CONTENTS
Thursday, March 17, 1994
Motion for concurrence in first report 2395
Bill C-226. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2395
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 2395
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2396
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2408
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2411
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2422
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2426
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2428
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 2429
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2431
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2432
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2433
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2433
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 2434
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 2434
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2434
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2435
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2435
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2435
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2435
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 2436
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 2437
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2437
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2437
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2438
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2438
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 2440
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 2441
Resuming consideration of the motion 2441
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 2452
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2453
Bill C-219. Motion for second reading 2461
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2463
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 2466
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2467
2395
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 17, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. If the House gives
its consent, I intend to ask that the report be concurred in later on
today.
(1005)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose that the first report,
which has just been tabled in this House, be concurred in today.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1010 )
[English]
Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I was delayed
in coming to the House today. It was my intention to introduce a
Private Members' Bill. I would seek unanimous consent to
revert to the introduction of Private Members' Bills.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
introduction of Private Members' Bills?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present
this Private Members' Bill. Members will know that those
convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to life
imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years and
those sentenced or convicted of second degree murder can be
sentenced to life in prison without eligibility for parole for 15
years or more.
Under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada, these
individuals can apply to have their parole ineligibility dates
reduced to 15 years.
The purpose of the bill I am introducing today is to delete
section 745 of the Criminal Code. The net effect of this would
mean that those convicted of first degree murder in Canada
would be required by law to serve a minimum of 25 years and
those convicted of second degree murder would be required to
serve whatever the sentence of the court is.
I am pleased that the Minister of Justice is in the Chamber
today. I would urge the Minister of Justice to take into serious
consideration the bill I am introducing today. He knows that
there have been a significant number of these applications over
the last several years. Seventy-five percent of these
applications have been successful. In effect, if someone
commits first degree murder in Canada today it no longer means
that person has to serve a minimum of 25 years.
I urge all hon. members to support this initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, these
petitioners point out that the intent of the Canada Health Act is
to have health programs that are universal, portable, accessible
and publicly administered.
They point out that the Canada Health Act, medicare if you
wish, is a basic element or principle of the Canadian identity.
These petitioners ask that the Canada Health Act be enshrined in
the Constitution of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul): Mr.
Speaker, it is my duty to table in this House a petition bearing
the names of more than 2,500 of my constituents. I join them in
requesting that the Verdun post office remain operational.
2396
The post office is a place that proudly flies the Canadian flag
and where people come and feel truly Canadian, which is
essential these days.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Mr. Speaker,
again on the question of section 745, as members know I have
introduced in this House a significant number of petitions from
Canadians requesting that the government delete section 745. I
would like to introduce another with several hundred signatures
today.
The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned residents of
Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: If those
individuals convicted of first degree murder are sentenced to
life in prison without eligibility for parole for 25 years, that
those convicted of second degree murder can be sentenced to
life in prison without eligibility for parole for 15 years or more;
that section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada allows
murderers to apply for a reduction in the number of years of
imprisonment notwithstanding having been tried, convicted and
sentenced in a court of law; that those individuals convicted of
first degree murder or second degree murder and sentenced to
life in prison can become eligible for parole after serving only
15 years by virtue of section 745 of the Criminal Code; that
convicted murderers can be released after serving only 15 years
in prison; therefore your petitioners request that Parliament pass
legislation that would remove section 745 from the Canadian
Criminal Code.
(1015)
I should point out that as a result of this provision in the
Criminal Code notorious killers such as Clifford Olson, for
example, would become eligible to apply to be released from
prison in less than two years.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, in
presenting this petition the petitioners make reference to the fact
that conversion of oil pipelines to natural gas pipelines presents
a number of risks to landowners.
They face an environmental liability. They are faced with
substantial costs to attend and to participate in National Energy
Board hearings. The National Energy Board Act has no
provision for the awarding of intervener funding or for the
awarding of costs to landowners unlike provincial energy acts.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to amend
immediately the National Energy Board Act to provide authority
to the National Energy Board to award intervener funding and
costs to landowners who intervene in proceedings before the
board on issues of public interest relevant to the construction
and operation of pipelines.
The petition is signed by some 100 constituents of mine and a
couple of neighbouring ridings.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I simply want
to comment on the report that was just read into the record from
the table and to raise a question of privilege on the use of
language in the House, in particular the use of the word
chairman in the report.
For some time in the House we have tried to use gender
neutral language. My point is simply that the use of male terms
in this way diminishes my role in the House and the role of every
other woman member of Parliament and therefore diminishes
my ability to be taken seriously in the House and to perform my
duties as a parliamentarian.
I do not want to make a long statement but I would like to
make a few points. The use of male terms gives a status to the
male sex and to male members of Parliament that it denies to
women members of Parliament. I realize many members of
Parliament may consider that these are traditional uses of the
terms, and I grant that. They are traditional uses of terms that in
fact have led to our understanding that certain jobs in society
belong to men and certain jobs in society belong to women. This
perception has for many years delayed the entry of more women
into positions of decision making in our society.
We can all rationally say we know what we mean by the word
chairman. It does not refer to a man. However, it does reinforce
the perceptions that become ingrained in our society that the
positions of authority and responsibility belong to the male
gender. It may be possible for us to rationalize that is not the
significance of the use of those terms.
However, we have a society in which it means that little boys
and little girls grow up with a certain perception of where each
of them belongs in society. As the Parliament of Canada I
believe it is not worthy of us to continue that perception.
2397
(1020)
Therefore I come back to my original point that it undermines
my ability to perform on an equal footing in the House. I would
ask Your Honour to take this question of privilege under
consideration to determine what measures are necessary and to
ensure that we take all steps necessary to make sure we are using
gender neutral language.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, the point is quite valid and interesting, but I do not
believe the member in question who tabled the report did
anything improper; in fact our Standing Orders are presently
worded in that way.
I refer the House to page 2 of the index to our Standing Orders
wherein it describes a number of positions, for instance ``Order
and decorum, Chairman to maintain; See also Chairman of
Committees'' and so on.
Our Standing Orders are written in that way at the present
time. If the House feels that the Standing Orders should be
revisited in that regard, I am sure the standing committee on
procedure would gladly examine those terms, if such a request
were made of the committee, recognizing that the House has
already referred a whole group of other matters to the
committee. As one member of the committee I would certainly
not object to revisiting that particular rule.
Just to conclude, I do not believe the member who made the
comment did anything to affect the privilege of others. It is
rather the Standing Orders themselves that are written that way,
and perhaps it is grounds to revisit the Standing Orders at the
appropriate time.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I have problems with the House's trying to control
whether or not I ever use chairman as a term of reference in my
discussions. I would like the flexibility to use whatever words I
feel are appropriate, whether it is chairperson, chairman or
chairwoman.
Mrs. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I have asked that you take this
item under consideration. I do not want your consideration to be
limited to how reports are presented. I do not want the comments
of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to necessarily
limit your consideration of the question of privilege. I think it
should go to the content of legislation presented before the
House and a number of other things.
Individual members can choose to use whatever language
they wish. However, my question of privilege goes to how the
House operates generally and the formal instruments of the
House.
The Deputy Speaker: The point will be taken under
consideration. Before I come back to deliberate and make sense
of the matter I will endeavour to advise all three hon. members
who have spoken today.
2397
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley)
moved:
That this House condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the
reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance of the rights of
criminals to supersede those of the victim.
She said: Mr. Speaker, while it is a privilege to lead off this
debate in the House it is regrettable that it has to be to condemn
the government for its inaction to introduce legislation to
provide for victims' rights.
For years the criminal justice system has been geared toward
the rights of the criminal. From the moment the offender is
arrested to the moment of the expiration of the sentence, our
justice system is built around the criminal. The victim has
generally been ignored. If Parliament is intent on protecting
society, it will have to recognize and codify victims' rights.
(1025)
In all fairness there have been some minor steps in this regard.
Some attention is now given to victim impact statements, but the
courts generally view them as being secondary to the concerns
of the criminal.
An example of this was the section 745 hearing Greg Fischer
held in January of this year. Sixteen years ago Constable Brian
King of the RCMP was kidnapped and murdered near Saskatoon.
The motive of the two killers was simply that they wanted to kill
a police officer. In January 1979 Fischer was sentenced to life
imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.
At the hearing to determine if Fischer could apply for early
parole, much was stated about how Fischer had improved
himself in prison over the last 15 years. What had happened to
the King family over the last 15 years was irrelevant. The King
family was not allowed to address the court. It is time to give the
victims of crime legal standing at all court and parole hearings.
While there are some other positive developments such as
police departments creating victim assistance programs, they
are partial measures. Programs such as these usually have to rely
on volunteers for staff.
Is it not ironic that criminals receive professional legal
advice, professional psychological counselling and education or
job training skills all at taxpayers' expense, while the victims of
crime have to rely on community volunteers or volunteer
support groups for help in dealing with the trauma resulting
from criminals' behaviour?
2398
Criminal activity costs everyone, whether or not they are
direct victims of crime. It may be easy to see the injuries of
an assault victim, but we tend to forget that the Canadian
taxpayer is paying for the medical treatment of that victim.
Likewise the loss of the burglary victim or a car theft victim
is fairly evident, but everyone ends up paying more through
higher insurance premiums.
Each year motorists complain about their ever increasing
insurance premiums. Over the past five years premiums have
increased well beyond the rate of inflation. Much of the increase
is due to criminal activity. Vandalism, car theft and insurance
fraud account for a significant portion of every driver's
insurance premium. Not only do Canada's drivers have to
subsidize criminal activity but we as consumers are forced to
pay the price as well.
Retailers across the country lose millions of dollars each year
to shoplifter and employee theft. These losses are passed on to
consumers in the form of higher prices. Not only are Canadian
business people faced with these problems but some are being
driven out of business by crime itself. Small independent
convenience store operators and gas stations located in high
crime areas are finding it impossible to get companies to insure
them and, if they can, the premiums are unrealistic. It is a shame
that some profitable businesses are being forced out of business
by crime.
What is the solution to this problem? Let us start by making
the criminal pay. Restitution to the victim or the insurance
company should be automatic with a guilty verdict.
The cost of crime to society does not end with the direct costs
of the victim. The cost of the entire criminal system itself is
immense. The costs of policing, the courts, corrections and
parole are spread over all three levels of government. When they
are combined they are staggering. In this age of fiscal restraint
many governments have created user pay systems. It is time to
do the same with the criminal justice system: make the criminals
pay.
If the government is serious about strengthening the laws to
better protect society, it has to accept two basic concepts: first,
that the protection of society has a higher priority than the rights
of the criminal and, second, that the rights of a victim come
before the rights of a criminal.
(1030 )
This philosophy has to be the guiding principle behind the
drafting of any new criminal legislation or the amending of
current legislation. Without this recognition any effort to
combat crime and violence will fail. The problems we have with
crime today are not due to a lack of legislation. The problems
stem from a principle that places the rights of the criminal above
all else.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has dramatically tilted
the scales of justice in favour of the offender. The legal
profession has created an industry from charter arguments in
criminal cases. While this industry may be profitable for the
legal profession, it has done nothing to protect the rights and
security of society. Criminals are now routinely acquitted
because of technicalities raised in charter arguments. How does
this protect the average citizen?
In effect the charter has given the criminals more latitude.
Recent court decisions have outlawed non-threatening police
procedures such as one party consent recordings and the placing
of an undercover police officer in a jail cell with an offender.
These decisions and numerous similar ones have made it
tougher for the police and easier for the criminals. They have
given constitutional protection to the rights of the criminals that
have done little if anything to protect society as a whole.
The charter of rights also guarantees Canadians the right to
life, liberty and security of the person. Yet each and every day
Canadians are deprived of these rights by the criminal element
in our society.
Ordinary Canadians deserve to have their rights protected
more than the criminals do. Those Canadians victimized by a
crime deserve to have their rights considered as well. It may take
a constitutional amendment at some point but we have to make it
clear that when the rights of victims are in direct conflict with
the rights of criminals, the rights of victims must prevail.
I believe that the majority of Canadians can accept the
premise that criminals should lose some of their rights on
conviction. Poll after poll shows that Canadians feel less secure
in their own communities now than ever before. We must change
this perception. We have to make it abundantly clear to
Canadians that their protection is the main priority of our
criminal justice system.
It is easy to criticize, it is more difficult to provide a
construction alternative. As always my party is prepared to
present such an alternative. The first thing we have to do is pass
legislation that gives the victims of crime legal standing in court
proceedings and parole hearings.
These changes do not infringe on the rights of the criminal but
rather provide the court with a clear picture of the result of
criminal activity. I would like to think that in many cases,
especially those involving young offenders, it would be
beneficial for them to hear what the results of their actions are.
Even in the case of a simple break and enter, the offender should
have to listen to the sense of violation the victim feels. If
criminals still have a conscience maybe they can accept the fact
that their activity has hurt another person and that it is not just a
matter of insurance companies replacing stolen property.
2399
In more serious crimes, it is important for judges and juries
to hear the extent of pain and suffering that is being brought
on the victim and the victim's family.
While some may argue that this is already in place, my
response is that while the victim impact statements are no longer
rare, they are still at the discretion of the court. We need to pass
legislation that gives the victim legal standing in the process.
Likewise, the same legal standing needs to be provided to the
victims in parole hearings. Presently the victim can attend these
hearings but their participation, if any, is at the discretion of
parole board members. While the parole board members should
hear how the criminal has done since his incarceration, they
should also hear about the effect that crime had on the victim.
