `Ideas' is on. The show was about female ejaculation.
In the five minutes I listened to it before picking up my
daughter, a woman was describing self-stimulation in front of
mirrors and how exciting it was to ejaculate in front of the
mirrors''.
(1315)
The government can do something about this kind of thing and
I ask that it do so. I ask the justice minister and the minister of
culture to look into this particular radio broadcast. If these facts
are accurate, as I have been assured they are, those responsible
should be disciplined and this type of broadcasting should be
eliminated from the CBC, which is financed by the taxpayers.
These are areas the government can do something about. Yet
members across the way refuse to act in these areas that attack
the moral fibre of our society, particularly our youth.
Until the negative aspects of society that breed delinquent
behaviour are addressed, this pretence that the Minister of
Justice is getting tough on crime will continue. I suggest it is
only a pretence. Until the minister moves to eliminate those
areas within the Criminal Code that facilitate violence, the
pretence will remain.
If the minister is serious about getting tough on crime, why
does he not amend the legislation that allows a statutory release
of violent offenders such as Mr. Auger, who is the prime suspect
in the murder of Melanie Carpenter, after serving only
two-thirds of their sentence? Why not move to stop that type of
release of violent offenders into society? The members of the
parole system advised those in charge that Mr. Auger was still
dangerous and would likely offend again.
Why does the minister not act? He could move quickly to plug
that loophole. He would certainly have the support of the
members within the Reform Party caucus. Why did the Minister
of Justice vote against the private member's bill eliminating
section 745 of the Criminal Code which gives murderers an
opportunity for early parole?
Why is he voting in favour of the criminal and against a safer
society? Will the Minister of Justice change his vote on this bill
if he is serious about getting tough on crime? I ask all members
of the House, what do they believe is a fair and just penalty for
the premeditated murder of an innocent person such as Melanie
Carpenter?
I can support portions of this bill. The minister has obviously
been listening, if only somewhat, to the thousands of Canadians
who have demanded toughening of the Young Offenders Act.
Although I believe that many Canadians were looking for
significant change, as were we in the Reform Party, not what we
consider to be a charade.
The amendments contained in Bill C-37 are not significant.
They are nothing more than a pretence that the minister is
dealing with the problem at hand. I believe that people like Stu
Garrioch, the father of a boy who was stabbed in the stomach
with a hunting knife by a 15-year-old and the 195,000 people
who signed his petition want to see major reform, not mere
tinkering and amending.
The same could be said for Donna Cadman, whose 16-year
old son was fatally stabbed by another youth on a street corner in
Surrey in 1992. She is asking that all violent offenders be tried in
adult court. We ask the same.
Yvette Steck, a 27-year old housewife in Fort St. John, B.C.,
has been pushing her community to call for a registry of sex
offenders. She was motivated by the revelation that she had been
leaving her seven-year old daughter at a neighbour's home
where a convicted child molester was staying. On a petition
demanding that molesters lose their right to privacy after
victimizing a child, Mrs. Steck collected 6,500 signatures.
An estimated 10,000 people demonstrated on Parliament Hill
on September 24, 1994 calling for crime control, not gun
control. On September 25, 1994, 3,000 people marched in a rally
alongside Bob Niven, whose 31-year old son was beaten to
death by two teens, demanding tough reform of the Young
Offenders Act.
(1320 )
In November last year 1,500 people converged on the lawns of
Parliament Hill. They came out of respect for Anne-Marie
Bloskie of Barry's Bay, whose skull was smashed after being
sexually assaulted by a 17-year-old. They came out of respect
for Melaine Deroches who was beaten to death with a wrench in
Kemptville by a 14-year old classmate, for Marwan Harb, the
Hull teenager who was stabbed to death during an after school
9811
rumble with three teens, and for Nicholas Battersby who was
shot on Elgin Street.
They came to mark the fifth birthday of the late Joshua
Baillie, a young accident victim struck dead by a youth out joy
riding in a stolen van. They came out to say: ``Enough is enough.
We want significant change, not just tinkering and mere
amendments''.
The boy who sexually assaulted and murdered Ann-Marie
earned three years in jail. Melaine's killer received a three-year
term in youth custody. Young, innocent Joshua's assassin, after
pleading guilty to criminal negligence, got one year in custody
plus one year probation.
A couple of weeks ago 3,000 people from B.C. mourned the
death of Melanie Carpenter and thousands more people are
rallying around a campaign organized by the Carpenter family
demanding reform of the criminal justice system.
Bill C-37 is a half-hearted attempt to address the concerns of
Canadians. This bill, although propelled by the grassroots and
not the ivory towers of this nation, does not meet the needs of
Canadians. Why has the the minister not been consistent in his
adherence to the wishes of Canadians? Where are all the
petitions containing thousands of signatures?
Where have all the protests been held calling for the
registration of rifles and shotguns? How many people marched
on Parliament demanding an outright ban on handguns? I have
not seen them.
I have travelled throughout the west and northern Ontario. My
colleagues have been in the east. We have witnessed gathering
upon gathering of thousands of people. We have in our
possession petitions from every part of Canada containing
thousands of signatures protesting the minister's decision to
compel law-abiding citizens to register their rifles and
shotguns. Yet on and forward goes the minister.
The minister is inconsistent in his adherence to the wishes of
Canadians. He is also inconsistent in his approach to criminal
justice. Although he has moved to increase sentencing in
relation to gun offences, he was reluctant to increase sentences
for youth criminal offences.
I commend the justice minister for increasing the penalty for
murder from five to ten years for young offenders. However,
how does he equate 10 years for murder with the same penalty of
10 years for deliberately neglecting to register a rifle or
shotgun? Does this make sense? Is this fair and reasonable?
What do the inconsistencies in this type of legislation do to
further attack the credibility of the present justice system?
During the 1993 election campaign I heard constituents in my
riding expressing concerns about the prevalence of crime,
particularly about youth crime. Every day I receive letters
asking for our help in restoring some sense of sanity to a justice
system that seems to have run amok.
I hear about the deficit and the debt and the runaway taxes
imposed by previous governments. I hear about the mounting
cynicism toward politicians, particularly those at the federal
level.
During the campaign people in my riding revealed that they
felt betrayed. The imposition of the much hated GST and
wasteful spending habits were at the root of their cynicism prior
to the 1993 campaign. Today it is the result of a lack of
substantive action on the part of the Liberal government.
During the campaign I did not hear one person, nor do I today
hear people expressing concern that we do not have enough
firearms control. In fact the Maclean's Decima poll indicated
only 5 per cent of Canadians felt violent crime was due to a lack
of sufficient and adequate gun control measures. However, I did
hear and continue to hear that people are concerned about their
safety. They are worried about the alarming rate of youth crime,
particularly violent crime.
Bill C-37 is not the answer for the rising rate of crime among
our youth. The answer is a complete review, an overhaul of the
Young Offenders Act with a goal of restoring the traditional role
of justice to our system.
Reform wants a number of amendments to the Young
Offenders Act which in the absence of a complete review will be
the only way to satisfy us that the protection of society will
prevail. We have requested that the Young Offenders Act cover
youth aged 10 to 15 inclusively rather than 12 to 17 which
currently is the case.
(1325)
I am sure members are aware that the criminal justice system
cannot hold accountable youth aged 10 and 11 years for any of
the crimes they might commit. That is unacceptable. We believe
that there are too many 10 and 11 year olds committing crimes
for which the police cannot charge nor prosecute them. As for
older offenders we believe that youths age 16 and 17 are old
enough to assume full responsibility for their crimes and should
in all cases and in particular in the case of violent offences be
tried as adults.
Under Bill C-37 the justice minister has proposed that 16 and
17 year old youths who are charged with murder, attempted
murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, and
aggravated assault be tried in adult court unless an application is
granted for the youth's case to be heard in youth court. The onus
is now on the young offender to demonstrate why he or she
should not be tried in adult court and the court will have the
discretion to accept or reject the application.
9812
This amendment creates a hearing within a hearing. It will
cause delays and add to the backlog of cases currently before the
courts. It will be more costly. We reject the suggestion and the
amendment.
The Reform Party had proposed increased sentencing.
Therefore I support the provisions contained in Bill C-37 to
have sentences for first degree murder increased from five to ten
years. We had also recommended that amendments to the Young
Offenders Act include permission to publish the names of young
offenders who have been convicted of any offence involving the
use of violence, who contravene any narcotic control act or food
and drug act or who have been convicted previously of any two
offences.
Bill C-37 has failed to provide this amendment. It is perhaps
the greatest failing of the bill. I firmly believe that the
publication of the names of young offenders is essential for the
protection of Canada's innocent children.
For example, a school principal may not know that one of his
students has been convicted numerous times for drug
trafficking. A parent may not know that his child is associating
with a offender convicted of a series of rapes. The young man
next door who has been entrusted to babysit children could be
another Jason Gamache.
Who should we be protecting, the vast majority of Canadians
who are law-abiding, hard-working, caring people who will
continue to be the building blocks for a productive society or the
local high school's drug dealer and unknown rapist in the
neighbourhood? I do not think that is a hard question to answer.
Undoubtedly it is these offenders who must be made known to
society.
We are not talking about the youth who makes a small mistake
and comes in contact with the justice system on a single
occasion. The best interest of the public may not be served by
publishing the details. We propose and firmly believe that in
order to make community protection the number one priority,
the publishing of violent young offenders' names must not be
prevented by law as it is today and continued in Bill C-37.
A successful justice system cannot have as its base the
withholding and concealment of the truth. The names of victims
and the horrific details of the crimes perpetrated on them are
open to public scrutiny but the names of the offenders remain a
state secret. The young faces in Canada's courts and jails are the
masks that hide society's ugliest scars, scars that will fester if
they are not exposed.
The Reform Party on behalf of our many constituents has
asked the government to establish a registry of child sex
abusers. The government has provided its typical response to a
request of this nature. It knows there is a problem. It knows that
Canadians want something done about it. It has promised to
study the issue and consult the proper authorities. In other
words, the government is dragging its feet and in the meantime
children will continue to be sexually abused and violently
attacked by repeat offenders that the government is guilty of
protecting by refusing the public the information it needs to
protect our children and our society from these perpetrators.
In an effort to understand the need for a child registry Health
Canada, Justice Canada and the Ministry of the Solicitor
General commissioned a study. The federal ad hoc
interdepartmental working group on information systems on
child sex offenders prepared a discussion paper.
What was the conclusion of that study? We need another study
and we need further consultation. Also contained in that paper is
information which clearly indicates both the need for a child
registry and for the publishing of young offenders' names.
(1330 )
The report states: ``Statistics compiled on all violent crime
committed against children in Canada indicate that young
offenders, those aged 12 to 17, account for approximately 23 per
cent of all accused offenders. Further information indicates that
from 17 to 29 per cent of those accused of child sexual abuse are
under the age of 18''.
It is important to note that this same age group only represents
7.9 per cent of the Canadian population. The report states that
studies have repeatedly indicated that sex offenders have one of
the highest rates of recidivism of any criminal group, with an
estimated 40 per cent reoffending within five years of release.
Furthermore, research examining the effectiveness of offender
treatment programs has shown limited results.
Did the Minister of Justice not read the report of the federal ad
hoc group? If he had, he would know that sex offenders reoffend.
If he could do simple calculations he would know from the stats
that between 17 and 29 per cent of sex offences in Canada are
committed by young offenders. If 40 per cent of that 17 to 29 per
cent reoffend, sadistic acts will continue to be committed
against the most innocent and vulnerable members of our
society. And the government could have prevented this by
releasing their names to society. If they had read their own
report and acted immediately on its findings, unspeakable acts
on our children could have been thwarted.
Bill C-37 does not undertake to protect our children from the
Jason Gaumaches of this world. It does not protect us from the
faceless, nameless individuals poised behind the mask of
adolescence.
Furthermore, the weight is still balanced in favour of the
young offender in this country. The protection of society, the
9813
protection of our children, is still outweighed by the so-called
rights of violent and delinquent young Canadians.
All we are asking is that the scales be evened out, that the
rights of the victims, the rights of our children be given priority.
We ask that the protection of society outweigh the protection of
violent young offenders who have no respect for the lives and
rights of others.
All we are asking is that the Minister of Justice listen to the
people of Canada; listen to the mothers and fathers whose
children have been taken from them at such an early age; listen
to the grassroots of this country, not those in the ivory tower who
are immune to what is really going on at ground level.
I can only support legislation that finds its roots with the
people or that can be substantiated by fact, not personal agendas.
In closing, I reiterate my opening remarks. I cannot support Bill
C-37. I will only support legislation that meets the objective of
justice: the protection of society.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We will now move to the
next stage of debate. During the next five hours members will be
entitled to interventions of 20 minutes subject to 10 minutes of
questions or comments.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): I rise today to speak in
favour of the amendments to the Young Offenders Act put
forward by the Minister of Justice and confirmed by the report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs as
tabled in this House on December 8.
First of all, I can state that I consider the minister's two-part
strategy to reform the youth justice system to be an appropriate
response to the problems of youth crime.
As a lawyer and as someone who has worked with youth for
many years and also as a parent, I do not support the hard line
argument that a weak Young Offenders Act is leading today's
youth to commit more and more crimes. I acknowledge that the
act has shortcomings but I am satisfied that the amendments in
Bill C-37 will begin to close the gaps, increase rehabilitation
and improve public safety.
While I support the need for changes in the Young Offenders
Act, I consider it imperative that any changes be based on the
best available knowledge rather than on public fear and anger or
on the widely held myth that harsher punishments are what is
needed to bring most youth crimes and violence under control.
I believe that most criminal behaviour stems from
sociological factors. I am therefore pleased that phase two, the
parliamentary review of the Young Offenders Act, will include a
study of the alternatives to legislative responses to youth crime.
If we can prevent youth crime by gaining an understanding of
the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and tackling these
causes, then I think it will be proven that the Young Offenders
Act is an effective tool of the justice system.
Rehabilitation should be the ultimate goal of any legislation
dealing with youth crime. The act as it now stands is somewhat
lacking in this area but I feel that the changes proposed in Bill
C-37 will begin to address this deficiency. This legislation is an
indication that the rehabilitative needs of young people are
being seen in relation to the need to address issues related to
public safety. I would like now to comment on the various
components of Bill C-37.
(1335)
The bill proposes two major changes to the act's declaration
of principles which I feel set a more appropriate tone for its
interpretation in court. This is achieved by acknowledging two
truths: one, that crime prevention is essential to the long term
protection of society; and two, that there is a relationship
between the protection, society and the rehabilitation of
offenders.
Bill C-37 proposes an increase in the maximum penalty for
first degree and second degree murder to 10 and 7 years
respectively. This is an important change. In fact I would
support a further increase in these maximums for this most
terrible of crimes.
The proposed change to the act which requires 16 and 17 year
old youths charged with specified serious crimes involving
violence to be tried in adult court is a significant departure from
the current system of treating all youth between the ages of 14
and 17 the same way. This will ensure a more appropriate
response to each young offender's transgression. For those who
have to go through the process of showing the judge why they
should be tried in youth court, this amendment will ensure that
they are left with a clear understanding of the seriousness of the
charge and the consequences of their violent action.
Section 16 of the act specifies the criteria to be considered by
the youth court in making these transfer decisions. I would like
to quote them because they are important. The criteria include:
the alleged offence, the age, the character and criminal record of
the young person, the availability of treatment in either
system-that is a very important criterion-and any other
factors considered relevant by the court.
In making transfer decisions, youth courts must consider both
the protection of the public and the rehabilitation of the young
person. Where the two objectives are irreconcilable, protection
of the public is to be paramount. The young person must then be
proceeded against in adult court.
There have been a lot of discussions on this change. People
have raised the argument that this will be set aside on a charter
argument in time. I guess we will have to wait and see on that.
For certain, there is a reverse onus. We acknowledge there is a
reverse onus.
9814
Some people may have difficulty with that but I agree with it.
Some people suggest there is a presumption of guilt built into
this, that the young offender is presumed guilty. I reject that
argument. I do not feel there is a presumption of guilt built into
this section.
On balance I feel this change is good. It is appropriate. Let us
not forget that it deals with only the four most serious crimes:
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and aggravated sexual
assault.
The amendment which allows for victim impact statements to
be made in court meets the strong demand of victims to be a part
of the criminal justice process.
Two other important amendments are the changes to the
record provisions of the act and the improvement of information
sharing within the youth justice system. The general public and
young offenders will both benefit from an increased level of
co-operation among the various professionals who work with
young people in the community.
The proposal that allows a judge to impose conditional
probation at any time it is deemed necessary for the benefit of
the youth or for the protection of the public is another
amendment which should meet the demands of those concerned
with public safety and those in favour of rehabilitation for young
offenders. The same can be said for the change that will
authorize the courts to request psychological and medical
assessment of chronic and serious young offenders.
As a person in favour of measures to improve the chances of
rehabilitation, I find the proposal encouraging the consideration
of alternatives to custody for less serious crimes an important
one. Many experts report that closed custody is the most
expensive and least effective way of dealing with less violent
forms of delinquency. This change responds to research which
shows that non-violent young people do better when they are
treated in the community away from more serious and violent
young offenders. It also recognizes the widely held belief that
custody often undermines rehabilitation.
(1340)
By allowing for any number of alternatives to be considered,
the youth system will be able to identify the most effective way
of dealing with each individual offender. As well, it forces
young offenders to take an active responsibility for their
actions. This change is an important one because ultimately
rehabilitation improves public safety.
As I stated earlier, I am satisfied that the proposed changes to
the Young Offenders Act are appropriate. Most of the
amendments demonstrate an underlying concern with protecting
the public while allowing for the necessary conditions to
encourage rehabilitation.
The Young Offenders Act is based on the premise that youth
should be held responsible for their illegal actions but that
young people have special needs as they develop and mature. It
is therefore a balance between the need to protect the public and
the need to assist young persons in conflict with the law to
develop into productive law-abiding adults. The proposed
amendments maintain this critical balance.
In addition to the changes I have discussed, I believe that the
findings of the widespread review being conducted by the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be
important to the development of a co-ordinated long term
response to the general problem of crime in Canada.
Legislation is only one part of the solution however. It is
becoming increasingly apparent that until we are able to
effectively address the issues of poverty, alcoholism, family
violence, abuse, racism and illiteracy just to name a few, our
legislative efforts at reducing youth crime will continue to be
deemed as insufficient.
In his presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs, Dr. Alan Leschied, assistant director of the
London Family Court Clinic, confirmed this research by citing
four major predicators as to why kids commit crime. First, he
noted it has something to do with the nature of families and how
we in our society function as families. Second, it reflects the
impact and nature of friendships and peer influence. Third, it
has something to do with how we develop certain attitudes that
justify anti-social actions. Fourth, it can also have a lot to do
with substance abuse.
Research has proven that there are reasonable links between
crime prevention and the proper care of children. Youth who
turn to criminal activity often come from an environment where
poverty, neglect, substance abuse, physical abuse and
unemployment are the norm. It goes without saying that the
more positive influences that are present, the better.
While Dr. Leschied expressed his opinion that there is no cure
for crime, he noted there are solutions that will reduce the
incidents of youth crime.
For instance, a solid relationship with caring adults has been
shown to deter children from developing anti-social behaviour.
Therefore, where possible as a society we must ensure that youth
are raised in a supportive environment. Where this is not
possible we must work to ensure that there are adequate support
networks to assist youths and their families.
High quality day care and an adequate education can also have
a significant impact on behaviour. In addition to providing a
solid basis for the future, schools can also play an important role
in crime prevention by, among other things, teaching young
people about the legal system; encouraging the development of
social skills, including responsibility, tolerance and respect for
others; teaching methods of conflict resolution; including
anti--
9815
racism programs in the curriculum; and early identification of
and intervention for those with serious problems.
(1345 )
As well, it may be more appropriate for those children who
grow up in homes where violence, drug or alcohol abuse or
emotional and mental problems are prevalent to be dealt with by
the mental health system rather than the justice system. It is
clear to me that in most cases it is only when all the support
systems fail that the justice system is forced to respond to youth
who have committed a criminal offence.
Therefore we should be focusing our efforts on improving the
effectiveness of these services. I am hopeful that the results of
phase two will support this argument.
For those who feel that the amendments introduced in Bill
C-37 do not go far enough, I would like to quote from an
editorial which recently appeared in the Chronicle Herald, a
local newspaper in Halifax, Nova Scotia: ``We should be careful
not to equate our wishes for teenagers to have more respect for
people and property with shortcomings in the Young Offenders
Act or the criminal justice system. Reform of the act is not a
panacea for the apparent discipline problem of our youth.
Fundamental social and family problems put children in court''.
Before concluding, there seems to be some misunderstanding
of what the Young Offenders Act is supposed to do and perhaps
some misunderstanding of what the amendments propose. In the
few remaining minutes I would like to set out again for the
record the major elements of the act.
There are amendments to provide that 16 and 17 year olds
charged with specified serious crimes involving violence will be
proceeded against in adult court unless the youth court orders
that they be proceeded against in youth court. There are
amendments to increase the sentences in youth court for young
persons convicted of murder. There are amendments to increase
the period of time that 16 and 17 year olds convicted of murder
in adult court must serve before becoming eligible to apply for
parole.
There are amendments that provide that young offenders
should be accountable to their victims and to the public through
non-custodial dispositions where appropriate. There are
amendments to provide that the records of young persons
convicted of specified serious offences will be retained for
longer periods and that records for young persons convicted of
minor offences will be retained for shorter periods. There are
amendments to provide for greater sharing of information
relating to young offenders with persons who require such
information for safety reasons.
There is always a fine balance when trying to determine what
is best for society and what is best for the individual. Every
piece of legislation does not get it right every time. This, like
any criminal justice legislation, is evolving. It continues to be
reviewed. It has to be reviewed on a regular basis.
I feel that these amendments address some of the very real
issues in front of the public today. The general public has been
asking for changes and I believe the government has responded.
It has responded in a reasonable way and it has listened to people
who work with youth.
On a number of occasions I attended the committee hearings.
The committee had experts attend to give evidence and it had
experts that worked with youth on a regular basis. They were
people who understand the system, who understand the youth
justice system and who understand what is required for
rehabilitation. I believe that to a large extent, although not in
every instance, what is incorporated into this legislation reflects
what the committee heard from the experts who appeared before
it.
(1350)
The quote I used earlier states my position and the
government's position very clearly. We should be careful not to
equate our wish for teenagers to have more respect for people
and property with shortcomings in the Young Offenders Act or
the criminal justice system. I believe that is a truism. I believe it
strongly and I fully support the amendments put forth in Bill
C-37.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the dissertation by the hon. member for
South Shore. As I was listening to the hon. member, I was struck
with the fact that there is an inconsistency between the
sentencing aspects of young offenders under the provisions of
Bill C-37 and the sentencing provisions under Bill C-41,
another government bill having to do with sentencing circles for
aboriginal Canadians.
The idea under the Young Offenders Act is that the anonymity
of the young offender is the watch word of the whole thing. Once
the young offender makes a mistake or does not make a mistake
but does something very deliberate, creating an offence of
significant magnitude against someone else, the whole idea is
that we have to somehow make sure we can save this young
offender from recidivism, making sure we get them started on
the right track.
That is great. It is a good idea. It is motherhood and apple pie.
The problem is that it demands almost total anonymity. The
young offender's neighbours cannot be informed of the offence.
The newspapers cannot be informed of the offence.
At the same time we have sentencing circles requiring
positive peer pressure. We would return someone to their
community so their sentence would be handed down by their
elders. They would have to face members of the community they
have injured or disgraced.
