TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, September 20, 1994
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5858
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 5860
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 5864
Bill C-41. Motion for second reading 5870
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 5886
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 5888
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5889
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 5891
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5893
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5894
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5894
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5894
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5895
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5895
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5895
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 5895
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5895
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5898
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5898
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5898
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 5900
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5900
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 5904
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5908
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 5917
Bill C-218. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 5920
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 5920
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 5930
5853
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, September 20, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
have a motion I would like to put with unanimous consent.
It deals with the 28th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. It was concurred in yesterday by
the House with consent. Apparently it has caused some
difficulty in the committee's branch to have this report take
effect as of today. It would prefer to defer the implementation of
the report, which deals with the allocation of rooms for
committees, until October 3.
Accordingly, I move:
That the committee room assignment system contained in the 28th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and adopted by the
House of Commons on September 19, 1994 come into effect on Monday,
October 3, 1994.
I think there would be unanimous consent for that motion.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to table a petition containing approximately 75
signatures which was forwarded to me by a constituent in my
riding of Cambridge.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not 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 community approval of same sex relationships or
homosexuality.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from
constituents of mine in the two districts of Burstall and Maple
Creek. The petitions are very similar in content so I will read
only one of them.
Whereas the Criminal Code of Canada, section 241, states
that anyone who counsels a person to commit suicide or aids or
abets a person to commit suicide is guilty of an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14
years; whereas the Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld
section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada in the Rodriguez
decision, recognizing that section 241 was enacted to protect all
individuals, including the disabled, the terminally ill, the
depressed, the chronically ill and the elderly; and whereas if
section 241 were to be struck down or amended such protection
would no longer exist, we, your humble petitioners, therefore
pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the
Criminal Code in any way and uphold the Supreme Court of
Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted
suicide or euthanasia.
I concur with these petitioners.
(1005 )
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present four
petitions from various districts of my constituency. All are of
similar content.
The petitioners request that Parliament not 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
prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
I concur and support these petitioners and would like to
present these petitions.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions this morning.
The first petition contains 1,018 signatures from across the
country concerning the subject of witness protection. This
simply adds to the total of thousands upon thousands of
signatures that I have presented in this and the last Parliaments
dealing with the subject of witness protection and calling on the
5854
Parliament of Canada to enact a witness protection and
informant law.
I draw to the attention of the House that my bill on this subject
will be coming up for a final hour of debate and vote on
September 26.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed by people from Scarborough, Ontario
and points close thereto concerning the Young Offenders Act
calling on Parliament to provide heavier penalties for those
convicted of violent crime.
I remind them that we are currently debating a bill in the
House on this subject.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West): Finally, Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition signed mainly by people living in the
city of Etobicoke in the municipality of metropolitan Toronto.
The petitioners call on Parliament not to amend 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 and to ensure that no amendments are passed using
the undefined phrase sexual orientation. I completely concur.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to place before the House a petition signed by over 1,000
people from St. Catharines and surrounding area.
The petitioners state that they abhor crimes of violence
against persons. We believe that killer trading cards offer
nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate but
rather contribute to violence.
The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to
prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of
killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that
their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and
destroyed.
I have spoken in the House before about the harm to society of
serial killer cards. I would like to reiterate my support for this
petition.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. 66, 68 and 70.
[Text]
Question No. 66-Mr. Szabo:
For the years 1992 and 1993, have any departments, agencies or crown
corporations contributed funding to Planned Parenthood of Canada or to
Planned Parenthood International and, if so, (a) which ones and (b) in what
amounts?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): I am informed by
the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and
the Department of Health as follows:
(a) & (b)
![](/web/20061117200730im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0937x01_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117200730im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0937x01_r1.gif)
Question No. 68-Mr. Fillion:
What are the government's plans for the development of the sea terminal at
Grande-Anse over the short, medium and long term?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): The port of
Saguenay has sought approval to develop a new forest products
terminal at Grande-Anse. It proposes that on the basis of its own
traffic forecasts, current facilities will soon be at capacity and a
new facility is required.
Port Saguenay is administrated by the Canada Ports
Corporation, a commercial crown corporation. Infrastructure
developments undertaken by the corporation must be
commercially viable.
The proposal to expand the Grande-Anse terminal was only
put forward on the basis of $23.5 million in grant funding being
available to finance the project. This grant funding is not
available and the expansion is currently on hold. The Canada
Ports Corporation will continue to monitor the viability of the
proposed expansion.
Question No. 70-Mr. Crête:
With regard to the $70 million cut in the budget of the Federal Office of
Regional Development (Québec), what is the distribution by sector of the $14
million for 1994-95 and how is the remaining $56 million being distributed for
subsequent years?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): The Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec resource envelope consists of
appropriations for programs approved by Treasury Board-we
call this our ``A Base''-and a sum of money not yet allocated to
a specific program (regional development reserve).
5855
It is anticipated that the $70 million cuts will partly be applied
to our ``A Base'' ($34.77 million) over the three-year period.
The balance ($35.23 million) will reduce the funds in the
regional development reserve.
![](/web/20061117200730im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0938x02_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117200730im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0938x02_r1.gif)
[English]
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 33.
[Text]
Question No. 33-Mrs. Lalonde:
What effect do the new unemployment insurance measures contained in the
Budget have on the accounts kept for the Unemployment Insurance Account,
and what impact will they have on balancing the books for the Account?
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): The answer is as
follows: The changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program
announced in the February 24, 1994 budget will reduce benefit
expenditures by $500 million in 1994, $2.1 billion in 1995 and
$2.4 billion in 1996. These are calendar years. The planned
annual surplus for 1994 in the Unemployment Insurance
Account is $240 million, which should bring the accumulated
deficit down to $5.6 billion, by December 31, 1994.
(1010)
Premiums rates will be rolled back to their 1993 level in 1995
and 1996, and the accumulated deficit in the UI Account should
be eliminated by the end of 1996.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: I have received an application pursuant to
Standing Order 52 for an emergency debate. I would call on the
hon. member for Kamloops.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I rise under the
provisions of Standing Order 52 to ask that the House now
adjourn to examine what can only be considered to be a crisis on
the west coast of Canada.
The disappearance of 1.3 million salmon from the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans management surveys ought
to give rise to an immediate examination of our policies on the
west coast. This crisis is now attached to the commercial
fishery, to the aboriginal fishery and to the sports fishery in the
salmon sector, to say nothing of other species as well.
Considering what has occurred on the east coast as a result of
years of ignoring the reality of what was happening to the
resource, a similar situation may exist on the west coast. One
point three million salmon have disappeared and no one knows
what has happened to them. This ought to result in a special
debate in the House of Commons. It is a non-partisan issue, a
non-political issue, but one that I know all political parties here,
as well as others, would feel very strongly about.
The Speaker: I can well understand the great interest the hon.
member has in this particular issue. As the House will recall,
yesterday we had application for a similar request for an
emergency debate.
In my view, the situation has not changed in the last 24 hours.
I would rule that the application will be denied at this time.
Perhaps at a later date we could look at it again.
5856
5856
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
On the Order: Government Orders:
June 21, 1994-The Solicitor General of Canada-Second reading and
reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-45,
an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal
Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Transfer of Offenders Act.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
the Criminal Code, the Criminal Records Act, the Prison and Reformatories Act
and the Transfer of Offenders Act, be referred forthwith to the Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on this
motion to refer Bill C-45 to the justice and legal affairs
committee before second reading.
This approach makes it easier for the committee and the
government to consider changes to the bill in light of the
proceedings of the committee. I am pleased to present this bill
under the new House rules, which I sponsored as House leader
last February and which were adopted unanimously by all
parties.
Again I express my appreciation for the approach to these rule
changes on the part of the various parties in the House. As I said
at that time, the government was implementing a number of
commitments that we made during the election campaign in the
red book, and subsequently in the throne speech, aimed at
revitalizing the House of Commons. In particular, we wanted to
give members the opportunity to be more actively involved in
the development of legislation.
Changing the rules of the House does not on its own bring
about this revitalization. It is the extent to which the new
procedures are used that makes the difference. It is up to
members on all sides of the House to make the changes work.
Therefore I am pleased to help bring these changes into effect in
a meaningful way by proceeding with Bill C-45 under the new
framework.
(1015)
Turning to the bill, I believe it is important because it
addresses significant issues of public protection in the area of
corrections and parole. These are issues on which this
government promised action in that same red book as part of its
agenda to bring about safe homes and safe streets for Canadians.
With this bill we are delivering on these promises.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this government is sensitive to the public's
concerns about criminal justice. Canadians are particularly
concerned about violent crimes and sex offences, especially
when the victims are children. With this bill, we will be able to
tackle these problems.
[English]
Time is limited as each of us has only 10 minutes to speak in
this debate. I want to highlight a few of the important provisions
of the bill. I will discuss others in more detail when we go to
committee.
This bill will change the test for the detention to the end of
sentence for those offenders who commit sexual offences
against children. At present, the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act permits the National Parole Board to detain sex
offenders and certain other high risk offenders until the end of
their sentence if they cause serious harm and are likely to
commit an offence causing death or serious harm if released.
In the case of child victims, serious harm caused by an
offender may not be evident for a number of years. The victim
may be too young to adequately communicate the impact of the
offence. Therefore it is difficult for the parole board to make a
determination that serious harm was caused to a child so that the
offender should be detained until the end of sentence.
The amendments in the bill would make it easier for the parole
board to detain in penitentiary until the end of their sentence sex
offenders who victimize children by removing the requirement
that serious harm must be established as the criterion for
detention. This would give the board authority to detain such a
sex offender if a further sex offence against the child is likely.
I should point out the measures in this bill are needed not
because we say that sex offences against children are considered
more serious than those against adult victims, but because the
current legislation has proven less effective in cases involving
children.
We will also be making other improvements in the availability
of treatment for sex offenders in the community and in prison.
Another area of concern to the Canadian public is the
credibility and accountability of the National Parole Board. Our
priority is the protection of the public. One way of achieving this
is through a responsible and well managed conditional release
process.
In most cases gradual transition from custody to the
community under supervision and control and with support and
assistance is the safest way to release offenders. It enables
parole authorities to gauge an offender's ability to maintain a
law-abiding life and to return him or her to custody should the
level of risk appear to be increasing. Successful adjustment by
the
5857
offender during the conditional release period provides the best
chance for his or her continuing law-abiding behaviour and as a
result for long term public safety.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the adequacy of the people designated by the
National Parole Board is critical if judicious decisions are to be
made. We undertook to have commissioners selected on the
basis of merit and qualification. I would say that the latest
appointments made by this government, particularly in the case
of the president of the board, did meet these high standards.
[English]
In addition, board member training has been strengthened
especially around the difficult process of risk assessment. This
will become an ongoing process. A code of conduct has also
been finalized. The bill before us will strengthen the
accountability of the board by establishing a disciplinary review
scheme for board members.
Let me turn to another matter which has rightly been the cause
of strong expressions of concern. I am talking about the way our
present law requires the calculation of sentences of offenders
serving multiple terms. Because of the formula set out in the
present law, it can happen that an offender on conditional release
who receives a new sentence of imprisonment can remain
eligible for release and even stay out of custody. Under Bill
C-45 however, people reoffending while on parole will have to
serve a substantial portion of any new sentence before even
being considered for parole.
(1020)
Finally, dealing with the issue of post-sentence detention,
which is not treated directly in this bill, I want to remind the
House that we are working with a special federal-provincial
task force on high risk violent offenders. It is studying
legislative and policy changes that would improve public
protection from high risk and violent offenders once their initial
sentence has expired. The task force is expected to release its
report at the end of this year. In the light of this report, I and my
colleague, the Minister of Justice, will move to develop
practical, workable responses and measures to deal with the
issue of post-sentence detention.
[Translation]
In closing, I would add that this bill and related initiatives
make for a balanced response to the legitimate concerns of
Canadians and their request for reform. A stronger system will
thus improve public protection.
[English]
This bill is part of a strategic framework of initiatives that
work together in order to carry out our red book agenda and
demonstrates our commitment to safe homes and safe streets for
all Canadians.
I look forward to the committee review process and anticipate
productive discussion of amendments which will reinforce the
intent of the legislation. The end result I am sure will be the
improved safety of the public. Therefore, I conclude by formally
moving:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), Bill C-45 be forthwith referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the hon. member for
Bellechasse for l0 minutes as he knows.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to speak on Bill C-45, particularly with the new
rules of procedure under which it is now possible to refer a bill
to parliamentary committee before second reading. These rules,
which we have unanimously ratified in this House, will permit
broader debate, as the positions of the government and the
opposition will not have hardened before debate at second
reading.
The various provisions in Bill C-45 are of great interest and
address a concern of a large majority of Canadians and
Quebecers, especially the release of criminals determined likely
to commit a repeat offence immediately or at some time in the
future. In this regard, the bill is on the right track.
One might, however, question the manner proposed by the
government for detaining likely repeat offenders. It is the
National Parole Board which is given these powers under Bill
C-45.
We have a different approach. We would much prefer that the
decision to detain potential repeat offenders be left to a court of
law rather than to a quasi-judicial tribunal, appointments to
which would often be open to criticism. I will come back to this
in a few moments.
We cannot have it both ways-either we choose the approach
of mandatory sentencing, of sentence without parole handed
down by the trial judge, or another possibility would be to leave
this decision with the Parole Board, with the possibility of
appeal to a court of common law, the right to review by another
tribunal to which judges would be appointed according to
generally accepted and well known criteria.
(1025)
Which brings me to the subject I touched on earlier, the Parole
Board. The process to appoint Parole Board members should be
much more open and we have an excellent opportunity to look at
what other parliaments did, that is, hold confirmation hearings
on the appointments this government wants to make. Before
securing an order-in-council appointing someone to the Parole
Board, the government should have to submit the names of the
candidates either to the Standing Committee on Justice or to the
5858
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and
appointments should be subjected to confirmation hearings in
such a way as to avoid media circuses like we saw in the U.S.
during confirmation hearings for certain candidates to the
position of Supreme Court judge. In my opinion, this
confirmation process would enhance the work of
parliamentarians and the role citizens want to see them play in
this Parliament and in all parliaments in general.
Until the appointment process for Parole Board members is
reviewed, Canadians have a right to ask questions on how these
people are appointed, on the decisions they make and on the
validity of these decisions, as they prevail every time.
Some of the provisions in Bill C-45 seem a little strange at
first and perhaps should be reviewed by the parliamentary
committee. First of all, clause 12 of the bill before us states that
inmates are not entitled to a hearing when their case is being
reviewed. Why deprive inmates of such a hearing? Is there a
valid reason to do that? I think the burden of proof should rest
with the government, with the minister introducing this bill,
who should demonstrate that inmates should not have the right
to be heard when their case is being reviewed, because there may
be new evidence justifying a hearing. I think it would be much
wiser to preserve the right to a hearing, even if it must be cut
short if no new evidence is produced.
Clause 25 of the bill stipulates that the head of the Parole
Board may automatically allow a person to serve the rest of their
sentence. The institutional head may do so automatically or at
the inmate's request. If it is at the prisoner's request, we would
have to see under what circumstances he could ask to serve his
full prison sentence, if he does not consider himself fit to be
released, but if the institutional head can act on his own
authority, there would have to be a hearing before a judicial
tribunal. I have trouble seeing a public official who is not a
judge deciding issues of basic rights like an offender's release
on his own say-so, without the possibility of having his decision
reviewed by a judicial tribunal. I have some concerns about this
provision.
Clause 27 provides a new definition, a flagrant example of
expansionist centralizing federalism. Clause 27 as it now stands
defines the board as the National Parole Board. The new clause
27 would define it as the National Parole Board and adds:
and includes a provincial parole board where it exercises jurisdiction in
respect of parole as provided by section 112-
(1030)
But if provincial parole boards are to be included, would it not
be preferable to do so under clause 27 at the request of the
lieutenant governor in council of a province? Why force the
provincial parole boards to join? Since it is not the case now,
why bring them in, unless it is at the province's request? That
would show respect for provincial jurisdiction.
A rather disturbing provision is that those in detention for less
than six months could not be paroled. Such prisoners are usually
held for minor offences. Why would there not be a fast-track
procedure in such cases so that a request for release from a
person held for less than six months could be heard quickly, in
summary fashion, especially given the overcrowding in prisons
in Canada and Quebec. These matters should also be reviewed.
Clause 56 would add to the Act. It provides for the
appointment of a judge to review the conduct of members of the
parole boards. It is all well and good to add clause 56, but
subsection 7 says that the judge conducting an inquiry is not
bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may
receive and base a decision on evidence adduced in the
proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the
circumstances of the case. The judge could act on hearsay; he is
not bound by any rule of evidence.
I think that the judge named to investigate the actions of a
member of the Parole Board should do so in accordance with the
rules of evidence in Canada and the other legal provisions that
ensure the supremacy of the rule of law. I find a provision like
56.7, which sets no rule of evidence for an investigator to
follow, to be unacceptable.
Finally, section 155.1 as it now stands allows the minister to
act as soon as the judge's report is filed; if it is unfavorable to the
person under investigation, the minister can revoke that
person's mandate. I think that an appeal procedure should be
allowed at this point.
That is, the minister should not decide immediately once the
judge's report is filed with him; rather, the judge's report should
be filed with the Federal Court and any interested party should
have a certain period, say 30 days, to appeal to the Appeal
Division of the Federal Court so that the issue can be discussed
in a judicial forum, in the absence of specific rules of law that
are not mentioned in the Act.
These are the brief preliminary remarks that I had to make; in
committee, we will no doubt be able to improve what is
proposed in Bill C-45, which on the whole meets our concerns.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to talk to the particular aspect of Bill C-45 which is
going to committee.
Several items in the bill are actually good points that we could
support. However the proposals are yet another example of the
Liberal government wanting to do something to convince
Canadians that it is really getting tough on law and order. In
many cases it is much to do about nothing. This is the story of
our lives in Canadian government in 1994-95, is it not?
5859
We support some of the points. We obviously support the
measures to counter child sexual abuse. Full term sentence
before release is and has been a Reform position since time
immemorial, since the party was started. We obviously support
it and agree the government should pursue it in Bill C-45.
(1035)
We also support empowering any law enforcement officer to
detain and return an offender violating parole requirements.
That is a good step. The government is to be complimented on
that. It is not often I stand in the House to compliment the
Liberal government on something it does.
The other item I wish to compliment it on is expanding
offences wherein an offender must serve full term sentences to
include serious drinking and driving offences, criminal
negligence causing bodily harm or death, criminal harassment
or stalking, and conspiracy to commit serious drug offences.
That is also a positive move in the right direction.
Let us get down to some of the concerns that are obviously
omitted. This is where we get into the flaccid approach. I always
said the dictionary term for flaccid means limp wristed and so
on. I like to think of flaccid meaning the federal Liberals are
crafty Conservatives in disguise. I will explain that at the end of
my 10 minutes.
The legislation does not insist child sex offenders must
receive treatment during or after their incarceration. How could
that be missed? The country must stress that no serious child sex
offender should be allowed to enter society whether or not full
sentence completion exists, without assurances that future child
sexual abuse by the offender will not occur. They should think
about that when they are sitting on the committee. It is
something that is very important to Canadian citizens. If they
look at the area I come from in the lower mainland of British
Columbia they will see this is a serious problem.
Mandatory treatment must take place. Currently if an
offender refuses treatment no treatment is forced upon the
offender. If an offender refuses treatment during incarceration
some means must be at the disposal of correctional services that
force the individual to take treatment. The offender should not
be allowed to re-enter society until assurances are received that
the offender will not reoffend.
There are no provisions in the legislation to account for sexual
offenders that stalk and with violence violate adult women. It is
not only young sex offenders we are looking at. They had better
get real serious about looking at all sex offenders.
The proposed legislation does not force mandatory review of
parole board decisions that go wrong. The legislation states the
chair of the parole board may recommend such a hearing take
place. This is really preposterous considering some of the
boondoggles parole boards have been undertaking. We know
that in many cases they are patronage appointments. Liberal
Party hacks came into the jobs. Perhaps their qualifications and
abilities do not quite match the job they are used to.
However let me give a little indication about a fellow by the
name of Wayne Perkin in my area who was supposed to do six
years for taping up a young lady's arms, beating her over the
head with a hammer and sexually assaulting her. He served
about 14 or 16 months and the parole board let him out. After
that he bludgeoned to death Angela Richards in Langley, and the
story goes on.
When I went to the sentencing in this particular case I thought
how ironic it was the parole board was not even represented
there to listen to the damage that was done after it let this person
out. I really think accountability of the parole board has to come
into play. It is not in the legislation and I suppose those folks
over there will let it go by. The committee should really look at
the matter. I know that Reform members of Parliament will be
talking to it extensively at committee level.
The chair of the parole board has a vested interest to keep
foul-ups by board members as quiet as possible unless media
make a big fuss about board foul-ups that forces the chair to ask
for an inquiry. Why would the chair of a board actually critique
what happened in the bad mistakes made by a board? It would do
our country well to have some of the Liberal MPs involved in
assessment at committee level of Bill C-45 go to a parole board
hearing. They might have their eyes opened.
(1040)
The proposed legislation still leaves board members as
investigators and decisive people in parole. Nowhere does the
legislation insist frontline workers like case workers, prison
guards and those types of people, make direct representation at
hearings. The frontline people know the serious offenders very
well. Their input would offer board members details that
otherwise may escape their investigations. Let us think about
that. The onus is on a parole board to assess whether or not an
individual should be eligible to get back on the street. What it
really needs is the maximum amount of input it can get, not the
minimum amount.
The legislation makes a half hearted attempt at correcting a
problem with short shrift eligibility for parole violators. Instead
of saying parole violators must serve one-third of a new
sentence the legislation should state that if an offender commits
another crime while on parole the offender should be forced to
fill the entire remaining period of the old sentence, face a
minimum sentence for committing a crime while on parole, and
face full term for the offence committed while on parole.
It is rather ironic to talk about the next item since I raised it in
the House in the last session. It is nice the government wants
criminals to contribute toward their room and board. What about
the victim? If the criminals have any income that income must
5860
be directed toward restitution to the victim prior to or as well as
the cost of their upkeep. Once again the victim is forgotten.
We disclosed in the House in last session that the
government's benevolent attitude is allowing criminals in our
system to get old age security, income supplement, GST rebates
and CPP. What I heard from the Solicitor General was that it
really did not work and they would make a change. Then I saw in
the change they would have to pay 30 per cent of it, which is
ridiculous.
They should not get one cent of old age security, the people I
checked up on. There was one person in for a double murder who
was getting old age security. The government should tell me the
logic of that. Why should that money not go toward the victim?
Why should all that money not go toward board and upkeep? For
the government to suggest that it is going to take another tough
measure, that it is going to take 30 per cent, is ridiculous.
The Liberal government will have to smarten up one of these
days and look at what is right in the country. It should not be too
shy about being tough.
Currently our investigations have discovered that there are far
more sexual offenders needing treatment than there are
treatment facilities. We have been told of 1,800 serious sex
offenders currently incarcerated. There are only 200 slots for
treatment at any one time. The legislation only promotes
treatment for sex offenders abusing children. What about
offenders who assault teenage or adult women? Once again the
victim is forgotten. Where is the treatment for victims of
assault? Have you not remembered the victims? It should keep
that in mind.
How will the government pay for increased treatment? We
must push for treatment for all violent or sexual offenders. At
the same time where will the money come from? I know they are
not overly concerned about where the money comes from in
Canada today, but they should try to think about it in Bill C-45.
I have a final point. This was a fine opportunity for Liberals
concerned about guns to include full sentences served for
offences where any gun is used. Why did you not do this? Why is
it not in here? Where is it going to be?
Once again I do not think the courage exists on the other side
to deal with the tougher issues about taking away money that the
criminal element should not have in our prisons, about dealing
with gun laws, about dealing with violent sex offenders from an
adult point of view, and about dealing with the victim.
(1045 )
I hope that in Bill C-45 they look at these issues in committee.
The Deputy Speaker: We have just come back and I again
would ask members to please direct their remarks through the
Chair. The theory is that it will reduce the conflict between
members if remarks go through the Chair rather than back and
forth across the Chamber.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I will not
take much of the time of the House.
Today is sort of an historic day in the sense that it is the first
time I believe that Standing Order 73(1) has been invoked. I
would like to point out to the House that on May 11, 1994 I stood
here on a point of order. At that time I was introducing a private
member's bill and I pointed out to the Speaker that I would like
to invoke Standing Order 73(1) for my bill. I pointed out some of
the problems as the standing order presented itself where a
minister of the crown could send any public bill to committee
before second reading and this would include a private
member's bill sponsored by a private member.
In reply the Speaker took it under consideration and made a
ruling on June 1 at which time he suggested the redrafting of
Standing Order 73 to grant the sponsor of a private member's
bill the same prerogatives with regard to that bill that a minister
of the crown enjoys with regard to a government bill seems to
merit further consideration. He referred that issue to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and asked
it to take that into consideration.
I realize the standing committee has been very active and very
busy on a number of subjects. I would ask on my point today, Mr.
Speaker, that you again ask that committee, seeing that this
standing order has been invoked for the first time and could be
invoked again for other opportunities, since the matter is an
urgent one, especially for private members, backbenchers, that
we would like to have a ruling on that as soon as possible.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member and I thank
the member for giving notice of the point of order. He is
absolutely right that the Speaker on June 1 did suggest that the
committee look at the matter. As the member will know the
Speaker does not have the power to direct, as I understand it, any
committee to consider any matter.
If I can characterize what the member has said, he is really
asking the committee to deal with the matter as quickly as
possible. I see the chairman of that committee nodding. I hope
he will take under advisement what the hon. member has said.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
discuss the government's plans to solve the pressing problem of
public protection as it relates to the correctional process.
5861
The amendments proposed in Bill C-45 will allow for a better
control of those who generate the greatest fears, namely violent
offenders. The changes proposed by the government will be
supported by improved treatment programs for sexual
offenders.
These changes are an essential component which the
government intends to use to deal with violent crimes and to
improve the public's faith in correctional services as well as in
the conditional release program.
The Solicitor General pointed out that to pass harsher
legislation to alleviate the public's concerns is not enough.
Indeed, if we are to solve the social problems within our
communities, we cannot merely increase the number of inmates
in our jails.
In recent months, the media have given a lot of coverage to the
serious and increasing public concern regarding some issues
related to the judicial process.
[English]
Almost every day there are story headlines, news broadcasts,
telling us of the violence which is present in our communities.
The television programs we watch also recount quite
graphically at times details of violent crime, whether real or
fictional. It is difficult to escape the feeling that violence
pervades in our lives.
(1050)
[Translation]
This is why most Canadians believe that crime is on the rise in
their communities. It must be remembered that studies on
victimization, not the media, best describe the current crime
trends.
These studies show that, in 1993, global rates remained stable
or decreased compared to 1988 levels. Moreover, they show that
the crime rate dropped by 5 per cent in 1993, the biggest
decrease since we started keeping statistics on crime, over 30
years ago.
Statistics show a substantial decrease of some 15 per cent in
the case of murders, for the second consecutive year. The figure
for 1993 is 27 per cent lower than the all-time high of 1975.
Nevertheless, Canadians are more and more concerned about
crime and are asking the government to find solutions and put a
stop to its presumed higher incidence.
It must also be recognized that certain ways of dealing with
crime and the fear that it generates can have results opposite to
their objective. One only needs to look at the situation in the
United States to realize that some strategies against crime can
have unpredictable and serious consequences.
Do you know that 13 states have abolished their parole
system, essentially in an attempt to slow down the rise in crime?
Yet, studies show that crime rates in these states have not
decreased and are, in several cases, among the highest in the
country. Canada is second to the United States as regards the
incarceration rate.
[English]
Correctional Services Canada has determined that if the
current rate of admissions to penitentiaries continues there will
be over 18,000 offenders in federal penitentiaries by the year
2002. This would represent a 30 per cent increase in the next
eight years. The cost of housing these offenders is not
decreasing. On average it costs the Canadian taxpayer over
$50,000 for each incarcerated offender.
[Translation]
While the public is concerned about the consequences of
criminal activities, we are increasingly recognizing that, for the
most part, crime arises from social problems, like
unemployment, poverty and illiteracy.
As members of Parliament, we are responsible for protecting
the public and, like all our fellow Canadians, we must look
beyond the immediate repercussions of crime and take into
consideration the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. That
is why our government has implemented a national strategy on
security and crime prevention in urban areas.
[English]
One of the key elements of this national strategy is the
creation by the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of a
national crime prevention council this past July. The objectives
of the council are to unify crime prevention efforts across the
country and to give them focus and direction.
[Translation]
Despite the creation of this national crime prevention council,
we have to realize that repression and crime prevention are not
the exclusive responsibility of the criminal justice system. To
come to grips with the many social and economic issues leading
to crime requires a multidimensional and integrated approach.
We must co-operate and work in partnership with every segment
of our society, including parents, teachers, social services
organizations and all levels of government.
As the Solicitor General said earlier, in order to undertake an
effective and in-depth reform aimed at protecting the public
against crime, the federal and provincial governments must
work together to find overall solutions.
However, the federal government realizes that control of
violent offenders is a complex problem for which it would be
pointless to seek a universal remedy.
As you know, governments share responsibility for criminal
justice, but mental health is a provincial jurisdiction.
5862
(1055)
Since searching for ways to deal with high risk offenders is
not the exclusive responsibility of any one level of government,
a federal-provincial task force on high risk violent offenders has
also been set up.
The task force is reviewing all policies and legislation that
could help to treat, manage and monitor high-risk violent
offenders.
[English]
In closing, let me emphasize that the legislative reforms of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act proposed in this bill
are clearly measures that will contribute to the protection of the
public; balanced measures augmented with comprehensive
activities such as crime prevention through social development,
through strengthening meaningful partnerships with other
levels of government and through community involvement in
order to ensure safer homes and safer streets for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker,
going through Bill C-45 raises a great concern about sexual
offenders and sentences that they are given. In these days,
sexual offences make headlines in all the media everywhere in
the country.
Our duty, as elected people, is to legislate in such a way that
the action we are taking will have positive results. Public safety
is everyone's responsibility. But there is no point in passing
legislation just to pretend we have done our job and this piece of
legislation must be the least confusing possible. It is important
that its enforcement be as easy as possible and, finally, this
whole series of action must be efficient. Killers must not kill any
more, thieves must not steal any more and rapists must not rape
any more.
I will deal mainly with clause 3 of the proposed bill. It says,
and I quote: ``The Commissioner may in writing designate any
staff member, either by name or by class, to be a peace officer,
and a staff member so designated has all the powers, authority,
protection and privileges that a peace officer has by law in
respect of an offender subject to a warrant, and any person,
while the person is in a penitentiary''. It is that point I have a
problem with.
I knew that the job of a correctional officer in a penitentiary
was not well known, but I am very disappointed to see how badly
it is known. In that clause of Bill C-45, it is clearly written that
the commissioner may in writing designate, for instance, a night
security officer from some warehouse to be a correctional
officer in a penitentiary. I have nothing against security officers
who protect warehouses and other buildings and I am sure they
do a very good job. But that has nothing to do with the job and
responsibilities of a correctional officer in a penitentiary.
Absolutely nothing!
A correctional officer is a person who has been very carefully
chosen. The time is long gone when people would offer their
services as a policeman or a prison guard because they could not
find jobs and had big muscles. That was the case at the beginning
of the century. But this should not be the case at the end of this
century. For instance, if there is no corrections officer around
inside a penitentiary, it is highly unlikely anyone would try to
break in. In fact for centuries, the tendency has been for people
to try to break out.
However, in a warehouse without any security, it is very likely
some people will likely help themselves, in the absence of
security personnel. I mentioned earlier that corrections officers
are very carefully screened. Among the many qualifications
these people must have, there are some that everyone should
have, including honesty and impartiality. I think we can assume
every upstanding citizen has those qualities, but he must also
have above average judgment and tremendous self-control.
(1100)
He must also have very acute powers of observation. His
personal safety and the safety of his colleagues and the public
depends on it. And last, but not least, he must pass an impressive
battery of tests to determine his personal and interpersonal
strengths. Government personnel departments, also known as
human resources, invest many months' worth of tests, analyses
and studies in each case before they select the individual or
individuals best suited to perform the duties of a corrections
officer.
Do you know that at the Port-Cartier penitentiary, which
opened in 1988 or 1989, more than 23,000 applications were
received and processed? Port-Cartier has about 250 employees,
including 188 corrections officers. The selection process took
more than 20 months, from the day the initial advertisement was
published in the media to the first day on the job.
In the same area, the Government of Quebec regularly takes
from 16 to 20 months to complete its selection process. I am sure
this also applies to the nine other provinces as well.
We must not wait until something terrible happens to take the
proper action. We must act now, as soon as the bill goes to
committee, to consider the impact some clauses may have. You
do not wait until a book is published to correct the proofs.
About the proposed deductions from inmates' income
mentioned in cluases 21 and 26, it seems inmates might see the
cost of room and board deducted from their income. How would
this measure be implemented? That is a question Bill C-45 fails
to answer. What would it cost to introduce such a measure? Here
again, the bill does not deliver.
Finally, and this may be why the bill does not provide an
answer, how much will these measures save the Treasury? We
5863
cannot afford to introduce measures for their own sake. Getting
four quarters for a dollar is certainly not worth the trouble.
On the subject of parole, the bill proposes that individuals
serving a second sentence for the same offence should not be
eligible for parole. We must look at this very carefully. People
complain that some individuals were poorly assessed before
their release on parole. If we deny an individual the opportunity
to be released on parole, this means there will be no evaluation,
either negative or positive, in his file. Once he has served his
sentence, he will be forced back into a society he has not seen for
months or, in many cases, years. He will be on his own in a world
that has continued to evolve and grow and which will certainly
have changed. Do we have the moral right to do this?
In concluding, I wish to say that we in the Bloc Quebecois will
work on improving this bill, in committee and in the House. We
will do our utmost to make this bill as transparent and, above all,
as efficient as possible.
[English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton): Mr. Speaker, in last
year's federal election members on this side of the House
listened to Canadians express their desire for the federal
government to introduce reforms to the criminal justice system.
We listened to Canadians tell us that they no longer feel safe
walking on our streets and that they fear for the safety of their
children, a fear that has never been felt before in this country.
We listened as Canadians from all walks of life and from all
parts of this country told us that they want a criminal justice
system that is responsive and effective in dealing with the
criminal element in our society.
(1105)
When we took office we committed ourselves to reforming
the criminal justice system to more closely resemble the kind of
system that Canadians want. We continue to listen to Canadians
and to their ideas for reforming our system. We listened as
Canadians told us that they want the red tape of government
replaced with the common sense of concerned citizens.
It is because this government is committed to listening to the
concerns of Canadians and to acting in a constructive manner
that I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-45.
Bill C-45 introduces amendments to key pieces of legislation
resulting in a criminal justice system which is more consistent
with Canadian values. The protection of our children must be
our primary concern in the justice system. It is clear that more
needs to be done in this area.
The statistics are staggering. Fifty-three per cent of females
and 31 per cent of males are the victims of unwanted sexual acts.
Eighty per cent of these assaults occur when they are children or
youths. This is horrendous and totally unacceptable.
Under existing laws, the National Parole Board is able to
detain an individual who has committed a sexual assault against
a child only if the offender has committed serious harm to the
child. Serious harm is defined as severe physical injury or
severe psychological damage. Proving serious harm so defined
with respect to a child is difficult because the psychological
harm caused by an offender may not be visible for years to come.
Bill C-45 addresses this problem by removing the
requirement to demonstrate serious harm for a sexual offence
involving a child. This legislation authorizes the National
Parole Board to detain an offender where it is satisfied that an
offender is likely to commit another sexual assault involving a
child before the expiration of their sentence. This really means
no parole. This measure is in direct response to concerns
expressed by Canadians that our justice system is too caught up
in red tape to respond to the common sense concerns of
Canadians and to the protection of our children.
Such a move cannot be made in isolation and Bill C-45
provides the necessary accompanying changes to ensure that the
removal of the serious harm criteria with respect to child sex
offenders is done in a responsible and effective manner.
Rehabilitation programs for sex offenders will be strengthened
under this legislation to ensure that the time which those
convicted of a sexual offence against a child or an adult spent
behind bars is constructive.
The strengthening of our rehabilitation programs is greatly
needed. A recent study found that 40 per cent of convicted sex
offenders reoffend within five years after being released from
prison. This is simply unacceptable.
While significant progress has been made by the correctional
service of Canada in recent years in the treatment of sex
offenders further improvements are needed. Bill C-45 contains
provisions to ensure that the Correctional Service of Canada has
the resources to improve its capacity to treat offenders by
allowing it to make deductions from an offender's income for
room and board costs. This covers part of the spending.
The removal of the serious harm provision also places greater
importance on the expert abilities of members of the National
Parole Board. This legislation strengthens the accountability of
the parole board by establishing a mechanism for the discipline
or removal of National Parole Board members in instances
where a member is clearly not performing up to acceptable
standards.
Bill C-45 moves to fulfil a number of our red book
commitments to promote safer homes and safer streets.
In addition to the provisions I have already mentioned which
deal with the treatment of child sex offenders, this legislation
expands the list of offences for which an offender could be
ineligible for parole until the end of their sentence. Bill C-45
adds stalking, conspiracy to commit drug offences and serious
5864
drinking and driving and criminal negligence offences which
result in bodily harm or death to the list of offences for which an
offender could be referred for detention until the end of their
sentence.
The recognition of stalking and drug offences in particular as
social societal problems in need of intensive treatment is
relatively recent. This bill acknowledges their severity in law.