(1035 )
The second major initiative of the House should be to pass
legislation that makes the criminal financially accountable for
his crime. Once an individual is convicted, there should
automatically be a restitution order against the criminal. The
criminal should have to make restitution to the greatest extent
possible.
Obviously there will be cases in which the accused has no
hope of ever repaying the entire debt. However if they were
required to pay a certain percentage of their income in
restitution, there would be that constant reminder of their
criminal activity.
Even if criminals are sentenced to a correctional facility and
their institutional income is minimal, they should still be
required to relinquish a portion of that amount taken in a token
bid of restitution. No matter how small the amount is, they
should have that reminder of accountability.
At the other end of the scale there are individuals who have
been involved in very profitable criminal activity. The illicit
drug trade and some commercial crimes are prime examples.
Restitution for their crime should go beyond the immediate
offence of which they are convicted. While there is legislation in
place to deal with the profits of crime, it has not been enjoying
the success that it should.
Convicted drug dealers and other well to do criminals should
have all their assets seized that are derived from the drug trade
or other criminal enterprise. While it would be almost
impossible to compensate all the victims of a major drug dealer
there should be a formula devised to allocate funds among law
enforcement agencies, correctional facilities and a general
victim compensation fund.
A few large seizures would go a long way in subsidizing the
losses of victims who would have little chance to otherwise
receive restitution.
Mandatory financial restitution will in the long term serve
two important functions. First it will provide the victims with
some financial compensation. If the victim can be made to feel
less victimized by this action then that in itself makes the action
worthwhile.
Second, restitution may bring a greater sense of
accountability to the offender. If criminals are compelled to give
up some of their income to compensate their victims maybe they
will finally get the message that crime does not pay.
These two initiatives are a beginning that is long overdue. We
can no longer ignore the fact that the criminal justice system
must officially recognize the victims of crime. It will be a
significant step in showing Canadians that Parliament is
prepared to make definitive changes to the system.
It is difficult for any of us to ignore a petition that carries two
and a half million signatures. The public is demanding change
and it is demanding protection. Anyone who ignores this cry
does so at his or her own peril.
While I have a lot of respect and admiration for CAVEAT and
other victims' rights groups it is a shame that these groups have
to be created. The most inspiring leaders of these organizations
have invariably been parents who have lost their children to
violent crime. It is tragic that so many parents are in this
position. I would like to think we could take some action so that
their numbers do not expand in the years to come.
In my response to the speech from the throne I mentioned that
I had already spoken to parents of two murder victims. I now
have spoken to the parents of three murder victims. It does not
get any easier. As a parent I can imagine how difficult it would
be to lose a child. The pain these parents feel is even greater
knowing they have lost a child as a murder victim.
We need to take whatever steps we can to ensure that fewer
parents experience this pain. My caucus colleagues are
dedicated to bringing justice reforms to fruition. I have also
been encouraged by some of the comments and private
members' bills from the government side of the House.
I hope that members of all parties can get together to pass
legislation to provide society with the protection it deserves. I
do not imagine that many of us think it is necessary to cater to
the criminal lobby. While I would like to think that the
protection of society is a goal that all parties would strive for, I
have yet to see any such commitment from the government.
(1040)
We have received vague promises of new legislation to deal
with violence against women and children, yet violence against
women, children and men for that matter is already illegal. What
we do need is a change in philosophy. It can start with the
recognition of victims' rights. If the government fails to recog-
2400
nize these rights it is telling society that victims should remain
unseen and unheard.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to stand in the
House and congratulate the government for bringing in
legislation that recognizes the rights of victims and takes
precedence over the rights of criminals.
I see no indication that the government is prepared to take
such a step. That is why I stand in the House today to condemn
the government for its inaction with regard to the reform of the
criminal justice system, in particular for its allowance of the
rights of criminals to supersede those of the victims.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech;
she raised several points which, as I see it, relate to provisions
that exist already. However, the law is enforced by men and
women who use their own intellectual capabilities, limits and
ways of tackling and understanding problems so that there is no
consistency in the way it is done. As several of the member's
suggestions are already in place, maybe we should do more
education and ask judges to enforce legislation in a more
consistent manner; I will come back to that when I have the floor
later on.
The question I would like to ask the member concerns what
could be done about the points she raised and particularly about
the compensation she proposed be given to victims.
If we examine the case of persons sentenced to prison or what
have you, in most instances these people live on welfare or have
hidden whatever they own and have nothing to their name.
In such cases, should we restore prison sentences for civil
debts? If so, would the member not agree that this would be like
going the clock back two centuries? If not, who will compensate
victims as she proposed before?
[English]
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that our prisons
have some of the wrong people in them, people who are
imprisoned because of their financial situation, because they
cannot afford a good lawyer, because they have done petty crime
due to their financial situation. We have to recognize that there
is a better way of dealing with those people rather than throwing
them into a prison system.
As a parent I know that when my children damage something,
I expect them to use part of their allowance, not necessarily all
of it, to reinforce that what they have done is not acceptable.
If the people who are getting minimum payment in prison for
jobs have to give a small portion of that amount to the victim or
into a fund that would go toward victims' restitution, they would
be constantly reminded that what they did was not acceptable. It
does not have to be a large amount but it is a constant reminder
that there are things in society that are acceptable and things
that are not.
I think the message is more likely to get through to the
individuals so they do not offend again if we treat them in that
manner.
(1045 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the
opportunity the hon. member's motion presents for us to discuss
in the House today the important question of Canada's criminal
justice system and the various issues that arise with respect to
the competing values we seek to serve in the criminal courts.
Let me acknowledge at the outset that this government and
this minister recognize we have no monopoly on wisdom or
insight. We welcome constructive suggestions from any quarter
of this House. We will pay close attention today to those
suggestions and proposals that come from members of all
parties as we address this issue.
Let me also make clear at the outset that I fundamentally
reject two aspects of the motion the hon. member has put before
the House. First there is her suggestion of inaction on the part of
the government and I shall come in a few moments to the
concrete and specific proposals we intend to implement. Second
is her suggestion that our system has allowed the rights of the
criminal to supersede the rights of the victim.
It is suggested by the hon. member there might be some
prospect of catering to the criminal lobby. Her submission today
is suffused with the notion that criminals are running rampant in
our criminal justice system and that victims' rights are being
subjugated.
What goes on in this country's criminal courts day by day,
hour by hour is the prosecution of crime in accordance with the
fundamental values of Canadian society. We reject torture as a
manner of extracting confessions. We reject fraud as a way of
putting proof before the court.
We hold in this country that in the enforcement of our laws as
with everything else government does there are standards of
decency, of integrity and of fairness which must prevail. In
every court case, in every courthouse in this country day by day
and prosecution by prosecution the issue is whether the state can
prove against an accused person criminal wrongdoing in
accordance with those standards of integrity and fairness.
Since the enactment of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms
that process has become all the more exacting. It also reflects
what the Canadian people expect of their system: that people
will not be unfairly accused; that only evidence which is fairly
obtained will be tendered to establish their guilt; that the
appropriate test of reasonable doubt will be used in establishing
whether the person is to be convicted; and that proper principles
will be put into play in determining the appropriate sentence.
2401
If one stands back and looks at that system, if one looks at
this case or that, it is altogether possible and indeed relatively
easy to find instances that can be used to support an argument
that in a given case a certain victim was not given appropriate
consideration or there is a disproportion between the sentence
that was imposed and the gravity of the offence.
We must not mistake in this House a commitment to
fundamental fairness and integrity in the justice system for
catering to the criminal lobby. It is an unfair and inaccurate way
to characterize the exercise. I reject it at the outset.
May I also express a word of caution about basing criticisms
of the entire criminal justice system on reactions to our natural
horror at certain specific crimes. We must not forget that 90 per
cent of all reported crime in this country is non-violent and the
vast majority of that is property crime. That is not to say that
property crime is not serious, but I wish to put the issues here
into a perspective that the facts afford.
In 1991 the homicide rate in this country was 2.82 per 100,000
of population; in the United States of America it is four times
higher. The proportion of violent crime involving firearms has
been decreasing over the last 10 years. In 1975 firearms were
used in 42 per cent of all robberies. In 1991 it was only 27 per
cent, a reflection in my respectful view of the effectiveness of
gun control legislation in this country.
In 1991 there were 59,000 drug offences in this country, a 21
per cent decrease from 1981.
(1050 )
In the 10 years between 1982 and 1992 the Criminal Code
crime rate increased an average of 1.5 per cent per year.
Compared with every other civilized country that is a modest
increase in all the social circumstances and with all the social
change we have experienced in this country.
Any crime is too much crime, but I ask the hon. member and
all members of the House to keep this discussion in the context
of the facts of the Canadian experience.
Let me turn to the steps that have been taken and are being
taken by this government to address the needed improvements in
the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is not
good enough. There is room for improvement. We intend to take
steps in good faith to improve it.
Before doing that let me touch upon the rising prominence in
recent years of the role of the victim in the justice system and the
sensitivity which the system shows to victims as it goes about its
difficult business.
In 1988 a statement of basic principles of justice for victims
of crime was endorsed by the federal government and the
provincial and territorial governments. This document serves as
a guide for all of those governments in dealing with victims of
crime.
Many provinces along with the federal government have
enacted legislation to reflect those principles. The Criminal
Code has a number of provisions now relating to victims' rights.
There are sections dealing with the identification and prompt
return of stolen property; protection of the identity of witnesses
or victims in certain offences including sexual offences and
extortion; the imposition of a victim fine surcharge at
sentencing, which was expected to raise $11 million last year;
the use of victim impact statements at the time of sentencing.
These and other measures have ensured that the focus is indeed
on the victim.
May I observe that when the crown attorney walks into the
courtroom to present the evidence against the accused person,
while the crown attorney represents the interest of the state,
implicit in the presentation of the evidence and the prosecution
is the interest of the victim as well.
What is it that this government will do in an effort to improve
the criminal justice system in Canada? We recognize that the
criminal justice system alone will not succeed in dealing with
crime and its consequences in Canada. We recognize that we
need both an effective criminal justice system and a broad
holistic and integrated approach by all departments of
government for crime prevention objectives.
I speak here not of vague promises, as the hon. member has
suggested. I speak of concrete proposals for action. Let me come
to them now. One aspect has to do with ensuring that the laws on
the books are effective and can be enforced effectively.
Turning to the Young Offenders Act, I have already made
clear that we intend to take two steps. The first step is to
introduce in the short term a bill that will propose specific
changes in the Young Offenders Act to make what we regard as
improvements, including longer maximum sentences for serious
crimes of violence and more sharing of information about
offenders with community groups, school boards and others
where community safety requires.
After my meeting next week with my provincial and
territorial colleagues and ministers of justice I will bring
forward a specific bill reflecting the approach of this
government for needed changes in the act in the short term.
2402
The second step is I will ask the House to turn the statute
in its entirety over to a committee of Parliament so that a
thorough review can be made of the Young Offenders Act in
this, the 10th year of its life.
That committee can hear the views of Canadians. It can listen
to victims' groups, police officers, offenders, criminologists,
sociologists and others who will speak of their experience over
the last decade with the act. In my belief they will demonstrate
that the act substantially has been a success and that in principle
it is the right approach. I am certain improvements are needed
but I am equally certain this process will result in a confirmation
of the enlightened approach which the Young Offenders Act
contemplates.
This government will also undertake to introduce changes in
the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing. This will be done
to restate the broad and comprehensive purposes of sentencing,
to put the focus on intermediate sanctions, to stress restitution
and non-custodial sentences and to deal as well with the issue of
dangerous offenders.
(1055 )
We will deal with part 24 of the Criminal Code to ensure we
are dealing as effectively as we can with those persons who are
provided for in that part. We will deal with high risk offenders,
those persons who may come to the end of their term of
incarceration but who may not be safe to release back into
society.
Another specific proposal this government will put before the
House will deal with pimps and the serious problem in many
Canadian cities of heartless individuals who exploit the bodies
of children for commercial gain.
We will address the issue of violence against women. The fact
is that domestic violence in this country and particularly
violence against women is a national scourge. Statistics released
just this morning confirm its seriousness and its extent. We will
take steps in this House through legislation to deal with that
matter, including more stringent provisions with respect to
peace bonds which are often used in such cases, steps to remove
the abuser from the home, and funds for shelters for spouses who
are victims of abuse.
We shall deal as well with gun control to make it more
effective, including measures to counter illegal importation.
Let me turn briefly to the second part of the government's
approach to the criminal justice system. That is to recognize that
the justice ministry alone cannot resolve the problem of crime
and its consequences in Canadian society.
The Prime Minister has asked me to co-ordinate the efforts of
nine ministries of the federal government to deal with the issue
of violence in Canadian society generally. I have met with my
eight colleagues to begin that work. I met with the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women, the Minister of Health, the
Minister of Indian and Northern Development, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage. Each of us in our own way has a part of
governmental jurisdiction or responsibility that deals with
violence in Canadian society.
Surely this comprehensive and integrated approach is exactly
what the all party Horner committee recommended when it
called upon government to develop a holistic strategy for
dealing with crime.
The strategy should recognize the causes of crime. It should
recognize the role of poverty, of racial intolerance and the role
of family breakdown and of domestic violence itself. There is
also the role of the parent who no longer accepts responsibility
in providing standards for children. It must also recognize that
sometimes whether a child has a hot meal has as much to do with
crime prevention as putting a police officer on the beat.