9816
We have the whole notion of the principle that motivates
human beings. Is it recognition and reputation or shame and
disgrace? On one side under Bill C-37 we have complete
anonymity. On the other side we have peer pressure, the
opposite of anonymity. I wonder if the hon. member for South
Shore would comment on this inconsistency and tell the House
and Canadians how sentencing circles which would require peer
pressure from the community could work for aboriginal
Canadians, while non-aborignal Canadians are expected to
change their ways in complete anonymity.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to comment on Bill
C-41. I will comment on the provisions of Bill C-37.
What I said earlier applies. We have to find the balance. We
are dealing with young offenders. We are dealing with people of
a tender age, if we can use that worn expression. I do see some
benefit if we are dealing with the four most serious offences that
we are now treating differently for 16 and 17 year olds.
I would consider engaging in some discussion on those types
of offences at that age of individual, to look at perhaps
publishing the names even if the youth court decided they would
remain in youth court. There is some discussion that could be
had on the point that perhaps peer pressure could be brought to
bear. There are some advantages in school principals and others
knowing who these people are. I think that is the point being
made.
I do not suggest for a minute that some of the points are not
good points. I am suggesting that some of the flaws or concerns
we had originally with the Young Offenders Act have been
addressed in this bill.
There is phase two. We are going to go forward with a further
review of the act. Suggestions you have of that nature have some
merit. I would not hesitate at all to discuss the pros and cons,
recognizing at the end of the day that perhaps everything you
want and everything I want we may not get.
(1355)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I hesitate the interrupt the
member for South Shore but I think it is worthy to remind
ourselves not to get into a dialogue between two members of the
House when we are all participating. All interventions are to be
directed through the Chair.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
are a couple of comments I would like to make with regard to
what the member has said. I would like to get his comments
back.
The government seems to be quite pleased with the idea that
16 and 17 year olds are going to be charged in adult court. Then
it has thrown in a little extra clause which says unless it can be
proven by the defendant that it would be more beneficial for
them to be in juvenile court.
To me that means that every 16 and 17 year old who gets
charged as an adult will appeal and want to be charged as a
youth. I would not blame them for wanting to do that. That
means more court time and more nice little jobs for lawyers to
take on to help fill their pockets a little more and it does not
change anything. Now we are charging the youth and if they feel
they ought to be in adult court, then we have court trials to fight
for that. I do not see where that has changed anything. Either 16
or 17 years old are in adult court or they are not. I cannot believe
the government would come out with that kind of wishy-washy
legislation.
I really wonder why so many members from the justice
department are constantly concentrating on the social aspect of
problems. We have a social department. I want to see good
prevention programs. I want to see good rehabilitation. I want to
see all the things that these people want to see, but the justice
department does not want to address the part called justice. It
continually wants to talk about low income families, the poor
mistreated child, the victims of society. It does not address the
justice part. Victims of this country are so anxiously awaiting to
hear what we are going to do in terms of justice. I have not heard
that yet.
The Speaker: Before I give the floor to the member for South
Shore, I think we are close enough to two o'clock now for
Statements by Members. I wonder if the member for South
Shore could think about his response and as soon as question
period is over I will return to him.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
9816
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize one of my
constituents, Stephanie Rickard of Bracebridge. Stephanie is
one of 25 Ontario youth selected to participate in the 1995-96
Canada World Youth Program.
Canada World Youth is a Canadian non-profit organization
which operates youth exchanges between Canada and the
developing countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the
Caribbean. Since its creation in 1971 over 42 exchange
countries have been involved with a total of over 15,000 young
people from Canada and exchange countries participating.
9817
This year's program for Stephanie will run for a seven-month
period with Egypt. She will spend the first half of the experience
in Nova Scotia with 20 other Canadians and 21 young people
from Egypt. From there the group will depart on the second half
of their experience to Egypt where they will enjoy a reciprocal
experience with their Egyptian host families.
I wish Stephanie and the other World Youth Program
participants well as they embark on the experience of a lifetime.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
having committed a blatant injustice by closing down the
college in Saint-Jean, the only French-language military
college, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is now
adding insult to injury.
How can the minister claim to be doing Saint-Jean a favour by
giving it the same compensation as Royal Roads Military
College in Victoria, that is to say $25 million over five years,
when the school population, operating budget and facilities at
Saint-Jean were twice that of Royal Roads?
As he crows about a few jobs saved, the minister is
overlooking the 175 jobs cut in the last budget. As we say in
French, we just saved the furniture in Saint-Jean.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been reported that the Liberal cabinet is ready to
reform MP pensions.
While these reported changes do not go as far as Reformers
would like, they are a little nudge in the right direction. We in
this House must be mindful of the anger that this topic causes
with Canadians.
Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe wrote a column
asking people to express their opinions on this issue. The
response within 10 days was 12,000 letters from people fed up
with politicians raising taxes and cutting services for ordinary
Canadians while at the same time leaving their own perks and
pensions untouched.
In a time of fiscal restraint and budget cutbacks, Canadians
rightfully expect their representatives to show fiscal leadership
by tightening their own belts.
I ask all members of this House, regardless of their political
stripe, to make and accept the necessary changes to bring MP
pension plans in line with those of other Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government operations committee of which I am a
vice-chairman has been reviewing contracting out practices for
over six months.
[English]
The previous government's bias toward wholesale
contracting for services within the public service has led to little
accountability as to numbers or quality of the shadow public
service. The committee continues to be frustrated by the lack of
data and costing.
The $5.2 billion for contracting services in 1993 is but a
guestimate and could well be twice this amount. It is my belief
that the government should restrain this practice so that public
service employees not lose their jobs while the shadow public
service continues to grow and prosper out of control.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to congratulate the daily newspaper in my riding, the St.
Catharines
Standard, on its editorial calling for the media to
examine the moral question of how visual evidence should be
reported at the Paul Bernardo trial.
The editorial states:
Does the public have a right to know every single detail of evidence that
will be presented during the trial? In principle, in defence of freedom of the
press, the answer must be yes. But does the public need to know every gory
detail? The answer surely is no, so long as the public is assured that such
evidence has been seen and weighed by the judge and the jury of 12 who will
represent us all in deciding the case.
While the media may have an obligation to inform the public, there is surely
also a duty to respect the dignity of the victims and of the victims' family,
neighbours and friends.
Canadians must ensure that the media coverage is handled in
an appropriate and respectful way; in short, in a Canadian way.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to recognize and applaud the aggressive
approach the city of North York is taking in establishing the
North York Small Business Centre.
Canadians realize that the small business sector now accounts
for over half of all private sector employment. They understand,
as this government does, that the impact of small business on the
9818
Canadian economy is profound. Small business will be relied
upon for economic growth and job creation.
This government promised to focus on a jobs and growth
agenda. The Minister of Industry's plan calls for partnerships
among all Canadians and their institutions-businesses, unions,
professional associations, interest groups and governments-to
facilitate and create jobs and growth in the private sector.
The North York Small Business Centre realizes that growing
new businesses is important, that new business people need help
in marketing themselves and simply need some encouragement.
I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Lincoln Allen, the executive
director, and all of the centre's staff and wish them success.
* * *
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an
attempt to boost his image before the Christmas holidays, the
heritage minister announced with hoopla, on December 22, that
the government planned to be reviewing the Copyright Act in
the spring.
Last week, the 50 groups participating in the Canadian
Conference of the Arts' cultural summit rejected government
plans for gradual reform and demanded immediate action.
The minister's announcement does not help make the
Copyright Act any less antiquated. The time has come for the
government to be more specific about its plans with respect to
the content of this bill.
(1405)
By refusing to subject the bill to a comprehensive review, the
heritage minister clearly indicates his unwillingness to take on
his industry colleague, as he was supposed to do. It is clear who
the real sponsor of this legislation is.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to seek the justice minister's commitment to act
in the case of former RCMP officer Patrick Kelly.
As I noted in this House last year, Mr. Kelly was convicted 11
years ago in the murder of his wife. The prosecution's key
witness, Dawn Taber, came forward in 1993 and admitted that
she had not witnessed the murder, contrary to her testimony
almost ten years ago. Ms. Taber said last Wednesday: ``You
cannot imagine what this has been like, to realize that what you
have said has put a man in prison''.
I understand that the minister has a lot on his desk:
amendments to the criminal code, constituents up in arms over
firearms registration, as well as constituent concerns. However,
when the Minister of Justice leaves his office at the end of the
day a woman will be sitting at home wanting to clear her
conscience and a man will be sitting in jail awaiting a new trial.
Before another day passes I challenge the minister to start the
process and give Mr. Kelly a chance to state his case fairly in a
court of law.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, February 19, marked a very important day
for rural women in Canada and around the world. It was on that
date some 98 years ago that the women's institute was founded
in Ontario by Mrs. Adelaide Hoodless, Mr. and Mrs. Erland Lee
and 101 members.
Now associated women's institutes around the world provide
nine million rural women in 70 countries with opportunities for
personal growth, community service and equality.
As former national agriculture chair for the Federated
Women's Institutes of Canada I know first hand the important
work the women's institute does. Therefore, it gives me great
pleasure to pay tribute to our founder, Mrs. Adelaide Hoodless,
for her vision and to the countless women who throughout the
years have worked tirelessly with the women's institute for the
betterment of themselves, their families, their communities,
their countries and the world.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to stand here today to extend my
congratulations to the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada on
their 75th anniversary.
It is impossible to calculate the many direct and indirect
contributions Kinsmen and Kinette members have made to their
communities, provinces and Canada since 1920. However, we
do know that in the past ten years Kin members have raised more
than $220 million for community service work while donating
countless hours of their own time to fundraising and service
projects. More than 600 communities across the country have
benefited from Kin initiatives.
They also have an impressive record of carrying out
international development projects throughout the third world
which have extended the Kin's commitment to serving the
community's greatest need to include the world community.
9819
On the 75th anniversary of Kinsmen and Kinettes they are to
be congratulated on a job well done.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
London and St. Thomas Real Estate Board has adopted an
initiative which we should note and applaud.
Each of its 1,450 realtors will be contributing an amount of $5
per member per year until the year 2000. The money will be
deposited into a special trust fund to accumulate and accrue
interest. The invested money is expected to reach $50,000, at
which time it will be given to the federal government to be
applied to the national debt.
The board's president, Debbie Collins, believes it is the first
private sector association to undertake such an initiative. It has
challenged fellow realtors across the country to do the same. It
is serious about reducing Canada's deficit and debt and feels it is
a very pressing problem.
Individuals and organizations are starting to take this
seriously and will work out strategies along with the
government to cope with our fiscal reality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a press
conference this morning, the association representing Canada's
26,000 dairy producers made it very plain that they would not
accept any concession on the part of the federal government in
the present trade dispute between Canada and the United States
over agricultural products. Their legal position is firm, and
respects the new GATT agreements, as well as Canada's
obligations under NAFTA.
The official opposition supports the agricultural producers of
Canada and of Quebec and demands that the government
immediately cease all discussions with the American
government on this issue.
(1410)
Canada has nothing to negotiate. It must immediately take
this dispute to a GATT or NAFTA panel, which will obviously
rule in Canada's favour. If it does not do so, this government will
sooner or later have to explain why it is trying so hard to trade
away the interests of the agricultural producers of Quebec and of
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to tell Canadians about a sterling record of incompetence
of the justice system which released this offender on parole once
and on mandatory release three times beginning in 1963:
Six thefts, one B and E, one weapons possession, one
attempted robbery, escaped custody, two auto thefts, one
possession of dangerous weapon, one assault, one theft and then
another escape, one car theft, one possession of dangerous
weapon, parole violation, contributing to juvenile delinquency,
theft and escape from custody, B and E, theft over $200,
mandatory release and mandatory release violation, common
assault, mandatory release and mandatory release violation,
assault and theft under $200, indecent assault and failure to
appear, forcible confinement and two counts of buggery,
mandatory release and release violation.
Two counts of sexual assault finally ended this litany of
crime.
I wonder if the parole board would consider mandatory
supervision one more time for this habitual criminal. Mr. Gibbs
promised to clear up boondoggles such as this in the parole
board.
We on this side of the House are watching and wish him well.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today on Heritage Day we celebrate our unique
Canadian culture, values and institutions, our shared identity.
Whether we were born here or came from across the oceans,
whether we came earlier or later, together we have built this
great nation.
From time to time the tentacles of disunity have threatened
the virtue of national cohesion. Today Canadians are proud to
live in a country that is number one in the world in quality of
life, for we promote accommodation, not assimilation. We are
idealistic, not ruggedly individualistic.
We pursue pleasure to enrich our lives, not simply to gain
material wealth. We work to sustain peace, order and good
government. We reject violence.
Today let us harness the strength of our unique nationhood.
Let us preserve one geography, one national soul, and achieve
one national dream for our youth of today and their children of
tomorrow.
9820
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canada, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina
parliamentary group is pleased to be hosting a visit by a
parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Croatia.
Members of the delegation include Dr. Zarko Domljan, Vice
President of the Croatian House of Representatives; Dr. Franjo
Greguric, former Prime Minister and member of the House of
Representatives; Mr. Ivica Racan, Leader of the Social
Democratic Party and member of the House of Representatives.
Over recent years Canadians have learned a great deal about
Croatia. Last spring three colleagues from this House visited
Croatia to learn about and assess developments there in the
economy, administration and politics.
We are glad that Drs. Domljan and Greguric and Mr. Racan
could be with us here this week. It is through these exchanges
that legislators learn and share the thoughts and ideas which will
guide our democracies to the common global goals of peace,
security and prosperity.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, perhaps now would be the
appropriate time to introduce our three parliamentary brothers
from Croatia who are today in our gallery.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
the Liberal government is using a smoke screen of words
referring to tax increases as making the system fair or having
everyone pay their fair share. Canadians denounce this tactic. A
classic example from last year's budget is the $100,000 lifetime
capital gains exemption.
The Department of Finance and Revenue Canada are currently
disadvantaging thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of
senior citizens who depend on OAS and guaranteed income
supplements.
Revenue Canada has structured the income tax return in such
a way as to disadvantage pensions at the bottom end of the
economic scale. Low income Canadians are being frozen out of
passing their assets to their heirs and successors in a way that
middle and upper income pensioners can.
Once again the Liberal government has fallen on its own
politically correct sword. While saying it is going to make
everyone pay their fair share it has created gross inequities in
the income tax system.
9820
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Michel
Robert, spokesperson for the Security Intelligence Review
Committee, the same Michel Robert who denied the existence of
a secret file bearing the name of Preston Manning, said that
Grant Bristow did nothing that was reprehensible. However, a
recent video contradicts this statement and shows that Mr.
Bristow committed acts that are unlawful and unacceptable in a
democratic society like ours.
My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Will the
Solicitor General finally admit that when he was a CSIS
informer, Mr. Bristow acted in a way that was reprehensible and
unlawful by engaging in a campaign to promote violence, more
specifically against the Canadian Jewish Congress?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, SIRC thoroughly investigated all these matters and
prepared a comprehensive report that was tabled in this House,
and I think the hon. member should draw the attention of SIRC
to any remaining concerns he may have in this respect.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a video
exists that was brought to the attention of quite a few people, and
it shows that Mr. Bristow was, at the time, making speeches to
promote violence and the commission of unlawful acts.
How does the Solicitor General expect the public to trust the
Security Intelligence Review Committee when this is the second
time the committee's findings have been contradicted? After it
was denied that there was a file on Preston Manning, we are now
told that Mr. Bristow, and this was shown on the video,
committed totally reprehensible acts when he was an informer
for CSIS, although we had been given assurances this was not
so.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is mistaken. The Security Intelligence
Review Committee did not say that there was a file about
Preston Manning but rather that the file had been mistakenly
entitled Preston Manning while it dealt only with the
investigation into possible election financing by another
government.
The activities of the source in question were gone into
thoroughly. Points were raised by the Security Intelligence
Review Committee about the nature of the activities in question
and how CSIS should update its methods of control of sources as
9821
a result. This has been gone into. I think CSIS has dealt with this
matter in a very satisfactory manner.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
must admit it does not take much to satisfy the Solicitor
General.
Would the Solicitor General agree that the only way to get to
the bottom of these allegations concerning Mr. Bristow, a CSIS
agent, and his activities within the racist Heritage Front
organization is to set up a genuine commission of inquiry to find
out what is going on there, since obviously the Security
Intelligence Review Committee is not well informed and its
investigation techniques are not up to scratch?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the SIRC is like a standing royal commission of inquiry
with a mandate to supervise the activities of CSIS on an ongoing
basis, and that is what it is doing. However, I wonder why the
official opposition house leader would give the Heritage Front
this kind of credibility. Why?
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
We are starting to get the picture about the government's
intentions with respect to the members' pension plan. The
government is supposed to introduce a bill dealing with this
issue, this week.
Can the Solicitor General give us the assurance that this will
not be a half-baked reform which will introduce one standard
for long time members and another for new members?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the government will keep its promises, based on the red book.
(1420)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, can the Solicitor General and government House
leader confirm that, once the new system comes into effect,
while vested rights are respected, all members, both new and
old, will make the same contributions and will accumulate the
same benefits?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member will have an answer as soon as the bill
is introduced.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the Minister of Finance said his deficit target of 3 per
cent of GDP was an interim target and that the ultimate target
was to eliminate the deficit. A target without specifics is no
target at all; it is just political grandstanding and wishful
thinking.
My question is for the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions. In its upcoming budget will the
government specify clearly how and when it will reach its
ultimate target?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
confirm for the hon. member that we will be presenting a budget
showing that we will reach our 3 per cent interim target on our
way to the zero deficit target.
Mr. Williams: When?
Mr. Peters: The timing of it is not certain. We will have
rolling two-year targets so that we meet those targets. There is
no point in going out like members of the previous government
and saying that there is going to be a certain deficit in so many
years when they have no intention of achieving it.
We are going to meet our targets in rolling two-year periods
as the finance minister has said.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
all know about the imminent downgrade of Canadian debt by
Moody's. Moody's primary concern is not the deficit for this
year or next year. It is mid-term factors. It knows full well that
the 3 per cent target will leave the government open and an
inevitable downturn in the U.S. economy will cause an
escalation once again in the debt-GDP ratio. The minister
knows that.
Once again, will the minister tell the House, if he has no idea
how the government is going to achieve its ultimate target, how
they can assure investors that the deficit-GDP ratio will not
again spiral out of control once we have a downturn in the U.S.
economy?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
has some economics training and knowledge. He should look at
the structural pattern.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peters: There seems to be some disagreement among my
colleagues. He should look at the structural pattern in the
deficit. We have made some major changes in the structure of
the deficit.
9822
Our structural deficit is much lower than it ever was. It is a
matter of the changes we made in the last budget and the changes
that will be made in this budget which will make that deficit
target achievable in the near term.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister who also has some economics knowledge will know
that a 3 per cent GDP target at the top of a cycle is a very high
structural deficit.
On Friday, once again, the Minister of Finance blamed the
previous Conservative government for the problem, saying that
it had left a huge accumulated debt. The House will remember
that the previous Conservative government used to blame the
Liberals before them for the large accumulated debt.
When will the government stop with these excuses, stop
saying it suddenly discovered compound interest and abandon
the go slow, go nowhere policies that caused millions of
Canadians to abandon the Conservatives?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the millions of
Canadians that abandoned the Conservatives gave the hon.
member an opportunity to run for Parliament.
Let me tell the hon. member that the changes we made in the
last budget were the biggest changes in spending cuts that have
been made in any budget in a decade. We are going to continue to
move on our path to get the deficit down.
* * *
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The Ottawa Sun reports that three generals intervened directly
during the military police inquiry into events in Somalia
implicating enlisted personnel and officers of the Airborne
Regiment in Petawawa.
Can the defence minister confirm that three generals did
intervene directly in the military police inquiry to protest the
way the military police had conducted its activities in the case of
Lieutenant-Colonel Carol Mathieu, claiming that those
conducting the inquiry were going too far?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member must know that it would be inappropriate for me to
comment upon any matter relating to the investigations
surrounding the deployment of the Canadian airborne regiment
to Somalia in 1992 and 1993.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is not the first time the minister has replied. I think that is
indeed pertinent to what I am asking him. I would like him to
answer.
Does the minister acknowledge that this totally inappropriate
intervention by three generals on behalf of Lieutenant-Colonel
Mathieu discredits and seriously calls into question the military
police inquiry following which Lieutenant-Colonel Mathieu
was acquitted by a court martial?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
repeated the same answer a number of times.
There will be an inquiry headed by a civilian. It will be public.
It will answer all questions relating to the deployment to
Somalia. The hon. member should wait until that time.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian people have said very clearly no tax increases.
At noon today the Canadian Taxpayers' Association presented
on the Hill 230,000 petitions against taxes. Our party has
received over 15 sacks full of mail strongly advising the finance
minister not to increase taxes.
My question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Will he
take this anti-tax message to the Minister of Finance? More
important, will he vote against any net tax increases in the next
budget?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the
Minister of Finance and other members of the government are
listening with great care and attention to the public on many
issues related to tax, but I can assure him that we will not be
dissuaded from proceeding with our deficit reduction plan
outlined, as the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions
mentioned a moment ago, in last year's budget.
We will achieve those goals regardless of protests that might
occur.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I really
expected that answer from the minister. He was quoted in the
newspaper about 10 days ago as saying that tax protesters do not
make any difference to him or his government anyway.
May I ask the minister: Would he care to join me in the lobby
outside following question period where I will be happy to give
9823
him 15 sacks full of messages from ordinary citizens? Will he
join me in the lobby outside after?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to a statement
made in Vancouver. Just for the record, I would like to read it out
to him because he obviously does not understand it. I said:
``Obviously we will be listening to the public and obviously I
have had many meetings with groups of Canadians on tax
matters, but Mr. Martin's approach to the budget will not be
altered simply by protests here or there. He has objectives he
must meet''.
Again I repeat to the hon. member that he cannot blow and
suck at the same time. Either he is in favour of reducing the
expenditures of the government and meeting our deficit targets
or he is not. He cannot keep saying that we must give in to every
protest that might come along either on one side or the other.
The Speaker: Our expressions are getting a little more
colourful as we go along.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
By lowering taxes on cigarettes last year, the federal
government wanted to put an end to smuggling. The Solicitor
General promised at the time to set up a complete plan to stop
smuggling.
(1430)
Since the government has decided to raise taxes on cigarettes,
are we to understand that the Solicitor General's plan for
fighting smuggling has actually led to the dismantling of all of
the smuggling networks?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said a year ago that it would take time to dismantle
the smuggling networks. We have had considerable success up
to now, and this is why it is now possible to raise taxes on
cigarettes to a certain extent.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to believe the minister, but I would remind
him of one thing as well. He has not yet submitted a report to this
House on the results of the fight against smuggling.
What assurance can the Solicitor General give us that an
increase in taxes will not help rebuild the cigarette smuggling
networks?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are acting on the advice of the RCMP and other
police forces. According to their advice, we can raise taxes as
proposed last week in the ways and means motion, in order to
increase government revenues without threatening our plan to
fight vigorously against all sorts of smuggling.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
amazing how quickly viewpoints change when a party becomes
the government.
In opposition the Liberal rat pack railed against the Mulroney
government patronage perks and pork. Now in government the
rat pack has become the fat pack. They fought against changes to
their lavish gold plated pension plans and they appear to have
won. The Liberal government has backed off reforming the
pension plans of the fat pack and any other MP with more than
10 years of service.
My question for the President of the Treasury Board is: Why
will he not introduce pension reform that cuts equally across the
board?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is not backing off anything. We have
made it quite clear that we are going to deal with the matter of
pension reform. We are going to live up to our obligations that
we made in the election campaign.