By designating stalking, drug offences and drinking and driving
as offences for which offenders could be detained until the end
of their sentence we are bringing key criminal justice legislation
into the 1990s.
(1110)
These reforms are the product of consulting Canadians on the
issue of justice reform. A representative of the Canadian Police
Association has described the reforms contained in Bill C-45 as
the best improvements in the overall corrections and parole
system in this country in the past 15 years. I concur and attribute
the responsiveness of this bill to concerned Canadians who have
demonstrated a strong commitment to Canadian society. It is
their willingness to address these issues in a frank and open
manner which has shaped the proposed changes to the criminal
justice system.
I congratulate the hon. Solicitor General on Bill C-45 and
thank Canadians who participated.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to discuss Bill C-45, one component of the Solicitor
General's safe streets package.
I have to confess that I am not very pleased as I stand here.
Like most of the Liberal agenda for change, this bill tinkers with
it. There is no bold face of change at all. The bill has taken an
alarmingly wrong turn in making neighbourhoods safe for
Canadians when considering changes to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act.
My Reform colleagues and I have often spoken of the need for
widespread criminal justice reform. In order to demonstrate the
poignancy of our arguments we often refer to specific cases.
When we do members from across the floor dismiss our
arguments as irrelevant because they are exemplified by
anecdotes. However, we do not trot out examples to whip up
public sympathy but to demonstrate in clear, understandable
human terms what the real life implications are for Canadians
when the justice system goes wrong and fails to protect the
victims.
Today I will share with the House the real life tragic story of a
woman and her family who live in fear. As I explain the
particulars of the case it will be evident where and when
mistakes are made in the processes involved for conditional
releases, escorted temporary absences, known as ETAs, and
unescorted temporary absences, UTAs.
In 1983 Robert Paul Thompson was issued a day pass from
prison. He had committed numerous assaults dating back to
1969. Obviously his proclivity for violence was at that time not
deemed sufficiently problematic and he was given a day pass.
While out on this day pass Thompson went to the home of his
former common law spouse Brenda Fitzgerald, the daughter of
Mrs. Helen Leadley, a constituent of the riding I represent,
Calgary Southeast.
When he arrived at Brenda's home Thompson found her in the
company of another man. He tried to kill the man by beating him
with a hammer and stabbing him. His viciousness was
completely unleashed as he brutally stabbed Brenda Fitzgerald
to death. How stupid, how irresponsible that he was issued a day
pass.
For this brutal murder and attempted murder Thompson plea
bargained and pleaded guilty to second degree murder. He was
sentenced to life which made him eligible for parole in the
spring of 1995.
The case does not end with his conviction and sentencing
unfortunately. Two and a half years after his incarceration in
December 1985 Thompson stabbed two prison guards and took a
63-year old prison nurse hostage. During the hostage situation it
took 10 guards to restrain Thompson. For these subsequent
crimes Thompson received a sentence of 11 years to be served
concurrent to his original sentence with parole eligibility still in
April 1995.
Thompson has been denied two requests for conditional
release since his last conviction. In 1992 he was denied day
parole and in 1993 he was denied an ETA. These decisions are
extremely important for the Leadley family's safety. Since his
incarceration this man, Thompson, has managed to get a letter to
Mrs. Leadley threatening to kill the family. From prison a
convicted murderer has been able to violently threaten the
family of the woman he murdered. The family lives in fear and
any quality of life has virtually disintegrated. The grandchildren
have been given different names and moved out of the city and
Mrs. Leadley is not even able to see her own grandchildren.
However, the reason that I stand here today should be of
concern to the members of this House, as it is to me.
(1115 )
Thompson recently applied for an escorted temporary
absence. His brother has a non-life threatening illness and is in
hospital. Thompson wishes to visit him for two hours. In its
infinite wisdom in an eight-page decision, the parole board has
recommended that the ETA be granted.
The parole board gave its reasons for denying his first parole
request: the viciousness of all of his crimes. Now has something
happened in the past 12 months since his last denial to make the
board suddenly comfortable with this man's criminal character?
5865
The parole board cites the fact that Thompson has participated
in some rehabilitation programs since his last request for release
as reason for its sudden change of heart. In 1993 he was a
dangerous criminal but just 12 months and a few courses later he
is suitable for release it suggests.
To justify its new position, the parole board refers to anger
management courses that Thompson has taken. He was required
to participate in a program that required only one hour per week
for 10 weeks. Are these 10 hours of participation enough for the
board to have changed its position? Also in its decision the
board encourages Thompson to request to be transferred to a
lesser security prison.
These are the decisions and recommendations of a parole
board that alleges its reason for being is to protect the Canadian
public. There is certainly no accountability here. I fail to see
how such decisions protect the Canadian public.
The parole board is saying to this criminal that he deserves a
special treat for having been a good boy for 12 months. The
irony of the situation is that the case management team supports
Thompson's request, as does the warden of the prison and the
parole board. The Canadian public does not support this request.
I do not support it and the Leadley family does not support it.
The Liberals keep saying they want safer streets but I do not
believe it. Whenever they get a chance to make a tough decision
to make the streets safe, they balk. They fail to act. I sent a letter
to the Solicitor General, the National Parole Board chairman
and to the Minister of Justice. My office has had numerous
contacts with these offices since the board rendered its
reprehensible decision on September 13. The Solicitor General
has the power to overturn this ridiculous decision but has done
nothing. Not one of these people has acted yet nor has responded
to my letter and phone calls requesting the reversal of the
decision of the parole board.
In fact, the chairman of the National Parole Board has
demonstrated his complete disdain for the safety of the
Canadian public by responding to my requests by saying: ``Mr.
Thompson will be escorted. I really do not see what the big deal
is''. It is no small wonder that Canadian confidence in our
criminal justice system is so low. What reason do they have to be
confident when such ignorance is demonstrated by the National
Parole Board?
In the board's decision for Thompson's pass, it is mentioned
in a section on general statistical information on recidivism that
two out of three offenders will not commit an indictable offence
after release. The corollary of this is that 33 per cent will
reoffend after release. This is a substantial number, an
unacceptably high number. Further to this frightening figure is
the amount of recidivism of day parolees. The number of people
who have breached a condition of release or reoffended has
increased by 41 per cent in five years.
Despite these alarming figures, the National Parole Board
chairman still fails to see what the big deal is in letting a
convicted murderer out on an ETA. I am absolutely furious. The
irony is that it is his job to protect the Canadian public.
The big deal is simple. In the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, section 17(b) grants to convicts the privilege of
receiving escorted temporary absences for the following
reasons: medical; administrative; community service; family
contact; personal development for rehabilitative purposes; or
compassionate reasons, including parental responsibilities.
These people demonstrated no compassion when they killed
their fellow man. Escorted temporary absences are expensive
luxuries which should not be so easily obtained, especially for
violent offenders.
As well, section 17(c) states that an inmate's behaviour while
under sentence does not preclude authorizing absence. This
section should be struck from the act and is worth pursuing at the
committee stage.
Thompson's example is one case in point. He was out on a day
pass when he committed murder. This fact should necessarily be
considered when he applies for subsequent passes. In fact, it
should be sufficient reason to deny all subsequent requests.
(1120 )
I have used the Robert Paul Thompson case to demonstrate
some of what this bill fails but ought to do. In retrospect, the
decision in 1983 to issue a day pass was flawed. I am very
personally connected to this situation.
I challenge the Solicitor General on this matter. If he really
cares about making Canada safer for all of us, then he can begin
here and now by reversing the terrible and disgusting decision of
the parole board to grant Robert Paul Thompson a day pass for
family contact. Canadians demand no less.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the
House today on Bill C-45. As a former prosecutor for Essex
county in Ontario I recognize the need for changes in this area to
provide Canadians with greater public protection and a greater
sense of security. Police officers, prosecutors and victims
groups with whom I have discussed these amendments tell me
that this is a wonderful and a strong step forward in this area.
The Liberal red book told Canadians that we share their
concerns. It told Canadians of our promise to take steps to help
protect our citizens from repeat offenders. Safe homes and safe
streets are a theme for this government, but it is a theme that
goes hand in hand with our other themes of job creation and of
respect for human rights. Indeed, these themes of prosperity,
security and human rights merge to make Canada the kind of
country that really is the envy of the world.
5866
These amendments address the issue of public security. With
these amendments our government is following through on our
commitments to the public, commitments published in our red
book, commitments we have consistently followed up on and
that you can literally check off as we go through our mandate.
They are sensible commitments which help to improve our
security and our rights in this country.
Public safety is the primary consideration in putting forward
these changes. As we follow through on our red book
commitments we are improving protection from repeat sex
offenders. These changes are part of ongoing reforms to increase
and improve our handling and our management of these
offenders within the federal corrections system. In particular we
have focused on those offenders who victimize children,
although of course others are included in the sweep of this
legislation.
These changes will help to restore public confidence in the
corrections process by closing gaps and by responding directly
to shortcomings that have been perceived by the public. We will
tighten the system for those convicted of sex offences against
children. We will pass changes which will allow us to detain in
the penitentiary until the end of their sentence sex offenders who
victimize children.
Other offences will be caught within the mandate of this
legislation. Those include: serious drinking and driving
offences; criminal negligence offences which result in bodily
harm or death; criminal harassment, more commonly known as
stalking laws; and conspiracy to commit serious drug offences.
All of these will be added to the list of offences for possible
detention until the end of sentence.
Of those offences however I think all Canadians find crimes
against children to be among the most reprehensible acts. That is
why it is so important to increase the powers of the National
Parole Board to enable that body to keep repeat sex offenders
behind bars for their full sentence.
Under the existing legislation the National Parole Board must
establish that serious harm was done to a victim during the
commission of the offence or that it is likely to occur during a
future offence involving a child. This criterion of serious harm
can be difficult to identify among children who often do not
exhibit the full effects of the trauma until later in their lives.
This legislation seeks to improve the protection of children
and is also a response to the report on serious harm by the
Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
(1125 )
In addition to strengthening the sentencing side of sex
offences the legislation will also strengthen and expand
treatment programs for these crimes. This is another part of our
red book commitment.
As important as it is to keep repeat sex offenders in
penitentiaries as long as they remain a risk, it is equally
important to recognize that their sentences will inevitably
expire and that we must therefore strengthen our rehabilitation
programs. Although we have made some strides in this area in
the past, it is important to keep our focus in that direction and to
make sure these programs improve. These amendments will also
provide additional reasonable resources for those programs.
We are also following through on a commitment to create a
mechanism for the discipline or removal from office of National
Parole Board members where members are not performing
competently. This proposal, together with increased training,
the continued advertising of board vacancies and the
appointment of qualified, competent board members will
further increase the accountability of the board. This is
something Canadians have demanded, something we have
promised to Canadians and once again, something we have
followed through on.
While this legislation targets repeat sex offenders and other
serious criminals specifically, it also addresses the issue of
sentence calculation. There has been a longstanding concern
about the way sentences are calculated. Changes to the process
will ensure that offenders on parole in the community who are
convicted of a new offence are automatically returned to
custody, and would serve a substantial part of the new sentence,
at least one-third, in penitentiary before being eligible to be
considered for parole.
Like other legislation we have promulgated since our election
and which we will table throughout our term this act is the result
of consultation with Canadians. I speak specifically to my
friends across the way when I say that unlike some legislators,
Liberals do not limit their consultations only to those who share
their own view. We have the nerve, we have the mandate and we
have the strength to dare to involve all Canadians. We are not
afraid to hear other views. We do not sit with narrow, little
minds hiding in a hot house. Instead, we go to all Canadians. We
seek to widen our horizons. We seek to criss-cross the country
and to consult widely in both languages.
That is something the Solicitor General has done. I know my
friends on this side of the House join me as should those across
the way in commending him for this consultation and
commending him for having the guts and the courage to go out
and speak to all Canadians.
I ask all members in this House to support this bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, the
Solicitor General had been promising major amendments to the
current legislation in order to crack down on adults who commit
crimes against children. In particular, the government said it
would take extremely harsh measures in view of the demands of
5867
a society totally disgusted with the courts' failure to deal with
child molesters.
Like all Canadians, I was expecting a massive overhaul of the
current legislation. It seems, however, that the Solicitor General
does not have the same perception as the vast majority of
Canadians on this point. It seems that the government has
chosen to continue to favour administrative justice, which is
arbitrary and secretive, over the courts. Clearly the Liberal
Party does not want to toughen the act with regard to with rapists
and child abusers.
If I understand this bill correctly, individuals serving a
two-year sentence following assault on children, will be
referred to the Parole Board which will determine whether they
can be paroled at the time legally set or whether they should be
kept in jail until the end of their sentence or subjected to special
control measures.
People should not be led to believe that the amendments
proposed by the Solicitor General could be used to keep these
individuals in jail after the end of their sentence.
(1130)
You should not think either that this is tougher for abusers and
pedophiles or that it would apply to all sexual offenders.
All the Solicitor General is doing is proposing to give the
Parole Board the discretionary power to parole before the end of
their sentence individuals guilty of sexual crimes against
children.
This measure already exists for violent offenders and drug
dealers; we are merely adding pedophiles.
Two observations before I move on to more legal aspects.
Sexual crimes against children are probably the most horrific,
the most despicable and the most repugnant crimes that a court
can find an individual guilty of.
It is not without reason that nearly every crime of that nature
is punishable by maximum penalties going from a 10-year
prison sentence to life.
When an adult sexually assaults a child, he destroys the
person within the child, the child's vision of the world as well as
his or her trust in mankind. Such crimes are no less serious when
the victim is an adult, but the latter is already equipped with a
psychological immune system that might help him or her get
over the pain and suffering. The assaulted child dies inside.
I feel no sympathy, no mercy for molesters; I despise and
loathe these cowards who take advantage of a child's innocence
to satisfy their narcissistic drive. Until proven otherwise-the
burden of proof rests on the criminal's shoulders-I do not
believe that rehabilitation is possible. I do know that in certain
rare cases there appears to be a change in behaviour, at the cost
of tremendous personal sacrifices and after a painful process.
But certainly not as a result of some ridiculous prison therapy
criminals agree to with the sole objective of improving their
chances to get paroled.
Crimes of a sexual nature against children deserve the
maximum sentence; those which leave them injured, mutilated
or harmed in their physical or moral integrity should result in a
life sentence for the offenders.
This brings me to publicly question once again the
professional competence of the members of this inept
organisation, namely the Parole Board.
I do not question the need for a parole monitoring body or its
usefulness. Every western nation relies on such government
agencies responsible for closely monitoring criminals in the
community at large, until the end of their sentence.
However, I am extremely sceptical about the professional
competence of the Parole Board members who are all political
appointees.
This body has become the haven for the friends and survivors
of defeated governments or governments reaching the end of
their mandates, whichever the case. The good faith of these
people in carrying out their duty is not at issue, but I cannot help
but notice that the lack of professional hiring criteria sheds a
cloud of doubt on the credibility of their decisions.
And yet, the Solicitor General has decided to entrust this
board with the authority to release criminals convicted of
abusing or raping children.
The board's job would amount in fact to reviewing the
sentence imposed by the court. If at least the Solicitor General
had given authority to the court to impose a prison sentence
without parole in the afore-mentioned cases, we would be closer
to a reform. But such is not the case.
The court already has the power to give very harsh sentences
to child abusers. Every sexual crime involving children is
punishable by penalties that the court should not hesitate to
pass.
The court already has in hand all the elements necessary to
determine the sentence. We will discuss later, probably at the
end of the day, the amendments that Bill C-41 brings to
sentencing principles. The court will have all the facts at hand
and will be able to evaluate all the factors relevant to the case,
including elements of the pre-sentence report describing in
detail the personality of the accused.
I believe that by simply giving the courts the power to order
that the sentence imposed be served completely before a
criminal can be released, we could have achieved what the bill
seeks to do.
5868
(1135)
I am against giving this new quasi-judicial role to an
organization which has neither the stature nor the competence to
assume such responsibility towards society. We must give the
courts all the necessary latitude to reach the legislation's goals.
Those were my comments, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to speak on Bill C-45 brought in by the Solicitor
General as part of the strategic framework of initiatives to which
the government committed itself in the red book during the last
campaign. It seeks to implement the safe homes, safe streets
strategy which is being very much demanded by Canadians from
coast to coast to coast as we in all parts of the House know.
The bill recognizes the all time low level of confidence
Canadians have unfortunately demonstrated in our courts and in
our current parole system. I must confess that this low level of
confidence is justified and as a Canadian I certainly share it to a
large extent.
Contrary to some opinions we have heard today from other
members of the House, the bill is worthy of support. It is a major
step in the right direction. It puts forth several important
initiatives much awaited by Canadians and I would like to speak
to them briefly today.
It adds several offences to the list of serious crimes for which
people can be required to serve their full sentence such as
drinking and driving and drug offences, to name two.
There is an important initiative in that the bill would seek to
increase the accountability of the National Parole Board by
establishing a mechanism to discipline and remove members
that have performed in an unacceptable and indeed incompetent
manner in some cases. Unfortunately we know that this could be
the case and the provision is badly needed.
The bill seeks to strengthen rehabilitation programs for sex
offenders. This is one of the most important initiatives
undertaken. All too often repeat sex offenders such as
pedophiles come out of the institutions in which they were
incarcerated just as unbalanced individuals as when they entered
incarceration. This is simply unacceptable and must be
addressed. The bill seeks to do that.
The bill increases the authority of officials to make
deductions from the income of offenders to help defray the
increasing costs of incarceration. This is something which
Canadians will applaud no matter what is their overall view of
the bill. It is obviously a very important initiative and makes
good common sense.
In my personal view the most important guiding principle in
our system of criminal justice should be that violent criminals
will be considered in a category altogether separate from
non-violent criminals. Violent criminals should be
experiencing stricter sentences from our courts and much
stricter conditions for early release.
It is my view that the almost automatic release after one-third
of the sentence of criminals has been served, even the most
violent criminals, is a big mistake. Violent criminals, whether
they be sexual offenders or non-sexual offenders, should be
serving much closer to the full sentence. I would hope to see the
day when repeat violent offenders will be serving the full
sentence.
Bill C-45 moves substantially in that direction. It permits the
retention for full sentence of criminals that have offended
against children. While I applaud it as a step in the right
direction I hope to see the day when such heinous crimes will be
met with a mandatory serving of a full sentence for violent
criminals, be they sexual offenders or non-sexual offenders.
This is very important in the case of someone who has
demonstrated a pattern of repeat violent offence.
(1140 )
Canadians know, and we in the House know, that in many
cases sentences have been too light and out of all proportion to
the nature of the crime and to the incredible harm inflicted on
the victim, be they children or adults. For any adult who has
been a victim of violent crime, particularly violent sexual crime,
it is an horrendous experience to try to live through.
Bill C-45 requires an offender on parole who reoffends to
serve at least one-third of his or her sentence for the latest crime
before being eligible for parole. I applaud that. I say again I hope
to see the day when repeat violent offenders serve their full
sentence and not one-third. I hope to see the day when they
forgo any opportunity for early release if they have established a
pattern of repeat violent offences. The bill is a major step in that
direction.
The issue of the serious harm provision against children is
very important. The bill removes that condition and states it is
not required for serious harm to be demonstrated. This makes
good sense. For me personally violent crime is by definition
serious crime. It inflicts serious harm on the victim especially if
the victim is a child. Violent crime of a sexual or a non-sexual
nature against an adult obviously is serious and should be
treated in such a manner.
I very much applaud Bill C-45 and the Solicitor General for
the initiatives he has undertaken. It is not a perfect bill. I
suppose we see very few of those in this land or any other. I
personally hope to see the day when we will go further, when we
will be stricter on repeat violent offenders whether they be
sexual or non-sexual offenders, and when we will be much more
vigilant on early releases than what we have been.
5869
The bill is a major step toward the stricter approach being
called for by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on this occasion to speak in favour of Bill C-45
which was given first reading in the House last June.
Since 1984 there has been a marked increase in violent crime
across the country. Dealing with this growing incidence of crime
was certainly listed as one of the priorities of the Liberal Party
and the new government as set out in the red book.
There is no doubt that for many years Canada was viewed and
is still viewed, and rightly so, as a non-violent nation. It was a
nation in which all of us could carry on our business, our daily
affairs, without fear for our personal safety or for the personal
safety of our loved ones. However in the last decade Canadians
have become less certain about that reality as we have seen
example after example played out across our television screens
and in our newspapers of violent crimes being perpetrated
within our communities.
Our government believes the issue of safe streets is not
achieved simply by strengthening legislation in relation to
criminal behaviour such as the Criminal Code, the Young
Offenders Act or the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,
the present legislation. There are some in the House who tend to
simplify the issue of public safety to the extreme by saying that
by making harsh incarceration rules, by sentencing people to
long sentences or by introducing corporal or capital punishment
our streets will suddenly or magically be safe.
Some would have us believe that if we toughen our parole
release provisions to the extreme in all cases suddenly there
would be no more crime and we would not suffer from violence
to our person and to our families. The government disagrees
with that approach.
(1145)
We recognize that in order to reduce the incidence of
criminality within our society that society must provide
meaningful employment opportunities for all people. The direct
link between economic hardship, lack of opportunity and
criminality is well known. To that end the government has
implemented policies which allow for economic growth.
Roughly 275,000 new jobs have been created since the new
government took office. The Canadian economy has grown by
4.2 per cent annual growth rate in the first quarter and an
astounding 6.4 per cent in the second quarter. This assists to
reduce the incidence of criminal behaviour within our society.
Another factor that certainly helps reduce the crime rate and
the violence within our society means doing something to
alleviate underlying social conditions which create an
environment where criminal behaviour can flourish, whether it
is poverty, racism, hunger or whatever the social issue might be.
We have begun to address those issues as a government. We
must continue to alleviate negative social conditions which
create an environment where crime can flourish, whether it is
fighting racism or increasing educational opportunities or
providing our young people with experience in the workplace
through the Canada youth corps. We are moving toward safer
communities in our nation once again.
No doubt there are other things that governments and
communities can undertake to increase public safety. The
creative nature of our communities will make this happen from
coast to coast. I am not saying that the government cannot move
to improve the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act or the
legislation currently before the House where it makes sense to
do so.
The government recognizes that action to combat crime must
be a multi-pronged approach involving the enhancement of
criminal laws, the Young Offenders Act, the parole legislation
where it is reasonable to do so and demonstrably justified.
Where flaws are located in the current legislation we must move
to correct those flaws. We have a responsibility to do so.
Not only must our economies be strong, not only must our
social programs be relevant and scratch where the country itches
but also we must deal with our criminal legislation through these
various criminally related statutes and to fix them where they
have proved inadequate.
We see this approach being taken whether it is in this bill
brought forward by the Solicitor General or whether it is other
bills such as the Young Offenders Act being brought forward by
the Minister of Justice or amendments to the Criminal Code.
These types of approaches allow for the House and our society to
improve, to enhance the laws which govern our land, the laws
which make it safe for all of us to enjoy our communities and to
enjoy our homes without fear of violence.
Within this specific legislation a number of changes have
been made which will make our parole system better, our
criminal justice system better and will ultimately improve the
safety of our communities across the nation.
The individual legislative proposals which I support make it
easier to detain in penitentiary until the end of sentence sex
offenders who victimize children by removing that serious harm
must be established as a criterion for detention in these cases.
There is no doubt that the young person by having to provide
testimony as to serious harm is revictimized and we certainly
see no need for that. The fact that an offence has been committed
5870
certainly establishes beyond doubt that serious harm has been
done.
This legislation will also establish a mechanism for the
removal from office of National Parole Board members who
become incapacitated from executing their duties by infirmity
or misconduct or have failed to carry out their role in a manner
that is expected of them. This is to maintain the integrity of the
system. We certainly will reduce the number of errors that are
made in releasing people who should not be released.
(1150)
In addition to these types of changes, we are also expanding
the list of offences for which an offender could be referred for
detention until the end of sentence. These offences include
serious drinking and driving and criminal negligence offences
which result in bodily harm or death. In addition there will be
more emphasis placed on the rehabilitation of people through
programs. This is also a very important step forward.
What is typical of the government is that we are utilizing
some of the parliamentary reforms we have brought forward in
this term to allow individual members more say in the
development of legislation.
I want to commend the Solicitor General for referring this bill
at this stage to the committee so that we can, as individual
members, provide input and make additional changes. Certainly
where it is clear and obvious that changes ought to be made the
government has made those changes but it is allowing the
opportunity for further changes, for further amendment, as the
bill moves along.
This is a very progressive step. Through the committee stage
we can hear what Canadians think of these changes and write a
bill that reflects the desires of our people for a safe society but
one balanced with our desire always to ensure that people can
have the opportunity to be rehabilitated.
I am very proud of the efforts the government has made so far
and will support these legislative changes as the bill moves on to
committee.
The Deputy Speaker: As no other member is rising, is the
House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that Bill C-41, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (sentencing) and other acts in consequence
thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to begin the debate on second
reading of Bill C-41 with respect to sentencing, may I first
observe that the bill is a response to and product of over 14 years
of effort to achieve comprehensive reform in the sentencing
process as part of the criminal justice system in Canada.
Indeed the need for such reform in the sentencing process has
been long recognized by judges, by parliamentarians, by
lawyers, by Canadians themselves.
(1155 )
For over a decade there have been calls for such reform: a
royal commission on the subject, the law reform commission,
the Canadian sentencing commission which reported in 1987,
and in 1988 an all-party committee of the House which had a
comprehensive set of recommendations with respect to
sentencing, conditional release and corrections.
Many of those recommendations are reflected in this bill. It is
in recognition of that need for reform that my party gave its
commitment last year during the election campaign to introduce
this legislation.
I tabled Bill C-41 on June 13 last and today I recommend to
the House that it be considered and approved in principle and
referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
The bill we are considering today is a significant one. By its
terms, for the first time Canadians would have a say through
Parliament on the purpose and the principles of criminal
sentencing. No such statement exists at present in the Criminal
Code. Parliament's role to date so far as sentencing is concerned
has been limited to setting certain maximum levels of
incarceration and rarely minimum levels rather than dealing
with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.
Bill C-41 brings together first, a statement of the purposes
and principles of sentencing; second, the rules governing
procedure and the admissibility of evidence in the process; and
third, the various sanctions that the courts may impose to
punish, to deter, to rehabilitate, all in a form that represents the
collective view of Parliament.
The changes proposed in this bill have been broadly accepted
by criminal justice professionals, by the provinces and by the
territories. The establishment of these statements of purposes
and principles has been endorsed by the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, by the justice committee of this House and the
former Law Reform Commission of Canada. I would not want it
to be thought that Bill C-41 is the product only of the so-called
elites, the professionals, the government administrators of the
5871
system. The bill reflects rather, in my respectful view, the
broadly based need, the widely felt need in Canada for uniform
and effective statements in the code for what sentencing is to
achieve.
I believe that sentencing practices in Canada must
consistently reflect the values that Canadians have told us are
important to them in the treatment of offenders. But considering
the fact that criminal sanctions provide for one of the most
serious intrusions by the state into the lives of individuals,
indeed depriving them of liberty, it is really quite remarkable
that the criminal law to date has not contained such a policy
statement.
[Translation]
Through this bill, Parliament provides the courts with clear
guidelines. Parliament stresses the need to punish certain types
of behaviour by clearly stating that the purpose of sentencing
must be to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter offenders and
other persons from committing crimes and to separate offenders
from society, where necessary.
In addition, the statement of the purpose and principles of
sentencing provides that the sentence must take into
consideration the will to protect society, to assist in
rehabilitating offenders and promoting their sense of
responsibility and to provide reparations for harm done to
victims or to the community.
The bill also defines various sentencing principles, for
instance that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of
the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility. When
appropriate, alternatives must be contemplated, especially in
the case of Native offenders.
(1200 )
[English]
The bill provides courts with clear policy direction from
Parliament. The elements of punishment are addressed.
Denunciation is there, as are deterrents and separation from
society. The bill is a comprehensive and detailed one. I would
like in the moments during which I will speak to the House today
to highlight a number of issues that I feel are particularly
important.
First, the statement of purpose and principles augments the
normal sentencing practice of considering extenuating factors
by specifying two important circumstances. It provides that
when the evidence demonstrates that an offence has been
committed by a person who abuses a position of trust or
authority in relation to the victim, that shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance in determining the penalty.
Numerous recommendations have been made respecting
breach of trust for offences involving violence against women,
for example, and involving vulnerable persons including
children. The 1993 violence against women survey by Statistics
Canada demonstrated that almost one-half of women reported
experiencing violence during their lives by men known to them.
In too many cases positions of trust were exploited, for
example, by adults against children or a physician against a
patient.
The 1984 Badgley committee called for protection of children
from persons they already know and trust. Including this
specific aggravating circumstance will express Parliament's
determination to extend criminal law for the purposes of
protecting such persons, persons made vulnerable through the
disarming effects of a trusting relationship.
The bill also specifies that if an offence is motivated by bias,
prejudice or hate, this shall be considered an aggravating factor
in determining the sentence. It seems to me that this provision
responds to growing concerns about hate motivated crime.
The last report of the league for human rights of the B'nai
Brith established that the number of reported anti-Semitic
incidents has grown significantly over the last few years.
Moreover, hate motivated violence against individuals based
on the offenders bias toward other sexual orientations has
sparked public anxiety. General concerns have been raised about
the pervasiveness of racism in Canada.
Recognition in the Criminal Code of hate motivation as an
aggravating factor in sentencing will send an important message
to minority communities and to the public at large.
A second feature of Bill C-41 merits special treatment in this
debate. The bill reflects also the importance of our recognizing
the plight of victims of criminal acts. Bill C-41 goes some
distance in achieving that objective.
The statement of purpose and principles specifically indicates
that objectives for sentencing include the provision of
reparation for harm done to victims or the community and the
promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders, an
acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the
community.
It goes further, specifically in relation to section 745 of the
Criminal Code. That is the section that makes it possible for a
person who has been sentenced to life with a period of parole
ineligibility longer than 15 years to apply after 15 years for
permission to seek parole. Such an application is heard by a
court composed of a judge and jury, and two-thirds of the jury
must agree before such a person is given permission to apply for
parole.
The section has become controversial and it is alleged that life
should mean life, that no such application should be permitted.
Against that there are those in the correctional system who insist
that persons who are rehabilitated after 15 years should have the
opportunity to appear before a court and seek not parole but
permission to apply for parole, to establish that they have
5872
changed and society's best interests would be served by their
being considered for parole release.
(1205 )
Earlier this year I met Marie King Forest, a woman from
Saskatchewan whose husband was a member of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, murdered in the course of his duties.
Mrs. King Forest attended court earlier this year during the
hearing of an application under section 745. She was
accompanied at the meeting by three other women whose
husbands had been police officers and who had been killed in the
course of their duties.
Mrs. King Forest described to me the anguish she felt at
reliving the tragedy of her husband's death and at the whole
process surrounding the 745 application. It is out of respect for
that anguish, for the feeling on the part of the families of murder
victims, homicide victims, that they should have some role to
play in the process.
Bill C-41 proposes a change to section 745, a change that
would specifically require the court to take into account on such
an application the perspective and the evidence of the victim's
families in deciding whether permission should be granted to
the applicant to seek early parole.
While it does not go as far as some would have it go-indeed
they would have us revoke the section-that change goes a long
way toward accommodating the concerns that have been
expressed by, among others, the Canadian Police Association
and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I believe it
achieves a balance. It permits the court to take into account at
the time of such an application the continuing anguish and loss
of the victims' families and measure it against other societal
values and objectives, including the importance of reintegrating
into society someone who has been rehabilitated and who can
demonstrate so at the time of the hearing.
Still on the subject of victims in the criminal justice system,
the restitution provisions which have been in the Criminal Code
for some years, since they were passed in 1988, have largely
remained unproclaimed due to provincial objections with
respect to the complex procedures that they contemplate.
Bill C-41 sets out a new set of measures respecting restitution
developed co-operatively by the federal government and our
provincial colleagues. There is a priority given to restitution. If
a court finds it appropriate to award both a fine and restitution,
the priority will go to the victim. Restitution must be honoured
first.
Provision is made to ensure that restitution orders can be
enforced by the civil courts. One can register them, like a
judgement, then ask that they be executed upon so the property
or the money of the offender can be seized to satisfy the order.
Finally, the Criminal Code will specifically state that any
restitution ordered by a criminal court will not limit a victim's
right to sue for damages in the civil court. A victim will be able
to take a restitution order to the civil court for execution.
[Translation]
At the present time, nearly a third of the people liable to
incarceration in provincial jails are in that situation because
they did not pay fines. Studies have shown that Natives are the
most at risk of being incarcerated for failing to pay fines. Since
we know that these offenders rarely go to prison for long periods
and, in fact, often do not spend any time in jail, the
administrative burden involved in treating these cases is heavy
and of little use.
The bill recognizes this situation.
(1210)
These provisions state that the court must be convinced that
the offender can pay the fine contemplated before imposing it.
In case a fine is not imposed because the offender would not be
able to pay it, the offender will be liable to other penalties such
as probation or community service.
[English]
Measures are provided in the bill to help provinces collect
outstanding fines. Provinces will be able to use the same
mechanisms to enforce fines under the Criminal Code as they
use for provincial statutes. Persons designated by the court will
be able to make adjustments to the order. Provinces will be able
to refuse to issue or to renew permits or licences until a fine is
paid. They may refer the case for civil enforcement.
Incarceration would be retained only as a final enforcement
option.
Ultimately I believe that these proposals will result in less
crowded institutions and should decrease the costs for the
system. They will do this without compromising the
effectiveness of criminal justice and its administration.
[Translation]
In the last few years, we have learned a great deal about the
administration of justice, about how to protect the public better.
Incarceration must remain an option for offenders who need this
form of punishment and must be separated from society to
ensure the safety of the population. It is worthwhile to remind
the House that Canada's incarceration rate is extremely high
compared with other industrialized countries.
Furthermore, studies show that for minor and first-time
offenders, incarceration is not very useful or effective and may
even be harmful if the goal is to turn the person into a
law-abiding citizen.
5873
The provisions of this bill concerning alternative sentences
for adults and the new approach to collecting fines, which I
talked about earlier, will allow the courts to handle cases
differently according to their specific sets of circumstances by
expanding the range of options available for serious and minor
offenders alike. Our goal is above all to create a more equitable,
less costly and more effective system which Canadians can
trust.
[English]
A general principle that runs throughout Bill C-41 is that jails
should be reserved for those who should be there. Alternatives
should be put in place for those who commit offences but who do
not need or merit incarceration.
What alternatives will be available? For the first time Bill
C-41 introduces diversion for adult offenders. At the discretion
of the investigating officers and the appropriate authorities
persons charged with a minor offence, particularly the first time,
can be sent into a parallel stream away from the courtroom to be
counselled or to be helped to overcome whatever problem led to
the infraction.
Courts will continue to have probation as an appropriate
sanction in the cases which require it. Fines, as mentioned, will
be improved. There will be a new sentence provided for in Bill
C-41 called the conditional sentence. I will speak to that remedy
for a few moments.
Where a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less
than two years and where the court is satisfied that serving the
sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of
society as a whole, the court may order that the offender serve
the sentence in the community rather than in an institution.
Offenders who do not comply with such conditions as may be
imposed at that time can be summoned back to court to explain
their behaviour, to demonstrate why they should not be
incarcerated. If the court is not satisfied with that explanation, it
can order the offender to serve the balance of the sentence in
custody. This sanction is obviously aimed at offenders who
would otherwise be in jail but who could be in the community
under tight controls.
(1215)
It seems to me that such an approach would promote the
protection of the public by seeking to separate the most serious
offenders from the community while providing that less serious
offenders can remain among other members of society with
effective community based alternatives while still adhering to
appropriate conditions. It also means that scarce funds can be
used for incarcerating and treating the more serious offenders.
There is much in the bill to remove uncertainty and mystery
about the sentencing process. The principles and purposes are
spelled out once and for all. The theme of the bill is that such
matters should not be left just to the justice professionals but
should be there for all members of the public to see.
In keeping with that approach there is a provision in C-41
requiring reasons for sentencing to be given in all cases. This
measure will encourage well-reasoned decisions, will assist
courts of appeal in dealing with appeals from sentences and will
serve an educative function.
Giving reasons will assist the courts in expressing their
objectives in demonstrating how they are applying the
principles of sentencing and should enable the public better to
relate to what is done in sentencing and to the policy approved
by Parliament. Without overstating the provision, I hope it will
help us to evolve sound government policy in criminal justice
with broad and better informed public support.
All of these proposals and C-41 in its entirety are designed to
increase public accessibility to the law concerning sentencing,
to make it more understandable and to make it more predictable.
The bill includes a complete restructuring of part XXIII of the
Criminal Code of Canada. It brings together most of the
provisions relating to sentencing now in the code. It presents
them in such a way as to make them, I hope, more logical and
more accessible both to criminal justice professionals and to the
public.
With this bill and with the other initiatives in the area of
criminal justice the government is providing a balanced and a
comprehensive approach to the challenge of crime in Canada.
Improving the process and clarifying the principles of
sentencing is not going to solve all of our social problems but
the bill will, I hope, contribute along with crime prevention
initiatives to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,
peaceful and safe society.
Jails and prisons will be there for those who need them, for
those who should be punished in that way or separated from
society. We must remember as well that only 10 per cent of all
crime is violent and that over 53 per cent of all crime involves
property, not people. Therefore, this bill creates an environment
which encourages community sanctions and the rehabilitation
of offenders together with reparation to victims and promoting
in criminals a sense of accountability for what they have done.