It must also recognize that the work being done by my
colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in
modernizing and making more effective the social programs of
this country has just as much to do with crime prevention as the
criminal justice system.
I travelled across this country and discussed this matter with
chiefs of police, school board trustees, civic officials, worried
parents and troubled teenagers, victims groups. I discussed it
with parents of murdered children, community groups and the
John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies.
I have come to the conclusion that there is in Canada an
enormous energy of enthusiasm at the local and community
level toward crime prevention and addressing the underlying
causes of the kind of behaviour we are talking about in this
House today.
As I spoke to those individuals in Moncton and Fredericton,
here in Ottawa, in my own riding of Etobicoke, in Edmonton and
Vancouver, I found that among the police departments and
community groups and the parents there is an energy waiting to
be tapped. Local initiatives are now being taken, many of which
are very successful.
In Edmonton, for example, the strategy for community
policing and making Edmonton a safer city has over the last 18
months resulted in a 26 per cent reduction in the crime rate, an
extraordinary result. Imagine the savings in terms of
government dollars let alone human suffering with a drop of 26
per cent in the crime rate. If we could replicate that experience
nationally, there would be no need for a debate such as we have
in this House today.
That must be our goal. This government is committed to
creating a national crime prevention strategy. We will establish
a national crime prevention council. Through that process we
will bring together, we will harness and focus the energy and the
commitment of which I spoke which is evident in so many
communities across Canada.
2403
We will recognize formally and effectively that if we are to
do something about crime instead of simply talking about it,
the answer lies not in simply putting more police on the streets
and more guns in their hands nor in harsher sentences and more
prisons. If that was the answer the United States of America
would today be nirvana. That is not the answer.
(1100)
Certainly we must deal effectively through criminal law with
criminal conduct. That is why we are going to have the changes
to which I referred earlier in the code and in statutes. Equally
and at the same time we must mobilize an offensive toward
crime prevention in this country that will truly produce results.
The National Crime Prevention Council will bring together
those groups, those individuals, those interests, victims groups
included, from across this country to a central place which will
serve as a focus of leadership in this effort, a repository of
information, an inventory of what is being done in various
places across Canada, a source of advice for neighbourhoods,
communities and cities that want to take action, and also a
mechanism for innovative and constructive thinking as to what
we can do in Canada to bring down the crime rate and address the
causes of crime.
Today in my response to this motion I reject absolutely the
premises upon which it is based. First of all, this government
does not propose inaction-quite the contrary. We will in the
months to come be putting specific proposals before this House
in respect of legislative change and we will be actively pursuing
the objectives of which I spoke across the country for crime
prevention.
I reject as well the contention that criminals' rights supersede
those of the victims. The system as it is at present is sensitive to
victims' rights. That is shown in a variety of ways.
There is room for improvement and, as I said at the outset, we
are happy to have the constructive suggestions of members in all
parts of this House. I look forward to the debate which this
motion has begun today. I shall listen with interest to the points
made by members of the House and I assure the House that this
government is going to move quickly to implement the agenda
of which I spoke.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for his statement. It is certainly one in which many
Canadians are interested. They definitely want to see things
change in this whole area.
Will the minister clarify a point in reference to the support
mechanisms for victims when comparing what is in place
already for the offenders.
An individual will commit a crime and immediately he has
various people coming to his aid. In fact, he need not even ask.
First, he has legal aid and he is represented at the expense of the
taxpayer by a lawyer. He has counselling at his disposal. He is
placed in a system of incarceration that looks after his every
need, health needs included. He has rehabilitation programs
offered to him which he has no requirement really to follow
through on. There is in effect little or no punishment other than
the fact that he is removed from society and cannot move about
with any degree of freedom, until he is placed on parole.
Before the end of his sentence of course he is eligible for
parole. The Parole Board gives every consideration to him and
little consideration of the effect of his presence in society after
that decision is made. Again, I am referring to the view that
many people in society have of the parole department.
As of late, several Supreme Court rulings have further
jeopardized society, creating more victims, due to the fact that
they have ruled on cases that have actually inhibited
investigators from effectively doing their jobs.
My question to the minister is where are the forces, the
established agencies, you might say, rushing to the aid of
victims when in fact everything is moving in the opposite
direction?
Mr. Rock: Simply put, Mr. Speaker, there are not enough. We
have to do better to deal with the victim, to provide that person
with a sensitive and effective way of overcoming the trauma of
crime and its consequences.
(1105 )
At the same time the point that my friend makes is surely
rhetorical. With regard to the characterization of the cushy
experience for the offender, the free legal aid, the counselling
and the rehabilitation, there is a fairer way to characterize that.
In my response to the member please let me try.
First, aid is nothing more than a recognition by society that
those who are charged with an offence which might result in
their incarceration are entitled if they cannot afford it
themselves to make full answer and defence to the charge
against them. I would not take my friend, the hon. member, as
suggesting that we deny that. I hope not.
It is fundamental in our society that if the powers of the state,
the mechanisms of the police with all their investigative powers,
the prosecuting authorities with all their resources and the
power and majesty of the court itself are being brought to bear
against an individual who might be put away as a result of the
charge, and it is part of the values of this society that we are
going to furnish that person with legal representation to answer
the charge in that circumstance through legal aid if they cannot
afford it.
Second, my friend referred to counselling and rehabilitation.
In the criminal justice system we try to achieve a number of
things at the same time. Yes, we try for retribution when we can.
We try always for fairness in our process and justice in the
outcome but we also try for rehabilitation because it has been
recognized throughout that unless we take the offenders and
make an effort to turn them around through counselling if
2404
necessary, through rehabilitation if necessary, it is more than
likely that they will be back again.
If we can reduce that prospect and the financial and human
cost that it involves through an investment in rehabilitation then
that is the wiser course. I do not take my hon. friend, the hon.
member, as suggesting that we abandon that as one of our
responses to crime.
In terms of prisons themselves they must be humane.
Obviously we are revoking the person's liberty. The last time I
visited it did not seem to be a terribly comfortable environment.
Often it is terribly uncomfortable. Prisons reflect the values that
we have as a country. We incarcerate. Our purpose is not to
torture.
In terms of parole, the system expressly falls upon the parole
authorities to take into account all circumstances, including the
victim and the offence itself. I can assure the hon. member that
is exactly what happens in parole hearings from day to day.
Are we doing enough for victims of crime? We are not. We
must make every effort to be responsive to their needs and to
ensure that their perspective is brought to bear throughout the
system. At the same time I suggest that there is a balancing as in
everything else in life. At present matters are roughly in
balance.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing with us once
again his views on the present legal and judicial system. I can
even say that I share the views he espoused in his
``philosophical'' speech because it touched on broad principles.
However, it remains to be seen whether I will still agree with
him after he has put forward the amendments he has in mind. In
light of the speech that I just heard, I would ask the minister to
proceed with caution, as he seems to want to get involved with
local problems that fall under provincial jurisdiction. The
minister should take care not to always present bills with a
national flavour, as he seems to want to do, because some of
Quebec's laws could contradict what he is proposing. Quebec is
feeling pressed on certain issues that were raised by the
minister.
My question is very concrete. The problem with the motion
presented by the Reform Party is primarily one of public
perception. In the red book, the government referred to the fact
that public perception was very negative, particularly in terms
of how battered women and children are treated by the justice
system.
(1110)
In its red book, the government made an undertaking to
provide or increase funding for agencies that assist battered
women and their children. In my view, this would, be one way of
showing the public that the system does in fact consider the
rights of victims and not merely those of criminals.
Can the minister tell us what additional funding was allocated
to these agencies in the last budget and how these agencies plan
to use the funds?
[English]
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, if there are specific programs or steps
in place in the province of Quebec that touch upon the issues I
have covered in my speech, I would be happy if the hon. member
would let me have the particulars. I am not sure what programs
in particular he is referring to, but I would be happy to give my
assurance to work in collaboration with local authorities as we
will across the country.
I recognize that crime prevention in particular will only work
if it is driven at the local and community levels. It is for that
reason that the municipalities and community groups are going
to have a role of prominence in crime prevention.
The federal role must surely be one of leadership and
co-ordination. This is the approach we are going to take,
enabling communities across the country to work together.
The hon. member asked about funding for shelters and
transition houses for spouses who are abused. Even in this
fiscally challenging time this government is going to stand by
the commitment it made in the campaign to provide that
additional funding.
I do not have dollar amounts which I can give the hon.
member today. I can say how it will be spent will be determined
in consultation with the provinces and the local authorities and
community groups which may know best how most value can be
received for the money.
I do not have the dollar amounts at this point but I can tell the
hon. member the commitment remains and as to where the
money will go we will determine that in consultation with the
groups we intend to benefit.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I will try
to make my statement very quickly.
Nobody on this side of the House including myself disagrees
for a moment that prevention has to have a high priority in our
system of dealing with people, particularly when it comes to
crime.
I want to get down to the grass roots, down to the level of
things. How is this government finally going to answer? I say
finally because I have been involved in this since the early 1970s
and even before when I was mayor of a town and crime was a
serious problem.
2405
I am thinking particularly of violent crime. When is the
government going to come forward with something for the
seniors I talked to on a radio talk show in Calgary, which is
certainly not a renowned city of crime in comparison with
others, who say they are scared to death. One lady said she lives
alone with her cat and she is scared to death every night that
somebody is going to tear her door down, bash her head in and
steal all her belongings. They live in fear.
In rural communities you see bars on the stores and on private
homes. Law-abiding citizens lock themselves in to try to protect
themselves from what is on the street on the loose.
During the lifetime of this 35th Parliament, we are going to
have 80 parole hearings. My research shows 80.
If we have a record like we have had in the past I fear for a lot
of people. Our research has already provided approximately 40
names of people who have been released on parole who have
killed a high number of people. One of those persons who got out
of jail said before he killed four other people: ``The only thing
crazier than me is a system that allows me to get on the street and
do what I did''.
We hear this from the criminals themselves. We hear it from
the victims. When is the government going to quit the rhetoric
and get down to the grassroots, talk to the people who are
suffering and listen to what the victims of violence are saying
and do something about their causes and concerns?
(1115 )
The Deputy Speaker: Time is almost up. Please be brief in
your reply.
Mr. Rock: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member says
that he has been involved in this for 20 years. I respect his
experience, but I predict that we are going to be involved in this
for a lot longer than 20 years to come. It is part of the human
condition.
We are going to do our level best to balance the interest we
have been talking about. So far as fear is concerned, I am aware
of the fear to which the hon. member refers. One thing we must
be careful not to do is feed into or amplify those fears if they are
disproportionate to the reality.
The unkindest thing we can do to the senior citizens to whom
the hon. member referred is to play on those fears, to make them
worse by suggesting that the problem is worse than it really is,
that the challenge is greater than it really is.
Of course we have a challenge in front of us, but let us keep it
in perspective. As I said earlier concerning high risk offenders
in the parole system, we recognize that changes have to be made.
We have to take the person at the end of the sentence and
examine them to determine whether they are fit to be returned to
society. If they are not, we have to find a way of working with
the health system to keep them confined for our own protection.
Next week when I meet with my colleagues in the provinces I
will be talking about that, among other things. We cannot do it
alone. We will do it in concert with them. I am very aware of the
problem and we will address it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, the motion put forward by the Reform Party is not a
simple one. If we are not careful, it could foster an ideology
which is not in agreement with who we are as Canadians and
Quebecers. What this motion calls for is not approval or
disapproval, but a thorough review of the current system.
In my legal practice, I sometimes heard people say, in a fit of
anger over a gross injustice in a court of law or an irrational
judgement on the part of a judge, that the legal and judicial
system protects criminals better than victims.
Let us not jump too quickly to that conclusion. Many
extraneous factors, factors outside the legal system, can
influence a sentence, a release, the judgement of a lenient judge
and even-and we hear of it happening more and more on the
news-of a dissident judge or one advocating reform.
We must, however, look at the means at the disposal of the
judicial branch to enforce the legislation that we legislators pass
in this House. For example-and I shall be brief since I have
only 20 minutes-how can a judge send a first-time offender to
jail, knowing that our penitentiaries are overcrowded? If the
judge finds in favour of the Crown and the victim, the offender
will indeed be sentenced to imprisonment. But he will soon be
discharged, conditionally. It happens all the time.
When faced with this kind of judgement or finding, people
dealing with the judicial system are always left to wonder. But
the judge has no other choice.
For years now, there has been a general consensus that
violence can take many forms. This is not to say that our society
is necessarily more violent than others on the whole, but rather
that we are better at recognizing violence and its various
manifestations and at doing so more quickly. There has always
been violence. It is just that we talk about it more today. Victims
are less intimidated by the system and come forward more
freely, but violence in itself is nothing new.
The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Do the rights of
criminals supersede those of the victim in the present legal
framework? If so, what can the government do to correct the
situation?
I think that this issue involves competiting rights between
victims and criminals and the two members who spoke earlier
really put their finger on it. Both Quebec and Canada have
passed legislation that brings out this duality.