The Prime Minister said in this House not more than one week
ago that it would be done either before the budget or at the time
of the budget and it will be done.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday the President of the Treasury Board said the government
will acquit itself of its obligation with respect to MPs pensions
mighty soon. The only obligations in the red book deal with
double dipping and the age of eligibility.
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm today that
real cuts will be made to bring all MPs pensions into line with
the private sector and not just the obligatory scrapes mentioned
in the red book?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad that my colleague has finally read the red
book and understands the commitments of the government.
This whole matter though will be dealt with mighty soon.
9824
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
the bill on gun control which was tabled by the Minister of
Justice last week to have its desired effect, it will have to be
coupled with more aggressive measures to fight gun smuggling
from the United States.
Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether he personally
asked the Solicitor General and the revenue minister to have
police and customs officers escalate the war on gun smuggling?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the course of the
last 10 months I have worked with the Minister of National
Revenue and the Solicitor General specifically on that issue.
We have developed not only the legislative proposals that are
now embodied in Bill C-68 but we have also forced
administrative and policy changes in the way that border
controls are enforced. We expect that in the coming months and
years as a result of these changes we will have even more
effective border control than at present.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of Justice guarantee that the measures
proposed in his bill will be applied Canada-wide, without
exception, including on aboriginal territory?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Of course I can, Mr. Speaker. As the
Prime Minister took pains to emphasize this time last year in
another context, there is but one law in Canada and it is applied
equally throughout.
* * *
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
a gun control meeting in St. John's East my constituents raised
concerns with the Minister of Justice about BB and pellet guns.
Children have been seriously injured playing with these guns.
The city of St. John's has banned them and the Newfoundland
and Labrador Federation of Municipalities has unanimously
asked that BB guns and air guns be classified as firearms.
(1435)
How will the minister address the concerns of my constituents
regarding the danger of BB and air guns?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I well remember the
meeting in St. John's to which the hon. member referred. I met
on that occasion with two mothers whose young children had
each lost an eye as a result of the misuse of BB guns or air guns.
As a result of that meeting I examined the manner in which air
guns or BB guns are regulated in this country. I discovered that
at present some of them are classified as firearms and therefore
regulated as other guns are, the distinction being the muzzle
velocity of the projectile. If the muzzle velocity is above a
certain threshold, then they are regulated in terms of acquisition
or possession as others guns are. The question is whether that
threshold should be lowered to capture the commonly available
BB gun and perhaps save the eyesight of children.
A recent research study at the University of Ottawa
demonstrated that BB guns are the leading cause of eye loss
among children in Canada which has to be troubling to us all.
May I tell the hon. member in conclusion that I am keenly
aware of the problem. We have it under consideration and I will
communicate further with the House when we have completed
our analysis.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, our peacekeepers in Croatia are soon likely to face the
most difficult tactical situation given a soldier: a withdrawal
under fire. Yet two weeks ago it was announced that the
Canadian forces surgical team is to be withdrawn.
Now national defence headquarters has reportedly again
refused our peacekeepers' request for an armoured engineering
vehicle to clear mines and to facilitate their withdrawal, should
it become necessary.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell this House why our
troops, who have been facing mines and gunfire for the last three
years and are soon likely to face even greater danger, are being
denied facilities and equipment which we have but refused to
provide?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of inaccuracies in the article which appeared in the
Globe and Mail on Saturday.
The armoured engineer vehicle is not designed as a mine
clearance vehicle. The Slovakian group, as part of UNPROFOR,
is equipped to take this task on, not just for Canadians but for all
other personnel. Should there be a non-permissive withdrawal
from Croatia and Bosnia, this will be carried out by NATO.
Obviously all of the necessary equipment will be provided by
the NATO allies.
9825
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if there is one Canadian casualty resulting from this
lack of support, I hope the minister will remember that.
Our forces in the former Yugoslavia have made do with
outdated, unreliable equipment and have done well despite this
handicap. Now, despite the situation becoming much more
serious, headquarters' response is negative.
What will the Minister of National Defence do to provide our
Canadian peacekeepers with all possible support to help them
survive?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
specifics I answered the question, but I do resent very much the
threat implied in the hon. member's answer. It is reprehensible.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that you did not rule him out of
order. To make that kind of statement in the House of Commons,
he should be ashamed of himself.
The Speaker: I am sure, my colleagues, that this very serious
matter is the cause of a great deal of emotion on both sides of the
House. Again, I would appeal to all of my colleagues to be very
judicious both in the questions and in the answers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The Canadian Dental Association has recently launched a new
campaign to nip in the bud any thoughts the federal government
had about taxing private dental care plans in Canada. The
minister has said many times over the past year that her mission
is to make sure that the health care system in Canada remains
free.
Does the minister realize that taxing private dental care plans
will directly reduce accessibility to health care?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that the Canada Health
Act sets the criteria regarding medically necessary services.
While we know that we have some very difficult fiscal decisions
to make, we must make those decisions to ensure that we can
offer programs with fairness and compassion, programs which
Canadians expect, and frankly, which Canadians deserve.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will
the minister, on the eve of the upcoming federal budget,
guarantee that she will keep our health system free and that she
will energetically oppose the taxation of private dental care
plans?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Minister of Health, I have said that the Canada
Health Act is unquestionably here to stay, and the Prime
Minister of Canada has said the same. We will preserve the
fundamental principles of the health care system. The promise
was made in the red book, which forms the basis of our party's
mandate. We will continue to do exactly what we said we would
do.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last May immigration officials granted refugee status
to a 25 year old Polish man. The man claimed he was
discriminated against because he had HIV and the Immigration
and Refugee Board granted him refugee status.
Given that this individual will pose a drain on Canada's health
care system and a potential threat to the health of Canadians and
that this individual was allowed into the country in direct
contravention of section 19 of the Immigration Act, will the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration reverse this decision
by the IRB and deport this person immediately?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the member is
confusing the refugee stream and the immigration stream.
The issue here is not a claim based on whether an individual is
or is not HIV positive. The claim made was on the basis of being
a member of a social group, in this case sexual orientation, and
that there was a well founded fear of persecution.
Three years ago the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that
sexual orientation constitutes a social group. The Geneva
convention allows for claims to be made based on social group
persecution. There have only been two cases in the system. One
was refused. There is this case raised by the hon. member which
was initially refused by the IRB and appealed to the Federal
Court. The Federal Court of Canada ordered the IRB to rehear it.
It is not a question of being HIV positive. Each individual
case must lay before the board a well-founded fear in terms of a
social group persecution.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after being granted refugee status, this HIV infected
individual claimed on national radio that he came to Canada
specifically to take advantage of our overburdened health care
system. Meanwhile, thousands of Canadians are waiting in line
to use the system they have been paying into for years.
9826
As much as the IRB has accepted another outlandish refugee
claim setting a precedent that can be abused by bogus refugees
around the world, will the minister now take the advice of the
Reform Party? Will he disband the IRB and put refugee
determination in the hands of competent immigration officials
using established admission guidelines?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this case does not set a
precedent. That is why the hon. member does not understand
how the Immigration and Refugee Board operates. It operates
independently of the government. Also, cases are considered on
their own individual merits.
I mentioned to the member that there have only been two
cases in the system. One was refused because it could not
demonstrate a well founded fear of being persecuted.
Also, the immigration stream does have the ability to screen
for health care costs as well as danger to the public. In most
cases where people are found to be HIV positive, they are denied
entry into Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Around the world, 48,000 wildlife species and subspecies are
in danger of extinction. The illegal trade in endangered wildlife
species jeopardizes global biodiversity.
(1445)
Could the minister tell the House what the government is
doing both in Canada and also internationally to curb the illegal
trade in endangered wildlife species?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada is approaching the Convention in International
Trade in Endangered Species in three ways.
First, in training, we are conducting workshops presently in
western Canada addressed to the RCMP, addressed to the
customs officers, Agriculture Canada and also provincial
natural resource officers to let them know about the convention,
what it covers, what Canada's commitments are, identifying the
endangered species which, as my colleague stated, are 48,000 in
number.
Second, we are conducting an information campaign geared
to travellers to advise them about endangered species so that
they will make proper purchases. If there is no market for
endangered species, then there is no business for poachers and
traffickers in endangered species.
Finally, in the spring-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In 1994, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans committed $1.9
billion to the Atlantic groundfish strategy. The minister claimed
at the time that this amount would be sufficient to restructure the
Atlantic fishing industry within five years. Today, with 80 per
cent more benefits than forecast, we see that the strategy did not
achieve its goals and that the funds may be depleted by 1996.
Does the minister admit that his strategy is a failure and that
the funds committed will be depleted well before the deadline?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is making a case on behalf of the
Bloc Quebecois that the fishermen of Quebec be completely cut
off any income assistance from the national government.
I know that there is a profound attempt by the Bloc Quebecois
to sever Canadians living in Quebec from the benefits of Canada
but this surely is a ridiculous proposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister realize that the way things are going, the funds
aimed at restructuring the industry will be completely depleted
when the time comes to shift responsibilities to the provinces, as
they are requesting?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the groundfish assistance program available
for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada is under some financial
stress because more fishermen and more plant workers than
originally anticipated have had to request assistance.
One of the reasons that there are more fishermen and more
plant workers is that from an ecological point of view, more
fisheries have had to be closed as recently as a few months ago.
The red fishery, which is important to the Magdalen Islands
had to be closed, necessitating more assistance being paid out to
additional plant workers and fishermen.
We are looking for ways of streamlining the program. For
example we could reduce training programs for older workers
who really will not make use of them in order to get the program
back within budget. It is a program that is supported by the
9827
fishermen and by the plant workers of Atlantic Canada,
including those in Quebec.
Frankly the Bloc Quebecois should be celebrating this virtue
of federation, that those who have share with those who do not in
times of need. That is the strength of the unity of Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The CRTC has kicked the American Country Music
Television network off Canadian airwaves. Canadian country
artists used to be seen in over 32 million homes around the world
but in retaliation for this decision, CMT now refuses to play
Canadian artists' videos, reducing air play to two million
homes.
Promoting Canadian culture by closing our borders is like
stoking a fire with a wet blanket. Canadian artists themselves
denounce this decision.
(1450 )
Instead of smothering Canadian culture, how does the
minister expect to promote Canadian cultural exports and allow
for more consumer choice?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is to promote in
every way it can the growth and expansion of Canadian culture.
One part of that policy is to ensure that while meeting our
international trade obligations, we are able to give Canadians a
choice of programs on television and radio, a spectrum of choice
that includes not only imported material but Canadian produced
goods as well.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
despite those fine words the government is moving toward a
policy of protectionism in the cultural industry.
Cultural industries will be at the top of the American
president's agenda when he visits this week. By closing our
borders, the government has started a potential trade war with
the United States. What form this retaliation will take will be
announced by Mickey Kantor on March 6.
When the government meets with Mr. Clinton, will it
announce what areas of Canadian trade it is willing to sacrifice
to keep up this charade of cultural preservation?
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are unwilling to sacrifice any area of
Canadian trade. The member raises a question that will indeed
be touched upon in my meetings with Mr. Kantor. On that
occasion we shall continue to assure him, as we have done in the
past, that the Canadian measures to promote Canadian culture
are entirely consistent with our international trade obligations.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Canadians want government to take the tough decisions to
meet our deficit targets. Many wonder if the deficit could also be
reduced simply by collecting the taxes that are now outstanding.
What is the minister doing to ensure the government is
collecting the taxes it is owed?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question
which allows me to state that we collect the vast majority of
accounts receivable with interest.
Of course there will always be some area of bad debts. Last
year it was less than one-half of 1 per cent of gross revenue. This
year, we are budgeting slightly more than that, but still well
below 1 per cent.
It is very important to note that we collect the accounts
receivable. They are taken into account by the Minister of
Finance in his budgetary projections. There is no pot of money
out there not being collected which could be used to reduce the
deficit. All the moneys in accounts receivable have been taken
into account.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions.
Regarding the rather lopsided debate in identifying the actual
cause of the accumulated debt, would the minister confirm that
today we are spending about the same proportion of our GDP on
social programs that we were spending throughout the
mid-1970s?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon.
member has checked the numbers or he would not have asked the
question.
I do not have the numbers with me now so I am not able to
confirm them. I am sure the hon. member will, in his
supplementary question, give me the right answer.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will
endeavour to do that. This is now turning into answer period.
The minister would know if he had done his homework that the
spending-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. member has a question.
9828
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I had a question. I will put it this way.
While the minister knows that spending on social programs is
about the same proportion today as it was in the seventies, would
he confirm that the reason our accumulated debt has grown since
1984 has been almost exclusively the result of the high interest
rate policy of the previous government, continued by this
government apparently, and the myriad of tax loopholes
particularly for corporations and the wealthy?
(1455 )
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
will recall that I spoke out in the early 1990s about the high
levels of interest rates and about the policies of the previous
government. This government has changed those policies and
we are moving not only to cure our deficit but to improve our
social programs as well.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in his questions and answers booklet on the Canadian
firearms registration system, the Minister of Justice tells
Canadians that his new registration system will help eliminate
smuggling and stolen firearms as sources of supply.
Just last Thursday the minister stated publicly that the new
gun control legislation will do little to prevent smuggling.
Could the minister please explain which statement is true?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposals we put
before the house will help a great deal in reducing the smuggling
of firearms. We have been through this before. Hansard is
replete with detailed responses to questions that are asked daily
in the House by the same members.
Let me come to the specific question the member puts. I
believe, and the government believes, that its proposals will
help enormously. Last week it was put to me by a provincial
counterpart, the Solicitor General of Ontario, that there is much
more we can do. I agreed with him. Indeed there is much more
we can do and should do. With the collaboration of the
provincial solicitors general, I believe we can and will do more.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this minister has had 16 months to deal with gun
smuggling. He has done nothing but table a plan to register the
guns of law-abiding Canadians. Registration has not proven
effective for crime deterrence in any other democracy in the
world.
Why does the minister not take the $85 million he has
committed to gun registration and instead target it toward
directly defending our borders against gun smuggling?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in large part, the
registration system we propose is targeted at the borders to
reduce smuggling, and we are very confident that it will have
that result.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Just days away from budget day, the federal minister of
agriculture talks about reviewing all agricultural subsidies, and
those for grain transportation in particular. He plans to replace
existing rail carrier subsidies with direct assistance to Western
grain producers.
Will the agriculture minister confirm his government's
intention to stop paying rail carriers subsidies and start
subsidizing Western grain producers directly instead? And if so,
can he undertake before this House to-
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could ask one
question and maybe another short one, but three is a bit much.
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the subject of western grain
transportation reform has been debated for probably the better
part of the last 25 years.
We intend to proceed with various aspects of that reform.
Indeed some measures are already before the House in the form
of proposed legislation.
Over the course of the last number of months both the
Minister of Transport and I have been engaged in intensive
discussions with farmers, farm organizations and other
stakeholders in the industry involving all aspects of Canadian
grain handling and transportation from one end of the country to
the other. At the time of the budget or shortly thereafter there
should be an opportunity to describe the details.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can
the agriculture minister give us at this time the assurance that all
farm producers in Canada will be treated equally and that the
measures he will be putting forth will not allow Western
producers to use federal subsidies to compete with Eastern
producers?
9829
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, equity, fairness and balance are
established as hallmarks of this government and will continue to
be.
_____________________________________________
9829
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table today, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments made recently by the
government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110((1), these are deemed
referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which
is attached.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (prostitution).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from
Crowfoot for seconding my introduction of first reading of the
bill. It is my pleasure to introduce the bill to this House.
The bill will increase the penalty for persons who engage in
the public act to buy or sell sexual services from a summary
conviction to an indictable offence. It would make the penalty of
section 213 of the Criminal Code, which is public
communication to obtain sexual services, parallel to that of
section 212 just before it in the Criminal Code, which is
procuring.
A summary conviction has a maximum sentence of only six
months. While this may be appropriate for some crimes in
Canada, it is most certainly not appropriate for the acts of the
public prostitution trade. With the increase to an indictable
offence it will allow the courts to give a sentence for the
maximum penalty of up to ten years and provide the range of
flexibility that is needed. By such designation it changes the
category of seriousness and affects the allocation of police
resources. It places more flexible tools into the hands of the
police, who instead of writing a curb-side ticket may now arrest,
if necessary.
Canadians are frustrated with the street trade of prostitution.
They are upset that along with this comes widespread criminal
drug use. I note that many Canadians want stiffer penalties for
this behaviour and that is exactly what my bill attends to do.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (voluntary intoxication).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce a
second bill. Again my hon. colleague from Crowfoot is
seconding the introduction of the first reading of this bill.
This bill will create a separate punishment for those who
willingly become intoxicated through alcohol and drugs and
who during this self-induced intoxication commit a prohibited
act.
The bill clearly defines what is meant by a prohibited act and I
believe that all Canadians would concur with this.
The recent Supreme Court ruling is what began the outcry. It
is interesting to note that it was a suggestion of the Supreme
Court that we as members of Parliament make the necessary
changes to an apparent flaw in the system.
In his minority report Mr. Justice John Sopinka stated:
It has been suggested that Parliament should create a new offence of
dangerous intoxication. Such changes are for Parliament and not for this
Court to make.
I therefore encourage all parliamentarians in this House to
support legislation that would put an end to further
inconsistencies within the Canadian Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1505)
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise before this House on day 11 to present petition No. 11.
These petitions are being presented on behalf of constituents
who wish to halt the early release from prison of Robert Paul
Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
9830
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murders.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour
to rise in the House to present a petition, duly certified by the
clerk of petitions, on behalf of over 3,000 constituents of
Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to revise the Young Offenders Act as follows: when a
youth 14 years of age and above commits any crime of violence,
including but not limited to murder, manslaughter, aggravated
and sexual assault and armed robbery, he or she will
automatically be tried in adult court with criminal records and
adult sentences, taking into consideration the maturity of the
offender; and public identification of a convicted young
dangerous offender.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
my pleasure to introduce two different petitions into the House
today.
The first one draws to the attention of the House that although
the proposed anti-firearms legislation, as these people call it,
will do virtually nothing to reduce violent crime it will,
however, severely restrict the rights and freedoms of millions of
innocent firearm owners contrary to the very principles of
justice upon which this country was founded.
They ask and pray that the government refuse the anti-firearm
proposals of the Minister of Justice and insist that he bring forth
legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than persecute
the innocent.
I think that is a good emphasis.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition is from people in and around my riding. They
ask Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
It is a pleasure to introduce this on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
1,000 of the undersigned residents of Canada draw to the
attention of the House that the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation is Canada's national public broadcasting service
and an agent of Her Majesty; that the CBC is funded by the
federal government with taxpayers' dollars; that the CBC plays
a significant role in meeting the statutory objective set out for
the broadcasting system of safeguarding, enriching and
strenghthening the cultural, political, social and economic
fabric of Canada; that the CBC has applied to televise the
proceedings of the Paul Bernardo trial and that this application
does not support the role of the CBC and does nothing to
safeguard, enrich or strengthen the fabric of Canada.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the
actions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to request
that accordance with its responsibilities as the national
broadcaster, the CBC withdraw its application to televise the
Paul Bernardo trial.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition signed by over 400 residents of the County of
Peterborough, many of whom I know personally.
They point out that the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has allowed Bell
Canada to increase local area calling rates by $2 per month for
each of 1995, 1996 and 1997, which represents an increase of
approximately 50 per cent over three years. They point out that
the proposed increases far exceed the cost of living index and
that the proposed savings in long distance rates will be of little
benefit to the majority of senior citizens receiving the
guaranteed income supplement and other low income
individuals.
(1510)
Therefore, these petitioners request that Parliament urge the
CRTC to require Bell Canada to file a plan that will address the
issues of accessibility to local telephone service and the
affordability of local calling rates for senior citizens who are
receiving the guaranteed income supplement as well as other
low income individuals in our community.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two different petitions.
The first one is from very concerned citizens who would like
to see a review and revision of our laws concerning young
offenders by empowering the courts to prosecute and punish
young offenders who are terrorizing society by releasing their
names and lowering the age limit to allow persecution to meet
the severity of the crime.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my second petition is from a group of concerned citizens who
9831
call upon Parliament and petition Parliament to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I have three petitions. In the first one the
petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia
and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that section 241 of
the Criminal Code which forbids counselling, procuring, aiding
and abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced
vigorously.
In the second petition the petitioners request that Parliament
ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that there be no
changes to the law to sanction euthanasia in any manner.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my third petition is a petition indicating that the
petitioners believe that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are
subject to discrimination in this country and that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has a right to
protection against discrimination.
They request that Parliament amend the Canadian Human
Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present four petitions
today. The third and fourth petitions aim to draw Parliament's
attention to the consequence of legalizing euthanasia.
The petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the 400
petitioners of the first and second petition are requesting that
Parliament not attack the recreational firearms community.
They support legislation that severely punishes one who uses
a weapon including a weapon other than a firearm, protects the
rights and freedoms of the law-abiding recreational firearms
community to own and use firearm responsibly, passes careful
scrutiny to see that it will improve public safety in a cost
effective manner, and repeals present firearms control
legislation that features tortuous language and has been
characterized by the courts as one of the most horrifying
examples of ad draftsmanship.
I am pleased to submit these petitions. I support them.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents
from mining communities in British Columbia who are calling
on Parliament to take action that will see an increase in
employment in the mining sector, promote mining exploration,
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities
and keep mining in Canada.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in another
petition the petitioners simply ask that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of
homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to
include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 39, I placed a
question on the Order Paper on September 30, 1994. That was
143 days ago.
As the question required a detailed response, I did not request
that the answer be provided within 45 days as the Standing
Orders allow.
I am seeking information on grants from the Canada Council.
The government has failed to provide the information requested
and the Canada Council is already exempt from access to
information requests. Now it appears to be exempting itself
from usual parliamentary procedures and the expectations of
this member of Parliament.
(1515)
In these times of government restraint taxpayers are
demanding that government funds be used responsibly so it is
my role to ask questions to ensure that this happens. However
someone has chosen not to answer the question. Why is this
information being hidden from Canadians?
One hundred and forty-three days is an unacceptable length
of time to respond to my question which I shall pose again:
For 1992 and 1993, what was the total amount of funds received by
individuals and groups from the Canada Council, who were these individuals,
for what specific projects did they receive funding and how much did they
receive?
9832
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I hope I
will be in a position to furnish the House with an answer to her
question later this week.
I note that the reply will be lengthy because the Canada
Council hands out a great number of grants to numerous
individuals and bodies across Canada. The first reply was
received. Certain information that the member requested was
missing from the answer and it was sent back so that it would be
made complete. I expect to be in possession of the complete
answer later this week.
If the hon. member is so concerned about saving taxpayers'
dollars I have no doubt she would have gone to the Library of
Parliament and looked up the annual reports of the Canada
Council wherein all its grants are listed. She could have
obtained the answer there instead of putting a question on the
Order Paper which will cost many thousands of extra dollars to
provide to the House in the copies and in the form that she
wishes to have it.
Having given that response, I would ask that all questions be
allowed to stand.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this is the fourth time I rise in the House to point out to the
government that I have had a question on the Order Paper since
October 19. This is more than 120 days ago, although normally,
it takes 45 days to get a reply. It has now been four months, and I
have yet to get an answer to my question, unlike the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast.
The Minister of Public Works is doing everything in his power
to prevent us from having access to the information I requested.