It is not simply by being more harsh that we will achieve more
effective criminal justice. We must use our scarce resources
wisely. It seems to me that Bill C-41 strikes that balance and I
commend it to this Chamber for its consideration.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, before
stating my position on Bill C-41, I would like to point out both
in my own name and on behalf of all voters in the sovereigntist
federal riding of Saint-Hubert the resounding victory of the
Parti Quebecois in the elections. The party was voted in with a
much higher global percentage of votes than the one allowing
5874
the Prime Minister of Canada to claim to be governing on behalf
of all Canadians in Ottawa.
I speak as a sovereigntist member of Parliament and, whether
we debate Bill C-41 or any other issue, the laws of this country
entitle me to do so as a member of the Official Opposition in
accordance with the mandate I was given by nearly 60 per cent
of the voters in the federal riding of Saint-Hubert. I did not hide
my stance. Must all those who strive to disprove the logic and
legitimacy of our position be straightened out at the beginning
of this new session? My sovereigntist beliefs do not interfere
with displaying all the judgement and competence required to
carry out my duties as Official Opposition critic for matters
under the jurisdiction of the justice minister.
(1220)
To those who, contrary to all rules of democracy, dispute our
right to sit in this Parliament as the Official Opposition, I say
this: my voice and that of my 52 colleagues joins the chorus of
the 77 sovereigntist members elected in Quebec. Sovereigntists
now account for about 70 per cent of the total deputation in both
Quebec City and Ottawa.
May those who dispute our legitimacy and continue to doubt
that our constituents voted for our program stifle their fantasies.
The voters in Quebec like anywhere else in Canada vote
according to their beliefs and with their heads, contrary to what
the Prime Minister would have the rest of Canada believe.
This Prime Minister, whose party barely managed to muster
one third of the vote in Quebec and a little over 40 per cent in the
rest of the country, has no qualms of conscience about claiming
to have been elected by all of Canada, while in fact more than
half of his caucus comes from Ontario, where 45 per cent of the
vote ``from coast to coast'' was concentrated.
I maintain that the legitimacy of the Parti Quebecois in
Quebec and that of the Official Opposition in this Parliament is
stronger than that of the federal Liberals. I would add that the
Prime Minister would never have won the latest elections in
Quebec and that Canadians should be aware of who speaks for
Quebec from now on.
In my analysis of Bill C-41, I speak for all the people of
Quebec and the 60 per cent of voters from other provinces who
did not vote for the Liberals. The Parti Quebecois is now in
power in Quebec, with nearly two thirds of the seats in the
Assembly. It was voted in with 53 per cent of the francophone
vote and massive support from the community which says ``no''
to stupor and lethargy and refuses to be bogged down in the
status quo.
If the Prime Minister did not want to hear any more about the
Quebec issue and if he thought that the pitiful attempts of Meech
and Charlottetown would end the debate, he now realizes, after
the September 12 election held in Quebec, that he was fooling
himself as well as Canadians.
Just as I am about to do regarding Bill C-41, the Bloc
Quebecois will always fulfil its role of Official Opposition
loyally in this Parliament. As long as Quebec remains an
integral part of Canada and as long as Quebecers pay their share
of taxes to the federal revenue minister, the Bloc Quebecois will
play its opposition role and fulfil the mandate it was given by
Quebecers on election night, October 25, 1993.
I now open the debate on Bill C-41 as the official opposition
critic on justice. I will never give up my responsibilities and my
convictions in this House for the sole reason that my opinions on
the future of this country differ from those of the Prime Minister
of Canada and his regional caucus.
It is with these principles in mind that I now turn my attention
to Bill C-41. The Minister of Justice will be pleased to learn that
I have no hesitation in saying that this legislation is a positive
one, even though the minister did not make the full necessary
reform to protect the rights of victims.
I see that all of Part XXIII of the Criminal Code is amended to
make way for new measures to deal with offenders through an
appropriate reform of the sentencing process. Thus the bill
introduces a measure similar to the procedure we find in the
Young Offenders Act, to deal with suspects who admit their guilt
by using alternatives to judicial proceedings. According to the
bill, alternative measures designated under a provincial
program may be substituted for the usual trial, conviction and
sentencing proceedings.
Our courts, especially our criminal courts, have a huge
backlog of cases that never go to trial because they are
constantly postponed. The courts are dealing with an
ever-increasing number of criminal cases, mostly cases that
should be tried on summary conviction.
(1225)
Visit the courts when they are in session, and you will get a
good idea of the frustration felt by witnesses, victims,
investigators and, in fact, all those who are faced with the
inefficiencies of an outdated system that puts a heavy financial
burden on governments and taxpayers.
Our current criminal procedure requires the presence of the
accused and witnesses at every stage of the trial, even in the case
of a guilty plea.
In most cases where there is so much evidence that a
preliminary hearing is a waste of time and a trial an
unnecessarily costly
5875
exercise for the government, although compulsory for the
accused, the case could have been dealt with by administrative
means.
By proposing alternative judicial proceedings to deal with
cases where suspects are prepared to co-operate, the minister
has opened the way to some very interesting changes in criminal
proceedings.
If efficiency is the goal, I think that will be achieved.
However, I can imagine how some people will react. They will
say this is another case of criminals getting off scot-free and
legislation that is more intent on encouraging crime with these
ridiculous measures than on punishing criminal behaviour. I
suppose some people might have that impression.
I would be the first to say that the law should concentrate, first
of all, on preventing and punishing crime. We must pass laws to
protect society. That should be our only objective. The
rehabilitation of offenders comes later, when society has all the
instruments it needs to protect itself.
That being said, I suggest that those who may tend to react
hastily take a very careful look at this bill. In section 717(1)(a)
they will see that provincial jurisdictions may designate the type
of offences to which the legislation will not apply when they set
up their program.
In other words, provincial governments will be able to
develop a program of alternative measures according to their
perception of the priorities and views of the majority.
I am very pleased to say that if this bill is passed, it would
restore much of the initiative in this area to the provinces. It will
give the provinces greater flexibility to implement these
measures in line with the interests of the local community, as is
the case for alternative measures programs under the Young
Offenders Act.
Is the Chair signalling?
The Deputy Speaker: No, and I would point out that you have
20 minutes left.
Mrs. Venne: So that might have been a nervous tic I noticed.
In addition, this would allow the courts of each province to
clear thousands of minor cases or summary proceedings through
admissions of guilt, thus sparing the taxpayer enormous legal
costs. This is a laudable attempt to reduce public expenditure
and contribute to administrative efficiency and I congratulate
the Minister of Justice.
However, the bill seems to be trying to cover too many bases.
In fact, in order to attain the stated objectives, it is not
necessary to subject co-operative suspects to publicity not
imposed on those electing to be tried in a court of law. Thus, for
example, the police will always have a suspect's fingerprints
and photograph on file. And this file will be open, with the
appropriate authorization, to various parties, including
insurance companies, government departments and agencies,
the courts and the general public so that the interests of justice
may be served.
There is a large measure of naïveté here. We must ask
ourselves what will motivate a suspect to co-operate with the
police if his file can be accessed for two years by just about
anybody and he is still subject to criminal proceedings, despite
his desire to settle the matter once and for all through an
alternative measure.
It should be obvious to the Minister of Justice that those who
drafted this bill have never seen a suspect in their life, or have
never witnessed the plea bargaining that takes place on a large
scale just outside our courts of law.
For these alternative measures to be attractive and the
program to work, the file must travel a private, administrative
route, without publicity, eventually reaching the offices of the
provincial ministers of justice, after all conditions have been
faithfully met by the offender.
It is wishful thinking to believe that a suspect will co-operate
with the police for the pleasure of repenting twice and having a
file that resembles that of a criminal who has already been
sentenced.
(1230)
The bill also consolidates a number of sentencing principles
which are, for the most part, laid down in our case law and
applied by our courts across the country.
The need for a codification of guiding principles regarding
sentencing is obvious. Most of the applicable criteria and
factors have become standard with time. They have been used
and considered in criminal cases since the first Criminal Code of
Canada was published. While the common law tradition gives
preference to case law over written law, it may be a good idea to
set some general guidelines to be followed by the courts in their
consideration of the circumstances of each case. The criteria
proposed in the bill, including the statement of principles, are
not restrictive but cover a range of actions wide enough to apply
to most cases.
There is nothing very novel about this. I would point out
however that in the part dealing with the purpose and principles
of sentencing, the bill very vaguely refers to the maintenance of
a just, peaceful and safe society. I do hope that these words make
sense to the people of Canada and that they will mean something
to the courts because, as far as I am concerned, they simply
reflect good intentions that the legislative background of the
Liberals does not uphold. I would be inclined to believe that
such principles could even lay the foundations for political
courts. It all depends on what partisan view the power takes on a
``just, peaceful and safe society''.
5876
Was it not just, peaceful and safe in the eyes of the Nazis to
exterminate the Jews? What kind of just society do we have in
mind now in terms of sentencing? That of the 60s? Is it through
sentencing that we achieve just society status? Does the
Minister of Justice leave it up to his predecessors, the illustrious
instigators of Canadian liberalism, these great humanists who in
1970 had no other means to create their just society but mass
imprisonment under the War Measures Act?
It all depends on one's perception of what constitutes a just
society. From this flows the question: can a just society be
achieved through sentencing?
This is the kind of wording you come up with when you do not
have a clue what to do to look good in an enactment. Everyone is
for virtue and against evil; everyone wants a just society. I
simply wonder about this need for preserving a just society
through sentencing in the country best liked in the world by its
citizens.
This is hardly surprising on the part of the Liberals, always
inspired by the model of generosity that was the former boss of
the present Prime Minister, himself closely connected to the
decision center in 1970. But this unfortunate legislative slip that
the Liberals themselves must be embarrassed about must not
prevent us from recognizing that this bill also contains
innovative ideas that should be favourably considered.
For example, the principle of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances is introduced in positive sentencing law.
Aggravating circumstances include all aspects of an offence
which reflect bias, prejudice, breach of trust and abuse of power.
Let us take for example the therapists recently convicted of
sexually abusing their female patients. These professionals who
were then in a position of authority abused their patients' trust. I
would have liked a better French translation for the expression
``position of trust'' found in the English version but I imagine
the courts will take this into account.
Offences committed within a therapist-patient relationship
would come under this provision and the courts would be
authorized by law to impose sentences more in keeping with this
type of offence.
Finally, again with respect to the purpose and principles of
sentencing, it is deplorable that the bill tries to sneak through the
back door the concept of a parallel system of justice for
Aboriginals. It is so well hidden that it is almost necessary to
read Clause 718.2(e) twice to discover this enormity hidden
under nine sneaky words, and I quote:
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the
following principles:
We have (
a), (
b), (
c), (
d) and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the
circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the
circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
(1235)
The French text fails, unintentionally no doubt, to point out
like the English text that the said sanctions would exclude
imprisonment.
Why should Aboriginals, who make up less than 2 per cent of
Canada's total population, benefit from a legal system different
from that which applies to all other Canadians? Why should an
Aboriginal convicted of murder, rape, assault or of uttering
threats not be liable to imprisonment like any other citizen of
this country? Can we replace all this with a parallel justice, an
ethnic justice, a cultural justice? Where would it stop? Where
does this horror come from?
Why should Aboriginals, who are adamantly opposed to the
distinctiveness of Quebec society-which is still subject to all
Canadians laws without exception-, who claim full Canadian
citizenship, who take full advantage of the generosity of our
welfare state and who enjoy tax exemptions and benefits, be
treated differently from other Canadians when they commit
crimes? If such is to be the case, I ask that all criminal laws
applicable to the Quebec nation be transferred to the exclusive
jurisdiction of Quebec's National Assembly.
Other aspects of this bill deserve special attention. Not
because it proposes reforms but because these reforms are
incomplete, when we had an opportunity to correct some clearly
unacceptable shortcomings of our criminal justice system.
The government seems concerned about the fate of victims in
criminal trials. It seems to care, but its intentions are expressed
so timidly that we cannot take them seriously. Indeed, the bill
adds nothing that could reassure Canadian society that this
government wants to protect victims.
I agree with all those who tell you that it is time to forget about
the fate of unfortunate criminals and think of the victims, it is
time to punish crime and compensate the victim, it is time to
silence the criminal and listen to the victim. This talk about
rehabilitation puts us to sleep or revolts us when we see that
victims are obviously pawns in criminal proceedings, mere
witnesses tossed about as the court case drags on and called at
the whim of the Crown's lawyers.
We must finally see that the victim is the key person in the
criminal trial when the crime involved a violation of the person
or his property. The victim is the one who was assaulted or lost
property, so the criminal's sentence should depend on the
victim. The victim should be what drives the criminal justice
system and gives society the opportunity to impose just sen-
5877
tences on criminals in order to prevent them and their kind from
making more victims.
Countless pressure groups in all provinces denounce
lawmakers for their laxity in treating victims of crime. It is time
to think of the victims of crime.
Despite the public outcry, the calls for redress and the
continuous pleading from these thousands of women, men and
children who are victims of horrible acts, what does the bill give
us on this score? A timid concession made very
condescendingly, probably in the name of archaic common-law
principles. That is why a victim's written statement on the
damages suffered can be read during sentencing. If the public
prosecutor wants to consider the loss or damage incurred, he can
ask the judge to impose a financial penalty that would have the
effect of a judgement rendered by a civil court.
All the groups dedicated to the protection and support of
victims, mainly women, will tell you that such measures are
quite simply insignificant and insultingly inadequate. They are
insignificant in that they are trifling and ridiculous because they
will have no real effect on the outcome of the trial and the
judge's decision. What should be done, and I ask the House to
set partisanship aside, is more radical.
(1240)
That the victim has the right to examine the accused and the
witness; that the victim may object to the admission of evidence
and has the same right to contest the evidence as the prosecution
and the defence; that the victim may make representations on
sentencing and, if necessary, appeal the verdict and the
sentence.
I may refer to the French penal system where the victim may
take part in the proceedings. We see this in cases involving
non-political crimes, and we saw this at the trial of the Nazi
criminal Barbie for crimes against humanity, where survivors
and parents of victims who had died took an active part in the
trial.
Under this system, the victim is able to play an effective and
active role in the proceedings. I am convinced that when the
victim is able to take part in the proceedings on the same terms
as the Crown and the accused, instead of being a mere witness,
at the mercy of parties who do not share the victim's
involvement, the outcome will not be the same.
I am not saying that the trial is all about the victim. It is not. I
have no intention of introducing a concept in our criminal law
that would be entirely alien. I am simply saying that the victim is
one of the parties concerned, on the same terms as the Crown
and the accused. There is no rule of law that justifies excluding
the victim, and we cannot afford to do so if we are to rehabilitate
the victim's status in a judicial system that still lets many
criminals escape or diminish its authority; a system that most
Canadians see as a sinister farce in which criminals and their
lawyers ``get away with murder''.
I know that is not true and that the vast majority of offenders
are found guilty or plead guilty. I do not deny that, but I have a
problem with the way criminals are treated by the system.
What is the use of finding a rapist guilty of rape if he only gets
six months? I find that outrageous, Mr. Speaker. Let the victim
take part in the proceedings and, mark my words, there will be
some major changes.
I will conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say
that I am pleased nevertheless with this very prudent attempt
which I see as a sign of progress, considering this government's
generally conservative approach to criminal law and criminal
proceedings.
I would have liked to take this opportunity to say that
personally, the whole field of criminal law should be turned over
as soon as possible to the provincial legislatures, but I will have
plenty of opportunities in the course of this session. The usual
unavoidable overlap between bureaucracies will provide a
splendid excuse.
I also want to say that the Minister of Justice can count on my
full co-operation in preparing legislation that would change the
status of the victim in criminal proceedings. It is a matter of
great concern to me, and I believe we urgently need to address
these issues. I would ask all groups and individuals who share
my concern to get in touch with me.
[English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, there comes a time in the affairs of a nation when the
opportunity is at hand to change the course of events. Most often
at that particular moment, little notice is given and the
significance of the missed opportunity arises only in retrospect
when we search for the cause or the seeds of some disaster. Such
may be the situation before us today with Bill C-41.
We have in this bill many technical amendments to the
Criminal Code which the public may not deem as momentous or
strategic. It will be interesting to see if the press gives this bill
much more than a day's worth of print. This is a sad and
disheartening situation. In many respects the Canadian Criminal
Code is a national document, is a particularly Canadian creation
and has been one of the things that has bound us together as a
nation. How we as a society write down the limits of personal
conduct and define our sense of national morals reflects the
basic character of what it means to be a Canadian. The written
code gives substance to the national sense of community.
In the Criminal Code we are dealing with life and death, with
the very tools of peace, order and good government. In a most
basic way it is an aspect of how we as Canadians describe
ourselves, who we are. We are not American or European but
distinctly Canadian in our interrelationships with one another in
our local communities.
5878
(1245)
The Criminal Code is a statement of how we as a national
community attempt to protect our society. The Criminal Code by
reflection describes what Canadians hold dear and value. It can
also reveal the limits of our ability to govern ourselves through
our institutions. Unlike the United States and most of the less
viable principalities of the third world, our Constitution does
not include a lofty statement of transcendent national principles.
Nor do we have a charter mythology.
We are very permissive in allowing our fellow citizens,
provincial governments and business establishments, to fly the
flags they prefer for allegiance or anticipated commercial
advantage. We have disloyal parliamentarians in the Chamber
who have given up on Canada and who are working to have the
representative voice of their great province no longer heard
from these desks.
July 1 is our Canada Day but some Canadians get more
emotional satisfaction out of celebrating St. Jean Baptiste,
Christopher Columbus or Robert Burns. No doubt for a few here
and there it would be Queen Victoria or even Joey Smallwood.
When a most gracious and forbearing lady visits one of the
countries under whose constitution she continues to be the head
of state, she is met by most Canadians with respect and
adulation, some with indifference and a few with discourtesy.
If nationhood is sharing and Canadians seem to share few
common sentiments, what are the bonds of Canadian
association? It is meaningless to say we share a common
territory, that citizens of Windsor share a common territory with
their fellow citizens of Halifax or Yellowknife but not with their
neighbours in Detroit, only because of the way the national
boundaries are drawn. It is not very helpful to say that Canadians
share a common citizenship without some account of the
obligations and the privileges of that citizenship.
There is perhaps an alternative definition of nationhood. A
national community is based on a sharing of claims both
individual and collective. These claims are made against
individual citizens, private groups and public authorities both
within the nation and outside the nation. These claims are
honoured by a structure of political relationships that
acknowledges no superior authority. In the idea of shared claims
and responsibilities we find the reality of Canadian nationhood
in such places as the Statutes of Canada and the Public Accounts
of the Government of Canada. Here are some things Canadians
share.
The first is a national Criminal Code and rules of criminal
procedure. In these are embodied some of the most important
mutual claims of citizens and the Canadian community.
Canadians share a common system of penitentiaries for the
incarceration of those guilty of the graver offences against these
laws.
Second, we have a national commitment to the Canadian
social safety net to be implemented through joint action of the
federal, provincial and local authorities. The most important
elements are the various programs of income maintenance and
the removal of financial barriers between citizens and their
access to medical, hospital and educational services.
Canadians can move freely throughout the nation without
thereby suffering a termination of health or income security
benefits. Yet within these national characters Quebec has been
permitted the freedom to go its own uncoordinated way and
create duplication in medicare, unemployment insurance and
immigration.
As Canadians we are proud we have a national commitment to
the alleviation of regional economic disparities and to
interprovincial fiscal equalization. We have had a national
commitment to the support of the arts, letters and sciences,
along with other creative activities in broadcasting, film
making, et cetera. We have a commitment as a nation that
wherever practical Canadians will have access to the
Government of Canada and its departments and agencies in the
official language the citizen chooses.
Through trade and tariff policies and national taxes we have a
national assertion that Canadian capacity to produce can be
shared on a nationwide basis. This list is by no means
exhaustive. Other items might be added in terms of
environmental policy, public legal aid, equality before and
under the Canadian law, foreign ownership rules, the extension
of broadcasting services to remote uneconomic areas and a
national approach to international competition in sport.
Only in terms of national community is it possible to explain
or defend the magnitude of the budget of Indian affairs
compared to the absence of Canadian assistance to other
traditional peoples undergoing the strains of modernization
elsewhere in the world. Only national community justifies
Ottawa's help for Newfoundland fishermen and its lack of help
for the people in similar circumstances living in nearby St.
Pierre and Miquelon.
(1250)
Bill C-41 is certainly a measure of the view of the
government about what it thinks is going on in our Canadian
society and community. Amendments to the Criminal Code can
be a measure of the government's sense of the need to move, to
change or to alter the status quo. The bill represents the status
quo, business as usual and perhaps maybe even a cynical view
of Canada. It sends the message that the best we can do is a little
maintenance and housekeeping, and that a sense of vision of a
new and better Canada is not worth seeking. More likely the
vision of a new Canada is not within the capability of the
government.
The sense of urgency I hear from constituents about the grave
need of government to mind the store, to take care of the
business of the people and to reform the justice system is a
theme that comes from every region of Canada. Like so many
other things for which the government has lost the sense of
proportion, the lack of fundamental inspiration to govern
responsively is clearly evident in this timid housekeeping bill. It
seems that the times have passed by the government. My
5879
colleagues across the floor do not seem to have heard the cry
from Canadians concerning law and order.
My Reform colleagues represent, therefore, a new wave of
change. In Bill C-41 we can see the comparison that the
government is stuck in the past. The bill is clear evidence that
the old line parties which embody the old line attitudes and ways
of thinking do not adequately address community expectations
of today.
From this side of the House we have been calling upon the
government to wake up. We call it to action to deal with the
needless tragedy we are facing from debt and deficit, to rethink
the responsiveness of our democratic institutions, and most
especially to address law and order reform.
I am here to tell the government benches that the justice
system is not sound. The justice system needs more than
tinkering from a Bill C-41. There are few, save those within the
professional criminal justice community, that have any respect
or even basic tolerance of how the government minds the store
concerning crime. They know the justice system does not work
sufficiently well.
It is from within this context that Bill C-41 and Bill C-42
come to the floor of the House of Commons. It certainly is a
measure of where the government is at. I do not need to get into
name calling for evidence of inadequacy and the lack of vision is
on the table for the nation to see. Bill C-41 will do little to
respond sufficiently to what the community wants and needs.
Here we have a piece of legislation that is interesting in parts,
irritating in others, but utterly fails to respond to what the
country is asking for in terms of reforming the criminal justice
system.
The government desperately needs to get the machinery of the
justice system moving to respond to community needs. I have
heard the pleas of my constituents and have responded by stating
them clearly in the House. The time has come for the
government to listen to all Canadians.
At some point one must draw a line in the sand, draw attention
to a bill and then the attitude it represents, the magnitude of the
inadequacy, the missed opportunity and the disappointment of
the community when comparing results with promises. The bill
is such a disappointment.
As Canadians begin to understand that in bill after bill the
same pattern emerges, that there is no vision or comprehension
of what the community wants, they will likely elect Reformers
in sufficient numbers to govern. The nation then can get on with
real law reform and build a criminal code that would probably be
half as long but clear and resolute, understandable and, above
all, would operate in a manner that represents mainstream
Canadian values.
The change that my election to the House represents is a new
type of change. Reformers represent not business as usual,
incremental change as reflected in Bill C-41, but discontinuous
change that is not part of old patterns. The courage to make bold
changes is sometimes confusing and disturbing, particularly to
those in power and to those who are being left behind like the
authors of the bill.
It is sometimes small, fundamental changes that can make the
biggest difference to our lives. Even if it goes unnoticed at the
time it is the changes in the way we view our relationship to our
constituents that make the biggest difference in the way we
legislate. If we can change the justice system, this nationally
shared structure, we can demonstrate that in all areas we can
build a Canada where all its citizens will want in for the
goodness we share rather than want out to keep for themselves
what serves their own purpose.
(1255 )
The discontinuous change I am talking about, the vision of a
new Canada, may require upside down thinking different from
the old patterns even if the bold changes appear not
understandable or discordant at first sight.
Certainly the self-described Quebec militants on this side of
the House have a quest that has outlived its usefulness. Their
aspirations longed for in view of the problems we all face cannot
be fulfilled by the passé dreaming of the militants for a former
age. No longer can they squarely respond to the problems in a
world of new international realities. We are all in the same boat.
Indeed the ship of state is leaking and the tired ideology of the
current government can only think of patching a little here and
there as evidenced by the inadequacy of Bill C-41.
There is a leaner ship to be built of a new order of technology
and thinking. For the militants to use a lifeboat to try to separate
from the old ship will only bring them to a situation of drifting
through rough seas in a small boat with no protection or capacity
to ride the storm waves of international change. It will not
accomplish the results they seek.
There is too much crime in Canada. We want safer streets. We
want community mechanisms to break the cycle of violence.
The Criminal Code sets the standards and the boundaries; our
community institutions must fill the need.
Change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. In
Canada everyone knows we have a crime problem that is at
unacceptable levels. Our justice system is operated apart from
the community. It is time the justice system accounts for its
results and what it has done on a delegated basis on behalf of the
community.
Who owns the justice system anyway in the long run? Crime,
and society's response to it, is a big industry. A lot of precious
community resources are spent on its seemingly unaccountable
operations. The way it operates Canadians could believe that it
is the insiders in the criminal justice community that run things
for themselves.
5880
We need an interrelated sequence of process in the
administration of criminal justice that is simple and cost
effective. There must be consistency in philosophy from the
moment an offender has the first contact with the police to the
time of final discharge. The new thinking required hopefully
will bring a general policy which woven into the entire system
would guide the various services with a uniform theme.
The community intuitively knows a coherent philosophy to
integrate the various stages of administration of criminal justice
does not exist. The system as a whole is more like subsystems
within which pragmatic guidelines have been developed to
enable the professionals involved to fulfil their occupational
roles as they perceive them. This situation must change.
For example, what frustrates an outrageous public opinion is
justice delayed. It is offenders roaming the community
unaccountable. It is sentencing that does not reflect mainstream
community values. It is the misplaced priorities of an offender
focused system. It is a system that by its poor account of itself
fails to earn the confidence and support of the community it is
supposed to serve.
Specifically in the bill we have heard the government side
describe the efficacious substance of Bill C-41. It is a reworking
of Bill C-90 from the last Parliament. I like some things in the
bill as it codifies what we have been doing in British Columbia
for years, specifically alternative measures in the adult system
akin to the provisions of the Young Offenders Act. In B.C. the
crown simply exercises its prerogative to refer files to the B.C.
corrections branch where probation officers will explore
alternatives to court and arrange dispute settlement
arrangements. We have even had some private contracts for
offender-victim reconciliation projects.
The form of the law is now following the function of the law.
However, what the government gives with one hand in
modernization in this section, it takes away with the other by
denying victims assistance in establishing responsibility in civil
proceedings. Disclosure of records of diversions can be made to
insurance companies but cannot be used to establish liability in
civil proceedings. A nice double standard. The records of the
alternative measures cannot be used in evidence in subsequent
offences after two years. This is unacceptable.
Specifically section 718.2 goes in the right direction by
outlining sentencing principles but the aggravating
circumstances section is incredible to say the least.
A vicious assault based on hate criteria is to be dealt with
more harshly than an equally violent assault that was done for
money or just for kicks.
(1300 )
In this section interestingly the grounds listed are the same as
in the charter of rights except this bill has added sexual
orientation.
Section 718.2 goes in the right direction in part (b) by saying
that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on
similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar
circumstances.
This notion has always been an operative principle of
argument at the sentencing stage of the court process. However,
with our tremendous capacity to quantify statistics with
computers we have the ability to produce a comprehensive
sentencing grid of what currently is happening across the nation
in sentencing. A rational sentencing grid that plots the hierarchy
of offences with their prevailing tariffs against the culpability
and history of the offender could go a long way in responding to
the inequities of sentencing and the lack of public confidence in
the system.
If there are no benchmarks to compare the principles of
specific deterrence to the individual and general deterrence to
the community it fails to operate very well. In producing a
national sentencing grid document the community could then
deal with appropriate retribution as distinct from revenge.
Retribution is based on the principle that the punishment
should fit the crime and be properly meted out and controlled by
the state. Revenge on the other hand is characterized by
lawlessness and its excesses.
The government had an opportunity here to be bold in this
respect and it has failed. This bill outlines old principles but
then fails to provide the tools to accomplish them. Then to top it
off the very next section in part (c) reads, and pay attention now
because I know my community will chortle at this one: ``Where
consecutive sentences are imposed the combined sentence
should not be unduly long or harsh''. What is the sense of this
type of language in the Criminal Code?
While I am talking about basic sense I can hear the insult to
aboriginals inherent and implied in section (e) of this part: ``All
available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable
in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders with
particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal
offenders''. Here we go with paternalism again.
Further in this section it is time that a sentence including a
fine, some jail and probation be possible rather than just two of
the three. Again this bill fails to modernize and provide latitude
for innovation.
5881
It is heartening to see that in the last few years because of
community agitation the victim is gradually being written into
the statutes as having standing in law and a valid interest and
stake in criminal proceedings. Nevertheless the wording of 722
prescribing what is permissible in victim impact statements is
far too narrow.
Nowhere is the relationship of the victim to the offender
allowed to be described. Neither are the views of the victim
concerning appropriate consequences allowed to be heard. This
paternalistic controlling view over victims at court is out of date
and not worthy of this well intentioned but inadequate bill.
In section 722.1 a similar controlling attitude is reflected in
the letter of the law where the clerk of the court shall provide a
copy of a document after filing. At the behest and convenience
of the author presentence reports and psychological evaluations
should optionally be made available directly to the offender or
counsel and the prosecutor. There is no need for the clerk to
control or have complete ownership of the transmittal of
documents. Here is another case where the law should follow
function and practice but it does not.
In section 724(e) proof beyond reasonable doubt is
unreasonably harsh for the crown to refer to any previous
conviction by the offender. In the same vein section 727 is
completely archaic and unnecessary as it does not accomplish
any tangible objective.
It is an anachronism to have special procedure requiring the
crown to give special notice that a greater punishment would be
sought because a criminal is a repeat offender. There should be
no such item in the code.
Section 732.1 is irritating in sub (3)(g) where an offender's
permission is needed for the judge to be able to sentence them to
a treatment program when offenders have specific problems
such as substance abuse or sexual problems.
Sentencing is given to an offender in court on behalf of the
community. There is not a community meeting to explore
palatable choices to the likes of the offender. Here we have
1960s thinking again that invokes all the arguments about the
utility of court ordered treatment.
(1305 )
We are long past this mentality with the vast experience of
dealing with sexual offenders. I suppose the justice minister's
advisers hang on to their old fashioned notions about criminals.
The outdated principle is repeated again in section 747.3
concerning hospital orders.
Certainly a probation order should be able to be extended
beyond three years for special cases. Under section 732.2(1) an
offender can be called back to court by the initiative of the
probation officer. The section allows the offender and the
prosecutor to be heard in such circumstances, but what about the
probation officer who initiated the proceedings in the first
place?
When an offender is messing up or revealing new or
previously undisclosed problems new, more onerous conditions
should be allowed to be added to an order. This only makes sense
but the law prohibits common sense response.
Additionally when a probationer violates the order of the
court section 733(1) should involve a reverse onus provision for
the offender to show cause why a sanction should not be applied
for breach of the sentence and make the section parallel to
section 742.6(9) of the breach of the conditional sentence.
Section 743 states: ``Everyone who is convicted of an
indictable offence for which no punishment is specially
provided is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five
years''. Simply put, it should read 10 years.
I now come to section 745.6. This section is so disturbing it
alone brings the law into disrepute. This section allows first
degree murderers to apply parole after serving only 15 years of
their sentence. Private members' bills have been introduced to
repeal this provision. There is little support from the community
for this measure. I cannot emphasize enough how fast this
procedure should be done away with.
The minister is all too well aware of the national feeling on
this clause, yet he persists. It is utterly incredible and an insult to
Canadians.
Section 750 spells out when holders of public office such as
members of Parliament will be vacated for conviction. Five
years in jail is a most lenient if not absurd standard. I suggest the
mere conviction of an indictable offence should be sufficient.
Section 751.1 outlines the civil option to recover costs for
defamatory libel. Of course unless the personal bankruptcy
provisions are also changed in other statutes this provision is
meaningless as it is for civil court judgments arising from
deliberate and malicious harm.
This bill really does nothing to address bringing greater
certitude to the criminal sentencing process. Despite the
codifying and writing down of the purpose and principles of
sentencing judges will still have too wide a latitude in imposing
inconsistent sentences. The aggravating factors section
certainly flies in the face of the principle of equality before the
law.
How can we on this side of the House support this most
disappointing bill? I call on the government to bring in some
5882
amendments so we can speed the bill on its way. Let this bill
reflect Canadian values and bring forward Criminal Code
amendments that are needed, rather than just tinkering with the
system.
A needed change for example is the category of sex offences
that are just summary and not dual which removes these
offences from the identification procedure. Street prostitution is
dealt with by the issue of a street-side ticket, a consequence of
the summary status of section 213.
In this bill where is the ban on replica firearms and the needed
amendments to section 85 of the criminal use of firearms?
Where is the section on the public disclosure with respect to
dangerous offenders and also the designation of such to be done
at any time during a sentence, not just at the beginning? Where
is the provision for the collection and analysis of DNA testing? I
could go on.
The picture is clear. This government is in no mood to give
Canadians the legal climate desired because it is not predisposed
to renew a system that we have inherited from its type of
outdated thinking. Criminal justice in Canada is not particularly
systematic. At the heart of the system is the necessary conflict
between the competing value systems of crime control and due
process.
The administrative and legislative responsibility for its
functioning is fragmented between different agencies
responsible to different levels of government and in some cases
between a number of private organizations and different levels
of government. There will always be the task to balance
individual rights and the general security of the community. I
had hoped that Bill C-41 would have clarified what is
paramount in this regard but it does not.
The next step needed is to inculcate a sense of the
interdependence of the criminal justice system with broader
social and political processes which have an impact on every
Canadian.
(1310 )
The criminal justice system in turn is part of a larger whole,
the social forces such as health care, education and welfare
services which bear upon the quality of Canadian life.
Those who have the disposition to resist the disintegration of
the Canadian community from within or its absorption into the
maw continentalism from without have for too long been on the
defensive. We have been too slow in formulating the credentials
of this glorious community, too bemused by academics who
would rather define it out of existence, too preoccupied with the
emotional, symbolic and cultural dimensions in nationhood.
It remains that as far as the political order is concerned, there
is only one Canadian question. How can the over 27 million
people who live within our national boundaries establish and
sustain governmental institutions which are at once humane,
effective and responsive?
The times now require a national community to be held
together by a national government of a first class, triple-A
rating; one that is approachable, accountable and most of all
affordable. The bonds that we do have, the national values and
national commitments of this country, are concretely embodied
in particular measures for honouring the mutual claims and
responsibilities of citizens and governments for each other.
If the present claims and ties can be sustained and new
definitions agreed upon such as a renewed justice system,
Canadian nationhood may need nothing more to reflect the
greatness of the human spirit working together in common
enterprise.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege and honour to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-41,
an act to amend the Criminal Code, sentencing and other acts in
consequence thereof.
Legislation regarding criminal justice reform has always been
of great importance to me. The legislation before us today on
sentencing reform is no exception to that rule. As stated in our
red book, this government has committed itself to introducing a
broad range of crime and justice initiatives to reserve Canada's
growing crime and violence rates.
People across this country have said that they want significant
changes to the criminal justice system. Thankfully this
government, through the work of my hon. colleague, the
Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, has not only taken
the time to listen to the people but we are doing something about
it.
So far this government has introduced legislation in several
key areas of criminal justice such as the recent amendments to
the Young Offenders Act, amendments to the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act and amendments to the Immigration
Act. These initiatives are reflective of a balanced, fair and
reasoned approach to the changing and challenging times and of
course our criminal justice system.
Bill C-41 marks yet another important step in the delicate
process of criminal justice reform. As the minister has
indicated, the proposed legislation contains a number of key
provisions including a statement of purpose and principles,
measures to strengthen the level of fairness in our system of
fines, greater penalties on offenders who have breached their
probation, the introduction of conditional sentences,
clarification of rules of evidence and procedures for sentencing
hearings, as well as amendments to part 23 of the Criminal Code
in order to create a more coherent and understandable method of
documenting provisions related to the sentencing process.
Perhaps the most significant provisions of Bill C-41 are those
related to enhancing the rights of victims. In this regard the
Minister of Justice has proposed what I believe to be
unprecedented amendments to section 745 of the Criminal Code
which
5883
deal with early parole hearings for persons sentenced to life in
prison.
During the last Parliament through my private member's bill,
Bill C-330, I attempted to introduce similar changes that at the
very least would allow victims of violence to present
information during a judicial review or early parole hearing.
Consequently I applaud the minister's intent to amend section
745 of the Criminal Code in order to provide victims of violence
with the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the
criminal justice system by presenting victim information when
convicted criminals apply for early parole consideration. This
measure will ensure that victims of violent crimes have the
opportunity to speak out about the harm done by the offender.
This means that the victim's experience will be taken into
consideration when deciding whether the parole eligibility
period should be reduced.
(1315)
This particular provision also has been advocated by various
victims rights' organizations and advocacy groups such as the
Canadian Police Association, which has publicly acknowledged
the merits of the proposed amendments to section 745 of the
Criminal Code.
In fact, as I speak, right in downtown Hamilton in my riding of
Hamilton West, the Canadian Police Association, the Centre for
Victims of Crime and CAVEAT, an acronym for Canadians
Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination are
concluding a three-day conference on various criminal justice
issues including victim's rights and parole reform.
Today representatives of the 150 or so conference delegates
will be tabling further recommendations to the federal
government that will help us continue along the challenging
road of criminal justice reform.