2406
However, discrepancies between the rights of the parties to
a criminal case have existed for a very long time, since the
Quebec Act of 1774 clearly addressed these concerns by
introducing British criminal law to Canada. Section XI of this
act reads in part as follows: ``And whereas the Certainty and
Lenity of the Criminal Law of England, and the Benefits and
Advantages resulting from the Use of it, have been sensibly felt
by the Inhabitants, from an Experience of more than nine Years
[-]shall continue to be [-]observed as Law in the Province
of Quebec, as well in the Description and Quality of the Offence
as in the Method of Prosecution and Trial; and the Punishments
and Forfeitures thereby inflicted-''
(1120)
We must not forget that they had capital punishment back then
and that the victim's only consolation was the condemned
person's last breath.
That said, we must define the issue raised and, in order to
resolve it as clearly as possible, we must first determine if this
finding is justified and true, or quite simply false in legal and
social terms.
What in our current system could help us weigh the pros and
cons without being swayed by feelings and sensational cases
that quickly stir up the emotions?
Daily newspapers emphasize the system's failures rather than
its successes. The press usually focuses on the negative and that
is what readers remember.
It must be said that, in recent decades, our society and
therefore our legislation have quietly put a particular
emphasis-I am not saying that everything is just rosy and that
there is nothing left for us to do-on the victims of crime, at the
urging of federal and provincial lawmakers.
The laws of Quebec and several other provinces that deal with
the victims of crime are a striking example.
We must also be honest and mention that the Criminal Code
contains provisions aimed at helping crime victims. There are
for instance the provisions on the identification of criminals and
the restitution of stolen goods. An hon. member said earlier that
there should be such provisions, but I think they already are in
the Criminal Code. We would only have to enforce them. We
should urge the courts to enforce the current legislation
designed to protect witnesses who testify and to award
exemplary damages or impose fine surcharges-this principle
still exists today. Do the courts apply the law in all cases? That
remains to be seen.
Legislators are not here to make laws for the sake of it because
they could make a lot that would never be enforced. I think there
is a principle that legislators do not act frivolously. If they make
changes, it is to make things better and not to leave everything
up to a court that would not enforce them anyway.
Is this not enough for victims? Perhaps, but we should not
endanger the whole legal system by trying to correct an age-old
duality.
Another argument in favour of balancing rights between the
victim and the criminal is the release on bail of the accused. It
may be where we see an increasing number of reports in the
press, which has a field day whenever a judge makes a wrong
assessment. Again, society gets a negative impression of the
legal system.
Under the Criminal Code's general rules, the police officer
responsible for the temporary detention of a person charged with
an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of five
years must release this person, unless he has reason to believe
that it is necessary in the public interest or to ensure that the
accused will show up for the trial.
Of course, the decision to release the accused is left to a
justice of the peace. As the legal evaluation criteria are very
complex, I will not go into them in this debate. One thing is for
certain: a presumably impartial judge-and I think it is true in
major cases-looks at the facts before deciding to release the
accused.
In some cases, in particular in murder and hard-drug
trafficking cases, it is up to the accused to prove that he should
not be detained while waiting for his trial. In both cases, there is
a major reversal of the burden of proof that somehow helps make
the victim more secure.
The current code also requires the judge to issue a firearms
prohibition order for anyone released on bail who is charged
with an offence involving actual, threatened or attempted
violence. In many cases, the judge will also ask for a
commitment not to disturb the peace.
(1125)
Of course, the judge can ask any accused person to make
certain commitments and you will say that in many cases they
are not respected. What little experience I have, although I am
not a criminal lawyer, shows me that in most cases, people who
are released under certain conditions respect them. We do not
see them in the newspapers, because what is interesting about
knowing that someone obeys the law; it is much more
interesting to know who does not obey it.
You will tell me that is all very well on paper, but that in
reality there are injustices and victims who are afraid, victims
who are victims of the system. I must reply that unfortunately it
is so. A perfect system where everyone would seem to win in a
balanced legal system does not exist. The big problem in this
question of justice between the victim and the criminal is, I
think, one of society's perception.
2407
Yes, the verbal excesses of some judges have damaged the
esteem in which the present legal system is held. Fortunately,
these verbal excesses are condemned by scathing criticism from
society and by the peers of those who commit these excesses.
Legal cases which make it to the front pages of the newspapers
are not necessarily typical of everyday reality. These articles
contribute to the mistaken opinion people have of justice.
I think that the observation we are considering does indeed
reflect society's perception, but it should be qualified from the
legal point of view. To show why I am saying this, we must refer
to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wish to
remind this House that this charter is the same one that Quebec
did not have the privilege to endorse when the Constitution was
unilaterally repatriated in 1982, as the present Prime Minister
surely recalls. So I am in a special position to criticize it.
Let us look for a moment at some provisions of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding the rights and legal
guarantees of individuals and of criminals. We are told that the
Charter is the highest law in trials and in the legal system, so let
us look at what this charter provides both for criminals and for
victims.
Section 7 says: ``Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
except in accordance with the principles of fundamental
justice.'' Section 8 gives ``everyone the right to be secure
against unreasonable search or seizure.'' Section 9 says:
``Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or
imprisoned.'' Section 10 says: ``Everyone has the right on arrest
or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay -and (c) to have
the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas
corpus.''
In any case, I thought on reading these sections that everyone,
criminal or victim, is indeed protected by law. Nevertheless, the
legislators felt the need to insert additional sections on the rights
of an accused person. That is the whole series of section 11 of
this charter, where it says that ``any person charged with an
offence has the right to be informed without unreasonable delay
of the specific offence'' -I thought this redundant, given the
previous sections-to be tried within a reasonable time, not to
be compelled to testify against himself, to be presumed innocent
until proven guilty, not to be denied bail without just cause, to
the benefit of trial by jury, except in the case of an offence under
military law tried before a military tribunal, not to be found
guilty on account of any act or omission, if finally acquitted of
the offence, not to be tried for it again, etc., etc.
Section 11 adds several factors to what was already there for
the accused.
(1130)
I wanted to read this, even though the members of this House
are well acquainted with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, to highlight the existing imbalance, in my view, in a
law which supposedly supersedes all others, between the rights
of the accused, the criminal, and the rights of the victim.
The Charter of Rights of which the Prime Minister is so proud
clearly brings into focus our negative perception of the justice
system. There is absolutely nothing in the Charter to protect the
victim, to ensure that he or she benefits from the support of the
state throughout the lengthy criminal justice process. And this
process is very lengthy indeed. More money needs to be
invested in this process. It is not legislation that is lacking. We
need to allocate more funding to the administration of justice. It
is not by enacting laws that we will strike a better balance
between the rights of victims and of criminals.
However, I think it should have been stated clearly in the
Charter that victims' rights always take precedence over the
rights of the accused, of criminals. Since no mention is made of
the need for this kind of balance, those who come before the
courts only hear about how the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms protects the accused, about how it is invoked to obtain
the release of an accused person or to quash a ruling by a lower
court which convicted a person, or how, as a result, the accused
is released following a review on appeal.
Quite often, at the appeal stage, the issue is not whether a
crime was committed, but whether all of the provisions of the
Charter were upheld. The victim ends up being the one who,
quite often, suffers extreme prejudice. Using the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms as an example, we can easily demonstrate
the apparent imbalance between the rights of the victim and
those of the criminal.
However, the public's generally negative perception of the
system goes much deeper than its appreciation of a particular
piece of legislation. That is why I believe in the justice system
given to us by our ancestors. We must not call everything into
question for the sake of achieving a punitive, excessive
objective. We have to be rational and pursue efforts to
modernize the system, while looking to education. A more
highly educated society which understands its rights is a society
that has a greater appreciation of its justice system.
Since we know what the priorities of the Minister of Justice
are in this 35th Parliament, and we heard them again in the
House this morning, we will have an opportunity to get some
messages across to him. We should seize this occasion to give
greater importance to victims and, in the process, improve the
perception that those who come before the courts have of our
justice system.
2408
In conclusion, it would not necessarily be viable for Quebec
and Canada to seek to improve the lot of victims solely at the
expense of criminals. We should be focusing our energies on
education, prevention and rehabilitation instead of on handing
down heavier sentences to criminals. Does Canada want to
become a totalitarian country insofar as the treatment of its
criminals is concerned?
The members on this side of the House would like to establish
a sovereign country, one in which a fair balance will be struck
between the rights of victims and the rights of criminals. In my
opinion, this balance will not be achieved by pitting the rights of
one party against those of another.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State
(Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech, I
appreciated his carefully prepared arguments, and I think he
gave a very clear analysis of the situation.
Certainly, individuals who commit violent crimes against
women make us hate both the nature of the crime and the person
who commits the crime. We must realize, however, that the
proportion of such crimes is much smaller than you would think
when you read the newspaper headlines and listen to the news,
because we never talk about what is good and normal in society.
When crimes are committed, they make the headlines and cause
high levels of fear and anxiety, because these are very serious
matters.
Since my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has shown that he
has an open mind on the matter and would appreciate the
participation and collaboration of all members of the House to
find out what they think and let them help us all make any
necessary improvements, could the hon. member tell us what he
sees as the most important initial step towards dealing with the
situation?
(1135)
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the people
facing me were elected to govern and to draft legislation, and
that they should do what they feel is useful and necessary, on the
basis of their consultations and the principles outlined in their
red book.
I would say that in many respects, the changes being
requested are unnecessary. Take the bill to amend the Narcotics
Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, which is before the
House. We already have a Narcotics Control Act. The
government wants to update and amend this legislation, but as
was explained in the House, in some very obvious cases this
legislation is not even enforced.
We can pass as many bills as we want, but if the legislation we
adopt is not enforced, if we do not have the political will to do
so, what is the use? I say we should first look at what we already
have and see if we can enforce those laws.
Another item that will soon be before Parliament is the Young
Offenders Act. I discussed this with judges on several occasions,
and they said: Mr. Bellehumeur, the existing legislation is not
even enforced. We could refer some young offenders to adult
court but we do not, although we are allowed to do so under the
Act.
That is my question: why? Because the system does not give
us the tools we need. Are we going to send a young offender to a
prison for adults, where they learn more about crime than
anything else? Judges prefer to hand out a minimum sentence
and then release young offenders or make arrangements to have
them supervised by someone who will help them get back on the
right track.
I think that before we consider extensive changes, we should
look at the system we have now, and draw our own conclusions.
Are these laws enforced? Do we give judges and the courts
enough power to enforce them? Instead of extensive changes,
perhaps we should improve the way this legislation is used.
Even if the hon. member wished, I will not go into great detail
about extensive federal amendments to Canadian laws. I simply
want to say that we already have laws, and we should find out
whether they are properly enforced.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. He
explains the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and some of the
problems in the charter very well, and also some of the laws that
we have on our books.
We have many laws on our books, but the frustration is that
people perceive that the courts are not really carrying out the
mandate they have been given.
I would like to say too that while we disagree on a lot of things
like debt and deficit and so on, if there is one issue we must get
together on it is the issue of criminal justice reform and the need
for it. We need to be co-operative about this thing, not
confrontational.
One of the problems people see is that the courts often hand
out very light sentences for very serious crimes. For example, in
the southern part of my riding very recently an elderly
gentleman was lured out of his home and savagely killed. The
main perpetrator of that crime received four years and will be
getting out shortly on parole. People find it very unacceptable
that this man committed a terrible murder and will be out in a
very short time because of extenuating circumstances. But the
courts have found him guilty. People find this a real problem. It
is not that the laws are not there but it is perceived that many of
these people are getting away with murder.
2409
(1140)
I have a question that people have asked me to pass on. When
these people are sentenced should they not lose some of their
rights? For example, could these people not be put into work
programs when they are in prison? The issue of restitution has
been brought up. People feel that a percentage of the earnings of
prisoners could possibly be used to compensate victims of
crime. In this case, it was a terrible hardship for the wife when
her husband was lured out of the home and killed. Work has a
way of producing self-esteem and people very often feel this is
something that is lacking and can have a very therapeutic effect.
I wonder if maybe the hon. member would like to make some
comments about the courts being part of the problem and not just
our laws.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, this debate should not be on
specific cases or on a particularly disgusting crime. If you use a
specific case where the victim went through hell and the
sentence was relatively light, you will obviously come to the
same conclusion as the Reform Party. But these cases are a
minority and as long as our laws are implemented by judges who
are human beings, there will be some personal appreciation
involved in their decision, which can lead to differences, as I
was saying earlier.
As for the second part of the hon. member's question
regarding the judge's comments, I think that a whole set of
measures are already in place to compensate victims. I said
earlier that in the case of stolen goods, I have seen judges
sentence the guilty parties to return or repay the goods or even
do community work. In Quebec, a whole series of measures are
in place regarding community programs. But the problem is the
follow-up. Indeed, the problem lie not in the legislation but
rather in the means and how to deal with the whole issue.
We could pass laws which, for example, would provide that
for a specific offence, the offender would have to pay a certain
amount. However, if that person is on welfare, or is so well
organized that he or she does not own anything, what are we
going to do? What are we going to seize to recover the
equivalent of what was stolen? We will get into proceedings and
we will go through trials just to save face, because in the end we
will be left with unenforceable sentences. What good will that
do? None whatever. I think that we already have the necessary
legislation. It is simply a matter of implementing it. Perhaps the
judges and those who administer the law should be given
additional resources for a follow-up, but it is especially
important not to get into specifics, otherwise we will really get
bogged down.
The hon. member might want to formulate his question during
Oral Question Period and address it to the Minister of Justice in
the coming month, so that we have something before us
regarding his suggestion.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod is next.
I believe he plans to share his time with the hon. member for
Yellowhead.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I feel this is
probably one of the easiest topics to speak on in the House.