I wonder whether the government is trying to keep members
from having access to the information they need. I ask the
Speaker to urge the government to observe the rules of this
House. In my opinion, this shows utter contempt for the
Standing Orders of this House. Could I have a commitment from
the hon. member, a specific date on which I will get the
information I requested four months ago?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same answer the
hon. member was given Friday. This government does not vary
its answers. The answer is always the same. We will have a reply
very shortly, and when I receive it, I will table it here in the
House.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9832
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal
Code, be read the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: Before question period I understand
the Chair undertook that the member for South Shore would
have time to reply to the question or comment of the hon.
member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe
when we broke there were approximately two minutes left so I
will keep my answer short.
It will come as no surprise that I disagree almost completely
with the premise of the member for Wild Rose. We ignore the
sociological factors at our peril.
I would be more apt to accept the views of Dr. Alan Leschied
over those of the hon. member. The hon. member will perhaps
remember that Dr. Leschied was at the committee hearing. I
believe the hon. member was in attendance when he addressed
the factors that had to be considered. If we read the transcript
which is quite lengthy it would set out the views that I expressed
earlier in my representations.
The Deputy Speaker: There is approximately one minute
left. If the member for Wild Rose wishes to use 30 seconds of it
he has 30 seconds.
(1520)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make sure the House understands that I agree we need to
address those things but it should not be through the justice
department. I am trying to differentiate between the two.
I also asked the member about 16 and 17 year olds and about
how it is making a difference when I see it making no difference
whatsoever. I would like him to respond to that part.
Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the new provisions for 16 and 17 year
olds are not yet law. They are simply before the House in the bill.
I would ask the member to give them a chance. I think he will see
that they will make a difference.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Young Offenders Act, amendments to which we are discussing
today, reaches deep into the fabric of our society. When we
9833
decide to amend this act, we must try to better express the ideals,
values and objectives of our society for the young people who
have committed crimes.
We must remember that the very existence of a young
offenders act is an expression of Canadian society's desire to
offer young people an alternative to the Criminal Code, which
applies to adults. Our society is aiming not only at stopping and
penalizing the criminal behaviour of young people, but also at
giving them training to help them learn and adjust. For this
reason, responsibility for administering the Young Offenders
Act does not rest with the judicial system alone, but also with the
social services set up by the various provinces.
In Quebec, organized services for young people in trouble and
young offenders date back to the establishment of the first
industrial and reform schools in the second half of the 19th
century, that is, even before the federal Parliament adopted the
first juvenile delinquents act in 1908.
More than 8,000 social workers from various professions
currently work in youth centres in Quebec. They are involved
annually with 85,000 young people and their families, including
nearly 22,000 young persons who are referred to them under the
Young Offenders Act. These experts represent an extraordinary
resource we would be wrong to forgo.
We are in the curious situation in the House today of
discussing a bill to amend the Young Offenders Act in third
reading, when almost all those making representations before
the House Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had
asked that the adoption of these amendments be delayed.
These people all asked the Minister of Justice to move
immediately on to the second phase of his plan of action-an
in-depth evaluation of the present act and its
application-before making such substantial amendments to the
act.
Based on this evaluation, the amendments proposed by the
justice minister could be reviewed and all members could vote
with the full conviction that they are giving the parties involved
in fighting youth crime the legal tool to do so, while at the same
time promoting deterrence and rehabilitation.
Why is the justice minister refusing to take this logical step?
Can the minister convince us that the amendments he has
proposed must definitely be passed without delay?
In preparing my statement, I was struck by the fact that none
of the stakeholders I met would feel any better equipped to fight
youth crime if the amendments proposed by the minister were
passed. On the contrary, they are convinced that their job would
be even more difficult, both in respect of the public and the
young persons themselves.
For instance, increasing sentences for serious offences may
create a false sense of security among the public, although past
experience gives us no reason to expect that such a measure
would have a positive effect, either on the level of crime or on
recidivism among young persons.
(1525)
Moreover, by basically limiting detention orders to offences
involving serious assault with bodily harm, the act would
deprive the judicial system and social workers of an instrument
sometimes necessary to the rehabilitation of certain young
persons for whom recidivism, schooling, family and personal
situation and other circumstances must be taken into account. In
short, a prison sentence may be appropriate in certain cases even
if the offences in question did not entail serious personal harm.
In other words, we can assert on the basis of present findings
that passing this act would not provide any greater measure of
social protection and that the quality of supervision for certain
young persons would suffer. The question which naturally
comes to mind is the following: Why is the Minister of Justice
bent on pushing through so quickly an act that all those
concerned doubt will be effective?
Many people think the answer to it is that the Minister of
Justice has given in to a small but very vocal group that favours
lex talionis, ``an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth''. This group
is reacting to the small glimpse they have gotten of juvenile
delinquency and to the knowledge they have gleaned from the
media of certain extreme but very rare manifestations of that
criminality, such as crimes against persons. Left to its own
devices and fanned by radio talk-show hosts, this fraction of
public opinion is demanding that draconian measures be taken
against juvenile delinquency.
By giving in to such pressure, the Minister of Justice shows
that he pays more attention to what radio talk-show hosts say
than to those working in the sector. Has he forgotten that his
primary mission is to propose effective laws to Canadians that
enforce our ideals of justice?
We are very disappointed that the Minister of Justice has
abdicated his primary responsibility by proposing repressive
and ineffective amendments inspired by ultraconservative
opinions on social policy first propagated by the Reform Party,
then apparently adopted by the Liberal party as their own.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that we can and must channel
the legitimate concerns of the population towards a better
understanding of juvenile delinquency and towards a
willingness to apply adequate preventative and deterrent
measures, as well as effective rehabilitation measures for young
offenders.
The minister promises that he will take that approach later,
while forcing us to adopt amendments which go against the
spirit of the very approach he proposes. The members of this
9834
House must understand that the amendments proposed by the
Minister of Justice reflect a policy and values that are
fundamentally different from those underlying the act itself.
By increasingly linking sentencing to the seriousness of the
offences committed as the sole factor, these amendments thwart
the search for measures consistent with both the seriousness of
the offences and the needs of the young offenders. This search is
the very basis for the existence of a Young Offenders Act
distinct from the Criminal Code.
How can they ask us to renounce today the underlying
principles of a law that is supposed to undergo a thorough review
in the coming months?
We are well aware of the inconsistency in the approach
proposed by the Minister of Justice and will vote against these
amendments. We know, however, that the bill is at the third
reading stage and that, unless it is withdrawn by the Minister of
Justice, it will be passed by the government majority, probably
with the support of Reform members.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Justice straight out to
reconsider his position and initiate his proposed review of the
Young Offenders Act now before this bill is passed.
(1530)
I am confident that such a decision would be widely supported
across Canada, and it would be the only acceptable option from
Quebec's point of view. In Quebec, this bill was opposed not
only by those who work with young offenders but by the Quebec
government, which expressed its opposition very clearly
through its Minister of Justice, its Minister of Health and Social
Services, and its Minister of Public Security.
As early as June 14, 1994, Roger Lefebvre, as the then
Minister of Justice and on behalf of his colleagues, the Minister
of Health and Social Services and the Minister of Public
Security, told his federal counterpart about his deep concerns
regarding Bill C-37. Quebec's position, together with a detailed
analysis of the bill, was relayed to the federal deputy minister as
early as September 12 and tabled before the House of Commons
justice committee.
Let me read the main conclusions of this analysis: Bill C-37
does not resolve the problem adequately; Bill C-37 is
unfounded; Bill C-37 is full of inconsistencies and ambiguity;
Bill C-37 has undesirable and unjustified effects in terms of
service organization and principles as well as in clinical and
financial terms.
Quebec's position on this bill could hardly be clearer and
more devastating. I want to emphasize the fact that this position
was developed by members of the previous Cabinet in Quebec, a
Liberal Cabinet, and that it was fully endorsed by the present
Party Quebecois government. Therefore, there is no doubt that
this position reflects a very large consensus in Quebec society.
The federal justice minister must understand that, should the
amendments contained in this bill be passed, the justice, health
and social services departments as well as those primarily
responsible for their enforcement in Quebec would then be
forced to put into application amendments to the Young
Offenders Act that they unanimously denounced and against
which the vast majority of members from Quebec would have
voted.
This brings to light a serious situation where the Canadian
majority would impose upon the people of Quebec values and
directions to which they object.
This situation appears all the more unacceptable that most
witnesses from the rest of Canada and even federal justice
analysts agree that Quebec is in fact a model in combatting
youth crime and rehabilitating young offenders.
While the youth crime rate in Quebec compares favourably to
the rate in the other provinces, the number of cases transferred is
much lower than it is in the other provinces. There are only 9.4
per cent of referrals in Quebec, with 25.4 per cent of the youth
population between the ages of 12 and 17.
This is due to a large extent to the enforcement measures put
in place in Quebec and a more extensive use of the alternative
measures program. In addition, the emphasis put on the Youth
Protection Act and its enforcement in Quebec makes it possible
to deal with difficult family circumstances without resorting to
the Youth Offenders Act. In short, Quebec has developed an
integrated and efficient approach and the other provinces should
follow suit.
How are we to explain to our fellow Quebec citizens that, if
this bill is passed, we will have to abide by the wishes of the
federal Parliament even though these amendments were rejected
unanimously by the Quebec departments and officials in charge
of enforcing them?
(1535)
Of course we will have to mention the constitution, although
the hon. member for Shawinigan and Prime Minister of Canada
does not like it when we bring this up. Well, according to the
Canadian constitution, the Young Offenders Act is a federal
matter, although its implementation is up to the provincial
governments.
Quebec will have to submit to the will of Parliament in this
respect, until we change the constitution or decide to draft our
own constitution, as a sovereign country.
Some members or observers may think I am just using this
debate to promote the sovereignist option by stressing the
differences between Quebec and the federal government. That is
certainly not the case, since I have asked the Minister of Justice
to delay the passage of this bill and to proceed with a review that
would be beneficial to all the provinces of Canada.
9835
If the Minister of Justice says no, I will have to conclude that
we are faced with two different philosophies regarding youth
crime and that the rest of Canada, by using the powers conferred
by the constitution on the federal Parliament, is forcing on
Quebec an approach that it cannot accept. I think that young
people in Quebec who are in trouble deserve a more satisfactory
response than the one proposed by the Minister of Justice, which
draws its inspiration from the repressive and ultraconservative
policies that come to us from Western Canada.
In any case, the Bloc Quebecois will do everything in its
power to stop these policies at the Quebec border. First, by
voting against this bill, and then by maintaining our support for
sovereign status for Quebec, which would give it exclusive
legislative powers.
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that Quebec has a different approach to young offenders
and it works quite well. I wonder if there is not enough leeway in
the bill for judges to make a decision that would accommodate
Quebec's option.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, the government of
Quebec submitted an analysis, which I could give my colleague.
It was tabled with the House justice committee. Very clearly, it
says first that this bill is not justified. Reasons are given for
increasing sentences. Sentences were just increased in 1992,
when Kim Campbell was the Minister of Justice. In 1992, she
increased sentences for young offenders.
We have yet to see the results. Now we are giving in again. We
are trying to be like the people of California, or just about. Their
biggest budget items are prisons and the police. We want health
and education to be the biggest items here, not prisons and the
police.
In the bill, sentences are being increased. What is more
serious in this bill from the standpoint of young people? One
very important point is that, from now on, detention will be
almost impossible for young people who have not committed
serious crimes against individuals.
For example, young people involved in car theft networks or
even in drug or cigarette trafficking, who have not been caught
committing crimes against individuals, but who need to be
withdrawn from their surroundings, must be detained for
rehabilitation. The bill will restrict the ability of those in these
situations who must intervene and remove young people from
their surroundings so that they do not become hardened
criminals.
(1540)
On the one hand, unfortunately, sentences are being
increased, while on the other, offences for which such sentences
can be imposed are being restricted. Basically, however, if the
system is adequate-which is unfortunately not the case in all
provinces-being in custody allows for the young person to be
extricated from criminal surroundings and rehabilitated before
it is too late. The other aspect which seems absurd to us is that a
16 or 17-year old will have to prove that he should be heard in
youth court.
First of all, I would like to point out a misconception which I
hear on a regular basis from members of the Reform Party. In
certain cases, young persons might clearly fare better before an
adult court than under the Young Offenders Act because the
Young Offenders Act also provides for extended sentences in
certain cases to allow for rehabilitation and, very often, such
young persons are removed from a series of measures instituted
to help them, but also to supervise them.
I listened to what was said and at times I found it quite
astonishing. Putting young persons into custody under the
present system is no picnic for them, but it provides for good
supervision and gives them a chance to make a fresh start for
themselves. The bill refers to rehabilitation; the preamble has
been changed. Nothing in the amendments provides for
improved rehabilitation. Changing the preamble and including
all the measures which appeal to the Reform Party will not
improve the act.
In Quebec, we are systematically opposed to it. All
institutions, departments concerned and interested parties know
that it is taking us in the wrong direction.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-37, which amends the
Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, I am taken back to
earlier stages in my professional career as a sometime crown
prosecutor and a defence lawyer. At a later stage I specialized in
the teaching of Soviet law and the aspects of Soviet criminal
law. I speak now of non-political crimes where that country had
moved in the sentencing phase into much more of a sociological
approach than a conventional criminological approach.
The bill is interesting because it comes at a time of historical
transition in our society and in the world community as a whole,
with the social tensions that are always present in a period of
very rapid change which outstrip the ability of the social
processes to accommodate to the changes.
As one who has to deal a lot with statistics, I have
reservations, but it is a fact that the statistics show no substantial
increase in the numbers of crimes being perpetrated in our
society. It is also a fact, I think beyond doubt, that the intensity
of the crimes and the violence of them are greatly augmented.
This is what explains the public demand, it is certainly reflected
in one of the opposition parties, for a toughening up of the
criminal law, if one can use those terms.
9836
The criminal law, not less than any other branch of public law,
represents an attempt to balance the larger public interests
against individual interests. Sometimes the metaphor of the
pendulum has been used, but the pendulum which has swung
much more in the immediate past years in favour of the rights of
accused persons has swung, in the last several years certainly,
much more strongly in favour of the protection of societal
interests. We all reflect that.
(1545)
It is reflected in the petitions presented in this House today. I
note with interest that members of several different parties
present petitions on this general question. All of us as members
of Parliament receive letters from our constituents.
One of the very sad things in all this is that since Jeremy
Bentham first formulated his plans on penal reform, on curing of
the offenders, one has the terrible feeling that not as much
progress has been made in that as a scientific discipline as
should have been made. Therefore we come back to the issue
with this bill: How has the balance been struck by the minister in
approaching the demands for amendment of the existing Young
Offenders Act and the Criminal Code? How has he responded to
the conflicting social interests?
Listening to the debate, one was struck by the difference in the
attitude of the two opposition parties. The official opposition,
and I take the criticisms of the hon. member for Rosemont as
reflecting this, felt that the measure was too severe, that it did
not adequately reflect the social interests in protecting young
offenders. With the other opposition party, I think the criticism
was made that it did not go far enough.
If the minister manages to build in both those criticisms of his
work, it may strike many that maybe he has found the middle
way. Let us have a look and see exactly what has been done.
There is the increase in the maximum sentences for teenagers
to ten years for first degree murder or a maximum of seven years
in the case of second degree murder. This reflects quite clearly
the public concern that young offenders can commit murder and
walk away from them.
I thought that the hon. member for Rosemont suggested that
this was a simplistic approach and it did not take enough account
of the element of recidivism which he feels is still severe in
relation to young offenders who have been imprisoned. Perhaps
we can take a look at that a little later when we examine other
parts of the proposed bill.
The second part of the bill is significant and concerns young
offenders, 16 or 17 year olds, charged with serious personal
injury offences which are defined in the revised act as murder,
attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault, and
aggravated assault. These persons will be tried in adult court
unless they can show a judge that public protection and
rehabilitation can be achieved through the youth court. It
changes the burden of carriage of the suit significantly from the
preceding act which it now proposes to amend.
The bill does reflect the public interest in the public right to
know the facts of offences. Parameters must be established in
this regard.
In this House in recent days we have heard a certain cry of
anguish from many members about what many feel are indecent
attempts of some public media to open the books on recent sex
offences and murders involving young people. Members know
the cases without my citing the names.
The public interest, the public right to know demands
increasingly that the courts be opened up. This process is
reflected architecturally in the grand design of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia, Arthur Erickson's design, which is
literally intended to allow people to walk in from the streets and
through the courts.
Courts used to be shut up. When I was a young lawyer, they
were closed. It was very hard to find your way and was panelled
in dark wood. The court officials seemed to do their best to keep
people out. Therefore this particular aspect is certainly there. In
so far as court proceedings are a part of the general public
educational process in criminal law, I think this is a step forward
without any apparent disadvantages to it.
(1550)
The time that 16 and 17 year old young offenders convicted of
murder in adult court must serve before they can be considered
for parole is extended. This is a reaction generally to a public
feeling that the parole system today is not functioning as it
should. It is being addressed in a more general way by other
sections of the justice ministry.
Suffice it to say, for the most serious offence of all, the
extension of the time to be served in the case of young offenders
responds to very clear public interest. This was expressed to all
members of Parliament through petition and through direct
correspondence to us.
The provision for information sharing among professional
people, school officials, police, and certain public groups when
public safety is at risk has been criticized by some as exposing
young people to public obloquy. It has been criticized by one of
the opposition parties in this debate as not going far enough.
There are two things to remember.
We have moved a long way from the 18th century notion that
people were exposed in the docks, in the public stocks in the
village square, and made to wear a letter on their chest if they
were convicted of certain offences. It reflects a reaction to this
but it also recognizes awareness of the relevance of the charter
of rights. The charter of rights, as interpreted in the
jurisprudence in our courts, is very strict in its definition of the
limits of the public right to know and the protection of the
privacy of individuals.
9837
In this particular sense, it seems to me the minister has gone
as far as he sensibly can go. He is a law reformer who wants his
law to prevail. He does not want it to be challenged endlessly
before the courts and perhaps thrown out on the basis of the
rational interpretation of the court jurisprudence that all of us as
professionals in the field know how to make.
Similarly, with the provisions for rehabilitation and treatment
of young offenders, I was struck by the comments of the member
for Rosemont, the official opposition. I think we are all ready
and willing to learn from the experience of other countries and
certainly from provinces within our federal system. I was struck
by the thoughtful question posed by a member of my own party
to the member for Rosemont.
This exchange of information is important. As far as the
federal law is concerned, it represents a significant advance on
provisions as they now exist.
One very interesting area is the provision the minister makes
for the private law responsibility of offenders, here specifically
young offenders, where property crimes or less serious offences
are what is involved. The concept seems to be the restorative one
that the criminal offender, the delinquent, should not merely
purge an offence in terms of suffering punishment but should
also assume the burden of correcting the social situation that he
or she has so rudely disturbed.
If young people wantonly destroy property, we can take the
Singapore approach and you can cane them in well publicized
ways. Or we can ask the young people to repair the property as
part of their sentence. We can ask them to accept the
responsibility for what they have done which I think is an
excellent approach. I hope it will be extended more widely
within our criminal law.
(1555 )
Contrary to public impression and also public impression of
some public officials, the way always exists under our law for
private law actions to compel just that, the restoration of the
situation to as it existed before. Actions are quite common in
continental European law against the parents of young offenders
or against the young offenders themselves for that matter, for
whom their parents would stand in responsibility.
In any case, this is innovative. It shows the attempt the
minister is making to produce a coherent law that balances the
old with the new social imperatives in a period of rapid change.
In making compromises, it strikes a balance that takes us beyond
the social problem as it has been thought to exist.
On this basis this is a valuable step forward. We have to be
especially careful when dealing with young offenders in facing
the reality that long incarceration with young people encourages
recidivism and may be the least effective social control of all.
Nevertheless the minister, in relation to the supreme offences,
first and second degree murder, has taken the step of increasing
the punishment. In other areas he has recognized the public wish
to be involved but within the limitation that we will not
encourage prurience by publishing televised tapes that people
recorded of their victims. We will go so far as to say the public
has a right to know.
We will bring in the social services people to encourage
rehabilitation of young people. We will accept the notion that in
the protection of the public responsible public officials in
schools and elsewhere need to be given information. However
that information must be done in conformity with the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms as interpreted by the courts and as
predictably applying in cases such as the present.
On this basis, I am happy to commend Bill C-37 for adoption
by this House.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a hard time understanding this. A 17-year-old murders an
individual, such as the mother in Edmonton. Someone else, who
happens to be one year older, does the same thing. For him it is
an automatic life sentence for first degree murder because he is
one year older.
Why should there be a difference between a 17-year-old and
an 18-year-old? Why should a 17-year-old who performs that
kind of act receive three years, which is very possible, and an
18-year-old who performs that kind of heinous act receive a
25-year sentence?
I am struggling with the difference. Why do we not take 16
and 17 year olds and say they are in adult court, period? Why
include something that says unless it can be proven that it would
be more to their benefit to be in juvenile court? Are we trying to
create more work for lawyers? That is probably one of the
motives, but I would not dare suggest it.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fruitful
question raised by the hon. member. I would have thought the
bill as presented by the minister responded to the specific cases
he raised. These 16 and 17 year olds are to be dealt with in adult
court under the bill. The maximum sentence is 10 years for first
degree murder.
We are getting into this issue of marginal variation and where
do we draw the line? Would we extend it from 16 years down to
15, or why not then 14? A life sentence and even death sentences
were routinely applied in earlier periods of criminology to
young children. We have obviously gone beyond that.
9838
(1600)
We have tried to establish a new line which reflects present
societal expectations and present societal realities. It is always
possible to amend this, but I would have thought that there is a
significant change now made in applying this 10-year minimum
sentence for first degree murder. On that particular score I think
that the bill represents an advance. However, if on experience it
is found that changes are needed, it can be amended again.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak again on Bill C-37, an act to
amend the Young Offenders Act.
This matter is close to my heart, as I lived with young offender
issues and their consequences long before the Young Offenders
Act became the law of the land. I was a part of the more than 10
years of consultation and wrangling that occurred which finally
produced Bill C-61 back in 1981, which brought us this tragic,
social science experiment perpetrated upon the Canadian
people.
I have a clear message for the Minister of Justice and his
cabinet colleagues. I also want to wake up the policy section of
the Department of Justice which has led the justice minister into
the mistake of Bill C-37.
I can appreciate that the justice minister has to take what he
believes is the best advice he can get from his advisers. I say to
those few in the department who have misguided the minister
that the shame of the country is on their shoulders.
The condescending prescriptive approach of Bill C-37 is
fundamentally out of step with mainstream Canadian values and
it makes one's heart sink. I do not know what I can say to drag
the members opposite into the nineties, clear their heads and
listen to what I am saying. They should not discount what I say
because of where I stand in the House. I claim particular
credibility about the Young Offenders Act.
This country does not need Bill C-37. Rather, it needs a
renewed Young Offenders Act, one which will improve the
safety of our streets, put Canadians' minds at ease and reflect
what Canadians want.
Members of this House and the minister, listen to what I am
saying and make the appropriate adjustments. Bill C-37 is
wrong. Hopefully we can get it right at the 10-year review.
Since coming to Ottawa I have sat through most of the justice
committee meetings which dealt with Bill C-37. I have held
town hall meetings and have done widespread surveys in my
riding of New Westminster-Burnaby. I have also consulted
across the country. The conclusion is the same, the Young
Offenders Act and the amendments proposed as part of Bill
C-37 do not come close to solving the problems associated with
young offenders today.
In a survey included in a recent householder of mine I asked
constituents a straightforward question: Does the current Young
Offenders Act need to be amended? The yes response was an
astounding 96.3 per cent. At town hall meetings in my riding the
consensus was to lower the age and to change other essential
elements.