According to National Parole Board statistics there are over
2,000 offenders serving life sentences in the Canadian
correctional system. According to the National Parole Board, on
average approximately 40 offenders per year will be eligible to
apply for a judicial review over the next 15 years. At the
beginning of this year there were 128 offenders eligible for a
judicial review.
The sheer volume of impending parole eligibility hearings
which will take place in the immediate future necessitates swift
action in the area of parole reform.
Crown attorneys tell me they are not prepared to handle the
workload that is about to come crashing down on them. That is
why it is necessary to take swift action.
Getting back to the statistics, as of March of this year, 42
decisions were made on early parole applications by first degree
murders. Of those 42 decisions, 32 parole eligibility reductions
were granted. That means 76.2 per cent of the offenders who
applied for early parole consideration had their parole eligibility
period reduced.
Many questions arise from this scenario. For example in each
of these cases and in the first instance the accused must be
convicted of his or her crime by a unanimous jury decision. Yet
at the judicial review early parole consideration can be granted
to that first degree murderer based on only a two-thirds decision
of that jury at judicial review. Why?
In my humble opinion the status quo is unacceptable. I look
forward to addressing these and other equally compelling
questions when Bill C-41 is referred to the Standing Committee
on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The government recognizes the shortcomings of section 745
and is ready, willing and able to initiate the ongoing process of
change.
In closing I would like to encourage my hon. colleague, the
Minister of Justice, to vigorously pursue his criminal justice
reform agenda by continuing to weed out those inappropriate
provisions such as section 745 of the Criminal Code in order to
develop a balanced, fair and reasonable criminal justice system
in this great country of ours. In doing so the government will
fulfil its commitment to the people of Canada who have so
passionately expressed the need for meaningful and progressive
criminal justice reform.
With the support and co-operation of the concerned members
of the House, the challenging work going to be faced by
members of the justice committee and indeed the concerned
citizens throughout this nation I am sure we will be able to meet
the challenges we face in the process of rejuvenating Canada's
criminal justice system.
(1320 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak on Bill C-41 which is an amendment to the Criminal Code
regarding sentencing.
I want to focus specifically on what the hon. member had
touched on in his speech, that is, section 745 of the Criminal
Code. This bill leaves section 745 in the code which makes a
mockery of the term life imprisonment.
In 1976 the government abolished the death penalty and
assured us that society would be protected by sentencing
murderers to life imprisonment with no chance for parole for 25
years. However Bill C-84 which was to accomplish this
contained a little known clause which created section 745 of the
Criminal Code.
Section 745 nullifies the term life imprisonment and grants
murderers the right to apply for parole eligibility after serving
only 15 years of a life sentence. Section 745(1) of the Criminal
Code reads: ``Where a person has served at least 15 years of his
sentence he may apply to the appropriate Chief Justice in the
province in which the conviction took place for a reduction in
5884
his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for
parole''.
This section makes a complete mockery of the so-called life
sentence which was a trade-off for the elimination of capital
punishment in our statutes.
One parliamentarian in support of section 745 called it ``a
glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a
terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals''.
This parliamentarian reflects the typical, irresponsible,
unaccountable, bleeding-heart mentality that underlines so
much of the legislation passed in this House over the last 25
years, including our parole system, our Young Offenders Act,
our Immigration Act. The same mentality has created the federal
debt of half a trillion dollars and produced a budget that will add
$100 billion to that debt in the next three years.
This irresponsible, unaccountable, bleeding-heart mentality
has ignored the rights of the victims of crime, their families and
society. This is the type of mentality that has betrayed our
country. What murderer ever gave a victim a glimmer of hope
when he or she viciously tore life from the victim?
Did Norman Clairmont give the 19-year old Potts girl a
glimmer of hope when he brutally and savagely murdered her in
1978? No he did not. Did Larry Sheldon extend a glimmer of
hope to the nine-year old girl he raped and murdered in 1974?
No he did not. Did Charles Simard offer a glimmer of hope to the
two teenagers he murdered in the province of Quebec? No he did
not.
Now these murderers are lining up to take advantage of a
glimmer of hope they denied our sons and daughters, our
brothers and sisters, a glimmer of hope provided by
irresponsible politicians and governments.
Murderers, rapists and vandals lose all their rights the
moment they launch their deadly attack upon the life of another.
In spite of this undeniable fact, we have watched the
bleeding-heart politicians restore the rights of these criminals
through legislation devoid of common sense, legislation like
section 745 of the Criminal Code.
In a judgment rendered on April 28, 1994, Judge Demetrick of
the Alberta Provincial Court declared that portions of the
definition of a firearm contained in section 84(1) of the Criminal
Code is so convoluted as to be ``legal fiction'' and ``twice
removed from reality''.
How is it possible that the Government of Canada is
producing legislation so convoluted that it is declared by our
courts to be fictitious and twice removed from reality? The
answer to this question is that the thinking that is producing this
type of legislation has to be equally fictitious and twice removed
from reality. It is the kind of thinking that comes from an ivory
tower mentality, the kind of mentality that produced the Young
Offenders Act, the Immigration Act, the national debt, this
government's approach to gun control legislation. It is the kind
of mentality that produced section 745 of the Criminal Code
which returns rights to the murders of Canadian citizens.
(1325)
In March of this year the hon. member for York
South-Weston introduced a private member's bill to get rid of
section 745 of the Criminal Code which gives convicted killers
the right to apply for early parole. I can tell the House that this
member has a great deal of support from our party and I believe
from Canadians all across Canada. We will watch to see how
much support he has from his own governing party.
We will see if the ivy tower mentality, the twice removed from
reality mentality identified by Judge Demetrick still controls the
agenda in the Liberal caucus. If it does, then the only alternative
the people of Canada have is to wait until the next election and
remove this government from power as decisively as they
removed the Tories from office in the last election. I stand in
opposition to this bill.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member.
As I said in my earlier statement I too had a private member's
bill and my question is to the hon. member who just spoke.
Those irresponsible bleeding-heart politicians that the member
referred to did help the courts to create the best country in the
world according to the United Nations. It is not as though we are
all going to hell in a handbasket on one bill.
I would hope that the member opposite is not so opposed to
this bill, as he stated at the end of his remarks, that he would not
consider coming to the justice committee when it deals with Bill
C-41 in order to give us his background, knowledge and
expertise on section 745.
It is very easy for anyone to stand up in this place and
condemn. I used to do it myself four years ago from across the
way to the government. I always took the opportunity, when
given, to go before a committee to try to reason with the
government on why it did not act, or attempt to team up with
other members of Parliament who wanted change.
I would hope that the member opposite will take the
opportunity to make representations to the committee on justice
in order to try to change the government's mind on section 745.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It is reasonable. As I have appeared before audiences
all across certainly my constituency and other parts of Alberta I
am quite prepared to appear before any committee or any
assembly or any audience to put forward my concerns and my
reasons for opposing section 745 of the Criminal Code.
5885
The premise on which my concern is based is that it was a
betrayal of the people of Canada at the time capital punishment
was being removed from the Criminal Code. We were promised
that the substitution would provide the protection that society
was looking for and that substitution was life imprisonment with
a minimum penalty of 25 years.
I have heard individuals, including open-line commentators,
express outright disbelief when they heard about section 745
and its implementation. Now these murders come forward and
use it in order to gain early parole.
My concern and my opposition is to the whole of the bill, of
course. However with the time limit, I focused only on that one
particular area and other members will focus on other areas of
this bill.
My specific concern is that section 745 should never have
been implemented in the first place. It was a betrayal of the
honest people who are prepared to give this whole idea of the
removal of capital punishment from the Criminal Code an
opportunity. That was based upon a life sentence with a
minimum term of imprisonment for 25 years.
(1330)
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41
is a major step toward safer homes and safer streets. I am
pleased to speak in support of it.
This bill responds to many of the concerns about our justice
system that I heard during the last election and that I continue to
hear on the streets of Edmonton. It presents positive measures
and practical common sense solutions, not rhetoric and
sensationalism. Bill C-41 is effective action, not simplistic
slogans, and that is what the people of Edmonton East voted for.
Edmonton has established a strong record in crime
prevention, reducing the crime rate by 25 per cent in the last five
years while rates in other cities have increased. It has achieved
that goal through community co-operation and community
policing. Based on its experience Edmonton has been calling for
changes in legislation to support local action.
Today I would like to highlight a few of the specific measures
of Bill C-41 that will be welcomed by the people in my city and
other communities across the country.
First there is a clear statement of principles as the basis for
sentencing. People in Edmonton East get angry about what seem
to be arbitrary sentences handed down by judges without
explanation.
How can one explain it when someone abuses a child, takes
away the very foundation of her life and is back on the streets in
a year or two with no change in behaviour? Edmonton East
welcomes the provision requiring judges to take into
consideration the misuse of a position of trust and authority as
an aggravating circumstance.
How can one explain it when a repeated offence by a john
destroying the safety of a neighbourhood gets a mere $100 slap
on the wrist, less than a traffic ticket these days? Communities
in my riding will welcome the explicit requirement that judges
take into account other aggravating circumstances.
When a break-in leaves an elderly couple bleeding and dying
and their house in shambles, the community understands the
seriousness of the offence but the courts do not. We have been
trying to make judges aware of the true costs of damage done by
johns soliciting next to a neighbourhood school, an aggravating
circumstance.
When charges are laid against drug traffickers who use drug
houses and destroy neighbourhoods, judges should be able to
consider the considerable damage to the community. Hopefully
the police will not need to go back time and time again and that
will also save money spent on expensive policing efforts.
The second is a greater voice for victims in the justice system.
This bill responds to the public demand that victims have a
greater role in several ways.
First, victims and their families will be able to make
representations to the court in early parole hearings. This is a
welcome change. People who receive threatening letters from
convicts and fear their release on parole will now have a voice in
that decision-making process and decision makers will have
more complete information on which to base their decisions.
Second, restitution will now be a real option. Justice is not
done when an elderly couple in our community loses most of
their possessions in a vicious attack and at the end of the whole
process they get nothing back. People are the victims of crime,
not the state.
Greater use of restitution was one of the recommendations of
the Edmonton safer cities report. I am happy to see that its
recommendation has been followed here.
Experience with pilot projects has shown that offenders who
understand the true impact of what they have done on another
person are less likely to reoffend. For the first time Bill C-41
puts some teeth into that basic truth by making restitution an
integral part of sentencing.
Third, Edmonton will welcome stronger rules for probation.
Offences by people out on probation have eroded the public
confidence in the justice system in my riding. Yet probation is
an important vehicle for the rehabilitation of young offenders.
The provisions in this bill will go a long way to restore
credibility of the probation system and by extension, the public
confidence in the justice system.
5886
(1335 )
Community groups that have tried to provide opportunities
for people on probation report that they need more support to
make these programs successful. Better supervision will
encourage communities to participate in programs designed to
help offenders change their ways and find their place in the
community again.
Fourth, greater use of conditional sentences with clear
penalties will be more effective than overcrowded jails. Canada
has the second highest incarceration rate in the world next to the
United States. One look south of the border is proof enough that
high incarceration rates do not equal safe streets.
My riding contains a number of correctional facilities,
enough for people to know that jails do not change many people.
In fact we see the evidence that jails are often schools for crime.
Doing time can turn a minor offender into a professional
criminal.
For minor offences a conditional sentence with a severe
penalty for breaking the conditions is a much better alternative.
It will also allow us to spend our limited protection dollars on
people who really need to be put away from society. The
correctional service says it costs about $47,000 a year to keep
someone in prison with little to show for it at the end.
Finally, expansion of the alternative measures program will
be welcome. Edmonton has a successful program for young
people who are going to court for the first time, often for
shoplifting. One of the recommendations of the safer cities
report endorsed by city council is the expanded use of this
program. Young people who have already had a brush with the
law, perhaps in another place or on a reserve, would also benefit
from a program that forces them to deal directly with the victim
and understand the consequences of what they did. Bill C-41
will allow that.
I am happy that the federal government is responding to
suggestions made by people who are close to the problem and
who have put a lot of effort into identifying practical ways to
deal with crime in our communities.
In conclusion, Bill C-41 will have three positive results:
better outcomes from our justice system; safer homes and
streets; and better value for money spent on courts and
corrections. That is what the people of Canada want for every
community.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-41. Members have heard from our
party why we feel so strongly about the government wimping
out once again. However, we are getting used to that in this
session of Parliament. There are so many issues in Bill C-41 to
talk about but the one I want to spend a particular amount of time
on is victim impact statements.
A case which comes to mind happened to Angela Richards, a
young lady in my riding. I attended the verdict and the
sentencing of Wayne Perkin, the individual who actually
committed this horrendous crime. This individual had
previously committed a sexual assault; he bound up a young
lady and injected her with cocaine. He was subsequently
sentenced and was then released by the parole board. Had he not
been released, young Angela would still be alive today.
However, it would not be appropriate for me to stand here and
give some political rhetoric. I want to read to the House and to
anybody listening a victim impact statement provided by
Corinne Schaefer, the sister of Angela Richards. This victim
impact statement probably says it all about what is wrong with
our system in Canada today. I will sum up with comments about
Bill C-41 that truly identify what the problems are and why this
government is so very ineffective. This victim impact statement
was given on June 30, 1994 in Vancouver:
Two years have just passed since learning of Angela's murder. It is extremely
difficult to write down the impact of her death.
I am confused about the value of this. A part of me feels this statement will
have no bearing on whether or not an ``appropriate'' sentence will be handed
down as I do not think there is any punishment great enough. I tend to think this
may only be a therapeutic exercise for my benefit.
(1340)
Already it can be seen that Corinne's confidence in the
system, as much as anybody else's in this country today, is lost.
The other part of me wants to scream and cry out to you in my anger and pain.
I want this statement to really make a difference. I know this is my only chance
to finally have some say in this matter. All those days in court were gruelling and
particularly upsetting when defence presented false allegations about Angie. It
is awful to go through such tragic and deeply personal accounts of her death and
do nothing but sit and listen. Now the opportunity for this statement presents
itself, yet I am told I cannot comment on sentencing, nor how much I hate the
accused and wish him dead. So through my fury and rage I will do my best to put
into words how just two years ago my carefree and wondrously happy life was
shattered upon learning that my precious baby sister was murdered.
I love Angie very much, more than words can say. How can I make you
understand how much I miss her when I am still denying her death? I do not
want to believe this and though I know in my heart that it is true, my heart has
yet to accept it. Angie was not only my sister. She was my friend. There were no
secrets between us. She was funny and witty and bright and loving and mostly
always happy. She was everything that the accused is not. And now she is dead.
I want so desperately to know and believe that she was truly struck ``out like a
light'' before being so viciously stabbed but I will never know, no matter how
many times I replay that night in my mind. How horrible for her. I cannot help
but feel guilty at not being there to somehow save her.
How did we lose such a beautiful and vital human being? She is gone from our life.
Yet we are plagued with remembering her murder for the rest of our lives. A despicable
excuse for a person, a criminal with such an extensive history, a parolee, a repeat
5887
offender, someone I hope you will consider to be a dangerous offender, considering
the current charge he is facing: 13 counts of sexual assault with a minor, and
administering a noxious substance.
This kind of person the victim is describing is the kind of
person the government is talking about getting parole after 15
years.
It makes me sick to write his name. I wish him dead so I do not have to worry
about when he appeals parole and the day he gets out, which could be in 15 years.
Every day I fear for his next victim, my life and for his. I figure I will be barely 50
years old and he will be out on the streets and I will still have it in me to kill him.
Who can predict what the future holds? I wonder if I will ever be kind and caring
again. I certainly will not be forgiving of this. I have become cynical, hard and
very sarcastic. I am humiliated by the person I have become. I also tend to be
paranoid. After all, who can you trust?
This is a victim impact statement and is not made up by me. It
is by someone who is affected by the laws this government is
bringing into place.
Even my dreams are nightmares and often show Angie's body cut up and
floating in water or in a dumpster. Once I dreamt that she was brought to the
hospital and was going to make it. The reality hit once again upon waking.
For a while there I wished for my mom to die as I could see how much pain
she was in. I cannot talk to mom about my sad feelings and how much I miss
Angie because I hate to see her cry. She has cried so much I do not want her to
see me cry because I do not want to upset her any more than she already is. It's
crazy. Even though I need mom more now than ever I can't turn to her. I hate to
see the pain on her face, how disoriented and scattered her thoughts have
become, how tiny and frail she is to us all. It is disgusting and totally
unforgivable. I am at a loss as to what life is all about.
The joy of my sons' births were diminished greatly by my grief. They have
been cheated out of what would have been innumerable wonderful moments
with their Auntie Angie. I wonder why I brought them into such a horrible
world.
I am just now forcing myself to get therapy as I've exhausted whatever
coping mechanisms I had and I'm starting to want to hurt myself badly. I'm
scared I'm going to do something stupid. My husband is at a loss as to helping
me. At times I just want to run away from it all and not accept this. My grief
counsellor has assured me that I'm not crazy (which is somewhat comforting.)
My job as an RN in emergency is affected. I'm not able to show compassion
for IV drug users, especially cocaine users.
(1345)
This is what the convicted was.
In fact, I don't want to acknowledge them. There are increasing numbers of
stabbing victims presented to emergency and I cannot help but think of Angie
and how her beautiful little body was torn after 12 vicious stabs. I'm currently
forced to look at alternatives.
The number one rule about doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you was
taught to us at a young age. Angela understood and lived this rule; and only good
should have come her way. I now realize that there are no guarantees to a happy, long
life, especially within our faulty Canadian justice system.
I do hold the system responsible for her murder. I have learned a lot about the
justice system and parole board. The foremost message I've received is that
criminals seem to be rewarded, rather than punished.
Does that sound familiar?
How many more victims is it going to take before we stop tolerating this?
I am now compelled to join other victims in the fight to improve and strengthen
our legal system in hopes that tougher sentences and less cushy prison
environments will deter increasingly violent criminal activities.
Corinne knows what she is talking about. One has to ask why
the government still includes a golf course at Ferndale
penitentiary and so on. Where is the government coming from?
Believe me. I would much rather spend my precious free time with my family,
than to have to fight to keep a murderer in jail for the rest of his life. He should
never be paroled again.
Does that sound familiar?
The fact that he served only two years of a six-year sentence for attacking
Ms. Eastman in 1986 is a joke. How lucky she is to be alive today. Again, I say,
had he served his full sentence, my Angie would be alive today.
Why hasn't anyone taken responsibility for slipping up? How could he have
been paroled so early? Are parole board appointees not aware of how
manipulative these offenders are? Do they not realize that these criminals have
nothing better to do than plan and plot for parole?
The emotional, mental and physical costs far outweigh any monetary losses
we have encountered. I am however attempting to have the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board repay my mother over $800 for therapy she needed and
probably should have continued, but for worry of the cost.
I'm also angry that reward money was used to entice certain individuals to
give information. It is unfortunate but money talks. That $30,000 should have
been used for a bursary in Angie's name at her high school. She would have like
that.
My life has been tarnished forever. I am sorry for the people near and dear to
me who put up with my broken spirit. All I know is this: I did make it through
yesterday and am cautious about the future.
For the love of Angie, I write openly, honestly and beg that my statement will
make a difference.
I can say to Corinne that her statement does make a
difference. It has been read in the House of Commons for the
government and all other people to listen to. However it is more
than a victim impact statement. This is a statement from an
average law-abiding Canadian citizen, hoping the government
will finally clue in to the fact that legislation has to be a little
stronger these days. We have to think of quotes like the one my
colleague from Crowfoot referred to. It bears repeating. One
parliamentarian in support of section 745 calls it ``a glimmer of
hope if some incentive is to be left when such a terrible penalty
is imposed on the most serious of all criminals''.
5888
(1350)
Where is the glimmer of hope for Angela Richards? Where is
the glimmer of hope for all victims out there? A victim is not
only the person who died. The victims are the direct relatives
and friends of people who have been killed and maimed in this
life. Where is the glimmer of hope? Why is a glimmer of hope
being offered to the people who do this sort of thing?
The government had better clue in or the next time there is an
election it will be sitting over here.
An hon. member: It has sat here before.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It has sat here before and
can do it again.
Angela's murder is not the end; it is the beginning. I sincerely
hope what I have said here today not be considered a speech. It is
an impact statement from a victim at a sentencing hearing.
Government members whether ministers, backbenchers or
wherever they sit in the House, and all other members, should
remember this statement. It needs to be heard. It needs to be
listened to.
I do not know what else can be said about the matter. We could
critique each and every clause as some of our members so aptly
have done, but we must remember that the life and property of
the law-abiding Canadian citizen should always be paramount
in the country. The government should get off the track of
looking for benefits and for a better life for the criminal who has
committed the offence.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for sharing Corinne's plea with us. I suggest to him that
Bill C-41 speaks directly to her request to be heard. During the
hearings for early parole the impact statements of victims will
be included. That is a very important part and a very significant
addition to our situation. I believe better decisions will be made
on whether or not criminals will be paroled as a result of this
change.
I suggest that you have made an important comment. I do not
believe our bill is a wimpy bill. It speaks directly to the cries of
Corinne.
The Deputy Speaker: I ask all hon. members to put their
remarks through the Chair. The word you is to be avoided unless
it is directed to the Speaker.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I do not know
how to get government members to clue in to what is said in the
House. I spoke to an immigration issue yesterday and it went
over their heads.
This victim impact statement was read at a sentence hearing.
What the government is talking about doing is hearing her again
after 15 years and hearing her again after 20 years. We are
saying we should not have to hear Corinne Schaefer again; we
have already heard her. The government should clue in. This
person has committed the crimes he has been convicted of. He
stabbed this young lady 12 times. Why is the government
looking for another impact statement to let him out?
We have to understand that this person should not be out. He
should not attend parole board hearings. He should be left in
prison. He should stay there. I do not want Corinne Schaefer to
show up at another parole board hearing. Neither does her
family. Neither does her mother.
(1355 )
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, at what
point does the hon. member consider the parole board ought to
relook at such an impact statement?
The person has been condemned to a period of serving his
sentence in prison. Shall he just be released without any
forewarning, without anything? In terms of his sentence at what
point should there be any consideration of the impact on the
victims and when should they have a say?
I would like to ask an even more fundamental question, not in
terms of the individual but in general. What would you do with
all the people who have committed crimes? Where do you intend
to house them and how do you intend to run those prisons?
The Deputy Speaker: Before calling on the member for
Fraser Valley West I would ask the minister, as I just asked her
colleagues, to address all remarks through the Chair.
Having members speak through the Chair is designed to keep
tension down. It is not because we need to have all comments
directed at us.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I was talking
about Wayne Perkins. I already said that he was let out on parole.
He had bound a young lady, sexually assaulted her and injected
her with cocaine. After he was let out he stabbed another young
lady, Angela Richards, Corinne's sister, 12 times.
I am not talking about letting this fellow out. They have it all
wrong. I am talking about keeping him there and leaving him
there. I am asked how long. I am saying to leave him there,
period, to close the door. Enough people have suffered.
In that courtroom 50 people were crying. All of them are
affected, from her mother, Lorna, to her sister, her
brother-in-law and so on. I am saying to leave him there. If he
gets out we are into the same problem again. It was already tried
it once and it failed.
An hon. member: Life means life.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Life means life. What part
of that does the government not understand?
5889
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, let me direct a supplementary
question to the hon. member. I understood when he said Life
means life. That is all very well and good. He is well aware of
the fact, as I think many of us are, that the statistics on the level
of crime show crime has gone down but the number of crimes
being reported has gone up.
If we fill our prisons what are we to do? How does the member
plan to keep our prison population in control?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I am a lot less
worried about accommodating prisoners than I am with letting
them out.
Let me repeat the quote. It will tell us the philosophy of where
the government is coming from. It says we should provide a
glimmer of hope if some incentive is to be left when such a
terrible penalty is imposed on the most serious of all criminals.
What is a terrible penalty? Why is life such a terrible penalty
to a person who has bludgeoned a young lady who would have
been a contributing member of society? Why is that such a
terrible penalty? Keep him in, keep him in. That is the answer.
The Speaker: 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.
_____________________________________________
5889
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to that segment of our society we
sometimes forget or overlook. With the United Nations having
declared this year the International Year of the Family it is
appropriate to recognize the importance of grandparents in the
traditional family structure.
In provinces throughout Canada the second Sunday in
September in each year has already been set aside as a day on
which we honour grandparents.
I wish to extend my warmest wishes to all grandparents. We
must not forget their importance to the structure of the family in
the nurturing, upbringing and education of our children.
Sometimes the greatest gift a child will receive will be the
wisdom and experience offered by a grandparent.
I am certain many of us here today have experienced the joys
of sharing a day or a special moment with a grandparent.
I urge the government to recognize the important role they
play in society and set aside the second Sunday in September in
each year as a day to remember grandparents.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the
Commissioner of Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom,
admitted again yesterday that the military college in Kingston is
not at all ready to receive French-speaking soldiers and give
them the training courses they need. According to him, the
linguistic record of the Kingston college is markedly worse than
that of the Saint-Jean college.
The commissioner also noted that only 6,000 of the 13,000
so-called bilingual positions in the Canadian Forces are held by
people with a sufficient knowledge of French. Why are
francophones always underrepresented? Why does the federal
government insist on closing down the only French-language
military college in the country? The Liberals are showing their
true colours. The facts are there: the government refuses to
make room for francophones.
The reality is that French is an irritant to the Canadian
government.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to congratulate all the members of Team Canada
who competed in the recent Commonwealth Games in Victoria,
British Columbia. Their performance was the best ever with our
team winning a total of 40 gold, 42 silver and 46 bronze.
I would like to point out that their performance gives an
indication of the many years of dedication and training which
these athletes have devoted to their sport. In particular, special
mention goes to Corinna Wolfe who competed in the women's
high jump and lives in Mission. I congratulate her on her entry to
the games and her strong performance.
As well, I would like to give special recognition to Chris
Wilson of wrestling fame. Chris, who lives in Coquitlam, also of
my riding, won a gold in the 68 kilogram category in wrestling,
an outstanding performance.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
Manitobans take pride in the federal government's recent
decision to hold in Winnipeg, home to the Ukrainian-Canadian
Congress, the upcoming special G-7 conference on partnership
for economic transformation of Ukraine in preparation for the
G-7 summit next summer in Canada.
5890
The Ukrainian-Canadian community which has its roots in
Manitoba and the greater west had long dreamt of independence
for its motherland, a dream that was passed on from generation
to generation and finally realized in 1991.
Political independence needs economic prosperity to sustain
it. Thus this conference is both essential and timely.
It therefore behoves Canada to ensure that this conference
leaves a permanent legacy, perhaps the creation of a
Canada-Ukraine foundation to help secure the economic
transformation and prosperity of Ukraine which benefits Canada
as well.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to bring to the attention of the House the shameful
actions of the Albanian government toward its ethnic
minorities.
Last month the Albanian authorities held what can only be
called a show trial against five leaders of the Greek-speaking
minority. This show trial was held under the auspices of the
penal code that was established by the communist dictatorship
of Enver Hoxha and should not go unnoticed by the world
community.
These convictions were nothing more than a malicious
attempt to silence the representatives of the Greek-speaking
minority in Albania in their efforts to secure the rights that are
guaranteed to all people through the United Nations declaration
on human rights.
I hope that our government will, should the opportunity arise,
condemn the convictions of this ethnic leadership and
contribute to the efforts to gain their release.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
once upon a time there was a belief that crown corporations,
those corporate representatives of the Canadian public, acted in
the interest of all Canadians. To the surprise of certain Canadian
National employees in my riding, management has informed
them that some 25 positions will be phased out and replaced by
American workers at Flat Rock, Michigan near Detroit, which I
still believe to be in the United States.
(1405 )
On behalf of those workers and indeed all CN employees I
implore the board of directors and management to start working
for the real shareholders of that company.
I believe all Canadians want trains inspected and repaired by
Canadians. That is not an unreasonable request.
Canadian National employees expect a reasonable reversal of
this mistaken decision of the management of our corporation,
Canadian National.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, the
CRTC has made public its decision on the new
telecommunications regulatory framework. Despite what was
promised in June 1992, basic monthly rates will rise by 50 per
cent over three years in some regions. For the first time, basic
telephone service, which is an essential service, is being
undermined.
Why such a sudden and rapid increase? Consumers are the
ones paying for the CRTC's decisions. A less drastic hike could
have been agreed to for the sake of poor people hurt by the
recession.
While Minister Manley plays with the idea of regulations
allowing the convergence of cable and telephone networks, the
CRTC announces that this sector will be almost completely
deregulated and presents everyone with a fait accompli.
The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That
is another appalling example of the inconsistency of the federal
system.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Prime Minister appointed some political friends to the other
place, including a former Manitoba Liberal leader, a former
Quebec Liberal cabinet minister, and the daughter-in-law of a
former Liberal Prime Minister.
Is it any wonder that Canadians have virtually no respect for
the other place or the patronage appointees who rest there. They
know that an unelected, unaccountable, anti-democratic body
like the other place has absolutely no place in a democratic
society. It has no business shaping legislation. It has no business
whatsoever in deciding how taxpayers' money should be spent.
It has no legitimate role whatsoever and serves mainly to
provide a retirement income for the Prime Minister's friends.
Canadians demand that the other place be reformed so that it
is elected and accountable, an effective guardian of regional
interests.
5891
While the new appointees collect their pay cheques, whether
or not they can walk to work, the national debt has risen to
$531,172,948,085.41.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker, last
week President Lech Walesa of the Republic of Poland paid his
first state visit to Canada. Poland is emerging as the fastest
growing economy in central Europe, proving that Canada's
small but significant investment in technical assistance will
eventually pay dividends to both countries in the long run.
President Walesa has a bold new vision to promote greater
trade between our two countries and he invites Canadians to
strongly consider Poland for private investment.
While travelling through Poland this summer, I had the
opportunity to witness the tremendous progress the people of
Poland have achieved both economically and in terms of their
efforts to turn the tide of environmental degradation after
decades of improper management.
On behalf of the Government of Canada I wish to congratulate
the people of Poland for their success and pay a warm hearted
thanks to their president for his visit.
Today we have another distinguished visitor in the gallery,
Mr. Speaker, and I know you will introduce him at the
appropriate time.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr.
Speaker, I stand in the House today to focus attention on Burma.
July 20 marked the fifth year of house arrest for Aung San Suu
Kyi. Ms. Suu Kyi was elected by the Burmese people as leader of
the opposition in 1989.
Despite suggestions that it is willing to open discussions, the
current military regime in Burma has made no attempt to meet
with Ms. Suu Kyi.
On April 12 of this year a motion was passed by this House to
urge the Secretary General of the United Nations to appeal for
the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and the restoration of civilian
rule in Burma. A petition was also signed by 234 members of
this House urging the same actions be taken.
I urge all of my colleagues here today to remain vocal on the
subject of Burma and to continue to apply pressure on the
Burmese regime to free Ms. Suu Kyi and restore the
democratically elected opposition to government.
(1410)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, today I
want to recognize the efforts of a national organization called
Operation Go Home.
It is largely a volunteer organization which strives to return
runaway youth in crisis to their families or to connect them with
the appropriate existing agencies that can best help them. It has
offices now in operation in Ottawa, Halifax, Toronto, Vancouver
and Winnipeg.
Its success is noteworthy. In 1993 it assisted 1,429 young
people in crisis. Between 35 and 40 per cent of the youth were
directed to a caring environment.
There are over 100,000 children living on the streets of
Canada on any given day. Sadly the number continues to rise.
[Translation]
I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this
organization that has been working for some 20 years to return
children, to see that they are returned either to their homes or to
support agencies.
* * *
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, the
findings of Statistic Canada's latest survey on violence against
women cannot leave anyone indifferent.
More than one out of four Canadian women who are married
or living common-law say that they have been assaulted by their
spouse. At one time or another in their married life, they were
physically or sexually assaulted and few of them reported these
assaults to the police. Even fewer of them sought professional
help to allay their suffering and the trauma resulting from these
assaults.
To stop wife abuse, the federal government must introduce
legislation to end violence against women.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, on September 4 the New Westminster Salmonbellies
junior A lacrosse team captured the Minto Cup, making it
Canada's number one lacrosse team. The Salmonbellies battled
the Brantford Excelsiors for seven hard-fought games before
being crowned Canada's best.
What makes this victory especially sweet is that the national
championship has not been won by a New Westminster team
5892
since 1960. The last time a western team won dates back to 1988
when a team from Esquimalt, British Columbia won the crown.
In the past it has been Ontario teams that have dominated
junior A lacrosse. All of those from New Westminster know that
the cup belongs in New Westminister, a city which holds dear to
its heart the heritage of Canada's original sport as well as the
home of the Lacrosse Hall of Fame.
My congratulations go out to the entire Salmonbellies team,
in particular co-coaches Steve van Os and Stan Stewardson, as
well as the team's five graduating players, Kevin Stewardson,
Glen Bzowy, Steve Higgs, Chris Charlton and Curtis Palidwor,
the series most valuable player.
Great going, Salmonbellies.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to bring to the attention of the House the existence of a
condition which is more prevalent than Huntington's, ALS or
muscular dystrophy.
This condition is dystonia, a neurological disorder that causes
involuntary muscle spasms and twisting, resulting in abnormal
body postures. Only 5 per cent of the estimated 250,000
sufferers of dystonia in North America have been diagnosed and
sadly one third of those afflicted are children.
The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, a national
organization which provides funding for a research and patient
support, is committed to raising public awareness of dystonia.
As with many medical conditions the lack of public and medical
awareness of dystonia contributes to the sense of isolation and
alienation that many sufferers of dystonia experience.
I encourage my colleagues in the House as well as all
Canadians to support the Dystonia Medical Research
Foundation in its efforts to raise public awareness of this painful
disorder.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, Jacques
Parizeau, leader of the Parti Quebecois, repeatedly promised
during the election campaign that if he was elected, there would
be a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec within eight or ten
months following the election.
This is a firm commitment. There was never any question of
postponing the referendum, and it is much better that way, since
Quebecers want to settle the referendum issue once and for all.
However, despite Mr. Parizeau's clear commitment, one
wonders, in the light of a recent statement by the Leader of the
Official Opposition, who speaks for the Government of Quebec?
Is it the Leader of the Official Opposition, who in his recent
statement on the referendum explained that what counts is
winning, never mind when the election is held, or is it Mr.
Parizeau, Quebec's newly-elected Premier?
* * *
(1415 )
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in Goose Bay, Labrador, Innu protesters
delayed the start of public hearings into low-level military
flight training over their traditional hunting grounds. The Innu
claim that the flights disrupt wildlife in the area, which is their
major source of food, and contaminate the environment.
These public hearings are being held to evaluate a flawed
Department of National Defence environmental impact
statement that, according to scientists, contains more than 130
deficiencies, including the proposal to create one giant training
zone and the use of thin aluminum strips that make animals sick
when they eat them. The Innu have called into question the
timing of the hearings, and the fairness and independence of the
assessment panel conducting the review.
Therefore I call on the government to immediately suspend
the hearings until the concerns of the Innu are addressed, and to
consider the advisability of ending all low-level flight training
over the territory of the Innu. The Innu people never ceded their
land to Canada for military purposes. They have lived off this
land in peace for 9,000 years and they deserve fair and humane
treatment.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in the statements that we hear
from day to day, many times we use language which could be
interpreted as provocative.
I would encourage all hon. members to please be judicious in
their choice of words especially, if I might bring it to your
attention, when talking about the other place.
I would leave that with you. It is something that I would like
you very much to take to heart.
[Translation]
We will now start Oral Question Period. The hon. Leader of
the Opposition.
5893
5893
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we were all relieved to hear that the U.S. army would
intervene in Haiti without bloodshed. However, the main
objective of the mission has yet to be achieved, and I am
referring to the return of President Aristide, and there are still
some major concerns, especially after the Haitian police
brutally attacked a demonstration by supporters of President
Aristide in the streets of Port-au-Prince last night.
My question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Has the minister been given assurances by the U.S. authorities
that the return of President Aristide is imminent?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer the hon. member's
question, and I want to make it quite clear that the purpose of
this UN initiative is to bring President Aristide back to his
country so that he can take up his duties as president. I believe
that what has taken place during the last few hours is an
indication that the process to return President Aristide to his
country is well under way and is irreversible.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to differ with the minister's optimistic statement,
since the events of the past few hours seem to contradict what he
just said, and I am referring to the fact that President Aristide
has just dismissed the agreement concluded between a puppet
president and the U.S. military.
Is the Canadian government still satisfied with the agreement
concluded on Sunday between Washington and the military
junta, now that president in exile Jean-Bertrand Aristide has
publicly dissociated himself from this agreement?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, there is an important point I would like to make.
President Aristide mentioned that as far as he was concerned,
the Governors Island Agreement was the agreement he had
signed and the agreement he intended to abide by. I can say that
the Canadian government entirely agrees with his interpretation
of the facts.
Furthermore, we must realize that at this very moment, the
country is no longer totally under the control of a Haitian
military junta and is gradually coming under the control of a
multinational force, which has a mandate, under UN Resolution
940, to take control and ensure that President Aristide returns to
his country as soon as possible.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, of course we share the same expectations as the
minister, but today's events do give us some cause for concern,
especially the fact that the military junta is still there and will
be, at least until October 15. We can only hope that all this will
be over with by October 15, but for the time being, the junta is
there, side by side with the U.S. peacemaking force.
I want to ask the minister if he could tell us whether Canada
intends to send Canadian police officers to Port-au-Prince
without the consent of President Aristide and without waiting
for his consent, while there is still some uncertainty about his
own return and the role of the military junta.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned a date, October
15, which is a very definite deadline for the Haitian military.