Surely we have a very common desire on this topic, to see justice
and fairness in our justice system enacted.
I would like to start off by saying that in my view Canada does
have a justice problem. It is a problem that is typified by the fact
that homicides are climbing, our schools are unsafe and
smuggling is rampant. We have recently had House business that
dealt with smuggling. Fraud in our country is commonplace.
(1145 )
I would like to put criminal justice on a priority list for
members who are close to me on this side of the House. We have
gone through social programs and priorized them. We put health
care at the top of our priorities along with education, pensions
for the needy and environmental issues. We put justice as the
one area in our social program system that we would spend more
money on. This is the one area, in spite of our deficit and debt
problems, we would spend extra money on. We put a high
priority on this specific issue.
This discourse is not in any sense meant to be confrontational.
This discourse is meant to be informational. I hope it will be
taken in that context.
Some statistics in our country trouble me: 3 per cent of the
population are natives and 11.3 per cent of our penitentiary
inmates are natives. I have talked to the native elders and have
tried to ascertain what they thought the answer to that problem
was. They think the old values of the native community need to
be better taught. They talk of sweetgrass ceremonies, sweat
lodges, and improving the status of the individual by their old
cultural methods. I say we need a return of dignity and
self-sufficiency for natives. People can only be proud of their
culture when they are proud of themselves.
Another thing I would pause to reflect on is something I call a
prison revolt. This revolt comes from the sociologists and
criminologists in our society. They approach crime with the
viewpoint that crime is not the fault of the criminal in many
instances. It is simply the fault of upbringing, of poverty and of
abuse. I recognize there are major problems in our society that
contribute to crime. I recognize that education, prevention of
poverty and prevention of child abuse are extremely important.
They say the answer to the problem is compassionate, caring
2410
therapy in a nice warm jail, with retraining opportunities and
better recreation and library facilities than people on assistance
have. I frankly disagree. That is not the answer to that problem.
We allow prisoners to vote. We release dangerous offenders
on unsupervised leave. We sentence them to life but that means
little. In my view in some ways we as Canadians have lost our
marbles.
Turning to some other backward moves in our criminal justice
system, we take our law enforcement officers, our RCMP
trainees, and do not pay them very well. As trainees we give
them a relatively low wage scale. As they go through their
training process they reach a point at which they are ready to
take on the more major responsibilities and with our frozen civil
servant wages we leave them at the training wage scale. What
talented young men would want to serve in the law enforcement
agency realizing that they would be penalized? This is one area
in which the civil service wage freeze is absolutely unfair.
When gun control measures were started, they were started to
curtail violence with guns, a proposition that no one could argue
with. Homicides with guns have not improved over the lifetime
of gun control. Stricter gun control has no correlation whatever
to better results on homicides with guns. I hear now that one of
the reasons for stricter gun control is that guns are inherently
dangerous. I also hear that we are going to prevent accidents and
suicides by having stricter gun control. It just is not the reason to
have gun control. On the other end of the scale we have a free
vote coming up that is going to allow doctors to assist in
suicides. These are the two ends of the scale that I think are
completely wrong.
(1150)
Honest gun users are also having weapons declared restricted
and then confiscated without pay, a provision that is entirely
unfair.
Another issue that I found fascinating about gun control is
that when RCMP officers take their weapons off their hips,
either in the detachment or in their homes, they must place bore
locks in their weapons. Their weapons are then locked so that
they cannot be used.
I spoke with RCMP officers at home and asked: ``What
advantage is there to you in doing that?'' They said: ``There is no
advantage to us at all. We have always been extremely careful
with our weapons, extremely careful because our own children
could get the loaded weapons. The only advantage in that is to
the criminal''. In fact a criminal could wander into the
detachment and spray the RCMP officers with rifle fire while
they scramble to unlock their weapons. Again in my view in
Canada on some issues we have lost our marbles.
It is not good enough to stand in the House and just complain,
mutter and say that everything is wrong. It is only useful if we
have some constructive comments to make. I would like to turn
to that portion of my address now.
In our society family values have become less important. This
has a major part to play in our problems with our criminal justice
system. Single parent families today are 13 per cent of the
families in society. Many reasons are given for this but a few
stand out to me. More teens today are choosing to keep and raise
their babies. There are fewer forced weddings and there is much
more divorce in society today. I have tried to look very critically
at why families are breaking down. I am partial to the one that
says that families are spending too much time trying to raise
their sights financially rather than raise their sights on their
children.
When I was a young man of about 13 years of age and in grade
seven my parents got their first home. It was a 1,300 square foot
home; not very big, not very expensive. If they had paid for that
mortgage over the span of their lives, they would have paid for it
by the time that they were in their early sixties.
I look with interest as young families today set out very early
in their lives to get big homes. Homes much bigger than 1,300
square feet would be the average. They borrow earlier. They take
on more onerous financial duties. This forces both parents to get
out into the workforce to try to pay that debt. This conscious
decision does not allow as much direct parental contact with the
children. I believe that contributes to some of the problems in
our justice system.
Day care is not the same as parent care. Television care is not
the same as parent care. A new BMW in the garage is not the
same as close, loving parental care of a loved child.
The solution in part would be to change the tax rules so that
there is encouragement for one parent to stay home. That need
not be the woman; it could well be the man. Another change that
could take place would be to allow our workforce to adjust hours
so that there could at least be one parent at home.
The other specific area I wanted to address does not have very
much to do with jails and what not. There is a very expensive
area in our justice system. I want to refer to an article in the
Medical Post from December that talked about obstetricians
recommending defensive medicine to prevent lawsuits. The
obstetrician in this article said that every single baby, just after
it is born, should have a brain scan and the brain scan should be
done to prevent a lawsuit ensuing in the future if things showed
up in that baby's development. If cerebral palsy ensued the
obstetrician could be blamed for problems at birth. Every single
baby that had potential problems should have a brain scan,
according to that obstetrician.
2411
(1155)
The lawsuits that this obstetrician is trying to prevent are
lawsuits that involve huge amounts of money in our court
system and huge amounts of money in terms of the actual awards
that are given, settlements of up to $7 million.
In my view the confrontational legal system we are
developing in our country mimicking the U.S. system when it
comes to medical legal issues is costing untold amounts of
money. The end result of the meeting-and this was a meeting
that had a number of solicitors in it-was to suggest that no fault
medical insurance would go a long way toward preventing the
gladiatorial events of doctors against lawyers in our court
system. I propose that as one specific item that we should be
looking at. It involves the health ministry. It involves the justice
ministry as well.
The justice issue transcends every political party. This issue
transcends every personal philosophy, every level of income,
and every age group. I want to co-operate in the House to make
sure our criminal justice system is improved.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the
hon. member.
As a model prototype of the penal reform system we are in the
process of building a women's prison in Truro, Nova Scotia.
That prison will be built on the model of a small home where
women will learn to cook nutritionally with the guidance of a
dietitian. They will take care of the home properly. They will
have their children brought to them. They will be integrated into
our community; into community recreation, into community
education and into community training of various types. This is
an integrated model so that when these women are free to be
released to society they will be productive, sensible, mature
women in the sense that they can be self-sufficient and go back
to a so-called normal life. I hope this will be the model the
country will establish and follow so that we do have results for
the tax dollars invested.
The second point I would make is that in his comments the
member appears or seems to project the notion that moral values
can be legislated. We on this side of the House and I believe the
people of Canada will watch with great interest and anticipation
as his leader takes on the role of delegating moral activity and
moral responsibility with regard to their own membership.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I might comment on the
idea of legislating moral values.
I am sure the issue of code of conduct is one the member
opposite would not care to disagree with. This issue has been
blown all out of proportion, as a code of ethics is simply a
statement that as public persons a very important part of our
lives is now public. I am sure the member opposite will be most
interested in seeing what our code of conduct looks like when it
comes out.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask three questions of the previous
speaker.
First, he referred to the aboriginal people of Canada and I
would agree with him 100 per cent about the condition in which
they find themselves. Has the hon. member taken the time to
read our red book? It speaks of giving Canada's native people
their own place, their own lives, their own destiny.
(1200)
That has been the subject of many questions here relating to
better education, better training for the workplace, a better
health system and conditions. Finally it speaks of giving them
their own justice system and eventually transferring to their
hands the whole of the huge budget of the department of Indian
affairs. Does the member not agree that the solution has already
been advanced and should be debated very constructively here?
Second, in regard to better gun control I do not think solutions
are simply in gun control. The minister of justice has advanced
the positive idea that unless society as a whole works itself on a
holistic basis and we clean ourselves from within, gun control
once more is only part of the puzzle.
At the same time to argue today that gun control is not
necessary is to fly in the face of the opinion of 85 per cent of
Canadians. It flies in the face of the fact that one of my friends in
Montreal, Michael Hogben, was killed by a fellow teacher
because of loose gun control. It flies in the face of Marc Lépine
who killed 14 young women at the École polytechnique in
Montreal. It flies in the face of Brady who was pleading for more
gun control in the United States-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Macleod very briefly.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, to talk specifically about
the gun control comment, I am not for one second saying that
gun control should not exist. What I am saying and will say very
strongly is that more stringent gun control measures are not the
answer.
As the member speaks of Lépine's gun, he should realize that
Lépine's gun would not be removed from Canadian society
under our current gun control legislation.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this motion. This
House has been in session for two months now. Finally we are
dealing with an issue which many of my constituents have told
me is very important to them.
2412
I am in the process of drafting a private member's bill on
victims' rights. I welcome this opportunity to address an
important dimension of victims' rights, namely restitution and
compensation.
One hon. member mentioned we should not look at individual
cases. Too often we speak in general terms and we lose touch
with real events and real persons.
One of the first inquiries I received in my office was from a
man in Sturgis, Saskatchewan who had his vehicle trashed by a
group of teenagers in June 1992. The car was totally written off
by the insurance company for a total cost of $6,500. The victim
was required to pay the $500 deductible and the cost of a rental
car so he could get to work. Total out of pocket expenses for the
victim were $817.45.
The owner applied for restitution to the RCMP in August
1992. In September the victim wrote to the Saskatchewan
minister of justice expressing his disappointment that charges
had not been laid against the teenagers who had destroyed his
car. In December 1992 the RCMP advised the victim that
charges were being laid against a number of individuals.
In May 1993 the crown prosecutor and the defence council
negotiated for four hours. Charges were dropped against the six
young offenders and one adult and charges proceeded against
three others.
It appeared to the victim that the main consideration of the
courts during the sentencing was that there would be no hardship
imposed on the accused. What about the victim being out of
pocket over $800? What about the $6,000 paid out by
Saskatchewan Government Insurance? What about the
inconvenience of losing the use of his car until he got another
one?
The three convicted teenagers were ordered to pay $500
restitution and two were fined for assault. The fines and
restitution were to be paid by August 31, 1993. At the end of
September after numerous phone calls to the provincial
officials, the victim again wrote the Saskatchewan minister of
justice complaining that he had not yet received the $500
restitution. In November the minister responded saying the
criminals had paid $50 to the court and that he should be in
receipt of it. After many phone calls to the RCMP, the provincial
court wrote a cheque for $50 which arrived on November 25.
The victim wrote another letter of complaint to the courts and
asked for the remaining $450.
(1205)
I remind this House it is now a year and a half since the
victim's car was demolished. The victim, by this time in a total
state of exasperation, wrote to me, his member of Parliament.
We wrote the federal Minister of Justice on behalf of the victim.
In January the victim wrote informing us that the balance of
the restitution order had been received. In February 1994 the
minister responded saying there was nothing he could do and
suggested the victim file the restitution order with the courts
and have it enforced as a civil judgment in accordance with
section 725 of the Criminal Code.
I have taken the time to explain this case because I want
members of this House to get a feeling for what it is like to be a
victim of a senseless crime. I want members of this House to put
themselves in the victim's shoes and try to feel how this victim
felt as he was being jacked around by the system.
Our goal as Reformers in this House is to make sure that laws
are passed that put the rights of the victim first, ahead of all
other considerations, especially the rights of criminals.
When we researched this particular case we proposed a
number of possible improvements to the existing laws with
respect to restitution and compensation for the victims of crime.
The Minister of Justice in his reply to our letter also suggested
some improvements which should be enacted.
Following are some suggested improvements which we will
be including in our victims' rights bill. The rights of the victim
and compensation for the victim's losses should be the top
priority of the courts.
Restitution orders should be mandatory and not at the
discretion of the courts. Restitution orders should compensate
the full costs incurred by the victim, including losses resulting
from personal injury and/or loss or damage to property,
including insurance claims. Restitution orders should be
enforceable.
Why should the only recourse be for the victim to pursue the
matter in civil court? We send people to jail if they do not pay
their fines. Why not garnishee a portion of the criminal's wages
until the restitution order is paid in full? I believe there is far too
much emphasis on rights and we forget that we also have
responsibilities. In fact, we should not be entitled to our rights
until we first discharge our responsibilities.
The province of Saskatchewan places a surcharge on every
$100 paid in fines. These are set aside in a victim services fund,
but there is no legal obligation on the part of the province to
spend the revenue collected exclusively on victims. Nor is there
any compulsory requirement for the victims to be financially
compensated for their losses.
In some provinces criminal injury compensation has been
combined with workers compensation providing quicker
response to the victim. This may be a solution for compensating
victims of crime where convictions are not obtained.