This feeling is widespread across Canada. However, the
bleeding heart Liberals do not want to admit it. Clearly the YOA
is fundamentally flawed and has not achieved the acceptance
that we would expect if it were operationally appropriate.
Canadians have had it with high taxes and an uncontrollable
deficit and debt. They have had it with gun control measures
which do not deter criminals. Most of all, they have had it with
the Young Offenders Act which does not protect innocent people
or support the principles of specific or general deterrence.
Instead it seems to protect the rights of the offender in a manner
out of balance with that of the victims.
The Young Offenders Act makes certain that the identity of a
young offender is not known even if this puts the general public
at high risk. Further, the Young Offenders Act fails to recognize
the rights of the victim as a needed integral part of the justice
system, as there is no legal recognition of their stake in the
general proceedings.
The Minister of Justice asked for consultation, such as his
1993 discussion paper ``Toward Safer Communities''. The
public thinks that the minister really cares about what it thinks.
What the public does not know is that the minister already
finished drafting the bill before the last responses were
received.
True consultation is something which all members of the
Liberal Party need to learn. Perhaps they should take a lesson
from the members on this side of the House. To consult means
not only to listen but to implement what the majority wants.
Canadians are being reminded again that the Liberals' definition
of consultation is to appear to listen and then to follow their
original agenda.
(1605 )
Before the drafting of Bill C-37 there were rallies upon rallies
across the country for drastic changes to the YOA. What
happened? There were no drastic changes. Now on the eve of the
1995 budget Canadians are holding tax rallies from Victoria to
St. John's demanding no more taxes. What will happen? The
finance minister will raise taxes and increase the deficit all in
one shot. The Liberals will still have the nerve to say that this is
what the general public wants or should have.
The Reform Party appreciates the grassroots and listens very
carefully. Our plan of reform of the YOA is community based,
with a history of a bottom up approach, rather than the
traditional bureaucratic, top down, no grassroots approach.
Therefore, the Reform proposals I want to present are the ones
that the
9839
Canadian public wants and the ones that the Canadian public
deserves.
One, lower the young offenders age of definition of young
person from 10 to 15 years inclusive from 12 to 17 years
inclusive. Two, any young offender who commits an indictable
offence could possibly be transferred to adult court. Three,
remove extra privacy and secrecy provisions in the Young
Offenders Act and treat all YOA records, access to information,
ability to publish in the same manner as is for adults.
Four, sentencing must emphasize victim compensation,
community service, skills training, education and deterrence to
others. In custodial facilities opportunities for rehabilitation
must be emphasized in a disciplined environment. Medical
psychological treatment orders should not require the consent of
the young offender.
Five, parents of young offenders should be held responsible
for compensating victims for property crimes if it can be
demonstrated that they have not made a reasonable effort to
exercise parental control. Six, victims must be given legal
standing in youth court and be invited to be involved at all stages
of court.
Constituents often ask why the government always tinkers
with the YOA instead of making all the necessary changes in one
try. I think we all know the answer. By changing it slightly
throughout its mandate, the government makes it appear that it
is really working hard for the people while basically preserving
the status quo and not changing what it originally gave us.
Many members spoke on Bill C-37 at second reading stage
and many more are going to be speaking at this stage. However,
very few who will speak on this bill have experienced the
frustrations of the Young Offenders Act firsthand. I realize that
many of my colleagues in this House are lawyers but I know that
only a few have ever dealt with defending or prosecuting a
young offender.
As a former probation officer in the British Columbia Youth
Court, I had to deal with the Young Offenders Act on a daily
basis. I have lived and breathed the Young Offenders Act
problems for years. As an officer of the court I did my best to
administer at the street level the Young Offenders Act and its
predecessor, the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908.
Beyond the lawyer who may have defended a youth at court, I
regularly made home visits with young offenders and surveyed
the social context of the offender. I worked hard to promote
innovative resolutions to varied crises in case management,
bringing together public health, social work and psychiatry in
the schools to respond to particular needs. This both pre-court
and post-court effort was happening long before the Young
Offenders Act became law. The reality of administering the
sentences and consequences of the Young Offenders Act is far
removed from court proceedings. This different world is not
comprehended very well by legal drafters and policy people.
I mention this as it relates not only to what should be done to
fix the YOA but in respect to the credibility of the message
giver. The Bloc accused me of nostalgic fascism when I rose to
speak about the Young Offenders Act on May 12, 1994.
I want to remind my detractors in this House and those few
lawyers who think they know something about young
offenders-it seems that everyone in this House has an opinion
about youth crime-that my recommendations come within the
context of years of intimate working knowledge of trying to
make the system work at the level of basic application.
The Reform Party's proposals are not right wing reactionary,
but rooted deeply in direct experience and a careful evaluation
of the balance between community desires and specific offender
concerns.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is nationally known
for his misguided views about offenders. At report stage he was
again attributing views to the Reform position on Bill C-37
which had more to do with covering his own guilt about what he
and his colleagues did to this country when a previous Liberal
administration, which included the current Prime Minister, told
Canadians what was good for them and thereby gave us the
Young Offenders Act.
I was involved in early consultations when the Juvenile
Delinquents Act was being changed to the early version of the
Young Offenders Act. Philosophies are varied. I have seen
violent youth released because of minor technicalities and flaws
in the act. The Young Offenders Act is terribly flawed and will
only further harm Canadians if it is kept in its present state,
including if the amendments to Bill C-37 are given royal assent.
(1610)
I tried as a professional to defend the system with the tool box
of rules and resources that I had at my disposal. I found the act at
times to be very cumbersome, a liberal statement of unrealistic
hope over reality, inflexible rules over common sense, a sense of
government betrayal to many victims, and a carte blanche to the
self-centred predator.
On a regular basis I ran into frustrated parents on both sides.
Some parents wanted the law to do something with an offending
son or daughter but the hands of the authorities, including mine
as a court officer, were tied. Victims were always asking the
same questions, why the parents of young offenders cannot be
held accountable, why the guardians who are supposed to be
doing their duty and who fail to act cannot be held accountable
for what they allowed to happen. How many times have we all
heard the comment when a young offender is caught: ``Where
are the parents?''
9840
This government gave its answer to the country and it was in
plain, clear English. It could not care less. In December 1994
this bill was at committee stage. At that time the Liberal and
Reform parties brought forward amendments that would alter
Bill C-37. Every amendment the Reform Party put forward was
voted down by the Liberals, not because they may have
disagreed with the amendment but because some were afraid to
break party ranks. They were afraid to do what was right for the
country.
One of our amendments would have included some limited
parental accountability to the Young Offenders Act. The
proposed change was to clause 13 of the bill. It asked the courts
to order the person having custodial care and control of the
young person who fails to reasonably exercise foreseeable
parental duty to pay and to order such person at such time and on
such terms as the court may fix an amount by way of
compensation for loss of property, for loss of income or support
for special damages for personal injury arising from the
commission of the offence where the value thereof is readily
ascertainable, but no order shall be made for general damages.
It is now a record for the whole country to see where this
government stands. This government is determined to have its
own way, to defend the status quo and to continue the old style
way of governing this country. The Liberals only listened as
they were preparing the red book. They put in the red book what
the people wanted to hear but then they quickly forgot what they
had heard.
The book promised changes to the Young Offenders Act.
More so, it promised to deal with Canadians' concerns. It was
100 per cent smoke and mirrors, I think. Canadians' thoughts
were not even brought to the table.
Let us look at what has been accomplished. The Liberals were
elected as the government and the people are still suffering
under an ill fated Young Offenders Act. By failing to take bold
action to correct what was largely not working and introducing
legislation just to mollify a restless public and fulfil an election
promise with the call ``trust us'', this government has fallen
short and let us down.
The Liberals' efforts are simply a top down, we know best
answer to an increasingly aware and justifiably demanding
populace. I am most pessimistic about any result from the
announced 10-year review.
Members of this House of Commons may not feel the
backlash from constituents just yet, but be sure that when they
vie for re-election constituents from coast to coast will be
asking what Liberal Party members did to improve the Young
Offenders Act. When these Liberal MPs have to really defend to
their constituents the inadequate improvements electors will
look for the party that will truly represent the people and that
party will certainly be the Reform Party.
We have a social philosophy of openness and community
accountability that the old style Liberal ideology just cannot
seem to comprehend. A new Young Offenders Act must be
socially resonant. It must clearly demonstrate Canadian
society's values and mores. It must be an instrument not only of
rehabilitation and treatment but also of deterrence and orderly
denunciation. It must reflect mainstream Canadian values.
Parents are concerned for the safety of our children. They are
demanding an accountability of the justice system to the
community and they want to have a sense of ownership in the
process of justice. They are frustrated and angry that the current
system seems to operate for and around a select enclave of
justice professionals, the criminologists, the legal community,
corrections workers, offender care agencies and the police.
Nine pages of this bill relate to amendments around a faulty
premise. I say clearly to the minister let go of these outdated
notions and stop the tangled bureaucratic response where one
line in the act would suffice to simply state that a youth court
record and an adult criminal record are one and the same of a
continuum to be kept in one computer and handled like all other
criminal records.
Society sees violent crime with abhorrence, needing
denunciation and a sensible social defence response.
(1615 )
If the violent 16 and 17 year old young offender is kept within
the bounds of the Young Offenders Act, the maximum penalty
for first degree murder would be 10 years. If that same violent
offender were dealt with in adult court, the penalty for first
degree murder would be life imprisonment. While 10 years
under the new proposal would seem to be sufficiently harsh, the
reality is that probably only 6 years would be spent in detention
at most, with the remaining 4 years to be spent under community
supervision.
At the other end of the spectrum are the youngsters 10 and 11
years old who are flexing their egos and daring society to take
them to task. Under the provisions of Bill C-37, they remain
untouchable. By the time they are 12 years old, the hard core are
street wise and becoming increasingly sophisticated in testing
the system. When they finally appear as young offenders, they
are already beyond being intimidated by the system. The
successive warnings and breaks they receive as young offenders
then become meaningless.
They often are too deeply entrenched in the game to see or
desire a way out. However I believe that 10 and 11 year olds, if
brought under the umbrella of the justice system, publicly
denounced and placed in programs of education and
rehabilitation, would be much more responsive to efforts to set
them straight.
9841
It would provide the legal tools to break the offending cycle
and require the social services of public health, social work and
education to deal co-operatively and resolutely with these
individuals.
The Reform Party cannot support this bill. It does not
represent the wishes of my constituents. Some of the members
who sit across from me on the government benches represent
ridings close to mine. I have received correspondence from their
constituents. These constituents do not support Bill C-37 and
therefore neither should their member of Parliament.
The one saving grace for this legislation is the second phase
that will take place later this year. The Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs will have the opportunity to hear
witnesses from all across Canada as part of a 10-year review of
not only the amendments to Bill C-37 but the entire Young
Offenders Act.
I understand the committee will travel across the country and
make itself available for all Canadians to provide input. I want
to encourage the chairman of the committee to solicit witnesses
from all groups and not stack the hearings with bleeding hearts
as was done sometimes during the committee stage.
As well, the Minister of Justice must respect the wishes of
those who provide the input for this 10-year review since these
are the people who are affected most by such changes. The
minister has a second chance to do what is right, namely lower
age limits, deal with serious offenders in adult court, eliminate
publication bans, put victims into the system and make parents
responsible for property crimes committed by the youth.
Let the YOA become a short, clear statement in principle
rather than a tangled act that is becoming a retirement plan for
lawyers. Bill C-37 is off track and I call on the government to set
it right during the 10-year review.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to compliment my colleague on a very well delivered
speech. He said some great words.
I too have had lots of experience with youth over a 35-year
period. Could he explain or comment on his views of the young
offender under the age of 12 at that time? How real was it and
how informed and knowledgeable was that age of child,
anywhere from 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 or whatever the age might be as
compared to the idea now that they are not accountable?
I would like his comments on the people who were under age
12.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, we know that common law
tradition previously was that we would not put anyone under
seven years of age through the criminal process. We had
developed through common practice of the administration of the
provinces under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act that no one
under 10 years old was ever processed.
Our suggestions of changing the age of operation is to provide
a better context where social services can be directly brought to
bear on those who are most likely to benefit from those social
services.
In this day and age of growing awareness and the sociological
changes, by the time someone is 16 years old we grant them the
privilege to drive a car and become an impaired driver. Yet we
are going to still treat them as misguided children.
If the age in the Young Offenders Act was lowered to 10,
probably most 10 and 11 year olds would never come before the
courts. They would be dealt with through alternative measures.
It would certainly put a flexible tool into the hands of the police
for those exceptional cases that could be redirected at an earlier
stage, rather than becoming a tragedy later in the system. We are
saying that the basic change of operation is well rooted in
criminological science and the experiences of social services in
the community and is not a rather reactionary response.
(1620)
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the hon.
member would delve a little deeper into the alternative measures
that he started talking about.
I wonder if the hon. member is looking at the same bill, Bill
C-37. I draw his attention to the summary.
This enactment amends the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.
The major elements of the enactment are the following:
amendments to provide that sixteen and seventeen year olds charged with specific
serious crimes involving violence will be proceeded against in adult court-
amendments to increase the period of time that sixteen and seventeen year olds
convicted of murder in adult court must serve before being eligible to apply for
parole;
amendments to provide that young offenders should be accountable to their
victims-
This is what his constituents are requesting. In fairness, he
should draw this to the attention of his constituents.
amendments to provide for greater sharing of information relating to young
offenders with persons who require such information for safety reasons.
Again, this is something his constituents are requesting.
Sometimes I believe that members of Parliament are not serving
their constituents properly if they do not share with the
constituents exactly what is in the bill.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have made an effort to
share what is in the bill. The mild gestures for opening up the
system, for sharing of information, for example, is going to be a
9842
most tangled provision. It is going to be very difficult to
administer.
We have heard very convincing arguments that we really do
not even need a young offenders law because of the charter. I
have heard some rather learned people argue successfully that
way.
I am saying that Bill C-37 really does not go far enough
relating to the ability to take a statement or general openness.
For specific and general deterrence to work the media should
have access. We have a system of rules for maintaining criminal
justice records. I know how difficult it is trying to keep separate
files and create a fiction to a subsequent sentence in court, trying
to figure out what I am allowed to tell the judge and what I am
not allowed to tell the judge because of all the tangled
provisions in the Young Offenders Act. I might be misleading
the judge because of the social engineering aspects of it.
I am simply saying that Bill C-37 is not workable and there is
nothing that can fulfil that ideal. I can give cases where the act
has worked the other way and has caused harm.
As far as 16 and 17 year olds are concerned, we basically say
they should be dealt with in the adult system.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today to deal with the Young
Offenders Act in light of some of the comments that have been
made, especially the comments that seem to be based on the
premise that in our society youth crime is increasing.
That is not the truth. If the Reform Party is indicating that
youth crime is increasing, then the Reform Party is misleading
the public. It just is not true. That is the problem. Its arguments
are based on a premise that is not true.
When we deal with matters such as lowering the age, what is
so magical about the age of 10? If we are going to reduce the age
from 12 to 10, why not 8? Why not lower it to the age when they
begin to walk? Is there any problem with that?
There lies another problem. No basis is given as to why the
age should be lowed to 10. I have a 12-year old child. I cannot
see that child being in young offenders court. They are young
and immature. Twelve-year-olds may be physically tall, but
mentally they are not mature. Putting such people into the
criminal justice system is not right.
(1625)
The bill provides that young offenders can be transferred to
adult court. In the proposed amendments, on serious offences,
16 and 17 year olds are to be tried in adult court unless they can
convince the court that they should be in youth court. Surely
there is no need for change in that area.
Removal of privacy is another factor that has been brought up.
What good is it to society to reveal the name of a young
offender? It will ostracise the child from the rest of society. It
will ostracise the child and will restrict rehabilitation. That is
not what the Reform Party wants to do. It wants to know and
make it a matter of gossip that a certain child was in youth court.
There is no purpose to be gained by revealing such
information. In the proposed amendments we deal with it. The
information can go to the essential parties. It can go to school
teachers and groups such as that so they can deal with the matter
as is required.
Sentencing is the fourth point raised. Rehabilitation is to be
emphasized. Unfortunately for the Reform Party they must
realize that this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Young
offenders are sentenced to facilities that are under the control of
provincial governments. Some provincial governments deal
with the matter differently than others.
In some provinces they simply put the young offender into a
holding tank, lock the door, and release him or her four or five or
ten months later. Open the door and out comes the young
offender, not rehabilitated but simply better trained by prison to
commit crime. That is the problem we have.
If the young offender leaves better trained to commit crime,
then we have a problem because that young offender in short
time becomes an adult and knows how to commit crime better.
That young offender just goes through the system again and
again.
Rehabilitation may be wonderful and should be emphasized
by governments but it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
They have to deal with it more seriously than they have in the
past.
Reform members want parents of young offenders to
compensate the victims. One has to distinguish whether we are
in a civil court or whether we are in the criminal court when we
are dealing with these matters. The mixing of the two does not
always mix that well.
In giving the victims legal standing one has to question
whether this is an offence of a youth. Is this an offence against
the state as it has been traditionally in the criminal justice
system, or are we now going to have everyone from a
community come in and apply for standing in dealing with
matters that are before the courts? This would completely
uproot hundreds of years of tradition.
Certain perceptions have been raised by members of the
Reform Party. According to them there are indications that
crime has been increasing by young offenders, but in reality this
is not so. The only area where there has been an increase in
crime are those crimes classified as violent offences. However a
violent offence involves a common assault, a slapping, et cetera.
9843
The problem we have in those particular areas is that people
have been reporting more of these incidents. When two young
people are fighting at school, the matter is not resolved by the
young people going to the principal's office or calling the
parents. The matter is resolved by calling the police and charges
are laid. That is how statistics get distorted and that is how
statistics show that those crimes have gone up. It has not
happened. That is the problem.
(1630 )
Statistics are being used to distort reality. In fact 16 and 17
year olds in our criminal justice system have been treated more
harshly than adults. Sixteen and seventeen year olds in youth
court who are sentenced to six months of closed custody serve
every day of that six months of closed custody. They do not get
paroled; they are not released early. That is different from the
way adults are treated in our system today.
Another problem that has arisen is the perception that the
police cannot properly enforce laws against young offenders. Of
course police can. Their rights are the same as they are for
adults. If they can use the same rules they use for adult criminals
when dealing with young offenders they can deal with them just
as easily.
The Young Offenders Act enhanced the authority of police
compared to old Juvenile Delinquents Act. The police can
fingerprint young persons and maintain records of prior
convictions. These matters cause young people to be treated
more like adults and simplify enforcement proceedings for
police in dealing with young offenders.
Young people can be transferred to adult court. Under the
proposed legislation and the proposed changes, 16 and 17 year
olds automatically go to adult court for serious offences. The
sentences for first degree murder are doubled to 10 years. That is
the maximum. Of course there is discretion on the part of the
judge sentencing the person.
One has to question what would be served by increasing that
sentence to a further term. What would be served by having a
young person who is 16 years of age sentenced to life
imprisonment? What is served by that? Many of our young
people who get into problems come from dysfunctional
families. Many of them come from families where the parents
are drunks. They are not raised with direction. They go out into
the world with the problem of not knowing how to deal with it.
These are the young people that members of the Reform Party
would want to throw away, lock the doors and support forever.
They want a system similar to that of the state of California
where more money is spent on prisons than on education. If that
is what we are going to do we have a problem. We cannot let that
happen to the youth of this country. We have to help them get
rehabilitated. We cannot lose faith in the youth.
Another problem we have is that anyone who tries to show
that a system works or has worked over a period of time is
immediately accused of being bleeding hearts.
In discussing these matters with prosecutors who have
prosecuted in the field they have indicated the Young Offenders
Act works well. These prosecutors are Canadians. They are in
the system all the time. It is only when Canadians are given
misinformation that they have different opinions. When they are
given the facts they agree that the Young Offenders Act
basically works well.
Most violent offences are not committed by youth. Adults
commit 86 per cent of violent crimes. Of the approximate 14 per
cent committed by youth, half are what we classify as common
assaults: a slap or a punch. Those are the facts. Over 57 per cent
of property crimes committed by youth are thefts. The majority
of those are theft under $1,000. In other words most of them are
offences such as shoplifting.
(1635)
Let us not distort the facts. These are the facts. With these
facts we have to look at the Young Offenders Act to determine
whether it was working properly. I suggest the act is working
very well.
In the past police often decided that charges should not be
laid, especially for first time offences by young offenders. They
would take the young offenders home. They would take them to
the parents. The young people quite often were more
embarrassed than anything. That would end the matter. That is
not the way it is dealt with now. The young offender is
apprehended on an offence, a charge is laid, the youth is then
taken into court and the matter is dealt with in the court system.
I am not criticizing that maybe that is not the way it should be
dealt with, but that is how statistics are built up. They are built
up in particular areas when they should not be. As well there is
an increasing willingness to report offences in the school system
instead of schools taking care of matters as they have in the past.
We can all recall years ago when there would be a fight in a
school yard and the principal, at least in my school, would take
matters into his own hands. He would take the young people to
the office. The odd one got the strap. The odd one was kept in
detention. The police were not called. The way it is now the
police are being called to lay charges, which is distorting the
facts.
However the proportion of all persons charged from 1986
until now has remained virtually unchanged. There is not this
huge explosion of an increase in crime by young offenders. It
just has not happened. It only appears to have happened when
distorted facts are given to the public. That has not happened.
Since it has not happened we have to inform the public of the
facts.
9844
Fourteen per cent of young offenders were charged with
violent offences in 1992. Almost half of those offences were
equivalent to very minor assault charges. None involved
weapons. The offences resulting in the most serious of personal
injuries amounted to approximately 2.4 per cent. We are hearing
this large furore over the way matters are being dealt with or
should be dealt with. The number of youth charged with break
and entry has actually decreased. It was lower in 1992 than it
was in 1986. These are the facts.
The Young Offenders Act must be doing something right.
Something is working. We have to fine tune it in particular areas
and that is what we have endeavoured to do by increasing the
sentences for teenagers convicted of first and second degree
murder in youth court to ten years and seven years respectively.
We hope that we have been able to deal with the matter in giving
the system flexibility.
Rehabilitation was raised by the member from the Reform
Party. Rehabilitation is an important factor. However
rehabilitation quite often commences in the jails because the
youth never got an earlier chance. They never learned how to get
up in the morning. They never learned how to go to work in the
morning. They never learned how to take care of their room.
They never learned personal hygiene. They never learned basic
things like knowing how to work. They never learned how to
clean anything. They never learned how to do any basic jobs.
These are matters that have to be learned and these are required
parts of the rehabilitation scheme. We cannot do this by simply
opening a door, throwing youth in, locking the door behind them
and forgetting about them until their term is over.
I must admit that it would not hurt if some of the parents were
given the same treatment because many of them do not know
how to get up in the morning. Many of them have not taught their
children because they have not known how. They are going
through a vicious cycle. It is going from generation to
generation in that direction. It has to be halted. The Young
Offenders Act goes as far as we can go in halting it. The
provinces have to take over at a particular point.
(1640)
This is not bleeding at all. This is simply common sense. I
wish it was incorporated at times in the comments being made
about young offenders. Common sense plays a part and certainly
goes a long way in remedying some problems that exist.
Some young offenders who are violent need extended periods
of time in incarceration. That is what we are dealing with in the
Young Offenders Act. This provides a chance to rehabilitate
them in the institutions where they are placed. Once that is done
it is up to the provinces and the workers working with them in
the institutions to take over rather than advocate the holding of
young people for prolonged periods of time.