Whatever they do and whatever happens, they will have to
submit to the firm determination of the Americans and all those
who supported and approved UN Resolution 940. Consequently,
I am quite confident that President Aristide will be able to return
to his country.
The hon. member had a question about police officers. I have
been in touch with President Aristide on a regular basis, and we
will continue our dialogue. Any steps to be taken by the
Government of Canada will respect the wishes of President
Aristide.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the latest analyses of the Canadian financial situation are far
from painting the rosy picture the Minister of Finance and his
Prime Minister painted just a while ago. This year, the deficit
will reach $40 billion, while the debt will approach $550 billion,
jeopardizing both economic recovery and improved business
competitiveness.
Does the Minister of Finance not agree that, in view of the
sorry state of public finance in Canada, it is urgent, indeed
extremely urgent, for the government to reduce drastically its
operating expenditures instead of blindly relying on economic
conditions and opportunistically reaping the meagre benefits as
it has done recently?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
government expenditures must be examined. We said that we
were going to do so item by item. For that very purpose, the
Prime Minister asked that a committee be set up under the
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal to take a
serious look at government spending. This review is under way.
5894
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Instead of
turning a blind eye as he has done so far, Mr. Speaker, will the
minister finally commit today, before this House, to tabling an
emergency action plan-because this is truly an emergency-to
reduce operating expenditures in the federal administration by
dealing as a matter of priority with tax leakage benefitting
friends of the system and with the shameless squandering
resulting from overlapping?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his
colleagues had the opportunity to voice their opinions last year,
during the pre-budget debate. Throughout the spring, and the
summer as well, they had the opportunity to make suggestions.
When I appear before the finance committee with the
promised update, the hon. member will again have the
opportunity to make constructive suggestions. As a matter of
fact, I think that the committee will be considering the family
trust issue tomorrow. I trust that the hon. member will take that
opportunity to make constructive comments.
[English]
The opposition has had the opportunity on many occasions to
give us constructive suggestions as to what it would do and has
refused to do so.
Once again we are going to give members the opportunity to
do so and we will see if they are prepared to put up.
* * *
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister said that his first responsibility is to ensure
the unity of this country. Surely that means refraining from
actions that undermine people's confidence in the federal
government. I have one particular action in mind.
Canadians are now among the most highly taxed people in the
world. If the federal government wants to make federalism more
attractive to all Canadians, it simply must refrain from
increasing the burden of federal taxation.
I ask the Prime Minister to pledge today, for the sake of
Canadian unity, to refrain from increasing the burden of federal
taxation during the term of his mandate. Would he make such a
pledge today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
will have a budget in the month of February. We had a budget
some months ago and there were no tax increases. We do not
plan to have any tax increases. We want to give very good
administration to the country and the Minister of Finance looks
at all aspects of all problems all the time.
Speaking about how long I will be Prime Minister, to promise
that I will never increase taxes in the many, many years I will be
Prime Minister makes it difficult for me to give a very
categorical answer.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
would not worry about being around many, many years. My
question is just asking for the term of the government's
administration.
Let me be more specific. The economies of Alberta and
British Columbia are growing faster than the Canadian economy
as a whole and the provincial government in Alberta is making a
more strenuous effort to restrain its spending than any other
provincial government. There is now growing concern in the
west that the only reward for economic growth or spending
restraint at the provincial level is going to be to attract a federal
tax raid similar to the one that occurred in the 1980s.
Will the Prime Minister today assure western Canadians that
his government will not try to solve the federal fiscal mess by
launching a tax raid on their region?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think that the leader of the Reform Party will be more
successful with this trial balloon that he is trying to scare people
with than with the so-called carbon tax that he invented,
something we were not even talking about. Having nothing else
to do, not being able to criticize anything we are doing, he is
trying to invent problems.
Do not worry, we have enough problems like that. We do not
want you to feel that you help the credibility and the confidence
of this nation when you invent canards like this one.
The Speaker: I know that although people who are
responding to questions do not always look at me they are
referring to me when they say ``you''. I am sure they are.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, it
is not only westerners who will be unsatisfied by the Prime
Minister's answer. There are other Canadians who are uneasy
with respect to the federal government's tax intentions.
Mismanagement by successive governments of the Canada
Pension Plan and OAS have undermined many Canadians'
confidence in the government's ability to provide pension
income. In response, millions of Canadians have endeavoured to
provide for their own retirement through private RRSPs. Now
these Canadians fear that their only reward for making this
provision will be to attract a tax raid by the federal government
on their RRSP contributions.
5895
Yesterday the finance minister was unwilling to allay fears in
this regard. Will the Prime Minister state categorically that his
government is not planning to launch a federal tax raid on RRSP
contributions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is very funny. We are in September, at the beginning of this
session and the leader of the Reform Party cannot find anything
more to do than create fear among the public. He should relax.
There will be a budget in February and he will have his answer
that day. In the meantime we will carry on with running the
business of this country and will try to have the best figures
possible, like the one this morning on trade: a $2.3 billion
surplus in the month of July.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, according to
two studies published by the C.D. Howe Institute and by Quebec
economist Pierre Fortin, the government is an estimated seven
to ten billion dollars short of being able to keep its election
promise of reducing the deficit to 3 per cent of the GDP by 1996.
Since the Minister of Finance is quite obviously unable to say
where he will cut, could he tell us by how much he intends to
reduce government expenditures in order to keep the election
promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I was very clear when I
tabled the budget last February. I said at that time that I would
issue an update on the country's financial situation.
I said in the budget, and I quote: ``Next fall [-]the
government will release a comprehensive statement that will
clearly lay out changes in the economic and fiscal outlook since
the last budget''. I intend to keep my word.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, faced with
the difficulty of obtaining figures or anything solid from the
Minister of Finance, I am asking him today-we know he has
figures and a target-to tell this House by how much he intends
to reduce government expenditures in order to keep the election
promise made by him and the Prime Minister.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
asking me not to conduct an open public consultation. In other
words, you want me to rise and table the budget immediately,
not in February but now in September, without any consultation.
But this is not how we intend to go about it. We want the
people of Canada and Quebec to be consulted and they will be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Prime Minister.
There are 115,000 early Stuart sockeye missing from the
Fraser River system. A report prepared by staff at the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans makes it clear that DFO
mismanagement and lack of enforcement are responsible.
Further, the report confirms that the minister ignored the advice
of his staff and chose not to close the fishery even though there
were inadequate numbers of sockeye returning.
What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this
incompetence which has led to the devastation of this sockeye
run this year?
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for Delta. As he knows, there is a problem in that
approximately 1.3 million sockeye are unaccounted for. This
government has acted responsibly by asking for a full and
comprehensive review of our present management techniques
and the science.
As the hon. member is from the fishing community he should
know that science is not perfect. We need to look at a number of
areas like water temperatures which have a profound effect on
sockeye.
We are looking for a full review, including all stakeholders,
including the aboriginal community, to get to the bottom of this
and to make the necessary changes to ensure we have confidence
in the management of the fishery. We will do that and that is
what the minister stated earlier.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
provided unsubstantiated excuses for this loss of salmon and has
ignored data prepared by his own department. The people of
British Columbia are tired of in-house excuses, tired of
in-house reports.
Will the Prime Minister commit to an independent public
inquiry into the management of the west coast fishery, or does he
intend to wait until the fish on the west coast have reached the
levels they have on the east coast?
(1435 )
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, as I said
earlier, the minister has already asked for a comprehensive
review from the independent community and also the
stakeholders. It will be transparent.
5896
If the hon. member has something to contribute we are willing
to look at what he has to offer because every once in a while they
come out with an idea we can look at. We will be happy to look at
his suggestions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Solicitor General rejected
the opposition's request to establish a royal commission to
investigate the very serious allegations concerning the
infiltration activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence
Service.
My question is for the Solicitor General. Is he giving us to
understand that by setting up CSIS, a monster was created that
no one, including Parliament, can control anymore, although it
was created for the express purpose of ending the RCMP's
illegal activities in Quebec in the 1970s?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
CSIS was created under a bill passed by this House. CSIS must
work within this law, in a legal fashion. The Review Committee
monitors CSIS and I think that we must wait for the results of
our efforts in order to have an answer to the allegations which at
this point are surely just allegations.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, does the Solicitor General know that a creature of this
Parliament already committed illegal acts in Quebec, in
particular by stealing the membership lists of political parties,
by burning barns and by planting bombs?
Does the minister realize that by refusing a royal commission
of inquiry, he is helping to recreate the same scenario as in 1970
and thus failing in his duty as minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): This
government stresses the fact that any branch of the government
operates within a legal framework and that is why we want the
Review Committee to submit its report as soon as possible. I
think that the people of this country, especially Quebec, will be
rather surprised to see how the hon. member loves royalty so
much that he is asking for a royal commission to investigate this
affair.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
Many years ago the government started shifting civil servants
around the country at astronomical expense with no apparent
efficiency benefit except to try to get ministers re-elected more
efficiently. Today we find out in documentation that the minister
has struck a committee that is going to consider moving more
public servants to Atlantic Canada for the same apparent reason.
Is the minister honestly considering trying this experiment
again?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises
an important question.
I wish to advise him and other members of the House that the
mandate as indicated by the Minister of Finance in his last
budget has asked each and every minister to do a review of his or
her department to find ways in which to increase efficiency. In
fact section 5(2)(a) of the Department of Supply and Services
Act reads: ``investigate and develop services for increasing the
efficiency and the economy of the public service of Canada''.
I find nothing inherently wrong with the Government of
Canada embarking upon a study to try to ascertain the
efficiencies in order to do away with duplication and overlap.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, we are
concerned that public servants not be shipped around the
country like sacks of flour for some form of patronage.
Will the minister demonstrate to the House, since we cannot
get this program review from the other minister, that any moves
for public servants will be made to save government money, to
make government more efficient and not just to mess around
with the lives of public servants? They have enough on their
plates right now.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, again I thank the hon.
member. I thought he was going to stand in his place and
congratulate the Government of Canada.
I will give the hon. member a demonstrable item that the
Government of Canada concluded with the province of Quebec
in order to rid itself of overlap and duplication. We
consummated an agreement relating to housing and the delivery
of housing programs in the province of Quebec. It thereby costs
less money to the Government of Canada and enables more
Quebecers to take advantage of Government of Canada
programs.
5897
(1440)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. The Canadian people are
very concerned about the contaminated blood affair and the
minister has an obligation to act openly to inform and reassure
the population.
Why, in these circumstances, did the minister at her
September 12 press conference hide from the Canadian people
that the FDA was conducting on that same day another
investigation at the Halifax Red Cross Centre?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for her question. This government has
always acted with transparency and honesty and from the very
beginning we have admitted openly that every blood donor
centre would be inspected by the FDA. The FDA has now
decided to change its regulations and require a licence for each
centre. The Red Cross is in the process of applying for this
licence.
Meanwhile, each of the 17 centres in the country must
undergo the same inspection.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister explain to me why she did not send a clear directive to
the other Red Cross centres when she had in hand the American
agency's report?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
must keep in mind that the FDA inspects these centres to enforce
its own regulations. American regulations are somewhat
different from ours because under the American blood
collection system, donors are often paid, while the Canadian
system depends totally on volunteers.
This does not mean that their regulations are better than ours
or vice versa. We are working with the FDA and the Red Cross to
harmonize the various regulations, to ensure that we have the
best regulations, so that our blood collection system continues
to be among the best in the world.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
In my riding of York-Simcoe there are a number of
responsible gun owners who have expressed concern over
impending gun control legislation. These individuals along with
other Canadians recognize the need for measures to curb the
violent and illegal use of firearms.
Will the minister give assurance to Canadians today that in
any new gun control legislation responsible gun owners will not
be unfairly treated and that his efforts will be directed against
those who abuse the use of firearms?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the proposals we are
developing through caucus to bring forward to the House focus
on three areas.
First is the presence of illegal firearms in this country and
what we can do to stop it. Second is the question of whether the
criminal justice system should have a sterner response to those
who misuse firearms in the commission of offences, and it will.
Third is the question of whether the regulation of firearms in the
hands of legitimate and lawful owners can be improved to
enhance community safety and to work toward crime
prevention, detection and prosecution.
In that process we will indeed be respectful of the legitimate
interests of firearms users. We understand and we respect the
importance of hunting not only as a long tradition in this country
but as an important economic activity. Those values will be
reflected in the proposals we bring before the House.
* * *
(1445 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, Michel
Robert, a former Liberal Party president, has been given an
untendered contract for $249,925 to act as an Oka negotiator.
That is a whopping $74 under the limit for untendered contracts.
Somebody said recently this government and this Parliament
would serve the interests of all Canadians, not the interests of
the privileged few no matter how well connected. I doubt few
would be fooled by the sham of the tendering process. I do not
think anyone could now believe the words I just quoted, spoken
by the Prime Minister last June.
Does the Prime Minister still understand what the word
integrity really means?
The Speaker: The question is rather far reaching. I would
hope hon. members would be very respectful of one another. As
such it is not a question which brings about information from the
government.
Perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister or one of the ministers
would like to answer.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Robert was hired back in May.
I find it passing strange the Reform did not realize it. Six months
have passed. The Bloc asked a couple of questions at the time.
May 25, 26 and 27 was a very volatile time at Oka. Trees were
being cut down, with a threat of the army going in. I had to act
5898
quickly and I had to get competent people. Judge Réjean Paul
was available as a mediator and Michel Robert.
As a result of questioning from the Bloc at that time I was able
to put some of his background in Hansard. He was past president
of the Canadian Bar Association, a fellow of the Ontario Bar, a
former member of the military and an author. He has a
tremendous, competent background. I was quite lucky to get him
at the time.
The result is that Oka is calm. Things are being worked out.
We do not have the military there. We are not spending hundreds
of millions of dollars on enforcement. I do not apologize for
hiring competent people, albeit some of them may be Liberal.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I used Oka
as just one example. That was just one of a very long list of
patronage appointments. That was one example which I chose.
We want to get to the bottom of the tendering process. It was
put in place to ensure that the best people could be chosen
through the competitive process. It is a safeguard against
patronage and ensures openness in the system. Since May there
have been dozens of examples of competent people who only
happen to be Liberals.
If Michel Robert was such a competent person as the Prime
Minister and the minister maintains, why did he make a mockery
of the tendering process itself, not that appointment? Why was
he afraid to allow the contract to go through the competitive
process to find the very best person for the job regardless of
political stripe?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
when we hire professionals on a contract like this one on a short
term we look for very competent people who can do the job. If
we had to wait for the tendering process, asking tens of
thousands of lawyers to apply and to pass an examination, we
would never get results.
If the member had any guts she would try to prove that the
person is not competent. Of course she will not. We are not
afraid to get up in the House and say that this man was elected
president of the Canadian Bar Association by lawyers in
Canada. Yes, at one time in his career he had the good judgment
of a Liberal. That is not a handicap.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, just before
the Quebec election, the Minister of Finance, who is responsible
for the infrastructure program in Quebec, wrote to the Minister
of Municipal Affairs to complain that several projects under that
program had been announced by the Government of Quebec
without federal authorization, in the middle of an election
campaign.
Can the Minister of Finance promise to make public the list of
projects announced by the Government of Quebec which he
considers to be incompatible with the infrastructure program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I already explained
publicly that there was an internal misunderstanding which was
cleared up; not only am I prepared to publish the list of projects
that have not been approved, I am also prepared to tell you right
away that all the projects announced by the Liberal Government
of Quebec comply with the regulations established by the
President of the Treasury Board.
I must tell you that as a member of Parliament and minister, I
had to co-operate with Mr. Ryan and Mr. Bourbeau and I am
fully satisfied; I think that they should be praised for their
co-operation and the work that they have done on this.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, when the
Minister of Finance refers to a misunderstanding, of course he is
referring to his letter. How can the minister explain that he
signed a letter that by his own admission is completely incorrect
and should not have been written? Are we to understand that the
cat is finally out of the bag and that Quebec has no real control
since the projects selected must be approved by Ottawa?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there was an administrative error in my
office which was discovered very quickly thereafter and the
matter was cleared up.
Now that there has been a change of government in Quebec I
would hope the new government would proceed with the same
degree of dedication and hard work as the previous government
in making the infrastructure program the tremendous success
that it has been.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
as the Liberal government and the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food well know, in May of this year the subcommittee on
grain transportation recommended that a man be appointed
immediately to take over the entire allocation process from the
Grain Transportation Agency. This was again explicitly
expressed as a concern to the minister in a June meeting with the
standing committee.
5899
Could the minister explain why he did not act on this
recommendation?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in response to
similar questions, the future form or structure of the GTA is
certainly a topic the government has under review as we deal
with a variety of very important agricultural transportation
issues in the country.
I would point out though that during the course of the summer
I have had a repeated series of meetings with not only the
existing GTA but all major players in the Canadian western
grain handling and transportation system to ensure that they are
focused upon the huge challenge of moving a very large and very
diversified crop this year through export positions into the most
lucrative available export markets.
I am pleased to say that in comparison to this time last year we
have achieved a 40 per cent increase in the number of hopper
cars in the grain car fleet in the country. We anticipate in the
month of October that we will see unloads at the port of
Vancouver perhaps twice as high as last year and unloads at the
port of Thunder Bay 50 per cent higher than last year.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
that is a very broad answer to a very definite question.
Farmers are again harvesting a crop under extreme weather
conditions. They have a plugged railway system. Because the
recommendation was not acted upon we now have a situation
where a few large players are dictating the process of car
allocation. Farmers, small grain elevators and shippers are again
being discriminated against.
(1455)
What action is the minister prepared to take to solve the
problem?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, the group of industry executives I
have been meeting with during the course of the summer have
focused on a broad range of issues to try to deal with the
challenge of throughput through all our export facilities.
We have dealt with, at least in part, the issue of grain car
allocation but obviously that is nobody's first choice in the
system. We want to expand the capacity of the system and the
throughput of the system. We will be introducing legislation this
fall in the House to address some of those issues. Other reforms
are under way already in an administrative manner.
The good news in the system is that we have a huge volume of
grain to move. We hope our system will have the capacity to
handle it, but given the volume and the diversity of the
particular crop there may be a requirement for some form of
allocation as we go through the crop year.
I have undertaken to the industry to monitor the allocation
process as it is implemented to be sure it is fair to all players in
the system including those who have reservations about it,
namely the smaller shippers. I want to make sure they are treated
fairly.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Currently the annual financial information returns of charities
are available to the public whereas those for non-profit
organizations are not.
Since non-profit organizations like charities are indirectly
supported by the taxpayer, would the minister consider making
their annual financial information returns also available for
public scrutiny?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I understand the member's frustration in this regard
because in fact the public information return filed by registered
charities is available to the public in accordance with section
149.1(5) of the Income Tax Act. However we cannot divulge
information on non-profit organizations in accordance with the
confidentiality provisions contained in subsection 241(1) of the
Income Tax Act.
One of the reasons for the differences between them is that
they cannot issue tax receipts. They do not have to register
provincially or federally to maintain their status. They have no
requirement to disburse a certain percentage of their income.
I will take the hon. member's question as a representation that
the law could in fact be changed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, Quebecers paid
for the 1992 referendum twice. First, they along with all other
Canadians paid for the referendum in the other provinces and, in
addition, they alone paid for the referendum in their own
province, Quebec. The outgoing government in Quebec sent the
federal government a bill for $26 million to correct this
injustice.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Does the federal government intend to honour its debt to Quebec
or not and will it pay the $26 million that it owes?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speak-
5900
er, the former government made no commitment to compensate
Quebec-neither under Prime Minister Mulroney nor under Ms.
Campbell. As far as we are concerned, we are not committed
either to paying for a referendum which was held under a
provincial law and therefore did not depend on us
organizationally or financially.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, the minister
of agriculture has had a bad summer. As incredible as it might
seem the minister ended the summer by equating farmers to
criminals because they were shipping grain into the United
States.
When will the minister stop attacking farmers and change the
Canadian Wheat Board Act so that farmers have the access
which is guaranteed them under the free trade agreement?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food): Mr. Speaker, unlike some hon. members across the
way who spent the summer in name calling and personal
vilification, I spent the summer consulting with farmers, farm
organizations and a number of others about the issue the hon.
member has mentioned.
(1500 )
I have received from those farmers and farm organizations a
broad list of recommendations and ideas about how our grain
marketing, handling and transportation system can be
modernized to maximize its throughput capacity and to put
farmers in the position of maximizing their marketing
opportunities.
This fall I will be formalizing that process in a way to ensure
that all farmers have all the necessary information, facts and
figures they require so they may have further and final input into
the government's decision-making processes about these
issues.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister has stated that he will not accept a health
care system that offers a higher quality of health care for the rich
than for the poor. Yet the first step to a two-tiered health care
system, one for the rich and one for the poor, is operating today
as we speak in Alberta.
It is my understanding that the Prime Minister is meeting with
the premier of Alberta later today. I would like to ask the Prime
Minister if he is going to challenge the premier of Alberta on the
private clinics which clearly contravene the Canada Health Act
and say that his government will support the Canada Health Act.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there will be a meeting later this fall on this question of
medicare. We are committed to maintaining the system that we
have where medicare is free and portable for everybody.
We have said many times that we do not want medicare to be
good for the rich and bad for the poor. The laws of Canada have
to be respected. I hope that Mr. Klein will respect the laws of
Canada.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to draw to your
attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Michal Strak, the
Minister-Chief of the Office of the Council of Ministers of the
Republic of Poland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny
and Constitutional Affairs of the Parliament of Norway led by
Mrs. Kjellbojrg Lunde.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Speaker: As a vacancy has occurred in the House of
Commons for the electoral riding of Brome-Missisquoi by
reason of the death of Mr. Gaston Péloquin, it is my duty to
inform this House that, pursuant to section 28(1) of the
Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed a warrant to the
Chief Electoral Officer today for the issue of a writ for the
election of a member to fill the vacancy.
_____________________________________________
5900
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other
acts in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred
to a committee.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-41 because I
believe that the bill that will review and examine sentencing
practices must be responsive to the concerns and values of
Canadians.
5901
The bill reflects our commitment to a justice system that is
balanced, fair and encourages respect for the law. This is an
omnibus bill, as we all know, and it responds to a number of very
important issues.
I wish to commend the Minister of Justice for the nature of the
consultations that he undertook, the wide scope of this bill,
which in the end clarifies and ensures improvements in the
application of the Criminal Code.
I have been listening to concerns in this regard and I am sure
that members can be very satisfied with the improvements and
the strengthening of actions and sentencing around criminal
acts.
[Translation]
I fully agree with the objective of this bill as well as with all
its provisions. That being said, my remarks will deal with two
points in particular: first, offences motivated by hate and
second, offenders abusing a position of trust.
[English]
I believe that equality for all Canadians includes freedom
from hatred and from harassment. Expressions of hatred have
absolutely no place in Canadian society. Openness,
understanding and sharing are features that shape our collective
identity. Most Canadians believe that each one of us has the
right to live free from hatred or expressions of hatred and
actions that are motivated by hatred.
I have always felt, and I have actually been convinced, that a
crime motivated by hate based on one's race, religion, sex, age,
sexual orientation, mental or physical capacity or any other
form of that nature is a very serious crime and needs to be looked
at in a particular light.
With this bill, such hate motivations will be considered an
aggravating circumstance in the Criminal Code for the first
time. It therefore will define and ensure that these crimes will be
treated much more severely.
One of the strongest aspects of the new hate crime proposal is
in its broad scope. It enshrines even further the principles that
one finds behind section 15 of the charter which is a
fundamental value for all Canadians.
While we are generally more aware of hate crimes related to
religion, racism or sexual orientation, we must not forget that
women as a group also come under attack simply because they
are women.
In the aftermath of the massacre of 14 women at the École
Polytechnique de Montréal in 1989, our country was shocked to
discover the hatred that some men feel toward women. That was
a very shocking moment and made many Canadians sit up and
take note.
Women's experience in the criminal justice system is
primarily that of victim. The way they are treated in the justice
system is critical in their efforts to achieve equality as a right.
Our vision, reflected in Bill C-41 and other initiatives, is one of
a society and a justice system in which all Canadians are full and
equal partners, confident that their rights will be upheld by the
law.
(1510 )
The disturbing increase in the expressions of hatred and
discrimination in our society is well documented. Since 1989
there has been a marked upsurge in hate group activity
throughout the world, certainly right here in Canada. These
groups are now better organized, they are far more subtle in their
approach, and they have developed new strategies which really
need to be addressed. One needs to be far more sensitive to read
the message behind the message. It is subliminal in many cases
and much more invidious in its intent.
The Solicitor General has estimated that over 52 neo-Nazi
groups and 85 other associations promoting hatred are currently
operating in this country. I believe that is cause for serious
concern.
In its 1993 annual audit of anti-semitic incidents in Canada,
the league of human rights of B'Nai Brith Canada recorded a 31
per cent increase in anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism.
The league documented a disturbing increase in hate group
activity. They have, to quote the league: ``adopted a more
militant and activist stance than in prior years''. I can tell the
House that those acts of vandalism and those expressions of
hatred, which I have seen on the walls of synagogues and
buildings in my riding of Mount Royal, are really distressing
and very disturbing. Young people who come to schools or go
into the cemeteries are really quite shocked and it leaves a mark
on them.
[Translation]
Often, our personal knowledge or experience of ways hatred
can be expressed gives statistics a sense of reality and urgency. I
am convinced that all the hon. members of this House can
remember a specific incident or action intended to frighten or
harm someone by reason of his or her race, religion, colour or
sexual orientation, just because they were different.
The increasing diversity of our population's make-up poses
quite a challenge to Canadian society as a whole.
[English]
We all have a sense of pride and are all very thrilled when we
read that the United Nations finds Canada the finest place in the
world in which to live. Notwithstanding that, we have a series of
warts. It is important to look at these and see how we can excise
this unacceptable behaviour from our society.
We know that Canada is a multicultural and multilingual
country from its beginnings. Our native peoples, our aboriginal
peoples, are multicultural and multilingual. They were joined by
5902
English and French, both languages and both cultures, to form a
beautiful mix. Now, according to the 1991 census, 42 per cent of
Canadians have origins other than British or French.
It is important to note that in Mount Royal riding-and I think
it is a perfect example, although perhaps a little bit more
concentrated than in other cities-the statistics show that 43.5
per cent of the population is first generation immigrants to
Canada. This does not take into account the balance of the
population in my riding who are of ethnic origin and who have
been here since the early 1800s. It is a very diversified riding
and I am proud to have about 60 different ethnic minority groups
represented. They speak the languages of the world. These are
the languages and the cultures of multicultural business in this
global economy. They are important to us for a variety of
reasons and it is exciting because you can have the wonderful
experience of living in such a multicultural society.
They make up, all these Canadians, the majority in every
major urban centre. By the year 2006 the proportion of
Canadians who are visible minorities is expected to be between
13 and 18 per cent. In Toronto, the city with the greatest
diversity, some suggest that the proportion could be as high as
50 per cent. These great urban centres reflecting our diversity
make for culturally and socially exciting and dynamic
communities in which to live, ones in which we can really
flourish and grow.
(1515)
However, we have to be forever vigilant. Hate motivated
crimes can be found in this kind of a mix if we do not take care, if
we are not vigilant. It could be a threat to the social cohesion of
these communities. It could impede equal and full participation
for all. It leads to alienation, a sense of disenfranchisement and a
feeling of powerlessness.
There are some basic trusts we as a nation cannot afford to
break. I will enunciate some: the right of all persons to enjoy
their own language and culture; the right of a family to worship
without fear of violence and distrust; and the right of women to
walk safely on the streets in their communities.
To avoid conflict and maintain social harmony, our
institutions must redouble their efforts to develop policies,
programs and practices that recognize the reality of Canadian
diversity and move to ensure this social cohesion. We need
access, understanding and respect if we are to live together in
peace and harmony.
Among those institutions that are ensuring this happens is our
justice system, which has a great responsibility and a
fundamental role to play in ensuring this trust and fairness. The
system must demonstrate without ambiguity that hate crimes
will not be tolerated in Canada. It is just not to be tolerated. It is
not the Canadian way and it is absolutely not acceptable.
[Translation]
The provisions of this bill by which hate motives constitute
aggravating circumstances for the purpose of sentencing should
have been implemented a long time ago. They reflect this
government's commitment to protecting the fundamental right
of all Canadians to live without being afraid, to live in peace and
security and to live as equals. Obviously, it does not suffice to
ensure that hate will be deemed an aggravating circumstance,
this must be part of an integrated approach to promote
understanding and respect within the society.
[English]
We must work together in a broad range of legislative and
non-legislative areas. It is the responsibility of the people in
this House representing all Canadians to ensure that hate and the
manifestations of hate are eradicated from this society.
It is very important that we educate today's youth about hate
crime: how to understand it; how to sense it; and how to speak
out against it. We have to emphasize the determinant role they
will play both in terms of prevention and in terms of the
promotion of peace and goodwill.
In that spirit our multiculturalism department in many ways
with its cross-cultural and intercultural activities and its race
relations undertaking and in partnership with society has
developed many programs. Among them are the very helpful
programs of educational materials developed for students and
teachers on human rights, prejudice, racism and racial
discrimination.
We have acted in many ways with the schools. I have travelled
across this country and have seen students in action. It has been
a pleasure to listen to these young students who understand,
recognize and respond to racism. They know prejudice when
they see it. Unfortunately, it is when they get home that it often
gets reinforced. It is very important that they learn the lesson of
speaking out, so it never happens again.
Our program uses a variety of public educational tools to
speak out against hate and racism. It explains that each one of us
can make a difference and that Canadians need to work together
to ensure peace and harmony. It works particularly when we
work in collaboration with different ministries, for example
with the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice.
The multiculturalism department has done some very
extensive work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and many other
such structured institutions.
This bill will give all of us another tool that can be used to
educate while addressing the issues of hatred.
(1520 )
Unfortunately this century has and continues to demonstrate
in many parts of the world the end result of unchecked acts of
hatred based on who you are and not what you are. Canada is a
place where this is not to happen any more. Canada is one
5903
example to the world that we are determined to live in a
respectful environment in a respectful society. Those who do not
wish to share and participate in this Canadian experiment shall
be given an appropriate sentence with this new bill which
indicates we shall not accept these expressions in our society.
I said I wanted to pay attention to two aspects of this very
extensive bill. The other aspect I want to discuss is the key
element of the amendment package, sexual assault involving a
breach of trust.
Under this bill if a person is found to be guilty of sexual
assault and that person was in a position of trust or authority
with the victim, that fact will be considered an aggravating
factor which will affect the severity of the sentence. This is very
important particularly for women and children for they are the
primary victims of sexual assault.
The fact that sexual assault involving breach of trust is a grave
problem in this country is very disturbing on the one hand and is
plain to see on the other. Canadian statistics revealed that in
1993 over three-quarters of reported sexual assault victims
knew their assailants. That StatsCan survey was a true eye
opener. On taking the microscope and magnifying the study
through the language in the Criminal Code we found statistics
that were quite revolting with respect to sexual assault and the
victims. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
According to a national phone survey done by StatsCan, only
6 per cent of the women who told interviewers they had been
assaulted had never reported it to the police. They were
frightened. Why? One of the reasons is that that women report
sexual assaults they do not believe they will be treated fairly by
the judge listening to the case within the court system.
The new directions and the new directives on sentencing are
going to help change that attitude. The judges will be
enlightened as to what this government believes should be the
proper action and the proper response given in these
circumstances.
In a society in which prejudice and stereotype still exist, a
woman is often blamed for being sexually assaulted. What is
happening as well is women are seeing the inappropriate
sentences that are given to perpetrators. This helps reinforce
their attitude that they are not being considered fairly in the
decisions that are rendered.
For too long our justice system has operated without any
clearly defined understanding of breaches of trust in cases of
sexual assault. Indeed in some cases the fact that the aggressor
occupied a position of trust either as a good parent or a pillar of
the community has even led to lighter sentencing. This is wrong,
terribly and shockingly wrong. It is totally unacceptable. I am
very pleased that the Minister of Justice acknowledges this and
has brought to bear some changes in the system which will
enlighten the judges in this regard.
To state it plainly, when someone violates a position of trust,
whether he is a relative, an employer, a teacher, a doctor or some
other figure of authority, he may do even greater damage to the
victim than the anonymous rapist who attacks in the dark alley.
This is particularly true if the victim is young. I would like this
House to know that 63 per cent of sexual assaults involve
victims under the age of 18 years. I say this is wrong. It is
terribly wrong and it has to stop.
[Translation]
Victims of aggressions involving breach of trust could well
suffer irreparable emotional and psychological damage.
Women and children who were molested by a friend, a family
member or a mentor can no longer trust and love. They lose part
of their humanity.
It may be difficult for a woman who has been victim of an
aggression to maintain healthy intimate relationships, whether
with close male friends or members of their family and even
with their own spouse.
(1525)
Many have to quit work, while others can no longer trust
certain professionals. Their pain and suffering is often
exacerbated by the fact that their aggressor does not face
prosecution or gets off with a slap on the wrist.
[English]
A national study of court cases conducted by the metro action
committee on public violence against women and children
looked at how sexual assaults involving breaches of trust are
dealt with in our justice system. It concluded that judges often
fail to recognize a breach of trust.
In the many court cases studied 47 per cent involved an
offender who was a father, a paternal figure, a relative, a friend
of the parent, someone in a position of authority, or someone in a
professional role. They all had had privileged relationships with
the victim. Yet in over 40 per cent of these cases this privileged
relationship was not even mentioned in the judges' comments or
in the discussion of aggravating factors.
Furthermore when judges do recognize a breach of trust it is
not always evident that they have given it appropriate weight in
determining the offender's sentence. This bill will begin to
rectify that situation by giving judges clear directives about
what constitutes a breach of trust. The reformed Criminal Code
will be better equipped to deal with this form of sexual abuse.
This provision will also send a message to individuals in a
position of power. It says that if you use your relationship to take
advantage of women or children, you will be treated harshly by
the system. In other words, the greater a person's influence, the
greater the responsibility to treat others with respect, and the
5904
greater the consideration of a stiffer fine and sentencing. Not
even a fine, sentencing.
The amendments in this reform package, especially those
dealing with hate crimes and breach of trust, will help rebuild
people's faith in our justice system. It will encourage women to
be far more courageous and more open and to feel that they will
be better treated if they bring the cases before the courts. That
faith has been sorely tested in recent years as we have learned of
the extent of violence against women and have lived through
many incidences of hate motivated crimes.
I am grateful to the Minister of Justice for moving swiftly to
deal with these problems. This bill is an example of our
government's commitment to a just and peaceful society, a safe
society with safe streets. If those words sound familiar it is
because I am repeating them. They are printed and published in
our best seller, the red book. We have kept our promises. These
proposals follow through on the commitments we have made.
They are the result of extensive consultations and co-operation
with the provinces and the territories on sentencing reform.
In the name of all of our citizens, the women, men and
children of this society, I am very pleased with this bill. I hope as
it goes though this House people will recognize the importance
of the fairness of this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what the hon. member had to say. She
mentioned hate, and I agree that is not acceptable. However,
legislation does not necessarily make certain acts more
acceptable. And she had something to say about what is
legislated and what is not legislated, and she has a point. I would
like to ask her something in this connection. When she started on
the word hate, I thought: hate is the opposite of love.
In Canada, there are broken families and broken individuals
as well. She referred to big cities like Toronto and Montreal.
And she is right.
(1530)
She referred to what happened at the polytechnical institute,
which shook us all. These were young women with a brilliant
future. Today, in our schools, even in our secondary schools,
twelve, thirteen and fourteen year-olds have suffered because
we have no comprehensive social plan, as far as I am concerned.
We have no plan for families, and as a result, we end up with
laws that are harsh and sometimes very much so.
It is easy to say we have no choice, that the facts are there and
crimes are being committed. However, if we look at the causes,
and my question is all about this, could we not do a lot more in
the way of prevention? Could we not provide more help for
Canadian families? Could we not give more help to
single-parent families and children? What about changing
family allowance payments, considering the reduction in
unemployment insurance benefits, and the increase in the
number of hours people must work, since the unemployed have
so much trouble making ends meet?
I think we should look at the whole picture and not just this
particular legislation, even if we must change it.
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the question, if
we can call it a question, was actually an expression of concern
and an analysis of our society which, I think, is well-founded
and I share the concerns expressed by the hon. member. As I
believe I said at the beginning of my speech, legislation is part
of the greater picture, which includes education, awareness and
appreciating the differences in our society. And that is probably
why I referred to the diversity that, to me, is a splendid aspect of
our society but also a very fragile one, just as democracy is
fragile. If we do not take care of it, if we do not approach it with
that ``stirred in the pot'' love when we tend this splendid and
colourful garden, if I may use this metaphor, our failure to do so
will cause problems and a great deal of pain.
The problems are caused by a lack of understanding, a lack of
information and stereotypes that are rooted deep down. That is
why the department of which I am Secretary of State, the
multiculturalism department, is so important. For what it takes
to buy one chocolate bar a year for everyone in Canada, we are
setting up programs to bring people together, education
programs, awareness programs and programs to promote what
we are as Canadians and the mutual respect that should be part of
everything we do.
We must understand this. We must realize that when you come
from another country, another culture, and speak a language
other than English and French, you have a lot to learn, and it
takes more than a year or two to do that. After a few years, you
get to the point that you are in a position to learn and you can
learn. The groups we find in our communities and our
neighbourhoods are there to help each other, to give a helping
hand to new residents and help them understand Canadian
democracy, the way we act and the way we speak and what is
acceptable and what is not, and that hate and any kind of sexual
assault are not acceptable, period.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
before getting back into the routine, I would like to wish the
Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Acting Speakers the very
best for this session. Your patience no doubt will be tested and I
pray you will continue to make the decisions that are in the best
5905
interests of all of the citizens of this great country. I wish you the
best.