What about the responsibility of the convicted criminals to
pay for their crimes? Are they only responsible to the state after
they are convicted? Are criminals not also responsible for
repairing the damage they have done? I and many other
Canadians feel they are not only responsible but should also be
totally accountable for their actions and compensate their
victims in full.
2413
The charges against the young offenders in the case I reported
earlier should never have been dropped. The very least the court
should have done was make the young offenders pay their share
of the damages. They had the fun of wrecking the victim's car;
let them at least learn a lesson by having to pay their share of
the damages out of their own pockets.
How many of these young offenders who are let go have gone
on to commit other crimes? If young offenders are unable to
compensate the victims of their crimes, then the parents of the
young offenders should be held totally responsible for
compensating the victim. This will ensure that parents take a
greater interest in what their children are doing outside the
home.
When criminals are serving time-and I am talking about low
risk offenders now, those who do not pose a risk of physical
violence-they should be involved in work programs. They
should not be granted the luxury of lounging around at taxpayer
funded correctional centres. Convicted criminals involved in
work programs should have a portion of their wages deducted.
This revenue should be used to repay the victims of the crime.
Another portion of the wages should be used to help pay for the
cost of the correctional services, including guards, food,
accommodation and so on.
(1210)
I have outlined nine ways in which the government could act
to place the rights of the victim ahead of those of the criminal
specifically as they relate to restitution and compensation. As a
now famous politician once said, we have a lot of work to do. For
far too long victims' rights have had to take a back seat to the
rights of criminals. It is time to bring some real justice to the
justice system.
The man who had his car trashed by the teenagers did not get
justice. He lost the use of his car for days. To get to work he had
to rent a car for which he was not compensated. He had to wait
20 months to get the partial compensation the courts awarded.
He had to make many phone calls and write many letters at his
own expense to get the restitution ordered by the court. Add to
that 20 months of worry and frustration.
The criminals in that case got away with one more thing: They
have not made restitution for the $6,000 paid out by
Saskatchewan Government Insurance. Every policyholder in
Saskatchewan will have to pay higher premiums as a result.
The government can take action which would improve the
situation for victims immediately and would not require any
change in legislation. As an interim measure victims must be
better informed of the limited rights they now have.
Much of the frustration suffered by my constituent could have
been avoided if he had not been forced to fight for his rights with
bureaucrats and politicians for over a year and a half to get back
just some of the money owed to him.
If the victims of crime were a real priority of the justice
system this travesty of justice would not have occurred. Why
should honest, law-abiding citizens have to pay for the
misdeeds of criminals? It is cash out of their own pockets in
higher premiums paid to insurance companies.
In closing, as a member of this House I vow to support
common sense criminal justice reforms regardless of the party
or member initiating them. That is why this morning I was
pleased to second a private member's bill introduced by the hon.
member for York South-Weston calling for the repeal of
section 745 of the Criminal Code which would put an end to
early parole for first degree murderers who have been sentenced
to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
I look forward to the continued debate on this. We need to
work together.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, I found the
hon. member's comments very interesting. I am not a lawyer or
a notary, and I have no particular interest in judicial matters, but
I represent a constituency that includes the inmates of
Bordeaux, a well-known prison in Montreal. In fact, I heard
several remarks during the two previous speeches made by
members of the Reform Party which seem to reflect some
prejudice against the penal system, in that they call for yet more
legislation but ignore the lack of resources endemic in the
system.
Bordeaux prison is a provincial institution, in other words, for
offenders sentenced to two years or less, and it is full of
so-called weekend inmates. The penal system does not provide
enough prisons, and often when inmates who serve their
sentence on weekends come to the prison, they are told: No
room, come back next week. And this can go on for two years.
We do not need more legislation. We need resources, as my
colleague argued earlier.
(1215)
I heard some remarks by my Reform Party
colleague-speaking of prejudice-who referred to nice, warm
jails. I do not think they are nice, warm jails. This smacks of
demagogy, and we can do without that. I think we should
concentrate on improving the availability of resources.
I have a more specific question about the hon. member's
speech. He made a presentation on a private member' bill
concerning compensation for victims of crime. At the present
time, victims can go to civil court to sue criminals. However,
criminals usually do not have any income or resources to pay
fines and that sort of thing.
2414
Could he explain how this would be dealt with in his bill,
to give victims a better chance to sue criminals for damage
arising from their crimes?
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pick up on a couple of things the hon. member has
mentioned. One is the people who spend their weekends in
prison. Very often we sentence people to sentences that may not
be appropriate. I would like to put this idea forth.
Many times when we send people to prison, instead of
improving on their attitude and their lot and so on, they in fact
deteriorate because they get to mix with other people who may
be of more disrepute than they are.
With regard to non-violent offenders, possibly the courts
could have the option of putting them into work programs rather
than sending them to prison. The prisons could be reserved for
the worst offenders, the most violent offenders in society. This
ties in with the second matter that was raised, how would these
people be compensated.
That is where work programs need to be put in place in the
prisons. A percentage of the wages these people earn could then
be used to compensate their victims. A problem we have is that a
victim has to go through the civil courts, through the whole legal
and justice system to try to get back some of that money. It is a
great inconvenience and very often unsuccessful because the
criminal has no income to be able to pay the victim.
If there were a work program this would help solve that
problem. Work would also give these people a better feeling
about themselves. It is no different for them than for us. When
someone meets someone else for the first time, the one thing
they ask is: ``What work do you do, what job?''. It does
something for us and I think it would do the same for many of
these people in society.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief.
In terms of charging the parents under the Young Offenders
Act if they cannot charge the child, what is the hon. member's
recommendation as to punishment? Quite often we find that the
parents have very little asset or ability to pay or to compensate
the victim.
I work closely with the Citizens United for Safety and Justice
in my community and we see that there is no real asset or
opportunity to make the parent pay.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I am not
saying that we should be charging parents. Do not get me wrong.
My constituents are telling me that very often parents have the
attitude that it is someone else's problem. I think it is that
attitude we are trying to get at. If they were required to make
some compensation in that regard and if they were held
accountable for what their children are doing, they might take a
greater interest in what they are doing. This is the kind of
attitude we need to foster. It all ties in with the erosion of family
living that we have in Canada and I think we need to address that
whole area. It is not going to be done in just one minute.
(1220)
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity this morning
to speak on this motion.
I realize in our country at the present time there is a
tremendous outrage against crime. It is not the outrage against
crime with which I have a problem. On the contrary, I have
trouble understanding and I condemn the simplistic solutions to
complex interdependent and intertwined problems that exist in
our society which cause crime.
As long as we as members of Parliament and members of
society say that there is a possibility for quick fixes, we cannot
count on the support of the people of Canada to work with us.
The problem today is that crime is not like a common cold, it
is not like a mortgage, it is not like foreign aid. It is something
that is entirely different. It is something with which all of
society must become involved.
I have listened to the member for Yorkton-Melville and I
appreciate the point he made that prisons are not the answer for
punishment for all those who have offended. This is true.
This is especially true with respect to young offenders. In
prison young offenders do acquire some of the tricks of the trade
that allow them to be professional criminals when they are
released.
Maybe there is a way of working with young offenders that
will be to the benefit of young offenders other than the standard
incarceration in adult institutions. Certainly watching television
and playing pool during the incarceration would not be the
answer. There has to be rehabilitation but there has to be an
appreciation.
I do not agree that people who offend should not be entitled to
rights until they discharge their responsibilities. There we are
creating a very dangerous line, a line that people in our society
are not entitled to rights. Criminals, people even though
incarcerated, have to be entitled to rights. We have to say that all
Canadians are entitled to rights. If not then we absolutely revert
to barbarism.
These rights are defined in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in the Criminal Code. We cannot say that these rights
can only be extended to some Canadians.
2415
The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley talked
about the fact that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been
a problem. There are people who have offended who got away
from the punishment they deserved because the lawyer was able
to rely on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is just
absolutely and utterly wrong.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes the rights of all
Canadians and enshrines them. These rights are fundamental. If
we do not abide by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
acknowledge these rights are applicable to all Canadians then
we are in fact one step closer to chaos.
(1225 )
We are one step closer to saying that there are certain rules
that apply to one group of Canadians and not to another group of
Canadians. Incarceration takes away privileges that certain
Canadians will hold. There is no question about that and that is
as it should be. Rights have to be fundamental. If they are not we
get into the situation in which people in our society tell other
people what they can have and what they cannot have, not only
the courts.
The courts then lose the power to weigh a matter and decide
what is going to be the punishment. If we take away these rights,
then when do these rights reappear? Who is to say when these
rights reappear? Who is to say that the person taking away the
rights from somebody is not going to be the person who loses
these rights at some later date?
We cannot destroy the fabric of the law in trying to solve the
problems in our society today. That is not to say of course that
there is not a great deal that needs to be done.
The resolution talks about condemning the government for its
action with regard to reform of the criminal justice system. I do
not think any politician can cop out and say: ``Well, we inherited
this from the former government''. I think it has to be a
consideration. To say that we should have legislation in place is
somewhat unreasonable in many instances considering the fact
that the House did not convene until January 17.
However, there is a great deal that is in place and ongoing at
the present time. The Minister of Justice mentioned that next
week on March 23 and 24 there is going to be a
federal-provincial-territorial conference on justice matters that
will examine all of the important details, concepts and subjects
that have been brought forward in this debate today.
This is very important. It is fundamental because we live in a
federal system of government in which certain responsibilities
in the same sphere of activity are shared by the federal
government, provincial governments and territorial
government. We must get these governments working together.
In so many areas things have fallen between the chairs so that
justice is not being done, not because the rules and the laws are
not there, not because the determination is not there, but because
we have not had the two systems of government working
together. That has to be the case. It has to be the case certainly in
family concerns, in violence against women and in custody
matters with respect to children where there are federal,
provincial and territorial jurisdictions in these subject matters.
We have to be able to enforce maintenance orders to look after
the children who are left by fathers and in fewer cases mothers
who do not want to remain with their family.
In the red book we call for a national council on crime
prevention. This is tremendously important. We have here in
this interlocked system this complex problem with really two
main aspects.
(1230 )
First, what do we do with those who are offending at the
present time? Second, how do we prevent these types of offences
from happening in the future? While it is unrealistic to say that
certain offences will not happen in the future, if we work
together and if we are prepared to look at new concepts, we have
in our power the means of reducing these crimes. We have to do
that.
I want to start with the recommendation in the red book which
calls for a national council on crime prevention. The Minister of
Justice has said he has spoken with the provincial and territorial
ministers responsible. This matter will be brought up at the
conference next week. The concept is taking shape. How it is
going to be implemented is not an easy matter but one which is
well on the way to complete definition.
This will bring together departments whose activities can
relate to the prevention of crime. For example, Canada
Mortgage and Housing with respect to housing, which is a factor
in crime; the Department of Health which is a factor in crime;
the Solicitor General-these departments will come together
and work together through this council under the leadership of
the Minister of Justice.
What will they do? They will be able to look at all legislation.
We look at the legislation and we want the best for all
Canadians. Through this council legislation will be looked at to
find out how crime can be prevented more effectively. How can
this legislation deal with possible crime in the future? This is an
aspect that is so important.
Also on this council will be agencies from the aboriginal
society, from the provincial society, from all of the working
groups that are dealing with crime prevention.
Through the council we will look at how we can prevent
crime, with the input of these groups, which will enable us to
work down into society itself through the provincial and
munici-
2416
pal levels and determine how on each of these levels the work of
the national council can be broadened and improved to become
more effective.
At the municipal level, for instance, how can community
policing more effectively deal with crime. How can we have
police stations or depots in more areas of the community, where
officers can patrol the community on foot, and where people can
relate to the officers of a particular police station and go to them
for advice?
On the provincial level as well, how can we work through
education. Right now the situation is that education is the right
of every young Canadian, regardless of how obstructive or how
destructive a student may be. Is that going to continue to be the
case? Can we have an educational system, for instance, where
we can at an earlier age try to identify the children at risk? We
have to be able to identify children at risk at an earlier age. They
are together in our educational system, certainly today that is
not the role of the teacher. But should it be? Should it be an
aspect of education? Should we have special classes that deal
with children at risk? Should we be able to say that this is a
common problem of society and not just the problem of the
parents?
(1235 )
Perhaps the parent is a single mother who is working as hard
as she possibly can to keep a roof over the head of herself and her
children. She wants to do more but she cannot and still provide
for that child. Is it not then that society must step in to try to
help? We cannot just throw money at people in need, at low
income people with children at risk. There has to be community
involvement. We have to start identifying where we can best
make this involvement, where we can best have this input.
When we did our study on crime prevention last year, a
psychiatrist appeared before us. He was asked at what age could
we have the best impact on children and how they conduct
themselves as they grow up. The psychiatrist said that from the
day a child is born to that child's third birthday is the time when
we can have the biggest impact on how that child will turn out
through his or her youth and adulthood. This is a very important
consideration.
A teacher came to me two years ago from the Toronto area
who wanted the age of the Young Offender's Act lowered
because in his school where he was principal a 10-year old and
an 11-year old both turned up at school with handguns. No one
would take responsibility. No agency would get involved and
finally the principal sent the two children home with the
handguns. Later on that afternoon he received a call from
somebody in the children's neighbourhood blasting the
principal for daring to send two children into the neighbourhood
with handguns. As far as that person was concerned it was fine to
have them in school with handguns but it was not fine to have
them in the neighbourhood with handguns.