In the proposals dealing with transfers to adult court we have
done what many people in society have wanted. They have
wanted young offenders in extremely serious offences to be tried
in adult court. If those young offenders can convince a judge and
demonstrate that the objectives of the protection of the public
and rehabilitation can be met in youth court then they remain in
youth court but only then. The young offender who has
committed 10 or 15 break-ins will not be in youth court. He will
be in adult court. The person who continuously repeats offences
will go into adult court.
These are important factors to be dealt with. We have dealt
with them in a responsible manner. The amendments are before
Parliament so that the courts will eventually have more
flexibility in dealing with these matters and dealing better with
these matters.
The sharing of information and records is important. We do
not demonstrate to the world what the young person's name is.
There is no purpose in that. We do give it to the right people to be
dealt with for the purpose of protecting the public such as school
officials and child welfare agencies. There are people who
should have the information. Such information when released is
important. We have balanced the interest of the child and the
interest of society by doing what we have done.
The amendments we have proposed at this time certainly meet
many of the requirements of the Canadian public. The Canadian
public has wanted some changes. We have come up with those
changes. They are responsible changes in attempting to fine tune
portions of the legislation that had to be changed. We have done
this.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with rapt attention to the hon. member's
discourse. When hundreds of thousands of Canadians are
voicing their opinion that the Young Offenders Act needs
serious reform or serious overhaul I find it absolutely
astounding a member would claim as he just did that ``the Young
Offenders Act is working very well''.
The hon. member derided the use of statistics, yet he himself
went on to use statistics throughout his presentation over and
over again to try to prove his own personal bias that the Young
Offenders Act is working very well.
I would like to ask the member, in as few words as possible, if
he feels therefore that young offenders who reoffend over and
over again should be held accountable? He said that somehow it
was their background, that they came from dysfunctional
families. They have all sorts of societal reasons why they
commit crimes and why they break the law and have no respect
for it. If it is always someone else's fault how do we hold these
people accountable?
9845
(1645 )
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with repeat
offenders who recommit offences over and over again, quite
often we are dealing with a very small proportion of the
members of the young offenders group who commit these
offences.
Of course there is a need for rehabilitation. Quite often the
reason they are committing these offences is that there is
nothing for them in the institutions in their provinces that
prevents them from doing it or rehabilitates them in any way. If
nothing is done the only problem and the reason they recommit
and get caught is that they were not trained well enough the
second time. They are out, caught again, go in again and
recommit. That is the problem we have.
Of course people do not want to be just in jail. They do not
want to be just in jail for the sake of being incarcerated. That is
not what they want, but they have not learned a different way of
life. We have to realize this and become realistic in this
direction.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of questions to ask the hon. member. I would like
to comment on the 14 per cent of crimes being committed by
youth; 12 to 17 year olds if I am not mistaken make up 14 per
cent of the population, so that balances out pretty well.
Recently I went on a ride along in several places with police
throughout the country, not just in one or two places. I witnessed
the police dealing with youth on a few occasions. On many
occasions there were no charges brought forward. Rather, the
police dealt with the situation. They contacted parents and
charges did not follow.
If charges were being made at a ridiculous pace to include
school fights et cetera, I would have thought from those nights I
was involved that there would have been a real increase in
crime. However, there were no charges brought forward. I
wonder what basis he has to show this House that is happening,
that school yard fights are being reported. Where does he get his
information?
I know at my school in my district of many schools, never
once were the police ever called. That was until 1992. Never
once were they called for a school yard fight. As far as I know, to
this day they have never been.
He said that some provinces throw them in the clink for four to
ten months and then just let them go. I would like to know what
provinces these are and where he got his information.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I can speak fairly well from
personal experience. Rehabilitation does not really function in
the province of Saskatchewan. That is because money is not
being put into the system to properly rehabilitate individuals.
The whole question indicated by the hon. member for Wild
Rose of the number of people young offenders represent being
12 to 14 per cent of the population and therefore committing 12
to 14 per cent of the offences verifies the fact that we do not have
this explosion of offences among young offenders. It has not
occurred. It is not occurring. I am very pleased the hon. member
for Wild Rose has just verified that fact for me.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the member where he is getting his statistics from. I
have statistics from the Canadian centre for justice statistics
showing that since 1962 the rate of young offender offences has
risen by over 300 per cent.
Since the introduction of the Young Offenders Act in 1982 the
incidence of young offender violations has risen some 117 per
cent. There was a small drop between 1992 and 1993 of 3 per
cent. At the same time young males between 15 and 25 in our
population dropped by 14 per cent.
I do not know where you are coming from. There is an
explosion of youth justice, looking over the last 30 years. The
Young Offenders Act simply is not working. Where are you
getting your figures?
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask hon. members to put their
questions or comments through the Chair.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I rely on that most unreliable
authority called the John Howard Society which indicates that
the youths charged as a percentage of all persons charged in the
period 1986-92 has not increased.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, when characterizing how young offenders are
placed in custody in Saskatchewan, the hon. member made a
description something like open the door, put them in and then
let them out.
(1650)
I will be contacting the attorney general of that province and I
will be getting the information about the millions that province
is spending on juvenile offenders for social programming while
they are in custody. Millions are being spent across Canada by
every province. The federal government has a tremendous share
of that cost sharing program.
We are doing a lot to provide social services and community
resources to those who are in custody. It is an awful thing to say
that in any province in Canada they would treat young offenders
in the way that he is describing.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I can facilitate matters for the hon.
member since I live about three blocks from the youth detention
centre in the city of Saskatoon. If he wishes to come to see it,
9846
contact me and I will arrange matters for him. If he wishes the
attorney general's phone number it is in Saskatoon under his
wife's name.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Frontenac-customs tariffs; the hon. member for
Québec-Est-social housing; the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin-citizenship and immigration.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, right off
the bang, I am going to tell you that the Bloc Quebecois'
position on Bill C-37 is that it is repressive and loses sight of the
ultimate goal of all criminal laws: crime prevention and the
rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.
The bill will in no way contribute to stopping young people
from committing criminal acts. Ottawa is going down a
dead-end street, as far as Quebec is concerned. Quebec is to
assume responsibility for administering the system. Our
recommendations have once again been overlooked. This is yet
another good example of the struggle between the legitimate
goals of Quebec and those of the rest of Canada. Once again, the
bill demonstrates that the federal regime has failed.
As I already said in this House when speaking about the same
issue last June, I am very concerned about the situation our
young people find themselves in. I am sure that many of us are
also concerned, but I am less sure of what we want to do to help
them.
For over 34 years, I worked with young people as a teacher in
a comprehensive school. I got to know many thousands of young
people, and I can assure you that the image we tend to have of
them is not always true to life.
Of course, there are a few who stick out from the others
because of the way they dress, because their hair is the colour of
the rainbow, or unfortunately because they commit
reprehensible acts.
I think it is important to remember that the current Young
Offenders Act has a very special philosophy. This policy is to
help and supervise young offenders, unlike Bill C-37, which
tells us that young offenders must be punished. This bill caters
to the feelings aroused by extreme cases, while the notion of
educating, helping and supervising young people is totally
forgotten.
(1655)
The policy statement behind this bill refers to rehabilitation
and social reintegration, but what about prevention? Where, in
this bill, is the word ``prevention''? This is a repressive bill. One
of the things that strike me the most is that 16 and 17-year olds
who commit serious crimes will now have the burden of proof as
to whether they will be tried in adult or youth court. This makes
all the difference.
I really wonder why we should favour such an extreme
solution and whether it is really necessary. Under the existing
legislation, a young person charged with a serious crime may be
tried in adult court. This provision is used by crown attorneys
when a thorough review of the young person's record by several
people shows that he must be tried in adult court.
Do we really need to amend the existing legislation, when it
already allows us to transfer records from youth court to adult
court? We cannot afford to move toward automatism. By virtue
of his age alone, a young person may now face trial in adult
court. This bill raises many questions, including the following:
Is a 17-year-old first time offender who injures someone while
committing a robbery more of a criminal than a 15-year-old
who has committed close to 100 burglaries? It is a question.
Please, let us be a little realistic. Again, it is not a matter of
age. It is a matter of prevention and education. I will tell you that
in my riding, for example, in January, a young man was
sentenced to imprisonment for incest. His own father had gone
to jail before him for the same offence. As incredible as it may
sound, for this young man, incest was a normal thing. Would you
not say, Mr. Speaker, it is high time we take our responsibilities
as adults and as a society?
Let us stop burying our heads in the sand and delude ourselves
into believing that by offloading on the judiciary, we will
resolve the youth crime issue. What I mean by taking our
responsibilities is giving our young people reason to have faith
in the future, because we know full well that the causes of youth
crime are many.
The example I gave earlier is but one of many. Other factors
are drugs, movies where violence is pervasive and so on. Again,
let us take our responsibilities and unite against poverty and
dropping-out. Yes, let us fight together against poverty and
dropping-out. Furthermore, let us provide parents and, in their
absence for whatever reason, the various officials involved with
means to show young people that there is nothing wrong with
being young.
(1700)
When a young person has the misfortune of committing a
crime, our reaction must certainly not be to throw him or her in
jail, because we all know-and no one can deny it-that jail is a
breeding ground for criminals. Moreover, it is clear that custody
has no deterrent effect.
Our youth should have rights, including the right to be better
provided, better provided with the services of experts and better
provided with shelters if need be, but certainly not with adult jail
as the only alternative.
The Young Offenders Act, as it stands, contains very strict
guidelines relating to the maintenance of records on teenage
offenders. Access to these records is restricted. However, in this
9847
bill, the confidentiality aspect has been set aside completely.
What is this supposed to achieve? I have no idea.
Bill C-37 proposes to disclose information on a young
offender to representatives of the school system and other
unspecified persons. I find this part of the bill very disturbing as
well.
Last week, Newsweek reported that the U.S. justice system
was using shame as a deterrent. Young people who had
committed a crime had to ask their parents and their victims for
forgiveness in front of the television cameras, to show they
really felt remorse. Furthermore, the nature of the offences and
identity of young offenders could also be disclosed in church.
Bill C-37 mentions revealing the identity of young offenders.
It proposes to disclose information on young offenders to
representatives of the school system and other persons
concerned.
Again, who are these other persons? Are we going to follow
the American model? Will announcements during high mass be
next? This is absurd.
We can hardly expect a young person who has committed a
crime to rehabilitate himself when he is acutely aware that so
many people know his identity and what he did.
How will young people react when they see their privacy
invaded and their record made public knowledge? We must stop
punishing and looking down on people, and we must try to help
our young people who, need I repeat, are the future of our
society. Give them a job, because that is how they will regain
their self-esteem.
On May 5, the Liberal Party of Quebec-yes, the Liberal
Party of Quebec-and the Parti Quebecois agreed to move a
motion in the Quebec National Assembly demanding that the
federal legislation on young offenders comply with the laws and
policies of Quebec with respect to youth protection.
This agreement was possible because Quebecers are aware of
the need to protect the rights of the child.
In Quebec, the experience of the last fifteen years has shown
that prevention, rehabilitation and readjustment are far more
effective than repression.
(1705)
We are trying to find out the causes of delinquency instead of
using custody as the only deterrent. Of course, this will not solve
all problems. There are a number of obstacles. The system is not
perfect. Sometimes prevention and rehabilitation are not
enough. On the whole, however, the approach taken by Quebec
is more effective in protecting young people. How could a bill
like the one before the House today ignore this fact? Should the
minister not take advantage of Quebec's experience and show
the rest of Canada that repression and intolerance will
undoubtedly aggravate problems instead of solving them? I
repeat: Young people are the future of our society. It is up to us
to help them.
In concluding, you may recall that we as adults have certain
responsibilities. One of our poets, Paul Piché, explains how we
have an impact on the next generation. If I may, I would like to
quote a passage from one of his songs: ``Children are not really,
really bad. They may misbehave, from time to time. They can
spit, lie or steal, but after all, they can do everything they are
taught''.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in one of his comments my colleague said we should look for the
causes rather than lock up those who offend. There are so many
cases today where young offenders do offend repeatedly. I
would like to ask him whether at some point it seems a logical
conclusion to lock up an individual. Whether the individual goes
to a prison where adult criminals are is another question.
I would also like to ask him about his concept of looking for
the causes when there is a young offender. I would also like to
find out whether he thinks the publishing of young offenders'
names is something that is relevant in the case of an offender or
would he be more on the side of looking for the causes as well as
opposed to some of the solutions to the young offender problems
we have?
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I thought what I said was fairly
clear. First and foremost, we must find out the causes of crime.
Environment is everything. When the environment is a healthy
one, we give our young people every opportunity. If they do not
have every opportunity, there comes a time in their life when
they may well do something wrong. On the other hand, are they
always to blame for such action? When the parents are not home,
when there is no money and no work, these are all factors.
As to the second question, about identifying, publishing the
names of offenders, I am totally against it. This is not the way to
remedy things. Let us give our young people access to people
who can look after them, experts in various areas, places to stay
where people will listen to them and where they can go and talk
about their problems.
(1710)
Let us listen to their demands. You will see that, if we keep
listening to them and giving them work, pride will come out on
top, and the crime rate, although dropping now-it was at two
per cent in 1992 as compared to five per cent in previous
years-will continue to drop.
9848
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as chair of the justice committee which made a
thorough study of this bill I would like to make a few comments.
The bill was referred to the justice committee on June 23,
1994 and was subject to hearings until December 8, 1994. Over
that period of time we heard from 42 witnesses, groups and
individuals from all walks of life. We heard from victims'
groups, groups of offenders and ex-offenders, experts from the
correctional service, witnesses from children's aid societies,
witnesses from police forces, judges, bar associations,
psychologists, sociologists, school board officials and
representatives from the provinces. We had a very wide range of
input into the work of the committee. I want to congratulate and
thank members of the committee for their co-operation over
those months when we had hearings on the bill.
The bill dealt with a very limited number of issues. To begin
with, it added to the declaration of principles with respect to the
Young Offenders Act. It pointed out in section three that crime
prevention was essential to the long term protection of society
and affirmed protection of society as a principal goal of the law.
It also affirmed that young persons must bear responsibility for
their actions and for their contraventions, although not in the
same way as adults. That is one of the main reasons we have the
Young Offenders Act.
The bill also dealt with transfers to adult court. Under the
present law which deals with young persons from 12 to 17 years
of age inclusive, a youth aged 14 to 17 can be transferred to adult
court on an application from the crown for certain serious
offences. The youth court will make the judgment as to whether
the young person will stay in youth court or will be transferred to
adult court. That is the law as it exists at the present time.
Under Bill C-37 a change is proposed whereby those who are
16 and 17 years old would be transferred automatically to adult
court for certain serious crimes of violence against the person
unless the young person makes an application to the court not to
be transferred to adult court. That is a sort of reverse burden of
proof which is being put forward in this particular bill as
opposed to the present law.
The bill also deals with the penalty for murder. It would
increase the penalty for murder for young offenders tried in the
youth court to ten years for first degree murder and to seven
years for second degree murder. At the present time the
maximum penalty is five years.
The bill also provides for victim impact statements at the time
of sentencing of a young offender.
It also provides that for treatment the consent of the young
offender must be obtained. Under the present law treatment can
be ordered for the young offender without his or her consent.
(1715 )
Another principal change the bill makes is to leave the
decision with respect to open or secure custody with the
provinces when the provinces have set up offices to deal with
that.
Finally, the bill would provide for a greater publication of
youth offence records, in particular the publication of the names
of young offenders who have committed certain offences. Under
the present law this dissemination of information is highly
restricted.
Bill C-37 would allow for a greater dissemination of that
information to people in positions of trust and administration, in
schools and other places where young people study or work, so
that there would be greater protection for the public.
More or less those are the changes that Bill C-37 would bring
in with respect to the Young Offenders Act.
As I pointed out, during the hearings on the bill we heard from
a great number of people, approximately 42 individuals and
groups. I must tell the House that the great majority of those who
appeared before the committee did not want us to proceed with
Bill C-37 until we did a general review of the act such as was
proposed as phase two of our studies.
The House will recall that the Minister of Justice, when
referring this bill to the House and to the committee, stated that
he also wanted the committee to do a complete review of the
Young Offenders Act since it had been in force for 10 years. He
wanted us not only to study every aspect of the law, but also the
resources available to administer the law and the situation with
respect to youth crime in this country.
A great majority of witnesses said: ``If you are going to do
that overall, comprehensive general study, why legislate in
these few particular areas right now? Should you not complete
your broad, general study and then make a judgment with
respect to those matters once that study is completed?''
That made sense to many members on the committee, but to
the majority it did not. The committee decided that despite these
pleas it should carry on with the consideration of Bill C-37,
principally because during the election campaign, the
government had made a commitment to bring in those very
specific changes. It felt those changes should be legislated right
now despite the fact the committee was going to undertake a
general study as phase two of its work.
The committee did proceed with Bill C-37 and reported back
to the House and the bill is now before us. At the end of our
hearings we did make 28 amendments. Most of those were
technical amendments. They were corrections in the wording,
improvements in the expression of the law, improvements in the
9849
French translation. However, there were a couple of substantive
amendments among the 28 that were made by the committee.
One substantive amendment was to change to a certain extent
the new transfer provision. I mentioned that Bill C-37 provides
for automatic transfer of 16 and 17 year olds, unless the 16 or 17
year old can make a case before the court that they should not be
transferred to the adult court.
An amendment was made in committee. It was agreed that it
would not be necessary to hold such a hearing and go to the
expense and the time consuming process when the crown
attorney agreed with the defence attorney that the young person
should remain in youth court despite the fact that the individual
may be 16 or 17 and had committed one of the serious offences
referred to.
Another amendment of substance was to curtail somewhat the
dissemination of information that was provided for in Bill C-37.
While Bill C-37 will now provide for greater information to the
public with respect to young offender records than under the
present law, it will not go as far as Bill C-37 would have gone in
the first instance.
(1720)
During this debate over the last few hours and when the bill
was before the House at report stage, some members especially
some of those from the Reform Party, have charged that the
Young Offenders Act is a failure. They have charged that youth
crime is out of control and that the Young Offenders Act is to
blame for that increase in crime among youth.
As a matter of fact, some have blamed me, as one of the
original authors of the Young Offenders Act, for this state in our
country. They blame me for what they consider to be an increase
in youth crime and for the failures of the Young Offenders Act. I
want to respond to that.
To begin with, youth crime is not out of control and has not
increased in Canada. The incidents of youth crime have not
increased. As I pointed out the other day at report stage on the
bill, the greatest number of homicides committed by youths 12
to 17 years of age was 68 in 1975. That was before the Young
Offenders Act. The lowest number was in 1987 when there were
only 35. With respect to homicides, there was a much higher
number committed by those 12 to 17 years of age before the act
and the lowest number was committed after the act came into
force.
One could give even more precise statistics. For example, in
the period from 1974 to 1978, a four-year period prior to the
Young Offenders Act, there were 60 charges for murder laid
against youths in Canada. From 1984 to 1989 which is a
five-year period after the act, there were 40 charges. One could
go on and on.
Of course, a certain phenomenon has been taking place which
has led to an appearance of increase in statistics. That is what
might be called the zero tolerance approach in many school
board districts. School authorities now call in the police
whenever there is a fight or a disruption in the school yard. In the
past, when those sorts of incidents took place, the principal
might call in the young people involved and discipline them,
call in their parents and do something about the incident, but
criminal charges would not be laid.
Now in those ordinary types of assaults in the school yard,
charges are being laid in many jurisdictions. Therefore of course
the statistics for charges laid has increased but the number of
incidents has not. As a matter of fact, the trend has been more or
less the same with respect to those kinds of assaults over the
years, both before and after the act.
Let us be absolutely clear. I can refer to many documents.
There is a fact sheet put out by the John Howard Society on
youth crime. The title of the bulletin is ``Youth Crime: Sorting
Fact from Fiction''. It goes into much detail and deals with
violent crime rates with respect to youth over the years. There
has not been a substantial or significant increase in crime with
respect to young persons. As a matter of fact, as I pointed out,
there were much higher rates of youth homicide before the act
than there were after the act.
The act has not failed. The act is the same one from
Newfoundland to British Columbia. It is the same act in
Windsor, Ontario, as it is in Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest
Territories, but it is administered very differently in the
different provinces and in the different territories. In some
provinces and territories there is no trouble with the act; in other
provinces and territories there are problems with the act.
(1725)
I must ask, are the problems attributable to the provisions of
the act or the way in which the act is administered? It so happens
in some provinces such as my province of Quebec a great deal of
resources, much more than other provinces, are dedicated to the
administration of this act and to dealing with the causes of youth
crime. There is much greater satisfaction with the act in the
province of Quebec than there is in certain other provinces, but
it is the same act in Quebec as it is in Alberta, as it is in
Manitoba, as it is in New Brunswick.
The act is not the cause of youth crime where it does take
place. I do admit there are still some horrible youth crimes
taking place in this country. The perception of those youth
crimes is way out of proportion to the number of crimes which
are actually taking place.
9850
In any case, the act is not responsible for the crimes. There are
causes for those crimes and it is there that we must direct our
attention. We must also accept the fact that there has been very
uneven administration of this act across Canada and very uneven
dedication of resources, both human and financial, to the whole
area of youth offenders and youth delinquency.
If that is the case, if the act is not responsible for those crimes
which do take place, then simple changes really will not reduce
the level of crime. To suggest to the Canadian population that we
are going to change section 5, or section 8, or section 25 and all
of a sudden there will be a panacea and we will reduce crime is to
mislead the public.
If we are serious about reducing youth crime where it does
exist in Canada then we must dedicate resources to the causes of
that crime, whether it is broken families, whether it is
alcoholism, whether it is battered children and battered mothers,
whether it is drug addiction and the trafficking in drugs, whether
it is the lack of employment, the lack of recreation
opportunities, latchkey kids who have nobody to come home to,
a whole range of things. If we are serious about reducing the rate
of youth crime, a simple amendment to the law will not do it.
However putting our minds to it and putting some resources
and care into it at the level of the causes at the community level
might do it because where that has been done there has been
more success and less youth crime. We only delude ourselves
and the public by suggesting that a few changes here and there to
the act will substantially change the situation.
I want to absolutely rebut those suggestions. I am sure we will
hear them again, especially from the Reform Party. We will hear
that youth crime is out of control, that it has substantially
increased, that the cause of that youth crime is the Young
Offenders Act which is a failure. Well it is not a failure and it is
not out of control. However, there are still some serious cases of
youth crime in this country and if we are serious about this issue
we should direct our attention to those causes.
In conclusion, I want to say that this bill has some worthwhile
changes in it and they should be supported. There are other
changes which I find doubtful. I will nevertheless support the
bill with the understanding that when we do our phase two
review we will re-examine everything that we have done under
Bill C-37 as well as the entire Young Offenders Act.
As chair of the justice committee, I give lukewarm support for
this bill because I feel it is a mixed bag. It has some good
sections that are worthwhile. It has others which are doubtful.
However we are going to have a chance to do a complete review
of the act within a few months.
It will not be just a complete review of the act but a complete
review of the administration across the country of the facilities
for correcting young offenders, the probation systems, the
secure custody systems and so on, and also the nature, level and
status of youth crime in Canada. We are going to do all those
things in the committee later this year. Therefore, I will reserve
judgment on those matters until that time.
(1730 )
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
YOA is not the cause of crime. I do not think there are any
qualms about that. I know we have been accused of saying that it
is the cause but that is not the case at all. There are a number of
causes. I agree with the hon. member there are causes that have
to be addressed. We must address the causes in any way we can.
We involve the provinces, social service and every aspect we
can.