(1535 )
I also bring greetings from the constituents of
Yorkton-Melville in Saskatchewan to all the members of
Parliament and sincerely hope that all the members will direct
their efforts to the most serious problems facing us at this time,
problems like the debt, the economy, unemployment, criminal
justice reform, as we are dealing with now, and the desperate
need to reform our social programs.
I hope that we will focus on these things and apply ourselves
to dealing with them.
We have heard from a number of Reform MPs who have
expressed their qualified support for certain provisions of Bill
C-41. We have also heard of some of their recommendations for
improvement. While I share my colleagues's support for the
general principles and intent of this bill, it is clear that it is not a
bill that a Reform government would have drafted.
For example, section 745.6(2)(d) will now permit judges to
receive and consider information provided by a victim at early
parole hearings of murderers sentenced to life imprisonment
supposedly without eligibility of parole. These people have
been sentenced and now, under section 745, they have the
possibility after 15 years of applying for parole.
While Reformers would rather have seen the complete repeal
of section 745 and have these convicted murderers stay behind
bars and serve their full sentences, we commend the government
for at least taking a step in the right direction by recognizing that
victims do have some rights to be heard at these hearings.
I am concerned that this specific amendment does not specify
how the judge may receive the information from the victims or
the victims' relatives. Will it simply be a victim's statement or
will the victims themselves be allowed to appear in court and
give evidence under oath? This has to be clarified during the
committee stage. There is no clear evidence here that victims
will have any more rights than criminals throughout this entire
reform of the criminal justice system. That is a principle that we
must clearly enunciate in our legislation and that has not been
done in this amendment.
The minister cited the experience of Marie King Forest. Will
she have the right to appear before the parole committee and
give evidence of the impact the murder of her husband, a
policeman, had on her life and the lives of her children? That
murderer is now applying for parole and these people are still
trying to put their lives together. Will there be clear, ample
opportunity for her to personally testify at these parole
hearings? That is not specified in this amendment.
After reading Bill C-41 I could not help but conclude that it is
a make work project for lawyers. I was listening to the hon.
minister a few minutes ago. I am convinced that this legislation
will provide more and more work for lawyers in our courts.
There seems to be more of a focus on bureaucratic procedures
than imposing sentences and getting tough on crime. That is not
acceptable and Canadians are calling for this government to get
tough and not make more procedures and more work for the
lawyers.
When I see that certain murderers will get a more serious or
stiffer sentence because their crime was motivated by hate
rather than doing something for kicks, as was the case with this
policeman, or for some other reason there is a serious flaw here.
It will be a lawyer's dream to now work with this new
legislation.
Trials will now have this new added dimension. As they
discuss this they of course will be accumulating revenue. Let us
focus on the crime.
(1540 )
Now to my real concern about this bill. The Minister of
Justice has spent the last six months getting Canadians all riled
up about gun control. The first opportunity that he has to do
something about it, the first opportunity that this government
has to address this problem and to do something about the
criminal use of guns, they do nothing. They have missed their
chance. That is a major concern of mine and of many Canadians.
Everyone knows that this is a serious deficiency not only in the
use of section 85 of the Criminal Code but also in the sentences
meted out by judges.
For the benefit of this House and the Canadian people, section
85 provides for a mandatory sentence for any person using a
firearm in the commission of an indictable offence. The
sentences can range from a minimum of one year to a maximum
of 14 years for the first offence, and for a second or subsequent
offence a minimum of three years and a maximum of 14 years.
Section 85 also requires that the sentences be served
consecutively, added on to their other sentence.
The Minister of Justice talks about imposing more inane
restrictions, empty foolish restrictions, on law-abiding,
responsible gun owners while he did not take this opportunity to
put more teeth into the sentencing of criminals convicted under
section 85. That is a grave omission.
I know the Minister of Justice has asked the provincial
attorneys general to ensure that more charges are laid under
section 85 rather than using it primarily as a plea bargaining
tool. The studies show that even when section 85 is used by the
police the sentences are rarely in line with what the public would
consider punishment fit for the crime or anything near what the
people would consider a deterrent-completely lacking.
5906
Before we look specifically at the sentencing under section
85, we must look at the overall leniency of our criminal courts.
In 1991-92 the Canadian centre for justice statistics completed a
study of the sentencing of adult criminal provincial court in six
provinces using a data base of over 600,000 criminal
convictions. It found that the maximum penalties were imposed
very rarely in adult provincial courts. Of the 52 offences
carrying an identifiable maximum penalty, 31 of the crimes had
never had the maximum penalty imposed; 17 had the maximum
penalty imposed only one per cent of the time and only four had
the maximum penalty imposed over 5 per cent of the time.
I ask the members of this House is this what the government
means by getting tough on crime?
Let us look at this study and see what it tells us about
sentences for the use of a firearm during the commission of an
offence. First of all, the number of convictions is important to
look at. The study by the Canadian centre for justice statistics
found that in the 1991-92 year in just six provinces there were
only 52 convictions under section 85 for using a firearm in the
commission of an offence. Compare this with 12,287
convictions for violent crimes that same year; 52 convictions
out of 12,287 convictions for violent crimes under section 85 for
using a firearm in the commission of an offence.
(1545 )
Here is a breakdown of those violent offences: manslaughter,
73 convictions; robbery, 2,181 convictions; sexual assault with
a weapon, 94 convictions; assault with a weapon, 5,787
convictions; careless dangerous use of a firearm, 2,130
convictions; the possession of a firearm or weapon, 2,022
convictions. Out of all of these, there were 52 convictions under
section 85 of using a firearm in the commission of an offence.
This is a total of 12,287 convictions for violent crimes.
Granted I can hear some people saying we do not know how
many convicted criminals actually used a firearm, but we are
certain that it was a lot more than 52 times out of 12,287 in all of
these violent crimes that I have given here. Robbery, 2,181-did
all of these people rob without a gun?
Section 85 is not being used. The Minister of Justice is trying
to convince the provinces to instruct their police forces to use
section 85 more. Let us look at the sentences for 52 section 85
convictions in 1991-92. The minimum sentence under section
85 of the Criminal Code is one year and the maximum is 14
years.
In all 52 convictions under section 85 every single one of
them received the minimum one year sentence. That is getting
tough on the criminal misuse of firearms? I find this statistic so
amazing I have to say it again. In 100 per cent of the 52
convictions for using a gun during the commission of a crime the
criminals received the minimum one year sentence, one year in
jail. This is proof positive that something has to be done with
regard to sentencing for section 85 convictions.
Bill C-41 that we have before this House must be amended. If
the courts will not use the sentencing provisions of section 85 to
deter the criminal use of guns then Parliament must. We must
not neglect our duty. We must use the responsibility that people
have entrusted us with to make our criminal justice system work
in this country.
If judges persist in sentencing criminals who use guns to the
minimum time in jail then Parliament must act to increase the
minimum mandatory sentence to three years. I think section 85
should be amended to read ``use of weapons'', not just
``firearms''. That is a serious loophole in the law that must be
closed.
I ask the government to do what makes sense and do what the
vast majority of Canada is asking: get tough on crime. Do not
look at legitimate gun owners and see what restrictions we can
put on them. Target the problem where the problem exists.
I cannot believe that this government left such an important
provision out of the sentencing bill. What possible reason could
it have for this oversight? Could it be that it is not serious about
getting tough on crime? Could it be that all the focus of its
efforts to control crime will be directed, as I have said, at
law-abiding, responsible gun owners rather than at the criminal
who uses guns? Why should it be left to Reform MPs to identify
the major deficiency in Bill C-41?
I hope now that it has been pointed out that all the members of
the justice committee will support an amendment of this bill
related to the sentencing for convictions under section 85.
Let us look at how section 85 might be better applied in a
recent case. Everyone has heard about the Just Desserts killing
in Toronto on April 5. Four men walked in, robbed the patrons of
the restaurant and used a sawed-off shotgun to kill one of the
customers. Three men have been charged so far, one with murder
and 12 robberies and the other two with manslaughter and 12
robberies. As far as we know charges have not been laid under
section 85 of the Criminal Code.
(1550)
Since the Just Desserts killing there have been calls for more
gun control by people with the mistaken belief that controlling
guns will somehow control crime. It will not. The criminals in
the Just Desserts killing were already using a prohibited
weapon, a sawed-off shotgun. What are we doing? Are we going
to prohibit them even more than they already are?
There have been very few calls for what is really needed, more
crime control and not gun control. One way to control crime is to
send a clear message to all prospective criminals that the public
and our criminal justice system will not tolerate the criminal use
5907
of guns. The best way to send this message is to hand out tougher
sentences.
The persons in the Just Desserts killing should not only be
charged with murder, manslaughter and 12 robberies but should
also be charged under section 85 for using a firearm in the
commission of an indictable offence, one section 85 charge for
each of the robberies and another section 85 charge for the
murder.
This would give the judge the option of sentencing another
182 years in jail for the sentences for each of these convicted of
the senseless, horrific crime. What if, after the conviction, the
newspaper headlines read: ``Just Desserts killers get just
desserts, sentenced to a maximum of 507 years each''? ``Justice
minister promises they will never get out to kill again''. This
would be the maximum life sentence for the murder, the
maximum life sentence for each of the 12 robberies and the
maximum sentence of 14 years for using a firearm in each of the
robberies and another 14 years for using a firearm in the murder.
Would this not send a clearer signal to those who are going to
use guns with criminal intent? Would this not be a clearer
deterrent than making laws which ban guns which the criminals
disobey anyway? They will still continue to saw off their
shotguns and use them any way they want to.
There will always be those who will be saying that sentencing
a criminal to 507 years is ridiculous and of course 507 years is
impossible to serve. However, it is even more ridiculous to let
killers serving life sentences with no eligibility for parole back
on our streets in 15 years by using the Liberal loophole of
section 745.
What is more ridiculous? Compare those two things. It sounds
ridiculous to sentence somebody to 507 years but it is even more
ridiculous to let them off easy. I appeal to this government to get
tough on crime. The criminal misuse of guns,rather than what
they are doing now should be addressed instead of putting in
more stupid regulations on law-abiding citizens.
Liberals are very famous for big government, higher taxes and
intrusion into the lives of Canadians. More common sense is
needed in this legislation. Do not just make it appear like the
government is doing something. Really get to the root of the
problem and solve it. Do not just talk the talk, walk the walk.
The Minister of Justice said this morning that he has been
planning this for 14 years. Why did the government not come up
with something more substantive if it has had that much time?
Surely it could have closed some of these loopholes and
addressed some of these problems.
The minister had many Canadians telling him this summer the
ideas that he has been floating with regard to gun control do not
get to the heart of the problem. He had an opportunity to do
something and he never did it. I hope some amendments will be
made in this committee. I look forward to making some
suggestions to the minister.
(1555 )
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to refer to the hon. member's comment about the Liberal
loophole of section 745. The rationale I believe the member
used for not removing section 745 entirely was the will of the
Canadian people to get tough on crime.
I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention that
section 745 is a judicial review heard with a judge and jury
where two thirds of the jury must make the finding for a
convicted person to be released.
I would ask the hon. member is that not dealing with the
people through our judge and jury system, trial by our peers?
What objection does he have to that?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, the
question is a good one.
If the member is familiar with what is happening with regard
to section 745 at the present time, I do not have the statistics at
my fingertips, but what is happening is that over half of these
people are being released because a lot of the evidence is not
admissible in these court trials and it is being used as a loophole
to get these people off after 15 years.
Part of the problem is being addressed by the legislation and I
commend the government for doing that because it will allow
victim impact statements to be submitted but it does not indicate
how those victim impact statements will be used in these trials.
Will the person be able to testify before this jury? At the present
time they are generally not allowed to do so unless the judge
rules otherwise in some provinces.
In most cases those people who, if we had capital punishment,
would not even be here are being released on to our streets. That
is what people find unacceptable. These people who in more
than half the cases were given a life sentence are now being
released. That is the problem.
Much of the testimony that should be given because of other
legal loopholes is not even allowed at that trial. It is a very
interesting study to see what is happening under section 745 and
to see how the criminal element has more rights than the victim
with regard to all of this legislation. That is why we would like
to close some of these loopholes.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question for the member of the Reform Party.
It seems like every time we deal with the issue of crime and
justice which is certainly a very difficult issue, I get the
impression that they would have us be like the United States of
5908
America with the death penalty and sentences that go into
hundreds of years.
The member made a comment about not talking the talk but
walking the walk. I wonder if the member is aware of a number
of studies that have been done particularly the one by Dr.
Anthony Doob, one of the foremost experts in the area of public
perception of the judicial system. The points Dr. Doob made in
his conclusions were based on the following.
He gave a group of people the transcripts of what actually
went on in a court case. Covering the same court case, he had
another group of people who got the reports from the printed
media. The findings were that people who responded on the
appropriateness of the sentences and who used the media as the
source of their information in many cases had the same attitude
espoused by members of the Reform Party such as the justice
system is not working and that judges are being much too
lenient.
(1600 )
The other group of people who had transcripts to refer to so
they could decide if the sentencing judge had given an
appropriate sentence concluded that the system was working
quite well and that in some cases the judicial system was more
harsh than it needed to be. The public even proposed that things
like fine option programs and alternatives to incarceration
should be tried.
The question I want to pose is this. Surely the members of the
Reform Party recognize that we do not, in Canada, follow the
model of the United States in terms of criminology. We happen
to be a little bit more enlightened. Surely the member of the
Reform Party recognizes that Canada is a much safer society
than is the United States. If capital punishment and the kind of
justice they are talking about were to work, the United States of
America would be a safe place to live. It is not. Compared to it,
we are doing very well.
I am really troubled with this pandering to the worst
misconceptions that the member and his party seem to cater to.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome that question. I will address the first part of his
question concerning capital punishment. We do not have to
decide that question here. We can have a discussion.
That question can be decided by the people of Canada in a
binding referendum. That is who should decide it. I call on this
government to hold that binding referendum.
In reply to the other issue that was raised, if the hon. member
has had any experience with the criminal justice system, if he
has been wronged, if his constituents come to him and describe
their experience with our criminal justice system, he will realize
very quickly that it needs fixing.
I could cite example after example of where people have been
the victims of crime. Those people then go to the trials; they
appeal to the judge for some justice; they go to the police and
cannot get justice because people hide behind loopholes in the
law.
That is the kind of experience I am talking about now. People
have had experiences like this. They see that horrific crimes
have been committed. There was a murder in my constituency of
an elderly man just a very brief time ago. One of the perpetrators
got four years. Now he is eligible for parole. That man's wife
cannot understand how this can be. You can use all the elitist
arguments about how the biggest brains in this country know so
much more than the ordinary person, but I do not buy it. That is a
typical Liberal attitude: they know better.
It is about time we listened to some of the people who have
experience with the way the criminal justice system works and
how they, the victims, have virtually no say in that system.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
there have been discussions among the parties. I think you will
find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That on Wednesday, September 21, 1994, the House shall continue to sit from
6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. for the purpose of considering the motion by the Minister
of Foreign Affairs with regard to peacekeeping, provided the proceedings
pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up at 8.30 p.m. and provided that
no dilatory motions or quorum calls should be receivable after 6.30 p.m. on that
day.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
5908
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1605)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other
acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
previous speaker referred to the fact that if one had some
experience in the criminal justice system. I wish to inform the
hon. member that for 15 years I worked with victims and
offenders in the criminal justice system.
5909
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I say respectfully to all
our colleagues in the House of Commons that is not a point of
order.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, as a
practising defence lawyer with 17 years experience in the
criminal justice system I commend the Minister of Justice for
introducing sentencing practices which are responsive to the
concerns and values of Canadians and which address the many
existing injustices inherent in the criminal procedure process
and the practices of our criminal justice system.
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code of Canada with
respect to sentencing is a bill which reflects the government's
commitment to a renewed criminal justice system that is
balanced, fair, and encourages respect for the law.
Justice, law and equality are the fundamental elements
required to maintain a balance within our criminal justice
system. However, the determining factor is the human element.
It is the human element that determines the success or failure
of our criminal justice system. The human element includes
ourselves as individuals who are to be law-abiding citizens, the
community at large which develops public opinion, the role of
our law enforcers which is to enforce law, the role of our
prosecutors administering justice within the system, the role of
defence counsel defending and protecting rights of the accused,
the role of the judiciary rendering a decision, the role of our
probation officers, psychologists, social workers, health care
professionals, penal institution employees, our clergymen
regarding the rehabilitation of the accused, and the role of we
here today, the legislators, enacting the law.
The success of the system does not primarily rely on
legislation. The fundamental success of our criminal justice
system relies on the ability of man to administer justice without
abuse of authority and power, and the ability of man to
administer justice coupled with equity and mercy.
Justice, law and morality are inseparable. If a moral society
existed there would be no need for criminal sanction. It is a
requirement for this criminal sanction in our society that
necessitates government to deter, to punish, to rehabilitate its
members of society.
Bill C-41 on sentencing reform introduces changes to the
sentencing system while also reorganizing and rationalizing it.
The reforms provide a balanced, sensible and broad range of
options that address the public's need for safety, the victims'
desire for restitution, and the important principle that serious
offenders should be treated differently from minor or first-time
offenders.
The amendments are the result of extensive consultations in
co-operation with the provinces and territories that are
responsible for administering the criminal justice system.
This bill provides the courts with more options to distinguish
between serious violent crime requiring jail and less serious,
non-violent crime that could be addressed more effectively at
the community level.
For those Canadians who demand equity in sentencing, Bill
C-41 addresses this concern by introducing a statement of
purpose and principles of sentencing within the Criminal Code.
No statement of purpose and principles of sentencing
currently exist in the Criminal Code. While court rulings have
determined principles, these may vary from province to
province. To date Parliament's role has largely been limited to
setting maximum penalties for specific offences rather than
dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.
Under the proposals, a statement of purpose in principles of
sentencing will be added to the Criminal Code. This statement
will provide direction to the courts and the fundamental purpose
of sentencing to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful
and safe society.
(1610 )
The statement describes the objectives of sentencing as
follows: first, helping in the rehabilitation of offenders as
law-abiding persons; second, separating offenders from society
where necessary; third, providing restitution to individual
victims or the community; fourth, promoting a sense of
responsibility by offenders, including encouraging
acknowledgement by offenders of the harm done to victims or to
the community at large; fifth, denouncing unlawful conduct; and
sixth, deterring the offender and other people from committing
offences.
In achieving these objectives the court will be guided by a
number of fundamental principles: first, a sentence must reflect
the seriousness of the offence; second, the degree of
responsibility of the offender; third, courts must consider
aggravating and mitigating circumstances; fourth, give similar
sentences to offenders who have committed similar acts; fifth,
when an offender receives more than one sentence, the total
should not be unduly long or harsh; sixth, the offender should
not be imprisoned if less restrictive alternatives are appropriate;
and seventh, all reasonable alternatives should be considered
when sentencing offenders.
The statement of purpose and principles will also note the
importance of crime prevention to public safety. In addition, it
will recognize that wherever appropriate, alternative measures
designed to meet the special needs of aboriginal offenders
should be used. The statements of purpose and principles in the
Criminal Code will emphasize unity and coherence in the
criminal justice system. These measures will ensure greater
5910
consistency, balance and fairness within the criminal justice
system as a whole.
Adding a statement of purpose and principles makes the
sentencing process responsive to public concerns by ensuring
that it is governed by principles set out by Parliament. Clearly
defining the purpose of sentencing also makes the system more
understandable, predictable and accessible to the public.
A national policy statement on sentencing will also provide
the legal community with a more consistent direction on how to
approach sentencing in Canada.
The proposed statement of principles also says that when an
offence is motivated by hate based on the race, nationality,
colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, or
sexual orientation of the victim, this must be considered an
aggravating circumstance.
Any offence motivated by hate against any individual in
Canada should not be tolerated. I wish to reiterate this
statement, that any offence motivated by hate against any
individual in Canada should not be tolerated.
However, I wish to go on record today as taking exception to
the specific inclusion of the wording of ``sexual orientation'' in
the Criminal Code amendment. The inclusion of this wording in
effect gives special rights, special consideration, to
homosexuals. The reference to sexual orientation in the code
and its proposed inclusion in the human rights legislation gives
recognition to a faction in our society which is undermining and
destroying our Canadian values and Christian morality. Such a
special recognition of sexual orientation in our federal
legislation is an overt condonation of the practice of
homosexuality which is being imposed on Canadians. It has the
effect of legislating a morality that is not supported by our
Canadian and Christian morals and values.
Canadians do not have to accept homosexuality as being
natural and moral. Homosexuality is not natural, it is immoral
and it is undermining the inherent rights and values of our
Canadian families and it must not and should not be condoned.
The public expresses legitimate concerns for victims of
crime. Bill C-41 provides enhanced provisions for victims.
Some courts have excluded victim information from being
considered at section 745 hearings because this information was
felt to be a form of victim impact statement, which according to
the Criminal Code can only be heard at sentencing hearings.
(1615)
The amendments to the Criminal Code would allow victim
information at section 745 hearings. This would ensure that a
victim has the opportunity to speak about the harm done by the
offender and that the victim's experience is taken into account in
determining whether the period of parole ineligibility should be
reduced.
Bill C-41 addresses the concerns of Canadians with respect to
the issue of restitution. The bill contains proposals that were
developed co-operatively by the federal government and the
provinces. They would allow judges to consider restitution to
cover property and personal injury.
Expanded restitution would also be available in situations
where a person acting in good faith unwittingly becomes the
victim of criminal activities by, for example, unknowingly
buying stolen property that is later confiscated by police.
Provision is made to ensure restitution orders can be enforced
by the civil courts. Victims will also be notified of restitution
orders. As well the code would specifically state that any
restitution order by a criminal court would not limit a victim's
right to sue for damages in a civil court.
Bill C-41 also addresses payment of fines. Currently
one-third of adult offenders in jails in Canada are there because
they did not pay a fine. Research shows that aboriginal people
are especially likely to be jailed due to non-payment of fines. To
ensure that fewer persons are ordered to pay fines they cannot
afford, the proposals would require courts to determine that an
offender can pay the fine being considered.
Offenders who cannot pay can instead be subject to other
options such as community service or probation. A number of
measures are also being proposed to help the provinces in
collecting fines. These include authorizing the provinces to use
the same mechanisms that they use enforcing fines imposed
under federal statute.
Designate officers of the court such as the clerk or registrar to
enforce fines rather than the court itself allows for more cost
efficient administration with respect to the collection of fines.
Ultimately these proposals would result in less crowded, safer
prisons as well as decrease costs. They would also lessen the
potentially damaging effect of imprisonment on people unable
to pay fines. However, maintaining prison as a last resort for
people who can pay fines will ensure that the law is respected.
Another important issue the bill addresses is with respect to
reform regarding probation. The probation provisions of the
Criminal Code have been changed to encourage better
information for the court. Together with greater penalties for
breach of probation this is intended to increase confidence in
this widely used sentence.
Under the proposals the Criminal Code would be intended to
specify the basic information that must be included in a
pre-sentence report. The provinces will also be given the
flexibility to include in their own regulations any other
information they wish to have included in this pre-sentence
report.
5911
The criminal justice system often fails Canadians and
therefore we need alternatives in Canada to court proceedings.
Alternative measures are ways that disputes and minor offences
can be dealt with rather than using expensive and unnecessary
formal court proceedings.
Alternative measures have two central aims: to prevent more
criminal behaviour and to lessen the harm that can sometimes be
done when minor offenders are dealt with through the courts.
They also involve the community and put greater emphasis on
victim-offender reconciliation than do formal court
proceedings. At present the Criminal Code contains no
provisions for alternative measures.
The bill would allow the use of alternative measures for adults
by permitting each province to set up and administer its own
alternative measures program. This proposal is similar to one
successfully used in various jurisdictions for young offenders.
As a result first time and less serious offenders could be diverted
from the courts. This would promote protection of the public by
lessening the negative impact of incarceration on less serious
offenders while freeing up valuable and scarce resources to deal
with the more serious cases. Canadians should know that the bill
would add a new sanction called a conditional sentence to the
Criminal Code. Courts would be permitted to use conditional
sentences when the jail term that would otherwise be imposed
will be less than two years.
(1620)
A judge would impose certain conditions on an offender
similar to the conditions of a probation order. At the same time
the judge would impose a jail term but suspend it as long as the
offender meets the conditions that had been imposed.
Offenders who do not comply with these conditions can be
summoned back to court to explain and to demonstrate why they
should not be incarcerated. The court can cancel the suspension
of the sentence and send the offender to jail for the remainder of
the sentence, or it can impose new conditions.
The proposal would mean that less serious and first time
offenders who otherwise would be in jail could serve their
sentences under tight controls in the community. This promotes
protection of the public by seeking to separate more serious
offenders from the community while providing less serious
offenders with effective community based alternatives. It could
also mean that scarce funds could be used for incarcerating and
treating more serious offenders.
As a defence lawyer I have great concern with respect to the
existing rules of evidence and procedure for the sentencing
hearing. At present there are no clear guidelines in the law
governing the sentencing hearing to indicate when information
should be made available to the court, what powers the court
should have to obtain that information, or how that information
should be assessed in determining sentences. Previous court
rulings may be referred to but they do not cover all situations
and may differ significantly from province to province.
The bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to clarify
how sentences should be handled in the courts. The bill also
requires every judge to present reasons for their sentences in
cases. These amendments bring greater consistency and fairness
to the sentencing process.
The Criminal Code of Canada as a statute requires
restructuring and in particular the restructuring of part 23 of the
Criminal Code. Our current legislation with amendments leaves
us with a piecemeal approach to our Criminal Code. The bill
would amend part 23 so that most matters dealing with
sentencing would be consolidated within this part of the
Criminal Code rather than scattered throughout. Because of the
restructuring in such a logical way our Criminal Code would be
more understandable and accessible to criminal justice
professionals and to the public at large.
Often injustices arise in a criminal justice system on the basis
of technicalities. Technical amendments are required and Bill
C-41 addresses this point. A variety of technical issues are
either not addressed by our current legislation or are being
confused. These include when a probation order should begin,
how a judge can direct the manner in which escape sentences are
to be served in relation to previously imposed sentences, what
happens to a sentence while an inmate is unlawfully at large and
who can authorize the transfer of a probationer from one
province to another. The bill intends to clarify some of these
issues.
In conclusion the reform and the renewal of the criminal
justice system in Canada must be priorities with our
government. Canadians demand justice and equity. They must
be reflected within the criminal practices, procedure and
process in our criminal justice system.
The sentencing amendments proposed by Bill C-41 affords
Canadians sentencing practices and procedures that are just and
equitable throughout Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker, and I also wish you a good session, because I am
glad to see you again after the summer break. I want to thank my
colleague for her speech; to tell you the truth, I do not at all
consider myself an expert on justice issues, but having listened
very closely to the hon. member's speech, I feel some obligation
to get into debate with her, in my capacity as human rights critic
for my party, especially on one aspect of her speech.
She said that this bill is a necessary reform and talked a little
about homosexuality in what I thought were rather pejorative
5912
terms. She said that homosexuality was immoral and that
Canadians were not prepared to tolerate it.
(1625)
I remembered the speech that her colleague, the Secretary of
State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, gave
earlier this afternoon, saying that Canadians should become
more tolerant of one another.
I feel the need to say so because I really have the impression
that the present Minister of Justice will also propose some
reforms concerning discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, making it an illegal ground for discrimination.
I would like to ask my colleague whether we as
parliamentarians should not rather recognize that
homosexuality is a different way of expressing one's sexuality.
Should we as legislators not recognize, especially when
discussing this kind of situation, that homosexuals are estimated
to constitute about 10 per cent of the population in nearly all
societies and that they are entitled to legal rights? Is calling
homosexuality immoral not rather reactionary and intolerant,
contrary to what the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism
urged us to be?
I would like to know what she thinks because I want to say
where I stand when we have the opportunity to discuss these
issues in connection with the amendments to the Canadian
Human Rights Act that the Minister of Justice will present to us.
I hope that, whatever side of this House we sit on, we will find a
little more open-mindedness.
[English]
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important issue which I think has to be and should be addressed
on the floor of the House. Certainly it is an issue that I have not
shied away from. It is not always a very comfortable issue to talk
about.
My learned friend indicated 10 per cent of the population. We
have the majority. We have a democracy. I am representing in
my viewpoint the majority of Canadians. We have to concern
ourselves with the fact that justice, law and morality are
inseparable. We are legislators. When we are legislating and
making laws we must ask ourselves whether our laws are just
and moral.
Morality is constant. Morality does not change with the tide.
We cannot change morality to adhere to a particular faction or
special interest group or to adhere to the whims of 10 per cent of
our population.
When we talk about sexual orientation we are talking about
imposing upon and insisting that all Canadians condone what in
my opinion is immoral and unnatural. We have natural law. I
have gone on record as stating quite clearly that I am opposed to
the inclusion of the words sexual orientation in our Criminal
Code. I have also gone on record as saying in my speech that
certainly in Canada we cannot and should not tolerate hatred of
any kind toward any individual.
As far as the moral issues that are raised here, we have to be
very concerned and considerate of the rights of families in
Canada. Families have inherent rights. Families have existed
before the church and families have existed before the state. The
rights of families in my opinion are being undermined and are
being eroded because of 10 per cent of the population that is
promoting special rights and interests for homosexuals. I am
strongly opposed to that. I will continue to be very vocal about
it. I feel it is time the majority of Canadians stood and were
counted.
(1630 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I am one of the 10 per cent to whom the hon. member
just referred. I am not a member of a special interest group. I am
not a member of a faction. I am a member of a family and gay
and lesbian people in this country, as the member should know,
are also very much not only members of families but are also
families themselves.
I want to take a couple of minutes to respond to the comments
of the hon. member. I want to tell the hon. member that what we
are debating here is legislation which which will ensure that
when a crime is motivated by hatred or intolerance or bigotry,
whether it be based upon sexual orientation, religion, or race,
that crime is punished more severely.
A couple of weeks ago for example the brother of a young
teacher from Toronto came to my office and told me about how
his brother had been brutally murdered by five teenagers in a
Toronto park. He had been kicked to death because he was a
faggot according to them.
I also met with people who were attacked and whose arms
were broken by a group of thugs in a restaurant on Davie Street
in Vancouver. They were attacked for no other reason than the
fact that they happen to be gay.
This legislation says that when attacks are motivated by that
kind of hatred they should be punished more severely.
I want to challenge this member and I want to leave her with
time to respond to this. The hon. member, and I use those words
advisedly, has suggested that ``homosexual couples are not
families in natural law. They will not be family. To condone
homosexuality which is an inhuman act would make us a pagan
nation''. She goes on to suggest that gays and lesbians do not
deserve any protection against discrimination and that
homosexuality is in the same class as pedophilia and bestiality. I
might say as well that I heard hon. members from the Reform
Party saying ``hear, hear'' as she spoke.
5913
My question for the hon. member is a simple one. Will she
now stand in her place and retract those hateful comments she
made suggesting that people, homosexualists as she called
them, were promoting and advancing the homosexual
movement which is spreading AIDS. That kind of fear
mongering, that kind of hateful conduct has no place in this
House.
I want to ask the hon. member to stand in her place and take
this opportunity to withdraw those hateful words. Failing that, I
want to ask other members of the Liberal caucus when will they
end their silence and when will the Prime Minister end his
silence and say that this woman has no place in the Liberal Party
of Canada?
Ms. Skoke: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have
probably squared off on this issue before. I stand here in my
place as a member of Parliament and under no circumstances
would I ever retract the statements I have made. I have a right as
a Canadian. I have a right as a Christian to defend the values of
our country and to defend the traditions and to exercise my right
of freedom of expression on this issue.
My learned friend raised the issue that they were hateful
comments. They are not hateful comments. They are true
comments shared by the majority of Canadians with respect to
issues regarding morality.
My learned friend talks about families. The sole purpose, the
sole agenda behind the homosexualists in our country is with
respect to redefinition of family. I oppose that. I will fight
strongly against that and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I
ask all Canadians to do the same.
Homosexualists enjoy the same rights as every other
Canadian. They do not enjoy any special rights. I as a member of
Parliament will work to ensure that the rights of the majority of
Canadians and that the values and the morality of this country
are upheld.
(1635 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. 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
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Human rights; the hon. member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social spending; the hon.
member for Yukon-National forum on health; the hon. member
for Richelieu-Mass layoffs; the hon. member for
Sarnia-Lambton-Great Lakes sport fishery.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-41. I am very
pleased we are now dealing with the subject of amendments to
sentencing and other aspects dealing with crime.
It is surprising when we look at the economic difficulties this
country has that the public's concern on economic issues is
pretty well at the same level as its concern on crime and public
safety. We have to ask ourselves why that is happening and what
the reason is for this concern.
First we have to say that on reflection our criminal justice
system is working quite well. A lot of things need to be changed
and that is what the Minister of Justice and this government
hope to achieve in this Parliament. Then we will be able to say to
the people in the next federal election that we have done a great
deal to add to public safety.
Before starting down that road however, we have to say that
our system operates quite well. We could bring forward
statistics which say that crime is not increasing to the level some
people would have us believe but frankly, when it comes right
down to it statistics are of limited value.
What we have to face is the public perception of what people
feel is their relative level of safety. That is what we have to deal
with. Canadians must tell us what their concerns are and we have
to listen. In that respect we have to dialogue with Canadians. We
also have to bring forward laws that are going to work for
Canadians, that are meaningful and are going to have an effect.
This bill is very standard in that regard. The people of Canada
have expressed concerns. This piece of legislation goes a long
way in addressing those concerns.
I want to mention some of these concerns and how this
legislation has addressed them. First, the very question of
balance is paramount. We have to balance the needs of
Canadians with good judicial legislation. I think we have done
that here.
Bill C-41 addresses directly the purpose and principles of
criminal sentencing. No such statement currently exists in the
Criminal Code. There is no statement in the Criminal Code
which deals directly with the purpose and principles of criminal
sentencing.
We compare that with other areas of activity in this country.
For instance we compare it with taxation, international trade, or
unemployment insurance. All of these areas deal with very
important subjects. In one way or another all of them have
purposes and principles set down as to what has to be achieved
and how the desired effect is going to be achieved.
(1640)
That is as it should be. Bringing into this bill and bringing into
the criminal justice system the purposes and principles in
sentencing is paramount. In sentencing we are dealing with the
very question of incarceration. There can be no greater
infringement on the lives of individuals frankly, than to
incarcerate them. So the very least we can do is to have purposes
and
5914
principles of criminal sentencing in the bill that deals with that
very important subject.
Sentencing is an area around which the whole court system
revolves. When someone is charged and brought before the
courts, the whole exercise revolves around the sentence this
person is given. We have listened to the counsel on both sides,
the prosecutor and the defence counsel; we have read the laws
and the briefs they presented. We have tried to understand the
societal implications. We are familiar with incarceration and the
other penalties. With all of this knowledge, background and
experience in our criminal justice system, we then bring forward
a sentence. That sentence is vital. That sentence is tremendously
important in the future of our community safety. If we do not
sentence properly, we are not only abusing the system but we are
not doing society a favour.
If we incarcerate someone who perhaps could be
rehabilitated, a young person who has not committed a violent
crime, we are not really doing that young person justice nor are
we doing society justice. Incarceration might make that young
person bitter. Perhaps by putting that young person to work in a
community program he or she could achieve a better
understanding of his or her place in society. That is very
important.
This bill does another important thing. It sets out a number of
objectives for the sentencing process. For instance, in this bill
one of the objectives is that we denounce unlawful conduct. We
also speak of separating the offender from society where
necessary. I say where necessary because it may not be
necessary or even preferable in certain circumstances.
We also talk about rehabilitation of the offender. Regardless
of how people feel the offender should be punished, in most
cases that offender is going to leave incarceration and will be
back in society. Part of our system has to cast an eye to that time
when that offender is back on our city streets. We have to try to
anticipate what kind of a person will be released back onto the
streets. If we can make that person someone who is less likely to
offend then that is also something we should consider.
Another objective in this bill is reparations. This bill says that
it is important to fine somebody, but it is also important to give
that person an appreciation that while they cannot get away with
the crime, that going to jail may not be the greatest punishment
for them.
(1645 )
Maybe it is where they can do it that they should be made to
pay back a certain portion of what was stolen or damaged that
will give this person a true appreciation of exactly what the
victim has lost. That may seem rather simplistic and silly but
sometimes when people commit crime they do not put
themselves in the place of the victim.
They are only doing what they think they want and what they
want to achieve. They do not in the heated moment when the
crime is committed think of the victim and the ramifications for
the victim. In that regard it is important that any person where
possible who is going to be punished be made to think of what
the victim has suffered and as distinctly and as carefully as
possible that offender should be put in the place of the victim.
Reparations would do that by having to pay back. It should not
be necessary that the victim have to apply to a court that these
reparations be made. The court should consider it and we are
saying that these reparations should be a consideration as an
objective of sentencing. The victim should not have to apply.
We also in that same vein are trying to promote responsibility
in the offender. We are trying to make the offender more
responsible from that point forward. We are also saying that an
objective is that the penalty should be proportionate to the
seriousness of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the
offender.
These objectives are very important. It is a checklist for
judges and those involved in the criminal justice system. We
should be looking for and achieving this. As I said initially we
should be looking for this balance in our criminal justice system
so that there is repudiation and punishment but there should also
be a benefit to society in reparations, fines and in the fact that
when that person goes back to society we have looked to that day
and tried to do everything we possibly could to make that person
more acceptable and more responsible in society.