Something is sadly lacking. We have to find out where we are
going in this regard. We are not only talking about victims
although victims are tremendously important and we have to be
more mindful of their rights. They are in the law. We have
always considered victims to be part of the law that we dispense
in this country.
Perhaps we can do more with compensation for the wrong that
was done to a victim. We have to consider it more in terms of
compensation rather than incarceration. We cannot have both.
One cannot have someone paying what in the opinion of the
court is a full penalty and then come out of incarceration and
have for a good part of his or her life thereafter to pay a large
sum of money to the victim. It does not give the person who
committed the wrong any incentive to change his or her ways if
he is constantly being reminded and torn by his or her mistake.
The victim suffers a tremendous harm, there is no question
about it. This harm has to be compensated as best as possible.
Part of this compensation to the victim however is that we have
that person coming out of incarceration able to live in society.
With young offenders no matter what crime they have
committed, they are going to be coming out of incarceration. If
they come out of incarceration more confused, more jaundiced
toward society than when they went into incarceration, then we
have failed. We have paid $60,000 a year for the right to fail.
This is a very complex situation but we have to be able to
address the wrongs that are done today. We have to be able to
anticipate and guard against future wrongs and reduce our crime
rate. The two working together have to mesh but they both have
to be aspects of what we are trying to do.
(1240)
The government is beginning well with the co-operation of all
members of the House of Commons and with the open dialogue
which the Minister of Justice has encouraged. I think all
members would agree he is open to discussion, and of his own
volition has initiated dialogue on gun control, and will be doing
this with other subject matters as well.
I look forward, as I know the Minister of Justice does, to
working with all members in dealing with this very complex and
important situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments and speech of the
hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. I would have two
questions for him.
First, does the hon. member agree with me that the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms puts too much emphasis on the
accused and the criminal and not enough on the victim? Does he
2417
agree with me on that? Would he be prepared to add something
to the Charter to favour victims, to have the rights of victims
supersede those of the accused?
Second, and this is more a clarification than a question, I hope
I heard wrong, in the part of the hon. member's speech where he
talked about municipalities, community policing and an
educational system providing special classes for children at
risk. I just want to make sure that the government does not
intend to intervene in areas which could not be more under
provincial jurisdiction.
I would like the hon. member to confirm that he brought this
up in his speech but that the federal government plans no direct
intervention in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to deal with
both of those questions.
First, the rights of victims are very important and have to be
of paramount consideration in our criminal justice system. The
Minister of Justice stated in his speech that they are being
considered at the present time in the Criminal Code and that they
are a very integral part of the dispensation of justice in Canada
right now.
We have also said that we are looking at ways of increasing
this. The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
spoke about the rights of the victims and said there should be
more dialogue and interfacing between the offender and the
victim. That is a very good point if the offender, especially if it
is a young offender, can get an actual appreciation of what he or
she has done, then it may go a long way toward helping that
young person rethink the way they have conducted their
activities.
I think that maybe we can, through diversion programs, deal
more with the compensation of the victim, more with the rights
of the victim. Certainly to say the rights of the victim are not
being considered would be incorrect.
With respect to community policing and education I was
talking about them on two different levels, with the community
policing on the municipal level and education on the provincial
level. Just to give the hon. member an idea of what I meant, there
is in my riding right now a project which I am working on and
which I am encouraging called The Learning Centre.
This centre has young people who have dropped out of school
and who have had problems with different types of learning
systems. The centre offers a learning mode in which there is
more of an interest in the individual. The success of this
institution has been absolutely incredible. I hope we can develop
and expand it so that it will have positive effects through the
whole country in time.
(1245)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I would
like the hon. member to comment on a couple of things in regard
to crime prevention of which I am a strong supporter regardless
of what some people might say. I am also a strong supporter of
punishment. I believe in both ends of the spectrum.
I like the idea of setting up the national council. The minister
suggested some ideas of who should be members of this council.
I did not hear the possibility of there being members from
Victims of Violence, from the good old grassroots, the farmer
who never had anything more than a grade six education, or the
ordinary Canadian. From his speech it seems it could be stacked
with people who have the class and the ability to speak
rhetorically, as we hear so much, and yet do not get to the root of
the problem. Would the government consider including all kinds
of people on this council?
Second, on the children at risk program, I tried to implement
that program in the school where I was principal. We had a great
deal of success with it at the beginning but that success
deteriorated. It was hindered because parents complained that
we were attempting to move in on certain children without their
permission although they were targeted. Under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms we virtually had to withdraw and therefore
could not provide any help. The charter was a hindrance to the
program in my view.
I would like the hon. member's comments on those two
points.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Wild
Rose for those questions. With respect to the national council on
crime prevention I agree with him most emphatically that at
least one member on the council should be from Victims of
Violence or a similar organization.
The member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley talked
about CAVEAT and her appreciation and tremendous respect for
it. However, one problem she had was that there had to be these
organizations to bring these concerns forward.
We are always going to have these organizations and we are
going to be better for it. They have done a tremendous amount of
good in bringing concerns forward. They certainly helped me in
understanding the concerns. Only people who have gone
through the trauma and tragedy can fully understand, but the
work these organizations do allow the rest of us to understand. It
is very helpful.
With respect to children at risk, there really are two problems.
The hon. member identified one as being the parents. There is a
concern here. The other of course is that it is a provincial
jurisdiction and the federal government is very limited in what it
can do.
2418
There is a precedent in that the Canada food guide is very
much a part of the school curriculum. We have to deal with this
matter at some point in meetings of the federal, provincial and
territorial governments.
I applaud the member for having tried the program. I
appreciate what he ran into but I still feel he was on the right
track. It is hoped that with a more broadly based project and an
idea of the pitfalls, thanks to his sharing with us the problems he
ran into, we will be able to anticipate where the problems lie.
Then if it is decided this is the way to go, we will be able to carry
it through to society's benefit.
(1250 )
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in support of our Reform motion. It is to
stimulate new Canada thinking about where we have been with
the justice system and what are the emerging expectations of the
community about where we need to go. As we formulate a vision
of hope for a new Canada of equality, the sense of proportion and
balance in the justice system needs to be examined.
Many in my community of New Westminster-Burnaby are
fearful, frustrated and angry about the operation of the justice
system. In fact they make the point that we do not have a justice
system at all; we merely have a legal system.
It is seen that this legal system is largely unaccountable to the
community and that the community has no sense of ownership of
what goes on in this seemingly convoluted system. The legal
system operates on doublespeak, legalese and jargon and is
characterized by a professional ``we know best'' attitude toward
an interfering community.
There are glimpses of hope, however, such as the community
policing efforts of the last few years, the block watch programs,
and extensive volunteer programs such as the Burnaby RCMP
victims assistance program.
This program began in January 1987 and currently involves
50 volunteers. During the seven years of service the program has
been in contact with 9,250 victims or witnesses. In 1993 it
handled over 1,650 files and volunteered 6,700 hours.
The primary role of the victim assistance program is to
provide emotional support. It provides information and updates
on police files, court information, court orientation and
accompaniment, referrals to community agencies and
information on legal services and criminal injuries
compensation.
In Burnaby the police based team of volunteers is on call 24
hours a day to provide assistance in whatever way possible. Also
in New Westminster-Burnaby and in New Westminster
specifically we have a similar program which is run out of the
crown counsel's office.
However, it is time that a more cross-systems approach be
applied in bold terms to put the victim's and the community's
general concerns before the offender's concerns. There is a
relationship between the offender and the offended, whether that
be another individual, a family or a community.
In reference to the community as victim, the Young Offenders
Act passed by a previous Liberal government has become the
single chapter of criminal law that is in most disrepute. Poll
after poll reflects it and the news clipping service of the
Solicitor General is full of references to community
dissatisfaction. Even the Liberal red book reluctantly admits the
act needs review.
It is with the Young Offenders Act that the community feels
most left out. The operation of the act violates the fundamental
sense of equity and balance the community expects.
The wording of the motion today and our proposals for
amendments to the Young Offenders Act are directly connected.
For example, section 3(1) of the act states: ``Policy
application with respect to young offenders''. There are nine
paragraphs of definition, then a total of 70 sections limiting how
the substantive part of the Criminal Code and other criminal
statutes will be administered for young offenders.
Allow me to paraphrase parts of section 3(1) of the Young
Offenders Act: (b) society must be afforded the necessary
protection from illegal behaviour; (c) a young person who
commits an offence requires supervision, discipline and control,
and because of their level of maturity they also have special
needs and require guidance and assistance; (e) a young person
has rights and freedoms as is stated in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and should therefore have special
guarantees of their rights and freedoms; (g) young persons have
the right to be informed as to what their rights and freedoms are.
Not once in the preamble list is there mention of the rights of
the victim. The act largely drives how social services are
administered. There is little to make a young offender realize
there is a victim or someone who has been hurt and that it is the
community to which the offender should be held accountable.
We need an additional paragraph in the Young Offenders Act
preamble that reads something like this: ``The community, or
victims in particular, shall be given equal consideration where
making dispositions for youth and victims shall be heard upon
their request at sentencing and at reviews''.
(1255 )
In almost every instance the victim or the community is
barred from knowledge of what is happening or is going to
happen to the offender. The system is similar to what goes on at
most job interviews when the employer tells the hopeful candi-
2419
date: ``Don't call us, we will call you''. All of us know the
employer will only call if the candidate is needed.
In the case of a victim, the victim is forgotten after the offence
has occurred. They are made to feel they did their part and
should now step aside because the offender is the one who really
needs the attention. Is it any wonder then that the public is so
frustrated with the justice system.
A victim is usually not asking for a great deal. In most cases it
is just for a bit of involvement, some dignity and more than
anything else, some empathy. In response to that my riding has
two volunteer programs but it is now time for recognition of
victims in legislation.
In some jurisdictions an overreaching interpretation of the
Young Offenders Act does not permit the young offenders court
list to be displayed on the courtroom door.
In British Columbia fortunately the youth court is open to the
public and exclusion orders are not very common. However, no
local reporter can advise the community as to what goes on there
or report when an offender is going to be released. The
community as victim has the right to know who the offenders are
through the media.
It seems disproportionate to the public for youth court to
revolve only around the offender. For example youth workers
cannot disclose what they know to a high school counsellor.
Social workers in the community cannot always inform the court
of everything they know about a situation.
We fall all over ourselves to protect or avoid a potential
negative circumstance for the offender with secrecy. The Young
Offenders Act also contains provisions to deliberately mislead
the court at sentencing concerning a youth criminal record
because of the time limits stipulated in the act.
Who focuses on the victim? When one carefully looks at the
act it is glaring in its absence of a provision that the plight of the
victim be heard at court or become real to the young offender in
the process. I recently read an article in the Toronto Star. It
concluded that victims of crime can be victimized twice, first by
the criminal and then by the system.
Victims and witnesses have special needs and they must be
treated with dignity and respect. Offenders must be held
accountable for their acts. The law should reflect current values
held by the majority of Canadians. The legal system should be
accountable to the society it serves for its operations, methods
and results.
What should be paramount in the Young Offenders Act is the
protection of the community. Let me give an example of a case
that took place in Alberta in 1990.
A young offender was so infatuated with his girlfriend that
after she broke off the relationship he knifed her but fortunately
did not kill her. As a young offender he only received eight
months in custody. Apparently he told workers he still wanted to
kill his former girlfriend. Exactly one year from the first
incident the young offender killed the girl. In this case the
victim had no chance because the rights of the young offender
had to be protected.
The act has a title: the Young Offenders Act. It should truly
deal with young offenders, not youthful adults. The natural
sense of balance the victims want restored would envision an
age application of 10 years to 15 years inclusive. This is the
most significant and fundamental required change to restore
credibility to the trust that is now broken within the Canadian
community.
Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris-Moose Mountain): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the member on his thoughts. I want to relate
to him some incidents with regard to people falling into that
category. My 31 years in the field of education gave me the
opportunity of coming across many youngsters who would fall
into that category.
More specifically, I made reference in my maiden speech in
this House to one young fellow who had run away from a boys'
school where he was being held in custody. He returned after
going home to North Battleford to his parents. Upon his arrival
his father said: ``What are you doing here? I thought you had run
away. Get your belongings. You have 15 minutes. Get out of this
house and don't ever come back''. I remember the cases of many
others. In particular I asked one individual: ``What was your
family background? How did you get into this kind of thing?''
He could remember 30 homes he had lived in and he was about
15 or 16 years of age.
(1300)
In the city of Regina two youngsters of about 10 or 11 years of
age physically abused youngsters who were 7 and 8 years of age.
My concern is what we are to do with them. A speaker on our
side said that between the ages of zero and three we had to make
some impact on the lives of young people. Having heard the
proposals and knowing the youngsters with whom I have come
in contact, I would ask the hon. member opposite what should
we do to alter the lifestyle of these people? Does he really think
that if we incarcerate them we will resolve the problem?
Specifically I think of a young fellow from the Northwest
Territories who spent six months in incarceration where more
damage was done to him than he would have ever done in the
north in 60 years.
In summary, the member may have some answers. I would be
interested in knowing them because I had to deal with some of
these youngsters. How would he resolve some of these issues in
light of where we are going?
2420
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, the medical model or philosophy
in correctional rehabilitation that someone is sick and therefore
an institution is somewhat like a hospital has been long
abandoned.
The Young Offenders Act in general sends the wrong message
to the community. We should check with the young people
themselves instead of with professionals in the justice system.