When we are trying to eliminate the causes and are doing a
good job and somebody crosses the line and breaks the law
anyway by committing murder, we say that the YOA is not doing
its job of performing justice. The word justice is missing from
our system in a number of ways.
I received 15,000 letters in one day that I will be delivering
soon to the Minister of Justice. There are another 5,000 to 6,000
letters that I received in my riding and in Ottawa. I am sure every
member has received letters that ask us to do something about
young offenders. The government continually sits over there
saying that it is all right, that Canadians like what they are
doing, and that the act is good. That is baloney.
When will the government recognize what people are saying
out there? It should pay attention to Canadians. The Young
Offenders Act is not satisfactory to Canadians. Why does the
government continually deny that? I know the member receives
the same letters I do.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his remarks I
thought my good friend from Wild Rose was more or less
agreeing with me. However at the end of his remarks I knew that
he was not.
He asked a question and it is a serious question: What do we
do with an a young person who commits a serious crime of
violence after all has been done to prevent crime and all has been
done to direct our attention to the causes of crime? Of course the
individual has to be sent to secure custody. In some cases we
would probably send him to adult court and to adult prison if the
case is serious enough. The law provides for that and I support
that.
However let us remember that justice in my view means
protecting the public. It does not mean revenge. It does not mean
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
In our system the overwhelming majority of youth as well as
adults who are convicted will be sent back to society. If we are
really concerned with protecting the public, which I believe is
the purpose of the justice system, we must do everything
possible with an individual in our control to rehabilitate the
person and to make sure that when the person returns to society
he or she will be a safer risk for society. We are not going to
keep that person in prison until he or she dies. We do not have
9851
capital punishment. We are going to release the individual
sooner or later, whether it is five years, seven years or ten years.
The hon. member asked what we should do. Yes, we should
keep the person in custody if the person is a young violent
offender. However we should work on the individual to give him
or her a sense of worth, to give him or her a trade or an
education, to make sure the person knows how to deal with the
problems of life when released from prison, to make sure the
person has contacts with family if there is family, and so on. We
should build up a situation so that the person returns to society a
better risk than when he or she entered the prison system.
That is what I believe. I believe in protecting society. We must
dedicate our resources when the person is in secure custody or
open custody to doing everything possible to rehabilitate the
young person so that he or she will be better off upon return to
society.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My
understanding was that during questions and comments we
would rotate between the established parties present. I am
wondering whether or not that is the practice.
The Deputy Speaker: My practice is to give the opportunity
to an opposing party of the member speaking unless there is
nobody rising from an opposing party. In my experience
powder-puff questions tend to be put by a member of the same
party.
(1735)
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would agree with that. Powder-puff has been here today.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order.
I hate to say this but I take exception to your statement about my
question being a powder-puff type of question. I had a comment
to make on the bill. I think the point you made should be
retracted.
The Deputy Speaker: The comment was not addressed to the
particular member. It was addressed to members in all parties in
all situations.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I can assure
the member that this will not be powder-puff.
The hon. member talked about not blaming the Reform Party
and not blaming him. I do not think that is the case at all. After
all he is only a one-one hundred and seventy-seventh part of the
problem.
There is no misleading the public at all. There is a genuine
concern for law-abiding Canadian citizens. My hon. colleague
read demographics and statistics from various documents. He
quoted the John Howard Society. I would like to quote a few
items from Victims of Violence that has a big stake in the bill.
According to Victims of Violence youth crime is up 117 per
cent since the Young Offenders Act took effect in 1984: 25 youth
committed first degree murder in 1990, 23 youth committed
second degree murder in 1990 and 6 youth committed
manslaughter in 1990.
I suspect the member would say that is not very many.
However the fact is that there are strings of victims in the wake
of what is going on here. When one crosses the line, as the hon.
member for Wild Rose has said, there must be an act in place to
effectively look after that.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague this question. If he
looked at the statistics from Victims of Violence, would he not
agree that the tougher the measures for those who cross the line
the better and more effective the fixing of the problem would be
rather than looking at it from his perspective which is in my
opinion is powder-puff?
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the statistics I referred to come
from the Canadian Centre for Justice. We had the Victims of
Violence group before us in the committee. I do not know from
where it got its figures.
There is no doubt there are still some serious crimes in the
country. I deny that there has been an increase in violent crime
among youth over the years. When we look at the statistics from
the police and from the Centre for Justice statistics they show
that is not the case.
Despite that I sympathize with the public that is seriously
concerned with youth crime, whatever there is. He asked if it
was not better, once they crossed the line and committed serious
offences, to have tougher measures.
I do not agree with that and I will tell the member why. I do not
agree with it because it does not work. They are doing it in the
southern United States: three strikes out and you are an outlaw.
They have a much higher rate of crime than we have in Canada.
The southeastern state of the United States have brought back
capital punishment and have mandatory sentencing. They
execute somebody in the morning and they have three or four
murders in the afternoon. The countries doing exactly what the
member is suggesting have the worst rates of violent crime in
the western world.
What the member is suggesting has led to no improvement in
the situation. That is why I am not for it. A much better approach
is the approach being used in western Europe in countries like
Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, et
cetera, and in Canada to a certain extent. It is to concentrate on
the causes of crime, to concentrate on rehabilitation and
correction, and not simply on harsh, hard, long penalties that do
not protect the public. If they did protect the public we would be
able to walk the streets freely in Miami, Dallas, New Orleans
9852
and many other cities which we cannot do simply because they
are doing what the member suggests.
(1740)
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add my thoughts and
concerns on the Young Offenders Act and Bill C-37 to the
debate.
I would like to begin by sharing a letter from a constituent
who writes:
Last week my neighbour's son was physically assaulted in the hallways of
his high school, not by a teacher or a fellow student but by a youth gang
member who walked in off the street. The kids call him the ``enforcer''.
Apparently my neighbour's son had asked the wrong fellow to stop spraying
rocks when he spun out of the parking lot. This less than courteous driver had
gang membership connections and sent for the ``enforcer'' to beat him up.
I realize that changing the Young Offenders Act won't solve all our
problems, but it would be a very good start. All of society has to take
responsibility for putting an end to violence through long term teaching and
learning in our education system. We must begin to give the message that the
rights of victims will be protected more than the rights of criminals. The
youth of today are laughing at our judicial system.
The RCMP advised my neighbour to press charges even though he said it
would take up to 18 months to go to trial and the kid would only get
probation. This type of youth thinks probation is something to brag about.
We need to do more than slap wrists. We have to stop this senseless violence.
Surely the government can act to change the present state of our judicial
system. An overhaul is long overdue. The rights of the average law-abiding
citizen of Canada need to be protected now.
As for my neighbour's son he is on a waiting list for a head scan as they
feel the bone fragments in his head could cause permanent damage. The
doctor said this was not a school kid fight but a serious attempt to do
permanent damage. How many more young leaders of the future have to be
maimed or killed before changes to our laws are made?
That sentiment is echoed by many letters. I am sure I am not
the only MP to receive those types of concerns from
constituents.
This one school yard incident illustrates much of what is
wrong with our youth justice system today: youth gangs,
physical assault, fear in the school yard, misplaced value
systems, increasing levels of violence among youth, lengthy
delays in our youth detention centres before going to trial and
overcrowded courts, lack of respect of youth for the justice
system, and inadequate penalties for repeat and violent young
offenders.
When I speak about school yard violence I have to relate it to
my own situation. We can all appreciate that as we grew up we
were confronted with bullies. I know in my case my father said:
``At some point in time you just have to stand up for yourself.
The only language bullies understand is to meet force with
force, or you will just keep getting pushed around''.
I have a young son who will be 12 years old pretty soon. I hear
in the news about young children getting stabbed at school or
getting kicked in the head. I see some members opposite
laughing about this. I do not understand how they find it
humourous. I am very concerned about when my son will come
to me for advice on what to do about bullies in the school. I do
not know if I should tell him to stand up for himself against a
bully who might bring a knife to school the next day and stab
him or kick him to death.
Something has to change. Bill C-37 begins to address some of
the problems but I do not think it goes nearly far enough. We
cannot afford to tinker with our justice system. We must look at
what works and what does not work. We must have the strength
and the confidence to change what must be changed.
One out of every two young offenders who passes through the
system will commit another offence. That is far too high.
Obviously our current system is not working.
One significant problem that must be addressed is the
enormous time delays between the commission of a crime and
the court date. In some jurisdictions it takes from six months to a
year. In Prince George it can take up to 18 months, and that is not
acceptable. How can young offenders think we take their crimes
or rehabilitation seriously when it takes so long to get their cases
to trial? All too frequently if left at liberty youths will reoffend
while they are waiting for their court appearance.
(1745)
According to justice statistics in 1993-94, 9 per cent of the
youth court cases dealt with young offenders who had not
complied or had failed to appear for previous court dates.
However, if the youth is held in a youth detention centre pending
trial, they are subject to physical, mental, emotional abuse by
other more violent young offenders. This is not fair either to any
youth.
A lengthy stay in such an environment is not conducive to
learning more socially acceptable behaviours. Eliminating trial
delays must be a priority so young offenders are placed into
programs appropriate for them sooner, whether community
service or the so-called boot camps.
Another serious flaw of this bill is that it does not apply to 10
and 11 year olds. Child protection services in most provinces do
not have the resources to meet the needs of every child they
know is at risk of criminal activity. They know once the youth is
finally arrested at age 12, additional resources might be
available within the young offender system.
9853
According to a preliminary study on youth gang activity done
for the Solicitor General, gangs are recruiting young children to
transport drugs, break into houses and rob commercial property.
Children under 12 are re-enacting the violent behaviour of older
juvenile delinquents in the school yard. Twelve is obviously too
late.
We must get these children into the system earlier, giving
them appropriate counselling, structure and values before they
become set in their criminal ways. They must learn as early as
possible there are always consequences for one's actions, if
you're old enough to do the crime, you're old enough to do the
time.
Our justice system needs to distinguish between young, first
time offenders who commit minor crimes and those who engage
in habitual or violent criminal behaviour. Everyone deserves a
fair chance to mend their ways, to learn responsibility,
accountability and a new sense of purpose.
Many of these first time offenders are trapped in
dysfunctional or abusive families. Some are poor or have
learning disabilities. They have low self-esteem and are looking
for a way out of their cage. Some turn to a youth gang for
security. They steal something to boost their own confidence, to
impress their peers or simply because they are looking for help.
Our youth justice system must recognize these kids and
provide them with a sentence appropriate to their needs to guide
them back to the straight and narrow. That does not mean we
allow them to blame their background or society for their
actions. It does not mean we put them into counselling and
ignore their crime.
The first step on the path to becoming a responsible citizen is
to accept responsibility for one's own actions. They must be
held accountable. If they are sentenced to open custody, part of
that sentence must entail reparations for the damage they have
done. In some cases it might mean picking up garbage. In others,
more difficult work such as planting trees.
If they are going to be successful, community programs must
be tailored to the needs and the punishment of the particular
young offender. We must differentiate between those who
deserve a chance with a lighter sentence and others who have
repeatedly demonstrated they have no respect for our laws.
Despite what some advocates would have us believe, not all
young offenders who commit non-violent property offences 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 twice
before stealing another car. We need to strike a balance between
deterrents and accountability, between punishment and
rehabilitation.
Under Bill C-37 sentences for young offenders are inadequate
and uncertain. It fails with respect to habitual delinquents. For
property offences Bill C-37 advocates open custody. If a youth
commits a property offence, the onus is now on judges to justify
sending them to secured custody rather than to the community.
Currently there are not enough community programs to
absorb these youths. The infrastructure is not yet in place. For
property offences more emphasis has to be placed on whether
the youth is a habitual offender. I do not think a bit of
community work will be taken seriously by someone who
openly flaunts the law on a continual basis. They should be dealt
with very differently than other first time property offenders.
(1750)
For violent offences Bill C-37 generally prescribes
maximums rather than minimums. In the case of premeditated
first degree murder a young offender is subject to a maximum
six-year sentence in secured custody with an absolute maximum
of ten years, including open custody.
This is a substantial improvement over the old five-year
maximum but still does not go far enough. With no minimums, a
young offender may still believe the sentence for murder will be
a few short years. Some people do not believe longer sentences
will deter youths. All I can say is ridiculously light sentences
sure have not.
We need longer minimum sentences for violent young
offenders so they know exactly what they will be facing when
they contemplate rape, assault or murder.
When we incarcerate youths today the law says they must be
provided with shelter, safety and schooling. There is also some
counselling but the rest of the time they are frequently idle
without constructive structure in their life.
Last summer at a justice rally in my riding one teenage girl
told us that she has friends who actually look forward to
detention. It was like a vacation for them with three square
meals a day and no worries. They do not have to confront the
reasons they are there. How can you rehabilitate a violent young
offender if they do not understand there are serious
consequences for breaking the law? How can they learn an
acceptable value system if they view custody as a vacation?
Youth detention centres are expensive. In Alberta it has been
estimated that it costs about $45,000 per year to keep a young
offender. In Ontario it costs taxpayers $100,000 per youth. At
least 50 per cent of all young offenders currently reoffend. For
$100,000 a year Canadians have a right to expect better results.
I advocate the concept of the so-called boot camps. We do not
yet have enough statistics on the various models of these camps
to prove whether they are effective in all cases, but we do know
9854
that the reoffending rate is lower for many graduates of these
wilderness or outbound camps, or whatever you call them.
For many youths in these camps, it is the first time in their
lives they are placed in a highly structured environment with
specific tasks, responsibilities and expectations. They do not
have idle time to scheme or intimidate other youths.
Just south of Prince George we have one such camp. It has
been around for 23 years and has a fairly good success rate.
These young offenders warm up with callisthenics and go for a
four mile run before breakfast. They are assigned tasks and
chores around the camp, have strict school and study regimes,
and almost no idle time.
They are not doing hard labour as critics of some camps might
suggest. They are in a disciplined, structured environment,
designed to foster more responsible behaviour.
Just this last year Manitoba has also moved toward this style
of detention for youth. In Ontario it costs half as much to send a
youth to Camp DARE and they are far less likely to reoffend
than if they stayed in a youth detention centre.
Another problem with this bill is that it only transfers 16 or 17
year olds who commit violent personal injury crimes to adult
court. It does not deal with 16 or 17 year old habitual offenders
who obviously hold the justice system in contempt.
In B.C. between April and September of last year 999 of the
1,819 youths sentenced or remanded in custody were 16 or older.
They are responsible for more than half the crimes committed by
youths. When it comes to 16 or 17 year olds who commit crimes,
I am in complete disagreement with this bill.
I believe every 16 or 17 year old knows the difference between
right and wrong. They know when they are committing a crime
and I believe they should be treated as adults. They do not
belong in the same system as a 12-year-old, nor should they
expect the same treatment for their criminal behaviour. This bill
provides a loophole to keep even the most violent of older
offenders in the youth system. Sixteen and seventeen year olds
who commit murder or violent assaults can request that they be
kept in the youth system. This bill has created a whole new field
for lawyers and will tie up even more valuable court time. I do
not think that is right.
I was recently reading an article in Readers' Digest by Mike
Royko which originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune. It
illustrates the sentiments many Canadians feel toward violent
criminals who rape or murder regardless of their age. I will
quote a part of the article:
Judge McKay hears criminal cases in Trumball County, Ohio. Recently he
had a two-legged beast in front of him who had kidnapped, robbed and
repeatedly raped a 12-year old girl. When it was time to sentence the 22-year
old villain Judge McKay said:
``When you slithered out of your hole that day and spewed your venom all
over this defenceless girl, you made this court's top ten list of the lowest
scum this country has to offer. In a way the best sentence this court could
give would be no sentence at all because if you left this courtroom I don't
think you would be alive 10 minutes. You are nothing but a weed among
wheat. When we have a weed, it is my job to eradicate it because if I don't
you will choke the wheat. Therefore I am going to take you off the streets for
as long as I can''.
The judge then ticked off long sentence after long sentence for each crime
committed against the girl. ``You won't be eligible for parole until you're
92'', the judge pronounced, ``that leaves only one more count, aggravated
robbery. You stole this little girl's bra as a souvenir, probably to brag about it
to your friends. I'm going to give you a souvenir of Trumball County justice,
and that is a maximum sentence of 10 to 25 on the aggravated robbery for
stealing that bra and I hope that in your last 25 years in prison you remember
that souvenir. Get this scum out of here''.
(1755)
There are millions of Canadians across this country who are
demanding that type of justice for that level of criminal. When a
17-year-old in Canada murders or rapes they should know they
are going to face serious, severe consequences. Three meals a
day in our current youth detention centres and time to practise
more criminal skills does not cut it.
I believe inmates in adult prisons should not be idle either.
Reform of the entire prison system is not the subject of this bill.
In summary, young offenders must know they will get caught,
they will be convicted and they will be punished. Young
offenders must know that justice will be swift and sure and they
must know what to expect.
Bill C-37 is a start but our entire youth justice system must be
overhauled now. It should include 10 and 11 year olds who are
slipping through cracks of underfunded child protection
agencies and becoming habitual criminals before the age of 12.
It should recognize that all 16 and 17 year olds are responsible
for their actions, not society. It is their choice to break the law.
We must commit the resources to implement and monitor
programs for first time offenders. We must establish or expand
highly structured and disciplined youth detention facilities and
programs that teach habitual and violent young criminals
respect for our values and laws.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the presentation of my hon. colleague with
a great deal of interest as he discussed Bill C-37.
One of the points that we should recall in that bill quite
obviously is the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are moved over to
adult court and there is only one way as I understand that piece
of legislation for them to even be considered in youth court.
They must prove for some reason beyond a doubt and must have
9855
that evidence agreed to by the judge that they would be
considered for youth court.
That would happen in very limited situations with extenuating
circumstances. As we know also basically this new legislation
would double sentences.
Further, I would like to touch on a presentation that I recently
had the opportunity to attend by Dr. Fraser Mustard. The
presentation indicated the research that he had done over many
years. While many in this House would recognize that a few
short years ago when we looked at early intervention with
children we thought of kindergarten age. Today according to Dr.
Mustard we are looking at a much young age. We are looking at
an age as low as six months for proper nutrition, for nurturing
and for assistance.
(1800)
My question for my hon. colleague would be formed in this
fashion. Does he not believe that community assistance and
community help in addition to those changes in Bill C-37 to
make penalties stiffer is certainly something that we all have to
work for in order to prevent those crimes from happening and
the necessity to punish our youth in the future?
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my hon. colleague for his thoughts on my presentation and
for his question.
I will try to address my answer to the issues he raised in the
same order that he did. As to the transfer of 16 and 17 year olds
under Bill C-37 to adult court, he is quite correct. The onus is on
the individual, on the young offender, to apply and give reasons
why he or she should be kept in youth court.
As a previous speaker noted, there is also the facility that
came forward by way of an amendment when it was at
committee stage where the prosecutor and the defence attorney
can get together and make that decision before it comes to court.
This leaves the whole thing open to exactly what we have seen in
cases of plea bargaining. It is of real concern to us.
As I stated in my speech, 16 and 17 year olds should not be
given that option. At 16 years old, these children know exactly
what they are doing. They should know the consequences of
committing that crime. Therefore there should be automatic
transfer with no chance to be tried in the same youth court that
would try a 12-year-old.
As far as the comment about the sentencing provisions of Bill
C-37 that double the sentence, my understanding is that Bill
C-37 only doubles the sentence for murder.
As I said also in my speech, the sentence goes from five to ten
years. I personally believe that for first degree murder, 10 years
is not long enough. It certainly is not when one looks at the
maximum. It can be six years in closed confinement and four
years in open.
As to the comment about the community service, certainly I
support that concept. I referred to it in my speech as well. We
have to have all the forces that can be brought into play. That is
not the answer in all cases.
The wilderness camps are not the answer either. Closed
confinement is not the answer for everyone. We have to look at a
wide range. However, the concern that members are hearing
from Reformers is that there are those individuals out there who
constantly flaunt the law.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with a case of three
young offenders last spring in Edmonton who broke into a young
family's home. They knew the family was at home. The young
mother woke up and disturbed their burglary. They could have
ran. She was no threat to them. However they had absolutely no
respect for law or even for human life. They cold bloodedly
murdered her. They stabbed her to death.
That is why Reformers say we have to get tough with these
people. We have to send a message that our society is not going
to condone that type of behaviour.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I did not want to take part in this debate; I especially
did not wish to comment on the hon. member's speech.
However, given the well-known difference between his way of
thinking and the mentality in Quebec, I feel compelled to speak
up.
The way I view these matters is far removed from that of the
Reformers. To listen to the hon. member, one would think that
young people are the very scourge of society. One would think
that young people 18 years of age or younger are truly
responsible for the majority of crimes or that crime is increasing
because of 18 year olds. We need only look at the statistics. I am
a Bloc member and I will use statistics from Justice Canada: we
see that the average number of persons under 18 years of age
suspected of homicide has dropped considerably in recent years
as compared with the 1970s.
(1805)
Since the 1970s, I believe that the number of serious and
abhorrent crimes committed by young offenders has decreased.
There are of course the tabloids-the type of newspaper
Reformers probably read-which report and in fact highlight
such serious crimes. Yet that is not a true representation of what
is happening in Canadian society, especially in QUebec.
Would the hon. member please say whether, in his own
province at least, the present young offenders act is enforced in
the spirit of its objective? Specifically, the act states that ``the
protection of society. . . is a primary objective of the criminal
law applicable to youth''. This objective is served by
rehabilitating young persons whenever possible. In his own
province, is
9856
the act enforced with this objective in mind at least? Is there a
system to rehabilitate and reintegrate these young people? It is
fine to criticize, but are the minimum instruments in place to
help reintegrate these young people into society? I think not.
[English]
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
hope I will be granted as much time as was granted my hon.
colleague who just rose with his comments.
I have a couple of comments. The hon. member from the Bloc
finds himself a thousand miles away from Reform thinking.
That is very obvious and all I can say is thank goodness for that.
The hon. member likes to quote statistics. I notice that most
members seem to be using statistics that support their case. I
guess we will continue to do that as long as this debate lasts.
I am referring to the Canadian Centre for Justice statistics
which say: ``Since 1992-93 the number of property cases has
decreased by 5 per cent''-this is referring to young offenders'
statistics-``while the numbers of cases in all other offence
categories have either increased or remained near the same
level. The number of cases involving violence has increased by
8 per cent''.
We can all quote statistics. We can all say the problem is
getting worse or better, depending on what side of the House we
are on and what side of the argument we are on.
The point I would make to the hon. member is this. The people
who are demanding justice the loudest are the children
themselves, the good kids. We tend to forget that. Some seem to
think that if Reformers get up and say that we have to get serious
with these young offenders that we are somehow attacking
youth.
We are trying to defend the youth who are the good citizens,
the model citizens, the ones who are afraid to go to school,
scared to walk down the street after dark because they could be
attacked by some gang because the gang is not being properly
dealt with by the system. The system is failing these young
people.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to join in
this debate on such an important issue as the well thought out
and timely amendments to the Young Offenders Act that have
been proposed by the Minister of Justice.
The issue of youth crime and youth in general has been a part
of the Canadian political scene since the passage of the Juvenile
Delinquency Act in 1908. It was completely overhauled in the
mid-1980s and replaced by the current Young Offenders Act
which has gone unamended since its initial passage.
The government made certain commitments and promises
during the election campaign. It promised to move on this
specific issue. As a matter of fact it was a promise instrumental
in my election to Parliament. Once again we have delivered as
we have on so many other issues. Even the media has praised us
for our efforts and I admire them for doing so.