No one would deny that punitive acts should be deterred by
incarceration and that incarceration in most cases is a deterrent.
There is no easy cause and effect relationship between the crime
and the deterrent as to the value that is going to have. There is no
magical formula which says that certain punishment is going to
be the best way to deal with certain crimes.
There are these intangible factors in dealing with human
beings in our criminal justice system that do not allow anyone to
make a hard and fast rule. This is the reason we have to allow the
flexibility in the courts. This is why we need the best minds
possible on our benches in Canada.
We need the best judges we can possibly have and we need the
best support system for these judges. We also feel, as I
mentioned, that restitution be given priority in the courts. We
think this is something that has to be considered.
We have also looked in this bill at section 745 of the Criminal
Code which allows for a review of life sentences and allows the
person serving a life sentence to apply for parole after 15 years.
We have not said that we are going to do away with that
provision. We have said, however, that we want to include in that
review victims' impact statements. Those impact statements
5915
have not been a part of the review before now and the Minister
of Justice certainly feels very strongly that they should be.
I and the minister think that this is going to have a tremendous
impact on the hearings and on final decisions on these section
745 reviews.
(1650 )
We also state in this bill that where a victim impact statement
is provided to a court the court shall consider the statement. That
is not something that is just shoved in with exhibits and
literature in a court hearing. The actual victim impact statement
has to be taken into consideration.
This is important because most people in the House have been
conscious of the fact that victims certainly have not received the
attention they should. Certainly victims have brought forward
that message loud and clear. We have to in our legislation look
more to the victims and what they are suffering, the loss that
they have endured and how we can possibly make their point of
view known at the time of the hearing and have the impact of
what they have gone through and what they have lost impressed
upon the mind of the judge and all of the pertinent officials.
We also, where possible, need alternatives to incarceration.
We can look at that from various points of view. The first thing is
that one-third of all the people incarcerated in this country are
incarcerated because they have not paid a fine or some other sum
of money that they have been required to pay. In a lot of cases the
people do not have the money to pay the fine or the required sum
of money. We are putting these people in jail.
We are also saying that people who commit sexual assaults or
violent crimes need to be punished for longer periods of time. If
we are saying that we want to keep some of these people who
have committed violent crimes in our penitentiary system for
longer periods, we have to look to our correction system. To put
people in a penitentiary because they have not paid fines in this
day and age really has to make us wonder, particularly if they
cannot afford to pay.
There has to be a better way of doing it. One of the ways would
be public service. If they cannot pay the fine then why can they
not be allowed or forced to provide some kind of public service?
A second area that we are recommending is the curtailment of
provincial services. If a person has not paid his or her fine then
perhaps they should not be issued a hunting licence or a driving
licence until that fine is paid. These are things that we with the
provinces should look at to perhaps get away from incarceration
for non-payment of fines. This would go a long way not only as
far as having a better result, but it would give more respect to
our criminal justice system.
Another thing that we want to try as a result of Bill C-41 are
conditional sentences. At the present time we have the process
where a person is put on probation. If they reoffend they are
brought back and charged, they go through the court process
again and they are once again sentenced. Here we are saying that
through conditional sentences a sentence will be levied on the
person. The person then will be granted freedom to act in a
diversion program in their community or an alternative to
incarceration but the sentence has been imposed.
If the person violates the terms of his or her sentence while
they are in one of the alternate processes they are then brought
back to court and it is determined if in fact they have broken
their conditions. If it is determined by the courts that they did
then what they must do is finish the unfinished portion of their
sentence that was imposed on them initially. You do not go
through the whole trial re-evaluating or reappraising their past
history. The sentence is there. If it is proven that they have
violated the conditions of that conditional sentence then the
unfinished portion of their sentence has to be served. I think that
will do a lot to ease the burden of our court system and once
again be more meaningful to those involved.
(1655)
We are also saying to those who are on probation that if they
break probation they break the trust of society. They are not only
breaking the trust of the criminal justice system. They are
breaking the trust of society that wants to give them a chance.
We do not want to impose incarceration. We want to give them
the benefit of the doubt as much as possible because we think
they are worth it. Now if a person violates probation then he or
she is breaching that trust.
We are saying in Bill C-41 that there should be harsher
penalties for those who breach their probation. We are also
saying, as was brought up earlier, that if there is a hate factor in
the committing of a crime then this is an additional motivating
factor and should result in a harsher penalty. We are saying this
unequivocally. We are saying this as a result of a good deal of
dialogue and consultation we have had with minority groups and
different religious groups all across the country. This is
something they want very badly and which they feel is needed
and it is something to which the Minister of Justice agrees.
I think this bill is going to go a long way to help us fight crime
in Canada and get back a lot of the respect for our criminal
justice system that we have lost and will give the people of
Canada more confidence that the government has control of the
fight against crime and the restoration of safe streets in this
country.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the hon. member opposite. First of all in terms of
alternatives to incarceration you mentioned several possible
5916
alternatives. I am just wondering if you have considered
seriously-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know we are just
coming back from the summer recess but I think we want to
remind one another to direct questions, comments, any
interventions through the Speaker. I know good habits are hard.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member
if he has considered corporal punishment as an alternate
deterrent to crime, an alternative to incarceration.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, no we have not.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address a
question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice.
The parliamentary secretary is a member of this House for
whom I have considerable respect. We have worked together on
the justice committee over the years. The member was present in
the House a few minutes ago when one of his colleagues from his
province of Nova Scotia made certain comments with respect to
this bill and in particular with respect to the provisions dealing
with crimes motivated by hatred, prejudice and bias on the issue
of sexual orientation.
The parliamentary secretary may be aware as well of the fact
that this Liberal from Nova Scotia in question has made a
number of similar comments to those that she made in the
House. In the House today she stated among other things that
homosexuality was immoral and unnatural.
An hon. member: Right on.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I hear a Reform Party member
saying ``right on''. I hope that member will have the courage to
stand in his place and defend that particular-
(1700 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. This is a debate
that requires a great deal of sensitivity in which members want
to give their utmost respect. I know the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway is a very experienced parliamentarian.
We want to make sure we direct everything in the respectful
fashion that is owed to this topic and all topics within this
Chamber.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed look forward to
hearing the comments of my colleagues from the Reform Party
on this issue. Among other comments made both inside the
House and outside by this member are the following:
There are those innocent victims that are dying from Aids and then there are
those homosexualists that are promoting and advancing the homosexual
movement and that are spreading Aids. Aids is a scourge to mankind and there
will be no cure for Aids. So this love, this compassion between homosexuals,
based on an inhuman act, defiles humanity, destroys family,-and is
annihilating mankind.
She goes on to state, as I indicated earlier, that homosexuality
is in the same class as pedophilia and bestiality.
My question for the hon. member, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Justice, is a straightforward
question. This member is obviously entitled to speak as she
wishes. It is a free country. She has freedom of speech. Will the
parliamentary secretary undertake to raise the issue directly
with the Prime Minister as to the appropriateness of this member
continuing to sit as a member of the Liberal caucus, the Liberal
Party of Canada, when she espouses views which, if they were
spoken with respect to any other minority, perhaps a religious
minority, a racial minority, any other minority, would be met
with widespread outrage and anger by that member's
colleagues?
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary what action is he
prepared to take to break the silence of the Liberal Party and the
Liberal caucus on this question? I see the chair of the human
rights committee of this Parliament who was present during
those comments. Perhaps she may wish to comment on this.
At this point I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice precisely what action is he prepared to take
to ensure that Canadians understand very clearly that these
kinds of hateful, bigoted, homophobic comments have
absolutely no place either in this Chamber or certainly in the
Liberal Party of Canada?
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I accept the comments of the
hon. member because I know they are sincere. I have respect for
his position and his contribution to this House of Commons. He
has been an excellent member of Parliament.
I cannot comment on the member to whom he refers because
she as he stated is entitled to her own opinions. We have stated
here in this act the position of the government which is that hate
motivation is going to be dealt with more strongly in the
criminal code. That speaks volumes for the position of the
government.
The Minister of Justice has stated and fully intends to bring
forward amendments to the Human Rights Act in the next few
months. I would hope that the hon. member will look upon these
as a major step forward. I cannot possibly predict what is going
to be in the legislation.
I do feel this government is moving in a direction that is very
creditable. Its record is going to indicate that.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I want to
congratulate my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice, for his remarks to this House today. Over the
past six years I have often approached my experienced and
5917
learned colleague for advice on the issues we have been
addressing.
I appreciate his and our minister's belief that the sentencing
practices in Canada must be responsive to the concerns and
values of Canadians. For the most part Bill C-41 reflects the
government's commitment to a fair and balanced justice system,
hence my support for it.
I am here to represent my constituents from Hamilton West
and others across this country. My support is for victims of
violence and their demands that section 745 be repealed.
(1705 )
This is not a new subject for the parliamentary secretary in
discussions we have had in the past. It is a courageous first step
that our minister is going to permit the victims of violence to
make their impact statements at those judicial reviews. It was a
curious statement by the parliamentary secretary that it was a
tremendous impact on judicial reviews. A tremendous impact
how? What is the aim of that statement? What would result if a
victim had their say?
Can the parliamentary secretary to the minister explain why
section 745 would not be completely repealed, and if at
committee there is proof in the pudding-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I believe in trying
to facilitate each member's ability and opportunity to engage in
debate and I do not want to take up much time either here
because the purpose of my getting up is to try and keep the
debate going because we have gone a little too long. I would ask
the parliamentary secretary for a very brief response, otherwise
I will be on my feet once again.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I think I can reply to that very quickly.
The difference is in having the actual response of the victims.
Before there may have been a document which said what this
person did, the person being reviewed, that he or she is being
reviewed because of such and such and this is what they did.
When you have the victims there to actually state from their
point of view what happened to them or a member of their family
or a neighbour, that has tremendous impact. Those of us who
have been to committees to hear the actual stories from the
people who were the victims have seen a monumental difference
in how we feel on a particular point.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-41.
Canadians across the land are genuinely concerned about their
criminal justice system. The law-abiding citizen looks to this
House for common sense to ensure the passage of legislation
which protects them and not the criminal.
Having said that, there are a couple of areas in Bill C-41 that I
can support. The provision regarding victim impact statements
is long overdue, and the parliamentary secretary just waxed
eloquently on that. Victims must be permitted to make
representations at hearings held to determine whether the court
imposed period of eligibility for parole should be changed. I am
also in favour of the part of Bill C-41 that will enable the courts
to order offenders to make restitution to victims of their crimes.
Finally the victim is getting some consideration from a system
which has not served the interests of Canadians.
Unfortunately Bill C-41 does very little to address the real
problem that plagues the law-abiding citizens of Canada. It
appears that a criminal justice system does not even exist. What
we have is a legal industry dominated by lawyers and judges
who play a bureaucratic game with laws which tend to serve the
criminal, not the public.
Since being elected as member of Parliament for Yellowhead
my office has been inundated by constituents' concerns about
our so-called justice system. They are frustrated with a system
that bends the law for criminals and does little to protect and
serve the community. As far as the majority of my constituents
are concerned, offenders convicted of violent crimes, those
whose crimes impact violently on others, should be stripped of
their rights. I share their views. The commission of violent
crimes against others is a violation of society and those who
choose to engage in these acts should not be a part of it.
Mary Waites is one constituent of mine who has seen the law
up close and personally and she did not like the view one bit.
(1710 )
Her son Julian was one of Canada's most wanted criminals for
his involvement in a violent sexual assault earlier this year.
Julian and another man are alleged to have brutally raped a
woman at knifepoint.
Mrs. Waites wants her son put behind bars indefinitely
because he is extremely dangerous to the community but Mrs.
Waites knows the courts will eventually let her son back out on
the streets so that he can continue to commit heinous crimes
against innocent people.
Why does she know this? She has seen her son breeze through
the court system time after time on charges of armed robbery,
assault with a weapon and possession of stolen property.
He has a violent past. Twice during robberies Julian drew
blood by holding knives to his victims' throats. He served
sporadic jail terms but was always released. He will be released
again I suspect.
Is this justice? Bill C-41 does nothing to ensure that
dangerous repeat offenders like Julian Waites remain behind
bars.
5918
Margo Gurgens is another constituent of mine who has seen
the legal system serve the criminal. Her younger brother was
stabbed to death at the hands of Tim Mead. Mead was originally
charged with second degree murder but when the legal people
got their hands on the case, a guilty plea to a lesser charge of
manslaughter was accepted.
For killing a man Tim Mead received six months
imprisonment. Again our so-called justice system failed. Mead
has been convicted of committing crimes against society since
1980. I suspect he will be back on the streets six months after
killing someone. Is that justice?
Again, Bill C-41 does nothing to keep dangerous repeat
offenders like Tim Mead from posing a threat to society. If the
afore mentioned two cases are not enough to show how
inadequate our criminal justice system is I ask members to
consider the following.
In 1981 Norma van Gundy returned home on the weekend
from hairdressing school to visit her family and friends. The
youthful 17-year old met up with an old friend and through him
she met Larry Read. At the end of the evening Norma's friend
asked her if she would take his car and drive him and Read home
because they had had too much to drink.
Norma felt obliged to help. She dropped her friend off and
proceeded to take Read home. On the way home Read from the
back seat of the vehicle viciously strangled Norma to death.
Read then raped Norma's body in the car before driving himself
home. He parked the car with the windows rolled up and left
Norma's naked body in the back seat to freeze in the 30-degree
below night air.
For this horrific crime Read was convicted of second degree
murder but the judgment was appealed and the charge was
reduced to manslaughter. Read spent only six years in prison but
the story does not end there, sadly.
When he was released on parole Read made his way to another
town where he became friends with a single woman and her
9-year old daughter. On a day when the mother was not home
Read paid a visit to her house where her child was alone with
their 12-year old babysitter.
The unsuspecting girls let Read in the door and their
nightmare began. Read lured the two children to the basement,
tied them up and beat them. He then took the girls for a ride in
his car where he raped both of them. The psychopath took a knife
to the 9-year old girl.
She required 120 stitches to her genitalia. Read is in prison
again. The system will undoubtedly fail the law-abiding public
again. He will eventually be released.
The shocking part of the story is that Larry Read brutally
raped a woman before he murdered Norma and before he
violated the young girls. This is our criminal justice system. It
made sure Larry Read had his rights. Where was the criminal
justice system for Norma van Gundy and the two little girls?
Where is the criminal justice system for the families of these
victims which are forever scarred by these acts of violence to
their loved ones.
Bill C-41 does not do anything to protect society from the
Larry Reads out there. Bill C-41 will not prevent sick, twisted
individuals from reigning terror on innocent people. Bill C-41
is just another piece of democratic legislation, a band-aid
attempt to fix an outrageously flawed criminal justice system.
The point to be made is this. The Liberal government has been in
power for almost one year. It has done nothing significant to
change the way crime is dealt with in this country. To an
increasing number of Canadians that is perhaps the biggest
crime of all.
(1715)
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to
the hon. member's intervention. In my riding of Parkdale-High
Park in Toronto my constituents are very concerned at the trend
where streets are becoming more unsafe instead of being safer.
This is why the minister has come up with some tools to
combat crime in the streets, to reduce the drug trade, to prevent
the violent sex offender from threatening the community. We
can all get up and recite horror stories one after another. Is this
going to prevent an increase in crime?
I would like to ask the hon. member of the Reform Party this.
Does he have any constructive amendments to this bill? This is
why we debate, so that opposition parties and members from our
own party can improve the bill. The government would be very
interested in any constructive amendments that the hon. member
can make to improve the bill.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
We cannot support the bill. Even though we support some
aspects of the bill we will not be supporting it. It contains too
many things we do not support and that we see will really do
nothing to solve the stories that have been talked about and to
the stories that I have just related.
We need deterrents that will work. We could move
amendments but we would be whistling in the dark. We could
move an amendment to introduce capital punishment or corporal
punishment as my colleague suggested. Maybe we will just do
that.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member indicated that there are a number of
provisions in the bill that he can support and there are others
which he cannot support.
I would like to ask the hon. member specifically, what is the
position of the Reform Party or the hon. member himself, if
there is not a position in the party, with respect to the provisions
in the bill that would ensure that a sentence is increased in
5919
circumstances in which an offence is motivated by among other
factors sexual orientation?
The hon. member was present in the House when the Liberal
member of Parliament for Central Nova made comments, among
other things, suggesting that homosexuality is immoral and
unnatural, when she suggested that AIDS was a scourge to
mankind which had been inflicted upon the country by
homosexuals.
In view of the response of at least some of the hon. member's
colleagues from the Reform Party seeming to indicate support
for those positions, would the hon. member indicate what is the
position of the Reform Party with respect to these provisions of
the bill that would ensure stiffer sentences for those hate crimes
which are motivated by homophobia, which are motivated by
hatred on the basis of sexual orientation. Does he share the
views of the hon. member for Central Nova?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise and agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member from
Nova Scotia said in the House some time ago. I agree with her.
As to the increase in sentence if it can be determined that a
crime is motivated by hate, I cannot agree with that personally
because I do not know how you can go about determining that. It
seems to me it would be a nightmare for people but of course a
haven for lawyers.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I certainly hear the hon. member when he expresses frustration
on the part of the public in relation to portions of our criminal
justice system. Certain offences and actions by criminals are
abhorrent to all of us. I heard him say he can support some
elements of the bill but surely there is more to this bill than a few
unrelated sections.
(1720)
Would the hon. member not agree that this bill, which for the
first time in Canadian criminal legislative history codifies the
principles for sentencing, a just, peaceful, safe society, respect
for the law, imposing just sanctions, et cetera, is not a positive
step forward?
In the absence of this kind of a bill would we not be simply on
the same treadmill we have been for the last 75 years, without
the benefit of those principles that can provide direction to our
judges who carry the burden of sentencing in our courts.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest
that they just do not go far enough. They will not act as a
deterrent and the punishment is still not there for the crimes that
I described and that we hear about every day.
There is too much going on and that is just not specific to the
riding I represent. In fact my constituency has a lower crime rate
than a lot of other ridings. Multiply that by all the ridings across
the country. I mentioned only a few of the incidents in
Yellowhead. The bill does not go far enough. It does nothing to
deter. We have to get stronger, tougher laws so that people will
think twice before they engage in a criminal activity.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, the member
for Yellowhead refers to the hate provisions in the bill, which I
very strongly support and which the majority of my colleagues
in the Liberal caucus support.
He says he does not understand how judges could tell if a
crime was motivated by hate. Let me suggest that if the Heritage
Front, or the neo-Nazis were to attack a visible minority group,
and say they want to keep this country white, it is a pretty good
bet that we are talking about hate.
I really wish that the issues of crime and punishment and
justice were as simplistic as the Reform would like to believe.
When the parliamentary secretary asked for constructive
amendments we got capital punishment, corporal punishment,
longer sentences, more jails.
Those things do not work. They have not worked. That is what
is so important for the members of the Reform Party to get their
minds around.
The things they are talking about have been tried and are
being practised in societies like the United States. They were
practised in all the repressive regimes in the history of mankind.
They have not worked. There is unanimous agreement among
people who know the complexities, as well as victims, as well as
volunteers in the system, on what has worked.
When I raised the issue before, one of the Reform members
said that it was an elitist kind of idea as well as an inexperienced
kind of idea. It is so clear that it is not just the experts. It is
people in the community who have any involvement, be it with
victims, be it with offenders. They are saying the present
approach is not working.
The direction this bill sets in place was what was tabled by the
committee on justice on crime prevention and community safety
which had victim groups agreeing with it, which had
professionals in the system agreeing with it, which had police
officers agreeing with it.
The member mentioned that he has one of the lowest crime
rates in his community. The community I come from, the
Waterloo region, has one of the lowest crime rates in Canada.
We have a task force called the crime prevention and community
safety task force. It is headed by the regional chief of police,
Larry Graville. The police officers on that committee are the
ones who pushed the strongest for new approaches because they
said that the old methods have not worked. We have to look
beyond just enforcement, we have to look at the root causes of
crime.
5920
(1725)
The issues are not ones that are going to be solved
simplistically. The old approaches, the approaches that are
practised in the United States where some states have capital
punishment and sentencing which goes back hundreds of years,
where they incarcerate more people than anybody else in the
free world and they have the worst crime rate in the free world.
They do not compare to Canada. The only thing we receive from
the Americans is all of the television news that shows how
violent their society is.
I say to the members of the Reform Party: Do not pander to
those misconceptions. If they insist on doing that, all they are
going to be doing is fueling crime. People will believe that their
communities are not as safe as they are. Let me say that our
communities are a lot safer than they are in the United States. If
we were to undertake some of these reforms we could go further.
We could go toward the European model.
Therefore the answer is not simplicity. The answer is trying to
understand and deal with the complexity of the issue.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): I do not know, Mr. Speaker,
did he want me to reply to that? If I would I could be standing
here for quite awhile and, Mr. Speaker, you would rise as well.
In so far as hate motivated crime is concerned I did not
mention that in my speech. I will say that it would promote a
two-tiered system. Is vicious assault less serious than assault
just done for kicks? What about equality before the law? Assault
is assault regardless of motivation.
The member talks about the high crime rate in his riding. I
suspect that if-
An hon. member: It is low in that riding.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): It must be a good community
because it sure did not happen because of the system of justice
that he promotes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time for questions
and comments has terminated. I would suggest, if the House
would agree, that I see the clock as being 5.30 p.m. and move to
Private Members' Business. Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m. the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
5920
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from April 21 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-218, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance
Act (excepted employment), be now read a second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert and Official Opposition critic for justice, is to
redress a major injustice in the existing Unemployment
Insurance Act with regard to spouses, children and relatives
employed by small family businesses.
By the initiative she has taken in face of a government with a
wait-and-see attitude that multiplies reviews and consultations,
and introducing this bill, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert has
clearly proven that where there is a will to act swiftly, there is a
way and you can cut the idle talk and truly promote the
development of family business.
Let it be said that paragraph 3(2)(c) of the Unemployment
Insurance Act that this bill is meant to eliminate puts spouses,
children and relatives working for a family business in the
position of actually being deemed potential UI abusers.
(1730)
Tell me one thing: why are spouses, children and relatives
denied the presumption of innocence the rest of the workforce
enjoys? Their only fault is to support through their work the
efforts of an entrepreneur to whom they are related. Why force
them to prove their honesty to Revenue officials instead of
recognizing them a right every other worker automatically
enjoys?
Nearly one million Canadians, of which 650,000 are women,
are subjected to this unfair treatment while the Minister of
Finance continues to want us to believe he wishes to promote the
development of small business. If he is sincere-which he may
be-he will unhesitatingly support this bill.
As you know, this government has been saying for months
that it is going to reduce the bureaucratic red tape to a minimum
for small business. Here is a golden opportunity to prove it
means to act by supporting this bill introduced by my colleague.
Otherwise, it will be clear that its main motivation is appealing
to voters but when the time comes to act, it would rather consult
and take orders from big business.
We all know that owners of budding businesses need the
support of their families to overcome the enormous difficulties
associated with starting up and developing a business. We also
know they find absolutely disheartening the slow governmental
5921
process, and particularly the bureaucratic loops they are forced
to jump through. I think that the commitment the government
has made in that respect meets the wishes of the public, but what
the public is expecting now is action. And action is what this bill
is about.
The bill provides the government with an opportunity to
translate its promises into action and this is a chance I hope it
will not miss. But if they do miss it, I can assure you we will be
here to remind them over and over.
Some will say that this unfair provision of the Unemployment
Insurance Act is meant to curb abuse. Let it be quite clear that
we all agree to curb abuse. This is indeed desirable. But, to do
so, is it necessary to assume that a whole class of citizens are
potential UI abusers? Is abusive use more tolerable on the part of
bureaucrats than on the part of the unemployed? Are
bureaucrats' abuses less costly than those of the bureaucracy
itself? It is far from obvious, as I am about to show you.
Between 80 and 90 per cent of the spouses, children or parents
who went through the whole process imposed by this act won
their cases, and if the others had appealed, this percentage might
be even higher. So can you explain to me why, after realizing
that those who followed the process succeeded in having their
rights recognized, we continue to put so much red tape in their
path when the energy they spend on this could be used to make
their businesses more successful?
The Unemployment Insurance Act has become increasingly
linked to the whole issue of job training access. It is not only a
matter of benefits. We are in the process of turning the
unemployment insurance system into a permanent system for
training and re-training workers. We are thus depriving these
people of the right to benefit from training programs because
many of the programs offered require that trainees be entitled to
UI. People who set up family businesses often need job training.
They often have a basic idea, are determined and have managed
to raise enough capital, but often need the training offered by
these programs.
By refusing them protection under the Unemployment
Insurance Act, we deprive them of the right not only to collect
benefits but also to receive job training. And this is an extremely
important factor in the success of small businesses.
(1735)
If my riding for instance, they set up economic and
community development corporations specifically aimed at
promoting entrepreneurship. So, on the one hand, we put in
place programs to promote entrepreneurship while, on the other
hand, we let red tape discourage just about everybody.
According to all the surveys, the priority all small businesses
agree on, other than the need for capital, is that they must be
allowed to work and given access to what they are entitled
without having to walk through endless corridors only to find in
the end a bureaucrat with the discretionary power to decide
whether or not they have that right.
It is an excessive measure. In order to keep abuses in check,
we penalize 80 per cent, 90 per cent, even 95 per cent of the
people honestly trying to create jobs and develop our economy. I
think that if we want to foster the confidence that will enable us
to promote entrepreneurship, we must take concrete action. So
far we have only heard speeches from the government; I hope
that all members and parliamentarians will support my
colleague's bill.
I can assure you that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, consider
family businesses to be major players in job creation and
economic development. We just gave concrete proof that we can
take action. We will continue to do so and honestly hope that the
government will support this commendable initiative from my
colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to comment on the private member's bill before
the House. I hope to put the hon. member's mind at ease and to
assure the House the government is committed to women and to
their concerns.
I begin by stating unequivocally that I admire the hon.
member's motivation in presenting Bill C-218. She perceives
an injustice which she believes must be addressed. Surely this is
the mission of each of us as representatives of the people. Every
one of us is charged with a duty to ensure that the rights and
privileges of all Canadians are respected.
The values and principles upon which our social security
system are founded are part of what makes Canada so distinct. It
is one of the reasons we have again been named by the United
Nations as the number one country in the world in which to live.
Our social security net has been established purposely to
protect those least able to fend for themselves, and
economically disadvantaged women are certainly one of the
government's priorities.
I absolutely agree with the hon. member that if discriminatory
regulations are found within the act they must be removed.
However I want to make it abundantly clear to the House that the
government is open to and committed to reviewing all aspects of
our social security programs and to correcting flaws wherever
we find them. It is precisely with that purpose in mind that we
are undergoing the social security review.
5922
The government acknowledges that our programs are far from
perfect. Some may have outgrown their usefulness. Others have
not kept pace with the times. In fact we recognize that in some
cases our programs are not working well at all.
The basis for reforming our social security system is that we
want to be sure the system is providing the appropriate supports,
not penalizing people trying to help themselves. We want to
knock down the barriers that prevent people from fully
exploiting every opportunity to achieve dignity and
self-sufficiency.
It is important the hon. member bring her concerns about this
one piece of the overall puzzle of what is wrong with our present
structure to a forum where all Canadians can help find the right
fit. There is no point at this time in patching up a system that is
clearly out of date and no longer capable of meeting our current
needs, so I invite her to join us in the larger debate on social
security reform.
(1740)
In the meantime I should like to respond to a few points raised
in Bill C-218 that I think must be clarified. I believe the hon.
member may have come to the wrong conclusion about the
government's attitude toward people in family businesses.
Let me remind the House it was precisely to address the
problem of sexually discriminatory regulations that the act was
amended a few years ago by the previous government. It was not
so long ago that employed spouses were automatically
disqualified from receiving UI benefits simply because of their
family status. Clearly families that work together were put at a
disadvantage by the government and thankfully such antiquated
thinking is far behind us.
How does the system work today? The Unemployment
Insurance Act stipulates that workers related to their employers
are covered and are eligible for UI benefits if they qualify as any
other worker would. In other words, each and every employee of
a family operated business has equitable access to
unemployment insurance protection. Like any other claimant
seeking social assistance employees in such cases must satisfy
certain criteria. The determining factors are rate of pay,
conditions and length of employment, as well as the type and
importance of the work.
These are not new eligibility requirements. The same rules
and regulations apply to all UI claimants regardless of their
workplace or any association they may have with their
employers. While family employees have the same rights, they
also have the same obligations under the current law as all other
Canadians. Otherwise the legislation would indeed be
discriminatory. Workers who are related employers are assured
the same protection as those with a strictly business
relationship. If there is a clear employer-employee association
that the act calls an arm's length working relationship everyone
is treated equally.
Furthermore the fact is that the vast majority of Revenue
Canada's decisions on arm's length relationships in family
businesses do work to the individual's favour. Over the past four
years since the regulations were amended family businesses
have fared well under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Tens of
thousands of employees of family firms, up to 90 per cent of all
claimants who are in arm's length relationships, have received
the benefits to which they are entitled.
It is very obviously the nation's business to be concerned
about women in business. We know, for instance, that more
women than men run small businesses and that those companies
now provide more new jobs than large corporations. We also
know that women are extremely successful in keeping their
companies running.
It is frequently women who need to hire staff as their
businesses expand. Many women want to employ their family
members. As the law now reads, provided they are in an arm's
length relationship those family members can expect to be able
to pay into and collect from the unemployment insurance
program if and when they are entitled to, if and when their wife
or mother lays them off or if and when their father or husband
lays them off.
Many working couples are opting to start their own operations
as a way to juggle work and family time, another serious issue
facing many Canadian families. More and more parents, male
and female, are making a home based business the career of
choice as the way to balance professional and family
responsibilities. They too can rely on UI if and when the need
arises and they meet the criteria.
The reality is that women are frequently compelled to step
into the workforce to respond to family demands, particularly
taking care of dependants. It is usually women in the so-called
sandwich generation who care for either their children or their
parents and all too frequently both.
For this reason the government recently changed the UI act to
take these special circumstances into account. The dependency
benefit rate has increased UI benefits to 60 per cent for people
with low incomes who have a dependant or have a spouse with a
dependant. It is one of the measures we introduced to address the
inequities of the existing system.
The hon. member is quite right. There are many challenges
confronting working Canadian women that need much closer
examination. I have every confidence if there are oversights
which need correction or outright discrimination which
disfavours women they will be addressed through our social
security review. I am committed to making sure that this is the
case.
5923
I encourage her and others to participate in the process to
create a better system for all Canadians, men and women.
(1745 )
There will be ample opportunity in the months ahead to debate
the merits and drawbacks of the current legislation as we
grapple with the new realities facing Canada's social welfare
structure. We must work together to improve Canadians' quality
of life. I look forward to the hon. member's joining us in that
cause.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, back in
April my colleague, the member of Parliament for
Yorkton-Melville, outlined some very good reasons for not
supporting this particular bill. I would like to briefly review
those reasons before providing some thoughts of my own.
The changes proposed by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert
would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act be revoking the
arm's length provision used by unemployment insurance
adjudicators to determine if family members employed by other
family members are in a true employer-employee relationship
and therefore insurable and eligible to collect UI benefits should
they be laid off. This includes employment by husbands and
wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.
Therefore, as I understand it the net effect of this bill would be
to allow all family members employed by their immediately
relatives, mainly husbands and wives, to become eligible to
collect UI benefits without giving the government any means of
determining if the employer-employee relationship is
legitimate.
Government officials predict that this change would result in
at least 3,750 additional claims for unemployment insurance
being allowed each year. Considering that the average benefit
paid to each UI claimant in 1992 was $6,613 we are talking
about a minimum annual increase in UI payouts of about $25
million. These figures were confirmed by the office of the hon.
member who is proposing this bill.
Reformers oppose this bill for the following reasons. There
are four of them. First, it opens up the Unemployment Insurance
Act to yet another avenue of abuse and waste of taxpayers'
dollars at a time when we should be tightening up the system,
tightening up the loopholes and saving employers' and
employees' UI premiums to cover UI claims by workers and
families hardest hit by today's high unemployment.
Second, it would increase payout of UI benefits by many
millions of dollars.
Third, it directly contravenes Reform Party policies which
support elimination of fraud and abuse on returning UI to true
insurance principles.
Fourth, spouses employed by their partner already have an
advantage over other Canadians because they can split their
income and reduce their taxes. Reformers support income
splitting for all married couples, not just those running their own
business.
I would now like to respond to some of the rationale used by
the hon. member for Saint-Hubert when she spoke during the
first hour of debate on this bill. The hon. member said the
current law presumes that family members who work for their
relatives are guilty of defrauding the UI account and must prove
they have a legitimate employer-employee relationship with
their husband or wife, mother or father, brother or sister.
Reformers say this is simply a reasonable safeguard in a
system in which there is real potential for abuse. I must point out
that Revenue Canada identifies over 3,750 UI claimants a year
who are denied benefits because they do not work in a true
employer-employee relationship and are denied benefits as a
result.
The hon. member says the current law discriminates against
women, not technically but socially because most of the people
affected by this law are women. Reformers say that this
particular section of the UI act is not discriminatory and is just a
reality of small family businesses.
(1750 )
If a woman works for her husband in a small business, then
she must be prepared to convince Revenue Canada that she is in
fact in a true employee-employer relationship, not just hired on
in fiction to add a nice windfall of UI benefits to the family
income some time down the road.
The investigations carried out by Revenue Canada on behalf
of unemployment insurance every year identify significant
abuse in this area.
Why would we want to throw the door wide open to allow still
more people to take advantage of the system. If this safeguard
were not in the system there would undoubtedly be more abuse
and many more millions of dollars wasted on bogus UI claims.
The end result would cost workers and employers millions more
dollars in UI premiums.
I want to emphasize that these premiums would be funded by
an increase in payroll taxes which come directly out of each
worker's pocket. People not trying to take advantage of the
system who are legitimately and truly employed by immediate
family members are not penalized. Why should we not support
rules to deny abusers the right to rip off other workers?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human
Resources Development also spoke against this bill in April. He
told members of this House that of the tens of thousands of
claims filed by employees of family businesses 15,000 had been
reviewed by Revenue Canada and 25 per cent, the 3,750 claim-
5924
ants I mentioned earlier, were found not to qualify for UI
because they were not in a true employer-employee
relationship.
Reformers agree with the government's concern about
preserving the integrity of the unemployment insurance fund.
Reformers think the current law is balanced and fair and must be
maintained.
Our policies are developed by ordinary members of our party.
This is the policy these average Canadians have put in place
concerning unemployment insurance: ``The Reform Party
supports the return of unemployment insurance to its original
function, an employer-employee funded and administered
program to provide temporary income in the event of
unexpected job loss''. Reformers encourage the government to
get on with its efforts to reform the unemployment insurance
system.
The Minister of Human Resources Development promised an
action plan in May, delayed it until June and then postponed it
again until this fall. Yesterday in response to a question from our
leader the Prime Minister said a discussion paper, not an action
plan, will be released in October.
Canadians are fed up with the waste, fraud and abuse in the UI
program and they want it cleaned up. Canadians want action, not
still more discussion. Reformers believe that Canadians want
real reform of unemployment insurance, not just more liberal
tinkering around the edges.
Here are the issues Reformers believe are fundamental in any
consideration of changes to the UI program. Do taxpayers,
workers and employers think the UI program should be
compulsory as it is now, or voluntary? Do taxpayers who are
present employers think the government should continue to
control the UI program or should unemployment insurance be
administered by the employees and employers who pay the
premiums?
Would workers like to have a choice to invest their money in
their own savings plan to protect them against unexpected
unemployment rather than being forced to pay UI premiums?
Would workers get a better return on their investment than the
government run UI program offers them if they invested their
money privately?
Should the UI program be turned into a self-financing
program administered by the employees and employers who pay
the premiums with government safeguards?
Should unions and employers be permitted to opt out of the
government run UI program by establishing privately
administered unemployment insurance programs for the benefit
of their workers?
We know that the hon. member who proposed this bill has a
genuine concern for the plight of unemployed Canadian workers
and their families but she will not help them by allowing their
pockets to be picked by fictional employment arrangements
allowing bogus UI claims.
(1755)
The UI program will take $19.8 billion this year directly out
of the pockets of people trying to keep businesses afloat and
people trying to earn a decent living. That is approximately
$1,485 for every single Canadian worker covered by the
unemployment insurance program.
I have suggested some fundamental issues that ought to be
addressed in order to design a reformed system that truly works
for the benefit of those who are paying the big dollars to support
it. Rather than increasing the burden on these working people, I
urge the member to work with us to find ways to make the
system more efficiently and effectively meet the very real needs
of Canadians who suffered the distress and hardship of
unexpected job loss.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, it goes
without saying that I rise to support Bill C-218 proposed by my
colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert.
The purpose of this bill is to exclude, from the definition of
excepted employment, employment where the employer and
employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length.
Contrary to what the government's spokespersons claim, we
must not wait for a global reform of the legislation to act. We
must immediately correct this injustice created by the previous
Conservative government, which excluded spouses from being
eligible to UI benefits. We know that this same government not
only did not want to correct this injustice but went so far as to
extend the scope of that provision. Indeed, it is no longer only
spouses which are excluded, but all those who are not dealing
with their employer at arm's length.
I mentioned on several occasions in this House that the
unemployment rate in my riding is very high. Chicoutimi and
the Lower Saguenay region have often had the highest level of
unemployment in the country, a distinction which they could
gladly do without, believe me.
In spite of the new government in Ottawa and the promises
made during the last federal election campaign, the situation
remains the same. Unemployment is still very high and our
young people keep moving to large urban centres.
It is not a happy event for people when they have to claim UI
benefits. I do not know anyone who is happy to become a UI
claimant and only get 55 per cent of his or her regular income.
But it is even worse to be totally excluded for the reason that you
are not dealing at arm's length with your employer. If you have
worked for your parents, or if you are working for your spouse,
you are perceived as a potential abuser and an inquiry is
5925
conducted to see if your employment is insurable. These
workers regularly show up in our riding offices.
Understandably, they cannot figure out why their UI claim
ends up at Revenue Canada, Taxation, for an inquiry. All this for
the simple reason that these people worked for their parents or
their spouse. In the majority of cases, the UI office does not tell
people about this when they first submit their claim. Only once
their file is transferred to Revenue Canada, some three weeks
later, are these people told that officers from that department
will conduct an inquiry, at the conclusion of which they will
finally know whether or not they are eligible for UI benefits.
(1800)
Revenue Canada takes three months to determine the
eligibility of a claimant. When you are waiting for money to buy
the groceries and pay the rent, let me tell you that three months
can seem like a long time. This procedure penalizes taxpayers in
Saguenay, in Quebec, and in Canada in two ways. Quebec City
processes the claims for my region. We just got Revenue Canada
officials to sign their decisions so that taxpayers who wish to
discuss their file can do so. Of course, these taxpayers have to
pay all the costs they incur to contact these officials.
Let me review briefly how these civil servants work. They
have pretty extensive investigative powers and can ask to see the
company's accounting books, ledgers, minutes of meetings,
copies of cheques, and much more. They audit bank accounts
and check with the suppliers. They are looking for people who
cheat the system. What else would you call it? At least that is
what the people under investigation believe.
As often as not, we are dealing with very small businesses,
family businesses whose owners hire their immediate family
members. We often hear: ``Charity begins at home''. How many
businesspeople among those who made it big started their
businesses in their basement or garage with only their spouse or
their sons and daughters as employees? There are a great number
of success stories. Let me give you two examples everyone has
heard about.
First, there is the Louis Garneau company, and closer to my
riding, the Chlorophylle corporation, two businesses which are
now renowned all over the world. But before they can become
this famous, a good number of our businesses operate on a
seasonal basis, which means that their employees must apply for
UI benefits. That is when the fun begins and the investigation
gets under way.
Think about all the people who are discouraged by the system.
If Revenue Canada finds that your employment is not insurable,
you must file an appeal. That means another delay, another
90-day waiting period, not to mention all the costs you will have
to incur for postage and long distance calls, for example. During
the summer, I saw in my riding office a couple who were about to
appear before the Tax Court of Canada. Although they had legal
opinions to support them, the couple decided not to appear
before this new court, because they were tired and discouraged.
They did not have the strength or the money to fight any more,
unlike Revenue Canada which can afford lawyers.
So, these people gave up. I sincerely believe that we have to
support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert
if we want several of our family businesses to survive. God
knows we need these businesses to fight the disastrous
unemployment situation. Although everybody decries the
situation, few suit their actions to their words. We must ensure
that the people who still have the desire to achieve something, to
create their own job, can survive.
(1805)
[English]
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln): Mr. Speaker, I start by thanking
the hon. member from Saint-Hubert for bringing to light what
she perceives to be a serious problem facing Canadian women.
We respect that the hon. member is very knowledgeable about
women's issues and is sensitive to the various forms of bias from
which they suffer.
This country is founded on the firm conviction that each and
every citizen, regardless of gender, age, race or abilities has a
right to receive a wide variety of health and social assisted
services. It is our practice and not just our policy to ensure
equitable access and respectful treatment in all our dealings
with the citizens of this country. It is a part of our social
heritage, an affirmation of Canada's commitment to human
dignity. It is an expression of our dedication to the ideals of
social justice, equality and personal security.
I also want to make it crystal clear to the House and the hon.
member that this government is open to reviewing any aspect of
all our social programs, including the Unemployment Insurance
Act. The obvious need to re-evaluate the efficacy of our social
safety system is at the very heart of social security reform.
This government was elected on a platform of creating
opportunities for Canadians. In our view the social security
review is crucial if we are to achieve that goal because
ultimately, reform is nothing less than a response to a desire for
change. It offers us a rare chance to redefine the values, the
assumptions and working principles with which to deal with the
questions of opportunities for all Canadians. Through this
renewal process we will reach a consensus about what our
priorities should be and how we can achieve them, given the
money and tools available.
5926
I assure the hon. member there will be ample opportunity to
carefully consider her concerns for the plight of economically
disadvantaged women within this overall debate.
Imposing conditions on the basis of gender would indeed be
discriminatory, as would imposing restrictions on the basis of
family status, but the current law does not do that. I think it
would be helpful to look at just what section 3(2)(c) says. This
provision of the Unemployment Insurance Act stipulates that all
employees, regardless of gender or marital status, are assured
the same protection. The law simply defines the kind of business
relationship people must have before they can receive UI
benefits.
Every working citizen of this country, whether male or
female, be they employed by a spouse, a sibling, a parent or a
child, is eligible to pay premiums and to receive benefits so long
as there is an employer-employee relationship. It is what the act
calls an arm's length relationship.
Unemployment insurance relies on Revenue Canada to
determine what constitutes an arm's length relationship between
employers and family members in their employ regardless of
gender. More than four times out of five, Revenue Canada rules
that a true business association does exist and payments are
made accordingly. The record shows that people in need
employed in family firms are obtaining their rightful benefits.
In 1992-93 for example workers of family businesses filed
tens of thousands of claims for unemployment insurance. Of
those, 15,000 cases were reviewed and more than 75 per cent
were accepted at face value with no questions asked. Of the
remainder, a further three-quarters were eventually accepted.
Only 10 per cent of claimants were unable to satisfy the criteria.
I do not want to appear to downplay the possibility of
discrimination in our legislation. Canadians justifiably demand
dignity, respect and equality for all, an obligation this
government is committed to fulfil.
I should point out however that the provision being examined
by Bill C-218 was included in the act precisely to remove
objectionable regulations which did discriminate against
married couples working in family businesses. Previously,
employed spouses were automatically disqualified from
receiving unemployment insurance benefits because of their
family status. Paragraph 3(2)(c) has reversed that regulation and
made the system more equitable. That is in keeping with the new
reality in the workforce.
(1810)
As members of this House are well aware, women today play a
crucial role in our economy, especially in the burgeoning small
business sector. As the engine of national growth, women are
clearly in the driver's seat. We know that more women than men
start small businesses today in Canada and that those companies
now provide more jobs than the large corporations.
For more than a decade over 150,000 small businesses have
been started each year. They account for some 90 per cent of all
new jobs created annually in this country. We also know that
women enjoy a very high success rate in keeping their
companies running. Between 1975 and 1990 the ranks of
self-employed women in Canada grew by a phenomenal 172 per
cent compared with 50 per cent for self-employed men during
that period. It is also a fact that a large number of these small
companies are owned and operated by families, often employing
spouses or other members of the immediate family. We want to
do everything we can to ensure such progress continues.
One of the objectives of our social security reform is to assure
our social spending supports and nurtures women in business as
they blaze a trail to the next century. If that means the
Unemployment Insurance Act needs to be modified, so be it.
When we make those changes, we will have to preserve the
delicate balance between managing the program responsibly
and ensuring that benefits go to those who need and are entitled
to them.
Taxpayers are counting on us to ensure the fair and equitable
provisions of UI benefits. They expect that our social security
supports should be flexible enough to accommodate workers'
changing needs.
Canadians want assurances that any changes to the system are
implemented on the same principles of fairness and integrity,
which have been the cornerstones of our society and system of
government. That is precisely what we have been working to
achieve.
The hon. member is correct in pointing out that many women
in our society are still in a position of economic disadvantage. It
is certainly one of the primary issues which has prompted this
government to want to undertake the social security review.
However we will not sit idly by awaiting the outcome of that
process. Work is already under way and we will continue to
address some of these inequalities.
In fact, we recently made adjustments to the Unemployment
Insurance Act to increase UI benefits for low income parents. I
am referring specifically to the dependency benefit rate. It is a
provision that provides extra benefits to people who earn a low
income and who support a dependant, or whose spouse supports
a dependant.
People qualifying under this category, most frequently
women, are now eligible to receive 60 percent instead of the 55
per cent benefit rate. This measure respects the important role
women play within our families and supports them in that task.
It recognizes that the person providing care for a dependant is
contributing to the social and economic health of Canada and
should be compensated accordingly.
5927
It is just one example of the ways we are attempting to better
manage the social security system to make it more responsive to
the realities facing Canadians. It is also proof of this
government's commitment to a thorough review of all our social
programs. We want to see where all of them should be updated
and improved to prepare for the future.
That is why the bill before us should not be considered in
isolation. Rather, it has to be looked at in the context of the
global process of recommendations and options being
developed as part of the overall renewal of our social security
system.
That does not mean the hon. member should abandon her
passion for the plight of economically disadvantaged women. I
suggest she should instead take full advantage of the
opportunities presented by the social security review to
represent the interests of women.
Members on the government side of the House are convinced
that we can put our energies to the best use by working together
to confront the full range of the very real and pressing problems
that must be addressed. We invite the member for Saint-Hubert
to join us in that process of reform.
(1815)
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, the current
Unemployment Insurance Act was proclaimed on October 23,
1990 with an extended section 3(2)(c).
It maintains a hidden discrimination mainly against women
whose regular work helps their spouses' business.
The amendment now extends this discrimination to all close
relatives of the employer but, in fact, wives are still affected the
most.
Meanwhile, the Liberal government advocates job creation
and, to this end, gives greater importance to small and
medium-sized businesses. The situation of these businesses is
such that they sometimes must involve only the family, since,
among other things, they need to minimize start-up costs and
the family members can, if needed, make an additional effort.
This is especially true for seasonal businesses. These need a
flexible and very devoted staff to ensure a viable work
organization in the short run.
Spouses involved in an allegedly fraudulent
employer-employee relationship should be considered just like
employees who buy work weeks from their employer to
complete their number of insurable weeks. This is more and
more frequent and yet no discriminating provision adresses this
issue in the law.
On the other hand, in the insurance cases that concern us, the
applicants have the burden of proving that their normal work is
distinct from family activities. In effect, they must demonstrate
to the civil servants processing their file that because of the
volume of work, the wages paid, the conditions of employment,
they should be considered to be dealing with their employer at
arm's length.
Bill C-218 to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act must
allow businesses to use the most qualified and available
workers, whether they be family members or not. Of course, the
government must remain vigilant and exercise effective control
in order to prevent abuse. Cases of family relationships must be
dealt with in the same way as any other unemployment
insurance application. If there is a serious concern about fraud
on the part of the client applying for benefits, the official of the
Department of Human Resources Development will ask the
Investigation and Control Office to look into the legitimacy of
the request. On the other hand, a worker not dealing at arm's
length with his employer is required from the outset to
demonstrate that his situation is normal.
To change this state of affairs the client must prove, by his or
her own means, that he or she is not defrauding the system. It can
often happen that this person must engage the services of a
lawyer, and I can tell you that those who find themselves in this
situation are not the wealthiest members of our society.
In this regard, the act must recognize the true employee status
of those who face this situation. Those people's work should be
compared with that of individuals in similar positions in
companies of the same sector, with a comparable level of
activity and where the owner and employees are unrelated. We
should consider the amount of work done, working hours, and
salary in each company to determine whether the job could be
held by someone who is unrelated to the employer.
Small business people strive to reduce operating costs in
order to survive. They will often set up their office in their own
home, and tax deductions for that are accepted by Revenue
Canada. Hiring one's spouse to perform certain tasks for the
business is another way of reducing costs and minimizing
supervision.
I will now describe two cases of employers and employees
with family ties. They live and work far from big cities in remote
communities, where working from the family home is more
frequent, where work is structured differently and not always
done in office buildings, shopping centres, or plants.
(1820)
Section 3(2)(c) leaves the door open to interpretation on the
part of the officers who have to administer it. At present, all
applications where the employee and the employer do not deal at
arm's length are examined individually by the Department of
Revenue and the ruling depends solely on the officer's
interpretation of the section of the Act and on his opinion
concerning the operational context of the applicant's former job.
5928
Naturally, there are some criteria to be taken into account, but
these are so broad that there are as many interpretations as there
are officers administering the Act.
Let us take for example the owner of a hunting and fishing
equipment store, which is a seasonal venture, where the
employer has a full-time job elsewhere. In order to ensure the
proper operation of his business, he must have employees to
look after the customers. Therefore, he hires two part-time
employees for evenings and week-ends. To keep costs at a
minimum, he sets up his store in a building adjacent to his place
of residence and he hires his spouse as a replacement for him
when he goes to work.
The tasks of his spouse are equivalent to those of the other two
part-time employees. Business hours are regular, the payroll
record and the cheques issued are proof enough of the
authenticity, the reliability and the regularity of the payroll and
the hours worked. These items should be sufficient as references
in the absence of any contract. But, because the work is done in
the same building as the home, and given the fact there is a
reason for dependence, the applicant was declared not entitled to
benefits.
Moreover, if we compare that with another company from the
same area of activity and with a comparable volume of business,
the company has to hire a full-time seasonal worker to do that
kind of job. Of course, the job description, supervision and work
control should also be part of the work agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give you another example, in this
case a forestry contractor from the northern part of my riding of
Champlain. His workplace is in a forest area, quite far from his
place of residence. For the needs of his company, he must set up
a forest camp where approximately thirty people are working.
To ensure the operation of the camp, and since he must be
frequently absent, he must hire a supervisor, who happens to be
his wife. She acts as the camp supervisor, as would anybody in
such a business. But just because she is related to her employer
and has no work contract, her employment is deemed
uninsurable. If we compare these circumstances and the volume
of work that has to be done, all this is similar to what an
unrelated person would do.
The act as it is presently written is open to much interpretation
and subjectivity about an employee who is related to the
employer. That employee is considered uninsurable.
As you know, the Department of Human Resources
Development lets the Department of Revenue decide on the
interpretation and enforcement of clause 3(2)(c) of the
Unemployment Insurance Act and forces the applicants to prove
that the fact that they are members of the same family has no
influence whatsoever on the nature and parameters of the work
performed.
That clause is discriminatory and its enforcement causes
frustration among applicants. There are more and more
administrative and judicial procedures and in spite of the
amendment made in 1990 to the section we are dealing with,
women who work with their spouses are still the most affected
population group.
Discrimination based on marital status jeopardizes
co-operation and entrepreneurship in remote and sparsely
populated areas, where employment is often of a seasonal
nature. For many people, working for a relative is the only way
to enter the labour force and for small businesses, it is the only
way to get reliable and dedicated labour requiring little
supervision.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague from St-Hubert introduced on February 17 a bill
which is close to my heart. It is close to my heart because, as a
lawyer, I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting that some
people are treated differently. We call that discrimination, not
only in law but also in the dictionary.
(1825)
If bill C-218 introduced by my colleague is rejected by the
House of commons, discrimination will continue, a large
number of citizens will be treated inequitably.
Since the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed-it
received Royal assent on October 23, 1990-our party has
denounced, in the House and outside, the aberrations it contains.
Normally, according to Canadian legislation, we are all innocent
until proven guilty and the burden of the proof rests with the
accuser, that is the minister or the Crown in criminal matters.
However, when an employee leaves his or her job, he or she
must prove that it was not without compelling reasons, and the
burden of the proof falls on the potential UI claimant. We are in
a democracy and we are never guilty until proven so. This is
what we call the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The new Unemployment Insurance Act changed the rules of
the game in 1990, and it allows some employers to abuse their
employees and to require of them more work, extended working
hours and total submission, a wholly unacceptable situation in a
democratic society like ours. It is nothing short of blackmail!
If an employee objects and leaves his or her job, that
employee must prove that he or she had good reasons to do so.
Worse, during the period of objection the former employee will
find social assistance hard to get. Indeed, Quebec social
assistance regulations do not permit the payment of any benefit
as long as the official has not received an unqualified denial
from unemployment insurance. So, Mr. Speaker, you can
imagine that before quitting a job, employees may be abused by
their employers for a very long period of time.
5929
This is the reason why the Crown lost out under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The various courts which were
asked to rule in this matter, namely the human rights tribunal of
the appeal division, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada
and the Supreme Court of Canada, all declared null and void
former sections 3(2)(c) and 4(3)(d) of the act. Canadians won.
It was to be expected since they were just as discriminatory,
and that was the objective of Bill C-218 introduced by my
colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, as denying
benefits to a spouse working for her husband or a family-owned
business. Whom was this piece of legislation aimed at
especially? Women working for their spouses. This is another
example of the legal subordination of women to their spouses.
Under the circumstances, the previous Conservative
government took steps to amend section 3.(2)(c) in accordance
with these decisions. It had no other choice. From now on, not
only spouses, but all workers not dealing at arm's length with
their employers will be excluded. In this way, it may seem less
discriminatory, legally speaking, as long as the courts have not
ruled on the constitutionality of this amendment.
But in reality, what does it mean to not deal at arm's length? It
means that in all cases the presumption of honesty is from now
on replaced by a presumption of fraud. It is now up to the
employee to satisfy the official in charge-who is vested with
discretionary powers-that the work contract met the same
requirements as if the job had been given to someone who was
not related to the employer.
How many people will be left stranded without any income
until a case is heard by the Supreme Court of Canada? This
measure, I should say this injustice, concerns close to one
million Canadians, 650,000 of whom are women. It is
unacceptable.
(1830)
On going through Hansard of April 21 of this year, I noticed
that an hon. member on this side of the House, but not from the
Bloc, opposed the bill proposed by my colleague from
Saint-Hubert by arguing that her proposal would lead to the
filing of at least 2,000 supposedly unfounded unemployment
insurance claims which would entail the payment of $13 million
dollars. This is absurd.
The unemployment insurance legislation was adopted-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to
the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
5929
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to raise briefly or should I say provide a
brief update on one of the obvious inconsistencies in the
discourse and policy of this government, namely the
relationship that may, and indeed must, exist between the
Canadian foreign policy and human rights promotion.
To address this contradiction we have no reason to be proud
of, I shall refer to a question I had put to the Deputy Prime
Minister on June 10. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister this
question on June 10, following a visit by the Prime Minister in
exile of Burma to the Standing Committee on Human Rights.
We realized, as a standing committee responsible for the
promotion of human rights both within Canada and outside, how
much of a discrepancy there was between what this government
said -all this talk about legislative instruments and active
involvement outside the country being required to promote
human rights- and reality.
Such discrepancy is easy to understand considering that as
early as 1990, the Canadian government had been pressing for
democratic elections to be held in Burma, which is currently run
by a military junta. Canada can be said to have participated in
this international campaign for elections in Burma.
We realized in the committee that, while Canada had lobbied
for Burma to be requested to uphold human rights within its
boundaries-because as we know, Burma is one of those Asian
countries with the darkest, most worrisome history in that
respect, a country where the Nobel Peace Prize winner is
imprisoned, where torture is practised and very serious cases of
abuse are reported-it also prohibited Canadian businesses
from trading with Burma for reasons relating to human rights
that we agree with. We believe that foreign policy and the
promotion of human rights should be linked somehow.
Imagine our surprise when we discovered that, in the case of
China, there was a double standard. And yet China is the main
country supplying arms to the military junta currently in power.
The question we can ask ourselves is this: if Burma's human
rights record is so important that Canadian companies are not
allowed to do business there, why is China, which also commits
its share of abuses, which is also inconsistent in promoting
human rights-as the 1,200 executions recorded in Amnesty
International's latest report demonstrate-not subject to the
5930
same policy? Must there be two types of countries from a
political standpoint? The Canadian government will overlook
the human rights record of important countries with significant
growth and large markets while imposing restrictions on
countries with less impact on the international economy.
(1835)
I say that there should not be a double standard. The
government must make adjustments and use the same language
so that when we talk about promoting human rights abroad-and
I think the government has a responsibility to talk about it-we
should have exactly the same requirements for a country of 1.2
billion people as for a country of 3 million inhabitants.
This is-and I will stop here as my time is up-an example of
an inconsistent policy the government has no reason to be proud
of.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the member's
question directly. Canada's relations with Burma are limited
because we remain concerned about the deplorable human rights
situation and lack of progress toward democracy in Burma.
Human rights abuses continue unabated and the military have
made it clear that they will not relinquish power. Canada
suspended its aid program in 1988 and military sales are not
allowed to that country.
Furthermore, the Canadian government does not encourage
Canadian business activity in Burma. Petro-Canada pulled out
of Burma in November 1992 and Canada has worked actively
through bilateral and multilateral channels to promote
democratic development and respect for human rights in that
country.
At the 1992 Association of Southeast Asia Nations
Post-Ministerial Conference Canada called for an international
embargo on the sale of military equipment to Burma, bearing in
mind that country's lamentable human rights record.
Canada made strong statements on Burma in its human rights
speech at the United Nations General Assembly in December
1992 and contributed to the resolutions on Burma at both the
United Nations General Assembly and the 1993 United Nations
committee on human rights. We continue to be very active at the
UN third committee and the UN commission on human rights.
We are among the larger donors of multilateral humanitarian
assistance to Burmese refugees and we continue to press for the
immediate release of Nobel peace prize winner Madam Aung
San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to return to an issue I raised in June with the
Minister of Human Resources Development when I asked him
what plans he had in place to ensure that Canadians and their
families would not be subject to the level of poverty that they are
presently subject to.
We know from experience that Canada has to a very large
degree eliminated poverty among its senior citizens. There is
still a category of senior women who are subject to severe
deprivation, but on the whole we have responded to that
problem. We have essentially eliminated poverty among senior
citizens, although quite clearly we have not done so with regard
to our children. There are now 1.3 million children in Canada
living in poverty, more than when this government took office.
There are 2.3 or 2.4 million Canadians living on social
assistance and 1.6 million living on unemployment insurance.
We clearly have a major problem in terms of our economy not
working for those four million Canadians and in particular for
those 1.3 million children.
In response to the minister when he talked about
unemployment insurance-and I do not quite know why he did
that-I want to return to the point that I made with him because I
think Canadians need and this House deserves to know what
specific plans the Minister of Human Resources Development
has under way to eliminate poverty among young people and in
particular young children. We know that this House in 1989
unanimously committed itself to eliminating child poverty by
the year 2000. We also know that this House is unlikely to see
any improvements in that regard as long as we continue in the
direction we are taking.
All we have seen from this government are plans to cut
billions of dollars from social programs spending at a time when
Canadians are in record numbers experiencing difficulties.
(1840 )
We see a continuation of the Mulroney agenda where
unemployment is blamed on the unemployed. The notion is that
the problem is with the unemployed.
If you look at the documentation presented by the minister,
you will see that his response to unemployment is to say that
there is a problem in the employability of Canadians, that they
need more training, more skills and so on.
We all know that we can do with more training. All of us in
this House can do with more training. If there are no jobs for
Canadians at the end of this training as is plainly the case at the
present time, this training goes for naught. In particular the sort
of training programs that have been put in place by this
5931
government and other federal governments has cost enormous
amounts of money to train the participants in the program.
If we look at the works program, we see a huge drop-out rate
in the program. We see a huge cost in terms of training those
Canadians. We see this in the context of further deep cuts to
social program spending. We do not need to move to an
American approach to social programs, which this government
is continuing. It is a trend that the Mulroney government
introduced.
We do not need that Americanized approach. We need a
compassionate, caring approach. We need to look at countries
that have been more successful than we have in dealing with
those problems of poverty.
As we all know, only the United States has a worse poverty
problem than Canada in the industrialized nations. We should
look to those European countries which have taken a very much
different approach to this problem, an approach which has
enabled more and more citizens to live in dignity.
We have a choice in Canada. We can if we want to continue to
slash programs as this government plans to do or we can instead
focus on the core problem which is that we do not have enough
jobs in this economy. This economy is not producing enough
jobs for those Canadians who need them. We have no leadership
in that regard.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human
Resources Development have said basically they will take a
hands-off approach to this except for a couple of programs
involving the youth and involving the infrastructure program. It
has put some Canadians back to work but still left millions not
working.
They said they will take a hands-off approach and let the
private sector develop those jobs. Over the last 15 years the
private sector has simply not done that. The private sector has
not created the jobs that Canada needs. It requires a concerted
approach from the government in conjunction with the
provinces, in conjunction with business and labour and the
various communities across this country.
The point I really want to make with the minister is that there
is a need for urgency. We do have to come to grips with this
problem of insufficient jobs in this economy. We cannot deal
with the deficit unless we attack that problem.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
can tell the hon. member that since the October 25 election this
government has worked very hard to bring about positive change
in the lives of young people here.
I am happy to report to the House that the unemployment rate
for young people has decreased from 17.5 per cent in 1993 to
16.4 per cent in August. This is a result of 20,000 new jobs that
were created for youth and 29,000 young Canadians were no
longer unemployed. This is just part of a package.
The summer employment strategy for young people created
approximately 60,000 jobs to give young people the skills
required to be competitive in a very different world.
We also moved quickly on the youth service Canada
lead-sites. Seventy-five per cent of the 67 lead-sites are fully
operational. We expect that the others will be operational
shortly.
We have also moved in the area of youth internship and
apprenticeship training programs because we recognize as a
government that we do live in an era where young people must
be given tools to be competitive in a very competitive world
marketplace.
We have not forgotten of course the importance of staying in
school and through our stay in school initiative with a budget of
approximately $31.5 million, we expect to assist over 10,000
young people through direct interventions this year, not to take
lightly our contribution made to the Canada Student Loans.
(1845 )
A review took place and there again positive change to the
legislation resulted in greater accessibility to funding for young
people so that they could access post-secondary education. We
as a government understand that higher education is necessary
for us to compete.
As members know, above and beyond that young people will
be an integral component of social security review. I am sure the
hon. member and his party will participate fully in this very
historical event.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, on June 8 I
asked the Deputy Prime Minister to assure Canadians that her
government would maintain and enforce the Canada Health Act
and, further, for her government to release the terms of reference
and timetable for the promised national health care forum.
I suppose I have heard of no issue of more concern to
Canadians across the country being discussed over the past few
months when the House was not sitting than the future of health
care. Seniors are worried about the future of health care. Others
are worried about whether they will have the universal health
care system of which Canadians have so rightly been proud.
One promise of the Liberal government and specifically of the
Prime Minister was that he would chair a national health care
forum that would deal with these many issues and the changes, I
assume, although we have seen no terms of reference. I would
hope such a health care forum would also deal with the change
that needs to take place in our health care system.
5932
Certainly as a New Democrat I am absolutely committed to
the principles of universal, accessible health care for Canadians.
However I am not adverse at all to changes within the Canada
Health Act to guard the five principles of the Canada Health Act
to make it more appropriate for Canadians.
Three months after I asked the question of the Deputy Prime
Minister we still do not have a date for the national health care
forum. We do not have a clear statement from the government as
to the expectations for this forum. The Liberal Party has
committed itself to upholding the five principles of the Canada
Health Act, but we need to have a really comprehensive vision
for health care.
The government's first budget, for example, was not a good
sign of what was to come. The Conservative policy of freezing
transfers to the provinces for health care continued. If this
strategy continues there will be no federal funding for health
care by the year 2015. Canadians want to hear the government
say that it will not happen and that they will continue to have a
universal health care system.
Further to the issue of the national health care forum, if it is
truly to be a forum to develop a new vision of health care it
would be hoped that the terms of reference would include a wide
spectrum of groups that would participate on this forum. It
would also be hoped that it would include all provinces and
territories.
I would certainly like to know from the government
spokesperson if the Prime Minister has any indication, since he
will be the chair, whether all provinces will participate in a
national health care forum. If not, will the Prime Minister be
proceeding without the participation of all provinces?
We have seen the government allow provinces to develop
systems which do directly contravene the Canada Health Act.
For example, the province of Alberta with its private clinics
specifically contravenes section 12 of the Canada Health Act. I
have asked the Prime Minister in the House to raise the issue
with the premier of Albert with whom he is meeting today. The
Prime Minister refused to say that he would do so and said that it
would be done at some other time in some other place.
That is not good enough for Canadians. Canadians want our
national health care system to be a priority of the government
and of all parliamentarians and a fundamental right as health
care should be for Canadian citizens. It is also, I might add, one
of the biggest supports for business in the country.
(1850)
When will the national forum be? Will all provinces and
territories participate? Will those provinces that are now
contravening the Canada Health Act be dealt with by the
government? When will we get an answer? When will the Prime
Minister act?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, it would seem the hon. leader of the New
Democratic Party must have read the press release of the
Minister of Health which she sent out in June with regard to the
forum. She just listed all the things that were mentioned in it.
The forum, as indicated in the press release, is to be an ongoing
four-year forum.
Ms. McLaughlin: Let's start.
Ms. Fry: It is going to begin in October, as the press release
indicated. Of course it will involve federal and provincial
relationships. It will involve public input and working groups
that will deal with many of the issues the hon. member just
raised in her question.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I know
these interventions are rather short, being four minutes on the
one hand and two in which to respond. I am trying to facilitate
everyone by giving them the opportunity to complete their
remarks. I hope we allow the parliamentary secretary to
conclude her remarks over the next two minutes.
Ms. Fry: The mandate of the forum is to develop a vision for
health care in the 21st century. It will create a dialogue among
the public, federal, territorial and provincial governments for
renewing the better health of Canadians. It will deal with and
identify priorities concerning a consensus for change in all the
provinces. At the same time it is determined to respect the five
principles of health care upon which medicare was built.
Obviously the forum will have to deal with issues such as
setting guidelines for technology. It will have to deal with issues
such as the aging society. It will have to deal with what kind of
financing is required for a future health care system. All these
things have been said by the minister in her press release in June
and they will happen.
With respect to the hon. member's question concerning the
transfer of payments in federal financing, the member well
knows the government has made a commitment to stable
financing in health. We have made that commitment by not
cutting transfer payments for this year.
In the year 1995-96 we will begin to have our federal transfer
payments financed on the gross national product minus 3 per
cent. Given that we will still the following year be putting in
$214 million more than we will be putting in this year, The
population growth will be factored in and therefore the transfers
will be increased according to population growth each year.
One of the things we will be doing in financing is that we are
not touching the tax transfers. This means a sizeable amount of
money is still going to be put into provincial coffers with regard
to financing the health care system.
5933
The member well knows that the health care system does not
only depend on-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I regret to interrupt
the parliamentary secretary but the format of four minutes and
two minutes is quite clear. I have been more than generous if we
consider that we have only had three of the five interventions so
far which would normally take in a very strict manner 18
minutes. I guess I have been more than generous.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I asked for
four minutes of speaking time for myself and two minutes for
the parliamentary secretary to answer the question that I asked
in June about mass layoffs. At that time, I asked the Minister of
Human Resources Development and of Western Economic
Diversification whether he agreed with giving the Sorel
employment centre a $2.2-million fund because of the mass
layoffs at Soreltex, Tioxide and Beloit in the Sorel-Tracy
region.
Further to that answer, this request for $2.2 million more was
made by the employment centre through the normal channels at
the regional level and then on to the national level, and the
employment centre got a good hearing from senior officials.
(1855)
I asked the minister to confirm it for me, and then had a
second question concerning the specific program for mass
layoffs that was abolished. The minister's first answer to me was
completely off topic, referring to the fact that I had been a
Conservative member. It was an arrogant, incompetent,
flippant, almost cowardly answer, showing the minister's
unconcern for the workers' needs and the respect owed them and
his lack of attention to a recommendation from his own senior
officials.
Since I raised my second question, the Sorel employment
centre received more funds to help the victims of mass layoffs,
thanks to the remarkable work of senior officials in Sorel, the
director of the employment centre and senior officials
throughout the Quebec region. One thing that has not been
restored is the specific program for mass layoffs.
Now, when there are mass layoffs, the general fund is drawn
on and if it is used up, the special fund is no longer available.
Restoring this fund would provide assistance when a disaster
like the one in Sorel-Tracy strikes, where there were two major
shutdowns, Beloit and Soreltex, in quick succession. In that
case, the general fund was used since the special fund is now
included in the general fund and there was no more money. So
we now have a situation where we have no way of getting back
any funds to deal with the situation.
It seems to me that reinstating this fund would be essential to
good management. The minister's answer was vague, once
again. As I see it, this mass layoff fund should not only be
reinstated but should be flexible as well.
For instance, a number of workers at Soreltex have from 25 to
35 years of experience, but their average age is between 50 and
55, so they are not eligible for POWA, the adjustment program
for workers 55 and over, so they fall between the cracks, because
they cannot be retrained. Often they do not even have a
high-school diploma. They only went to grade school, and they
cannot be retrained for work other than the kind they have done
for 35 years.
Perhaps this mass layoff fund could provide some form of
remuneration for people between the ages of 50 and 55 who fall
between the cracks, lose their homes and their savings and end
up on welfare. That is why I think the fund should be reinstated
and expanded so that employment centres can tailor the program
to specific cases and are not hampered by criteria that are too
restrictive.
I hope that today, the minister will have a more open mind on
the matter than he did when he answered my questions.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member must know by now that this government has
demonstrated that it places a high priority on the training and
adjustment needs of Canadians.
As a matter of fact in the Sorel-Tracy region which he cited
when companies such as Sorel Tex were having difficulties the
Department of Human Resources Development intervened. In
that case assistance was provided through the industrial
adjustment service. It is recognized as a very effective program
for assisting those individuals who are affected by major layoffs
to make the adjustment to new employment opportunities.
In addition I am pleased that the Department of Human
Resources Development has recently freed up a further $54
million in Quebec. These funds will provide a significant
increase in the resources available to provide assistance to those
individuals across the province of Quebec who require training
and employment assistance in order to make the transition to
new employment.
(1900 )
I am pleased also that $622,000 has been provided to the
Sorel-Tracy region alone. This will assist individuals in this
region to receive the necessary skills and training so that they
can be once again reintegrated in the labour force.
5934
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a topic which is much less glamorous but is related to a
question which I asked on June 20 of the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans.
The question concerned what action the government was
taking to fight the increase in sea lamprey eel population in the
Great Lakes.
I realize that this is not a topic which has a great appeal for
someone who lives in a place like Airdlie, Alberta or Moncton,
New Brunswick. At the same time I think it is important that all
Canadians understand the importance of the Great Lakes and
their ecosystems.
Every year some 75,000 Canadians have jobs and some $2
billion or more are generated simply as a result of the
commercial and sports fishing industries which exist on the
Great Lakes. Every year some 4 million sports people try their
luck on the waters of this lake system.
It is also important that we remember the recent past when the
sea lamprey first appeared in the lakes and flourished at a rate
which threatened the very existence of all fishing in the Great
Lakes.
The result of this predator, which came in from of the ocean
when the seaway was opened, an eel which can live in fresh or
salt water, was the absolute annihilation of commercial fisheries
for a time in the 1950s.
In the 1950s governments did react. Governments used the
best technology of the time to combat and limit the population of
eels in the lakes so that the numbers of certain species did in fact
come back to an acceptable level where an industry could exist.
As is often the case, there is a certain level of complacency
which sets in at the government and at the naturalist level. It is a
complacency from a governmental perspective in that dollars
directed to controlling the sea lamprey remain flat and in some
cases actually marginally decreased to the point that less was
being done to control the populations of the sea lamprey.
At the same time due to joint Canadian-American efforts
water quality in the Great Lakes started to improve. We are all
aware of the efforts taken to improve water quality. This opened
up new habitats for lamprey eels. The combined result of
improved water quality and less money for control has resulted
in a real resurgence in lamprey populations.
Naturalists have now confirmed that lamprey eels take more
trout out of Lake Superior than do all the commercial sports
fishermen on that body of water.
Finally it is essential that this threat be always considered in
light of the 75,000 jobs and the $2 billion plus generated by the
fishing industry on the lakes.
When I asked the question of the minister I was very pleased
and surprised by his response that the government has acted to
protect this industry and these jobs. The minister has recognized
the seriousness of the problem and has moved to address it in a
timely fashion.
The government has increased funding to the Great Lakes
fishery commission by one-third. The fishery commission, as
some may realize, is a joint Canadian-American agency which
deals with ecological issues in the Great Lakes system. We must
however realize that this problem emanates from feeder rivers
on both sides of the border.
Canada has increased its contributions in a real and
significant fashion. It is now necessary, indeed imperative, that
pressure be brought to ensure that the American government
will match the Canadian proportionate increase, failing which I
would suggest that a multi-billion dollar industry and tens of
thousands of jobs will continue to be threatened.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member has noted, predation by sea lampreys is considered to be
one of the major causes of the collapse of the lake trout and
whitefish fisheries in the 1940s and 1950s.
In response to this concern the Great Lakes fishery
commission was created between the United States and Canada
to find ways to manage sea lampreys and to develop a research
program to sustain fish stocks in the Great Lakes.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which represents
Canada as a party to the Great Lakes Fishery Convention, is
actively involved in the planning and implementation of the
lamprey control program.
This program, according to statistics provided by the
commission, has reduced lamprey populations by
approximately 90 per cent from historic levels. Given the
economic importance of the Great Lakes fishery to our fishing
community, there is still work to be done. That is why Canada
recently increased its funding to the commission by 33 per cent
to a total of $5.145 million. We have secured assurances from
the U.S. government that it will follow Canada's lead and
increase its funding to the commission as well.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is proud of the work
that Canada and the U.S. have done to support lamprey control
on the Great Lakes. We have managed to build this fishery up to
a $2 billion to $4 billion industry annually.
We will continue to support this commission in the future. It is
our belief that it is now time for those who directly benefit from
the Great Lakes fishery commission's efforts to join us and
begin contributing to the cause of the lamprey control program.
We all have a responsibility in maintaining a healthy and
prosperous fishery for the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)