Let me quote an article by an Ottawa reporter. ``The Tories
talked tough on law and order, but the Liberals have acted'' says
Sean Dirkan of the Ottawa Sun. ``Jean Chrétien's red book
brigade have introduced more tough law and order legislation in
a little under nine months in office than the Tories did during
nine years in power''.
(1810 )
He points to measures introduced by the Minister of Justice
and by the Solicitor General, measures such as amendments to
the Young Offenders Act, sentencing reform, a crackdown on
child sex offenders and reform to the correctional and parole
systems. It goes on and on.
This legislation does not stand alone, nor should it stand
alone. It will no doubt have an important impact on various other
portfolios. Not unlike a car engine, all cylinders must work
together, one province co-operating with the other, all levels of
government and political parties working together in harmony
to achieve this very important goal.
The most important player is the family unit. That is where it
all begins.
Several months ago my family had a frightening experience
with a group of youths at the exhibition grounds in Toronto.
Since that time I have urged the Minister of Justice to act swiftly
to bring forward changes to the Young Offenders Act so that we
can once again make our streets safe for ourselves and for our
children.
Since my election to the House I have had the opportunity to
speak with many of my constituents regarding this legislation.
One common theme that has consistently been raised is that the
crime situation has grown out of control in general and among
youths in particular.
Although the crime rate has not increased according to
Statistics Canada, it is the seriousness of youth crime which has
been amplified both in the media and by the Reform Party
specifically.
A recent article in the Globe and Mail stated:
No longer are students simply breaking windows and stealing from corner
stores, rather they are breaking into cars and carrying weapons to school.
In the city of Scarborough, school board officials have
recently noted that prior to the implementation of the board's
zero tolerance policy they were finding 25 weapons a month, of
which half were strictly possession for self-defence and the
other 50 per cent were used to intimidate, scare and assault. I
9857
find that very disturbing. Our children attend schools for
educational and intellectual stimulation, not to intimidate or
assault. They should be taking pens, pencils, books and
calculators to classrooms, not guns and knives.
The government's real interest is in attacking the roots of
youth crime, getting at the circumstances that breed crime,
learning why youths have committed those crimes and ensuring
that they do not happen again so as to stop the next generation of
potential criminals. These circumstances include child poverty,
youth unemployment, inadequate day care and insufficient
counselling for high risk families and children before they fall
into a criminal pattern. We must attack those roots and prevent
criminal behaviour before it starts.
The 12th report of the standing committee on justice released
in 1993 stated that we must attack the roots of crime, including
unemployment, physical and sexual abuse and neglect,
illiteracy, low self-esteem, substance abuse, glorification of
violence in film, video and television, school failure,
dysfunctional families and inequality.
This is not to say that we should ignore or simply pardon
crimes committed by youth, who unfortunately, due to
circumstances beyond their control, have violated. Youth must
be held accountable. They must learn to be accountable for their
actions. If they violate societal rules they should be punished.
They must learn at an early age to be respectful, responsible and
accountable. It is at this stage that the family plays a vital role.
We must go beyond punishment. We must rehabilitate those
who break the law and that is what this legislation also does. It
provides for the punishment of violators while recognizing that
the most successful treatment for young offenders is not only
punishment, but rather to both punish and rehabilitate so that the
offender will learn that it is wrong to commit a crime, know why
it is wrong and will not reoffend.
The onus to reduce crime is not just on the government to
bring in and amend legislation. The onus is also on the
participants of society. The family is paramount in helping to
alleviate the problem of youth crime. This is the first line of
defence. It is here that youth receive their earliest level of
socialization and they are taught right from wrong.
The onus also falls on our educational system and our
educators. They must step forward and show leadership and
compassionate guidance, become once again role models for
their students and motivate and encourage them to become
nothing but the best. But the school system must also have the
opportunity to function in an environment that is free from fear.
(1815 )
The onus also falls on our police forces to properly carry out
the law. If we are going to ask them to provide and improve their
performance, to take a leading role in crime prevention without
seriously jeopardizing their lives, we have an obligation to
provide the proper resources so they may be able to serve and
protect the public.
The onus also falls greatly on the CRTC in the type of
programs that are easily and readily available which so much
influence our youth of today. I have an article here from the
Toronto Sun about Jamie Taylor and Mark Williams who became
murderers at age 17.
It states here how Jamie Taylor grew up as an abused and
neglected child. When he was three Jamie was rushed to hospital
after his step father severely beat him with a curtain rod. Since
the age of 12 he had no supervision. He did whatever he wanted.
His mother often disappeared for a month at a time without
checking in on him. Jamie grew up watching macho man
destructo movies, playing war games, embracing the very tough
image. That was his way of having a leading role.
We also know of a case in the U.K. in which a youth watching
a video took an axe and seriously injured the child he was baby
sitting. We can see here how constant bombardment of this
nature not only can but does influence people's minds and
behaviours.
When we do apprehend, convict and incarcerate these people,
let us ask ourselves is the problem solved? I do not think so. This
is what I mean. Mark Williams has had virtually no treatment in
six years. He has seen his case worker four times, less than once
a year. Mark also states how he has had to rehabilitate himself. Is
the system helping in any way to prepare this person to re-enter
society? I do not think so. I am very worried because his parole
comes up in 1998.
I have stated in the past that I would make the parole request
contingent upon successful completion of a rehabilitation
program so that the risk of reoffending can be if not eliminated,
greatly minimized.
It has been said many times by many people and deserves
repeating once again that our youth are Canada's future.
However, it has been said recently this is the first generation that
will not have a higher standard of living than its parents. For me
that is truly a tragedy.
Youth should be a time of bright optimism. Today our youth
find themselves facing problems that are not of their own
making. Unemployment for youth is at an all time high. We are
in an economy grown weak by constant tinkering, a political
situation that to many seems to defy solutions, an economy
weakened by constant talk of separation which has brought
nothing but instability. We hear of investors in companies
hesitating to expand and invest because they do not know if
Quebec will be in or out tomorrow.
9858
It is no wonder that our youth live in a perpetual sense of
pessimism. I think it is time to move away from political
rhetoric to concentrate on economic renewal, development and
job creation for our youth.
We must work together to turn this sense of hopelessness
around. We must encourage our youth to stay in school,
complete their studies and become valuable members of our
community. We as a government have initiated programs to do
just that. However, our government or any government cannot
do it alone.
In partnership with the other players in society, the
businesses, the educators, the community groups as well as
members of the opposition parties, we must work together to
achieve this goal of eliminating youth crime.
Some of the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders
Act such as doubling the sentences for those convicted of first
and second degree murder go a long way in doing so. Also,
victim impact statements would be allowed where victims,
should they wish, would now have the opportunity to make a
statement about how a young offender's crime has affected
them. I believe this will certainly go a long way in helping the
courts to see the broader picture in imposing proper sentences.
With respect to medical and psychological assessments, we
will with these amendments give the courts the authority to
request assessments be done on chronic and serious young
offenders without having to request consent from the offender.
Through these amendments we have also established an
information sharing system which I believe is very important.
Records and information would be shared and would also allow
the release of information of young offenders to affected
members of the public where there might be a risk to them in the
entire community. This information would be shared among
professionals, for example between the police, school officials,
child welfare agencies, day care centres, et cetera.
(1820)
Again, we can see here that this will help minimize the risk
and we will add more protection for all. Most important, with
these new amendments the young offender who was charged
with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated and
sexual assault will now automatically be transferred to adult
court.
This is a very important step because the onus here will now
be on the youth to prove that they should be tried in the youth
court as opposed to adult court. We can see therefore that all
these amendments go a long way in sending a strong message
that crime at any level will and can no longer be tolerated.
In conclusion, we can clearly see that these changes, some of
which I have mentioned, are a step in the right direct so as to
help our youth get started in the right direction and send a strong
message that violence will no longer be tolerated.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear government members
speak on bills like Bill C-37.
The bill on young offenders was hotly discussed in Quebec. I
would like the member to tell me whether Bill C-37 reflects the
opinion of the Quebecers who spoke before the justice
committee. Their message to summarize it in very clear terms,
was ``do not touch the Young Offenders Act''. The act is only
good if each province enforces it and, to the best of our
knowledge, Quebec enforces it the most. The provinces that say
the Young Offenders Act is no good are those that do not enforce
it.
Is the government member aware of that and will he tell me
whether Quebec's demands are respected in the government's
proposed amendments to Bill C-37? Perhaps Quebec's reaction
to the Young Offenders Act is an example of its distinct
character.
Will the member tell me whether the amendments to the bill
contain changes to meet Quebec's demands?
[English]
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. In our red book commitment when we looked at this
issue we did not try to look at B.C.'s, Quebec's or Ontario's
interest. We tried to look after Canada's interest because it is
Canada's youth. It is not Quebec's youth, not Ontario's youth,
not B.C.'s youth.
It is an overall picture that we are looking at here. I believe the
members from the Bloc Quebecois and the members from the
Reform Party should learn to put our differences aside for a
moment and work on streamlining these amendments together
collectively to bring forward the proper amendments, to send
the right kind of message as a united force that violence will no
longer be tolerated whether it be youth in Quebec, Ontario or
anywhere in the country.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to
the hon. member I would like to say how much I appreciate his
family values and the importance and emphasis he puts on
schools and the function that they have to perform. I compliment
him on his speech in that manner. He did a very good job.
I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on something
that crosses my mind when we talk about what we are going to
do with regard to these problems. Over the course of the last 20
or 25 years or whatever we talked about causes. The causes, we
have to search them out.
I remember the drinking age being 21 and how that was
lowered. That simply meant that it was lowered even lower than
the illegal drinking age. Instead of 18 and 19 year olds illegally
drinking, now it is 14, 15 and 13 year olds.
9859
I think of pornography. There was a time we did not have any.
Now it is running rampant. We have a lady in Alberta who is
fighting hard to get rid of pornography, peep shows, nude
dancing, all these things which we know contribute to the minds
of our youth in a very negative way. It is a cause.
(1825)
If you walked down the street and called a policeman a pig
when you were a young man, what would happen? You would
not do it out of fear, but more so out of respect. Now it is
common practice. Yet there is no recourse, no way in the world
that they are supposed to do any thing. We do not meet violence
with violence. We listen to all of this bad mouthing-causes.
It seems like every time I address it the one thing that comes
up is a wall that is put in front of me. If we want to do something
about these causes, it is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that
stops us so many times. When we decide we want to do
something about a problem we have to remember the rights. I
think it is a hindrance in our judicial system in that regard with
young offenders.
Would the hon. member comment on that?
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. As much as I would like to agree with him, I cannot. In
any civilized society we need to have a basis to function around.
We need a charter. We need rules and regulations. Sometimes we
do not agree with them. We need obviously rules and regulations
to protect us.
There have been times when people abuse these rights. I am
not disagreeing with that. This is why the Minister of Justice is
taking the initiative to bring forth changes. I am not saying that
these changes are going to solve our problem. As we know there
is ongoing consultation. The justice committee has not finished
its work. It will continue.
We have often heard the saying that Rome was not built
overnight. The minister cannot bring forth an amendment that
will solve every one of our problems. This is a step in the right
direction.
I certainly would hope that the justice committee would
continue to look at the situation, monitor it and make continuous
recommendations. Hopefully as time goes on we will make new
changes, new amendments that will hopefully improve the
system and make it safer for ourselves and our children.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to commend the hon. member for his speech. I
enjoyed it very much. It is that kind of attitude that certainly we
can work with on this side.
There are some things that the government can do and there
are other things it cannot do to help people out. My hon.
colleague from Wild Rose mentioned this point. We have a
problem with pornography and these other things which eat
away at the moral fibre of our society, in particular the moral
fibre of our young people.
Would the hon. member be prepared to support the
elimination of pornography, pass laws that would do away with
peep shows where people for a fee can come in and watch girls
dancing and gyrating on the other side naked? Would he be
prepared to pass laws to support the elimination of naked
dancing in bars and lap dancing? Would the member be prepared
to support legislation, initiate legislation, on the government
side to eliminate this kind of conduct that has such a terrible,
negative-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough
Centre has about a minute.
Mr. Cannis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
warm comments about my presentation. I campaigned on family
values. I tried to reflect that in my presentation.
I personally do not approve of pornography, especially child
pornography, and I certainly would like to see the elimination of
child pornography and see people who engage in that type of
pornography harshly penalized.
This legislation is not one that addresses this specific
concern. I know there are proposals to address these concerns. I
hope that the quicker we bring them forth the cleaner and safer
our society will be.
There are so many justice issues that we have to address it
would be unfair to spread ourselves too thin. We are attacking
one specific issue and that is the Young Offenders Act in this
debate.
I certainly hope that the other issues, as the member has
stated, come forth as soon as possible so that we can address
them with the thrust with which we are addressing this Young
Offenders Act. As I stated earlier, I think this is a step in the
right direction. I believe there is room in the future, but again,
let us not prejudge our youth. Let us give them the benefit of the
doubt.
(1830)
In the future I would be very happy to work in the area of
eliminating pornography.
_____________________________________________
9859
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
worried about the federal government's unwillingness to
intervene while Canadian customs tariffs are under attack from
the U.S., I questioned the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food last Friday. What I was asking the minister to do was
to ready his
9860
guns and get down to confronting the Americans on the yogurt
and ice cream issue.
Let me remind you briefly of the cause for my concern.
According to U.S. commerce secretary, Mickey Kantor, Canada
is in breach of the North American free trade agreement when it
imposes tariffs varying between 100 and 300 per cent on ice
cream, yogurt, eggs and poultry exported to the U.S. On the
other hand, under the GATT agreements, customs tariffs should
be going down gradually over the next six years.
That is where I start having a problem with the Liberal
government's inaction. The minister stated that the Canadian
government was determined to defend dairy and poultry
producers. I wish I could believe the government, but if it acts in
the future like it did in the past, after seeing what it has done to
Article XI of the GATT agreement, I must say that I can only
doubt the good will, the genuine willingness of the minister and
his government.
In response to my question, the minister also reiterated his
government's support to the Canadian supply management
system. In my sense, nothing is more uncertain than the
Canadian government's willingness to fight for our supply
management system. I would not be surprised if the
government's feebleness on the ice cream and yogurt issue were
the price to be paid to the Americans for resolving the conflict
over Western wheat last summer.
One way to settle this dispute that may very well, in my
opinion, degenerate into a trade war is to stop putting our heads
in the sand and fight for recognition of GATT's precedence over
NAFTA. All we have said so far is that GATT should indeed
prevail, but we do not say it too loud to keep our American
partners from hearing us.
Three days ago, the minister gave me the following answer:
``If the United States has a different point of view and wants to
take a run at us, we obviously cannot stop it from taking a run at
us, but if it does, we will defend ourselves with everything we
have''. Incidentally, what do we have to defend our farmers
with?
I do not think the minister has any effective means to defend
our farmers because he has not gone to a GATT panel that could
settle the Canada-U.S. dispute. Allow me to quote the
Federation of Dairy Producers of Canada: ``Unfortunately, the
U.S.-based controversy surrounding the GATT and NAFTA
regulations on tariff quotas has reached such proportions that
our dairy producers are increasingly doubtful that Canada will
succeed in negotiating a bilateral agreement that will benefit
them''. This quote does not come from me.
(1835)
In a news bulletin, a few moments ago, I heard Claude Rivard
and the vice-president of the Quebec milk producers' federation
at a press conference here in Ottawa beg the government to show
some guts and take action.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure
to respond to the hon. member's comments tonight.
On February 2 the United States trade representative,
Ambassador Kantor, requested formal consultations under
NAFTA relating to the U.S. access to the Canadian market for
dairy and poultry products.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister
for International Trade have repeated frequently and remain of
the view that our application of tariff equivalents in our bilateral
trade in poultry and dairy products, including ice cream and
yogurt, is fully consistent with our rights under GATT and
NAFTA. In fact, the ministers issued a press release on February
2 of this year setting out that view so there could be no
misunderstanding on it. The Canadian position has not changed
and is not changing. Moreover, both ministers stated their view
again in this House last Friday.
The U.S. request for consultations should be seen as just that,
a request to meet with us and to discuss the issue. The fact that
the U.S. is seeking consultations under the dispute settlement
provisions of NAFTA does give it a more formal character, I
agree, but it does not alter its fundamental nature.
Requests for formal consultations occur quite frequently
between trading partners. Sometimes they are in the form of a
panel before they are over. Other times the consultations are
adequate to resolve the issue. In some cases they are concluded
only after lengthy discussions.
We expect these consultations to start in the next week or so.
In this particular case we are satisfied that our legal position is
sound and we will continue to hold our own. Our preferred
approach is a negotiated solution.
It could be expected that the issue might arise in the upcoming
visit of Mr. Clinton to Ottawa. If it does, the Canadian line will
not change. We are acting within our trade agreement rights and
we will defend those rights.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday I put a question to the minister responsible for social
housing about the unfair way Quebec is being treated with
respect to social housing.
I wanted to ask him whether he was aware of the fact that
Quebec has had a potential loss of $100 million per year for
several years. On a per capita basis, Quebec should receive at
least 25 per cent of CMHC spending, but at the present time, it
gets only 20 per cent. One hundred million dollars annually is a
9861
lot of money. If we were to calculate this on the basis of need,
Quebec should receive as much as 29 per cent of the CMHC
budget.
So a shortfall of $100 million annually for Quebec is a lot of
money, and that is a conservative estimate. In fact, this is all part
of the government's attempt to get another $25 million or $26
million out of the pockets of people who live in so-called social
housing. The government intends to raise rents by 20 per cent. It
looks more like the government has no social housing policy at
all.
(1840)
Funding for social housing has been frozen since the Liberal
Party came to power. Quebec is not getting its fair share, and
now they want to raise the rents of the neediest group in Quebec.
Would the government like to clarify this? Would it at least
admit that this is unfair, and would it like to explain what it is
doing with respect to social housing? Does this government
have a social housing policy?
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's statement.
[English]
I want to be very clear on one point. This government is
committed within the current financial climate to social housing
for all Canadians in need. This includes those Canadians who
reside in the province of Quebec.
In order to fully understand how existing housing
expenditures are made, my friend must recognize that in the
early years of public housing the province of Quebec elected not
to participate. For example, under the old rent supplement
program, Ontario began participating in 1971, whereas Quebec
only joined in 1978. In those years, Ontario delivered 9,500
units for which it continues to receive subsidies, whereas
Quebec delivered no units and as such has no subsidy.
Notwithstanding history, our friend across the way must
understand that dollars for new housing commitments in Canada
are now distributed according to a formula based on core need,
not on population. That important distinction must be
recognized. According to these principles, each region receives
its share of housing dollars for new commitments.
[Translation]
In 1993-94, some $350 million was spent in Quebec, which
provided assistance for more than 140,000 social housing units.
Quebec also received additional funds because of special
circumstances. I am referring to the $4 million provided under
the RESO program established to improve living conditions in
southwestern Montreal and promote local development.
I am also referring to the $5 million given to the Montreal
owner-occupants whose homes were damaged by the drought.
[English]
Finally, on the point of the alleged $100 million that is not
going into Quebec, my friend is aware that the number he is
using is false. He knows it. It is most regrettable that the
member and the Bloc Quebecois are attempting to play
separatist games on the backs of those in Quebec who can least
afford it. He should come clean with Canadians and Quebecers.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration stated that I understood neither the Immigration
and Refugee Board nor the refugee process.
As for my supposed misunderstanding of immigration law,
section 19.1(a)(i) and (ii) and (b) of the Immigration Act clearly
states the grounds by which an individual is to be refused
admission into Canada. It states that one is not to be allowed into
Canada if they are: first, likely to pose a danger to public health
or safety; second, would cause excessive demands on the health
care system; or third, are unable to support themselves in
society.
Given Mr. Arthur Lasha fits all these grounds, he should not
have been allowed into Canada and should be both stripped of
his status and returned to his native Poland. In regard to the
specifics of the case, according to numerous reports, this HIV
infected individual was accepted as a refugee by the IRB based
both on the disease he carries and the reaction the Polish people
showed toward him.
Mr. Lasha's claims are ludicrous and the IRB should have
known the following. First, the Polish parliament is currently in
the process of passing a broadly supported bill recognizing same
sex marriages. Second, a constitutional amendment recognizing
the equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality is in the
process of being adopted there. Therefore, the claim that there is
systematic discrimination against homosexuals and, as in Mr.
Lasha's case, HIV carriers, is groundless.
Clearly Mr. Lasha has not been entirely honest in describing
his homeland. The minister has not accurately portrayed the
facts in terms of refugee claims based on homosexuality. The
minister said that only two such claims have come before the
IRB.
In Newfoundland alone the claim has 90 per cent acceptance
rate. According to a legal aid official in that province it is
becoming a popular approach to staying in this country.
The minister spoke a great deal about Mr. Lasha being a
member of a social group, that being by sexual orientation, and
cited the Supreme Court of Canada as having made that
decision.
9862
In the 1993 case of Canada v. Ward, the Supreme Court set out
the guidelines for assessing whether an individual was a
member of a social group. There were three possibilities: first,
groups defined by an innate or immutable characteristic;
second, groups defined by an association so important to their
human dignity that they should not be forced to forsake the
association; and third, groups defined by a former voluntary
status, immutable due to historic permanence.
The court also suggested possible groups for examination,
including homosexuality, but added it was the job of legislators,
not the courts, to decide whether or not homosexuality could be
considered a social group.
Given that the question of whether homosexuality is the result
of genetic makeup or environmental influence is far from being
settled, the minister cannot say whether Mr. Lasha was or was
not a member of a social group.
The IRB was therefore gravely misguided to make this
judgment on the assumption that this individual held an innate
or immutable characteristic.
To conclude, in this case the IRB was wrong on a number of
accounts. It ignored several subsections of section 19 of the
Immigration Act, placing an unfair burden on the health care
system and Canadian society as a whole.
Second, it failed to examine Polish society and the accepting
environment that the government is fostering toward the
homosexual community.
Third, it failed to use the definition of social group properly,
as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Given all this, it is clear that the Immigration and Refugee
Board has failed those legitimately seeking protection in
Canada from well founded persecution. It has failed Canadian
society by allowing in those who clearly should not be admitted
into this country.
Now that the minister is fully aware of the facts of this case,
will he not accurately portray the facts about immigration
application and acceptance? Second, will he have this individual
deported immediately? Third, will he disband the IRB? Fourth,
will he replace the IRB with competent immigration officials
armed with well established guidelines centred around helping
those from around the world truly in need of immediate
protection?
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member
knows, the decision was made by the Immigration and Refugee
Board which is a quasi-judicial independent decision making
body.
On the broad general issue of sexual orientation there are two
compelling facts that may help explain the issue. In June 1993
the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation constitutes
membership in a particular social group.
As well, the Geneva convention recognizes that in certain
countries, members of particular social groups have grounds to
fear persecution. It is on these grounds that individuals are
eligible to apply for refugee status, not only in Canada but in all
other countries that are signatories to the Geneva convention.
This case does not set a precedent. To date there have only
been two cases on the basis of sexual orientation. One claim was
determined to be negative. The other, the claim the member
raises, was determined to be positive following an appeal to the
Federal Court of Canada.,
Let me inform the member that Canada is not the only country
to accept refugees on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact the
United States, Germany and New Zealand have all accepted the
positive claims on the basis of sexual orientation.
In conclusion, when claims are evaluated it is with a view to
offering Canada's protection from systemic persecution and
abuse. I remind the member that Canada has been
internationally recognized for its compassion and thorough
stand on human rights issues when it comes to refugee
determination in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the
motion to adjourn the House has now been 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 6.49 p.m.)