We should go to high schools to find out what seems to be the
community sentiment. The greatest pressure I receive from my
community is often from the high schools indicating that the
balance is off and that balance needs to be restored more in
favour of the victim and accountability to the community.
That is not to say that the Young Offenders Act is completely
unworkable. There are some good measures it, especially the
provision of alternative measures and the possibility of giving
due process. It was certainly an improvement over the old
juvenile delinquents act.
The typical response is to throw more money at the problem.
We need more community learning situations, work programs,
more social workers or whatever, rather than continue to throw
money at dispositional alternatives.
My comment today arises out of the community sentiment
that the Young Offenders Act inherently sends the wrong
message. We must bring the impact of the consequences more
directly to offenders. The community message out there that the
Young Offenders Act is a soft touch must be changed.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to approach the motion from a different angle. I support the
motion and I want to talk about the healing process victims must
go through.
Because of legislation and certain things that seem to take
place in our government the healing process is hindered a great
deal. This motion is intended to help-and I believe it could-a
great deal in the healing process. The thing I fear about raising a
motion in the House is that it seems like, in my short four
months, that if a Reformer from the west stands to speak about a
motion he or she has to be one of those ultra right redneck
scoundrels. We should be careful about what how strongly we
say things. At the same time a person like me could stand and
think of experienced individuals on the opposite side of the
House who have been here for a number of years. I could attach
the name Liberal to them, but I have to be cautious that I
suddenly do not think I am trying to talk sense to some people
who are nothing more than bleeding hearts and surely it will fall
on deaf ears. Those extreme attitudes should not exist. I hope
somehow or another we can pull those attitudes together and
address a motion which I believe is essential to helping victims.
(1305)
I refer to the specific case of a lady in her mid-forties, a
mother of three children. I may not have all the facts straight,
but I know about the case. She was apparently working in the
church secretarial office on a Saturday. An intruder came in and
apparently beat the lady severely, raped her a number of times,
and caused a great deal of havoc in her life. By the way, the
perpetrator was out on a day pass. Apparently he had been
incarcerated in the past for the same kinds of charges.
This lady went through the turmoil and trauma of the event.
She is scarred the rest of her life, physically to some degree but
certainly mentally to a larger degree. This will impact on the
lives of her family, her children and her husband, over the years.
I realize they are seeking help and would like to do something
about the healing process.
The victim in this case would very dearly like the criminal
tested for HIV-AIDS since he comes from a high risk category.
That is a very simple request. It comes from the heart. With all
the other traumatic things they will have to live with, they would
certainly like to be able to eliminate that thought. When it
reached the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms it
was declared that he did not have to submit to an HIV test, to
protect his rights.
In a nutshell the motion is trying to address those kinds of
situations. It is not that the criminal should not have some
rights. However, if the situation is going to create a conflict, for
heaven's sake let us use common sense and help the healing
process to take place in the lives of this woman and her family.
We should demand that criminal be submitted to this test and
eliminate that problem or worry, or at least give them the
opportunity to do something about it.
It is a conflict between the rights of two individuals. We
constantly see these conflicts in our judicial system. The
circumstances are not the same but there are similarities. We
must consider the rights of the criminal and the rights of the
victim. In practically every case the criminal's rights override
the rights of the victim. The particular case I have just
illustrated would probably be the worst example of saying to a
victim: ``We are sorry but we cannot do it because of his rights''.
This is not a simplistic solution. It is a common sense
solution. For the life of me I cannot understand why any
government would say that it is going to take ages to resolve
these problems. They could be resolved overnight if there is the
political will to do it. These problems do not need to exist. We
could wipe them out if we developed an attitude in the House
that regardless of where the motion comes from it makes sense.
(1310)
Recently I had the opportunity to visit for a length of time
with a mother in the city of Calgary. She was the victim of
violence in that her five-year old daughter was taken from her
backyard where she was playing. It was not until later that night
2421
that the young girl was found. She had been mutilated, beaten,
her throat cut and dumped in a garbage dumpster in an alley
behind their home.
An arrest was made of a 37-year old man who admitted to the
crime. He was quoted in the papers as saying he had a difficult
time controlling himself because he was sick and tired of this
little girl always coming on to him. Everyone in the House must
agree that some pretty traumatic things are taking place in that
family. This little girl had brothers and sisters as well.
Immediately the 37-year old man had a lawyer to provide
legal assistance. There was nothing for the victim. Immediately
the 37-year old man had psychologists, psychiatrists and
counsellors at his disposal. There was nothing for the victim.
There was nothing for the mother. I take that back. There was
something for the mother. She could have the same services but
she had to pay $50 to $100 an hour out of her own pocket.
When we asked for help to be provided to this family we were
brushed aside. We do not have anything in legislation that would
allow for this to happen. The boys on the great white hill in
Ottawa have not come up with anything in the charter of rights to
protect victims.
I cannot for the slightest moment believe anybody would not
want to vote in favour of a motion that would protect the rights
of victims like the ones I am talking about. It is high time we did
it.
My last point is why have we not brought in some legislation
that would help tremendously? It has been proven throughout
many countries, parts of the States and other parts of the world,
that we could legislate DNA testing. There would be some real
value in that. It is my understanding that it is incorrect one in
thirty billion times. In samples of skin, hair, semen or whatever
the case may be, no two people in the world can have the same
DNA with the possible exception of identical twins.
It would be a useful tool for our enforcement officers to apply
for a conviction and, believe it or not, to have someone released
who was wrongly charged.
It is has been reported to me that in British Columbia there are
45 unsolved murders, 20 sexual assaults and several other
serious crimes where DNA evidence is available, but there is no
law that allows them to make a suspect give a sample. A sample
cannot be taken from the suspect because under the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms the criminal has the right to refuse the test.
I could go through several examples. Consequently there are
people walking the streets who ought to be behind bars.
Do we have the political will or the courage to stand and allow
the people of our country to have the right to be safe from people
who would be behind bars if we took the proper action? The first
step is to recognize the rights of victims.
(1315)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's speech and
he said a few things that I do not agree with. I cannot understand
how, in 1994, we can still hear such comments.
I said earlier that today's debate should not be limited to
repugnant cases that were extensively covered by the press. I too
could mention cases showing the opposite, cases where, after a
realistic rehabilitation period, young offenders were
successfully reintegrated into the system. Some people returned
to society after psychiatric evaluation and treatment.
If I understand the logic used by the hon. member from the
Reform Party, we should put everybody in jail without
treatment. My question is how will we have enough prisons if we
put everybody in jail without anything to treat them?
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
The cases I cited are sample cases of an extremely violent
nature where there is a direct conflict between the rights of the
criminal and the rights of the victim and it has always gone
toward the rights of the victim.
I did not talk about incarceration other than the fact that when
we have those kinds of dangerous people on the street they
should be locked up. Does that mean we throw away the key, not
feed them and not treat them? I did not address the penal system.
I will be more than pleased to give another 10 minute speech on
what I think we should do there.
I believe in rehabilitation. I believe that we need to treat and
do as much as we possibly can, but I also believe that we have to
be realistic in our penal system, realistic enough to realize that
across the way or anywhere the world, if we work hard and earn
money, we probably will eat pork chops and steak and will love
it. If we go out into the same world and do not work and are not
able to achieve as much as some other people, we may have to
resort to something less than that.
Maybe in a realistic sense that is part of the treatment that
needs to take place in the penal system. Let us provide a work
program. If one works hard in this penal system it will be like in
society, one will eat well. If one does not work in this penal
system, one's reward will be the same as in society. One will eat
macaroni and cheese and may not get any cheese.
2422
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I
found the discourse by the member for Wild Rose extremely
interesting.
In a sense I thought it was an overview given by Reader's
Digest. It was very anecdotal. At one point he mentioned two
examples, two anecdotes, one being the very tragic case of the
lady who was raped. He made the observation and the
conclusion that in most cases the rights of the accused are
greater than those of the victim.
I would like to ask the member what empirical data he has for
this. This is one example given. He jumps to a very broad
conclusion.
He also made the observation of the very tragic case of the
young girl who was murdered. He then made the conclusion that
there is no one to act for the wife or the mother in this case. I
want to ask him in a very open ended way, who does the crown
act for if it does not act in this case for the mother of this child?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the crown acts for the
state. If we take it down to an individual case, we have a
different ball game. When we talk individually we talk about (a)
one person, the criminal, and (b) person number two, the victim.
I referred to a conflict where a person was a rape victim,
requested an HIV test and that request was denied to protect the
rights of the criminal. I can give lots of examples. I have a whole
briefcase full of them. That is difficult to do in 10 minutes. If
every member of this Parliament has been paying attention to
what is going on out there, I am sure they can find case after
case.
(1320)
Another examples is a fellow by the name of Thompson-no
relation. When in prison he stated that he was going to kill his
estranged wife when he got out. He was going to eliminate her
and others associated with her. He stated that over and over. The
victim, the lady in question, requested the authorities to please
not let him out as he meant it. Nothing was done about her
request. They simply followed the line of the rule: He was up for
parole and was eligible because he had been a good boy and he
really did not mean it. However, we will request that he stays in
Toronto and does not go out to the west coast.
Big deal. He got to the west coast and he accomplished his
mission. Three people are dead because nobody listened to the
potential victim.
That is not asking too much. I am sure the hon. member will
agree that if we ignore the wishes of the victims as we have in
the past and only concentrate on the straight legal legislation,
we are doing a disservice to our people.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the
motion put before this House by the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.
The hon. member has put forward the motion that this
government should be condemned for its inaction with regard to
the reform of the criminal justice system. Specifically the
motion accuses this government of allowing the rights of
criminals to take precedence over the rights of victims.
The hon. member is quite right. In the five short months that
this government has been in power it could have done much
more than it has done to take action on criminal justice issues.
We could have taken the easy road and won cheap popularity by
pandering to those who want change without proper
consideration of the consequences. We could have acted
precipitously rather than proceeding deliberately and
systematically.
We rejected this type of approach in favour of a broad and
reasoned strategy to reform our criminal justice system. In
short, this government honoured the pledge it made to
Canadians in its electoral platform to work for a fair, balanced
and humane justice system.
[Translation]
Finally, a key component of our election platform, better
known as the red book, is a program designed to ensure safety in
public and private places. We propose a comprehensive
approach, namely a twofold initiative which recognizes the need
for measures against violent crimes and high-risk criminals,
while also emphasizing the importance of crime prevention.
The project is well under way in all these important areas. It is
obvious, however, that some members are not aware of the work
being done, or of the reasons why we concentrate our efforts on
these particular areas.
I want to provide members with some information to enable
them to better understand what the government is doing, and
why it is doing it. Let us first look at the important issue of crime
prevention. It is no surprise that the costs associated with crime
in our country are enormous, both human and financial costs.
We know that the United States is the only nation in the
Western world which has a higher rate of incarceration than
Canada. In 1991, the costs related to our police, courts and
correctional services reached a staggering $8 billion. We know
that the human costs of crime and fear of crime, including the
consequences of victimization for communities, are also very
high.
The facts speak for themselves and we must adopt a
comprehensive approach against crime in our society, one which
recognizes the traditional role of our established organizations
but also takes into account our social policies.
2423
(1325)
To be truly effective, crime prevention must tackle the social
and economic factors linked to crime; it must go to the roots of
the problem, which include poverty, unemployment, drug
addiction and family violence.
[English]
We know that the human costs of crime and the fear of crime,
including the effects of victimization on individuals in our
society, are all too high. I believe the facts speak for themselves
when I say that we must pursue a broad based approach to crime
in our society, an approach that recognizes the traditional role of
our established agencies, but also examines social policies.
To be truly effective the prevention of crime must involve
examining the underlying social and economic factors
associated with crime and criminality, the root causes of crime
such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, alcohol and
substance abuse and finally violence, to name but a few.
Fundamental to this approach is a shared responsibility
among governments, their criminal justice systems, social
service agencies, education systems and communities not only
to fight crime but to deal with the social problems which
ultimately lead to criminal activity.
The establishment of a council on crime prevention that
would bring key players together to address crime prevention
and safety within our communities is one of the commitments of
this government. It is one that the Solicitor General is working
on in collaboration with the Minister of Justice. The council will
serve as an advisory body to all levels of government on broad
policy priorities and activities related to crime prevention.
The composition of the council will reflect the wide variety of
stakeholders in crime prevention and social development. To
succeed then in our efforts to prevent crime and find practical
solutions we must not only work in tandem with our partners in
the criminal justice system but broaden our partnership to
include our communities and neighbourhoods.
Without this support we cannot present a strong and united
front in solving the difficult problems that touch us all, whether
our efforts are directed at family violence, youth at risk,
illiteracy, high risk offenders stemming from the drug trade or
eliminating hate crime. Crime prevention is also an important
part of the work of the National Parole Board and Correctional
Services of Canada. Both of these agencies are concerned with
the safe reintegration of federal offenders, those who have
served sentences over two years, in society.
It is a fact that the majority of federal offenders, two-thirds,
serve their sentence and do not break the law after being
released into the community. Ensuring greater public safety for
Canadians entails reducing the risk of those who do reoffend.
Public safety remains the primary and constant factor of all
correctional decision making. It is recognized that public safety
is best served when offenders are given the treatment and
training they need to successfully reintegrate into the
community.
Correctional Services of Canada's life skills program for
offenders is a good example of the type of fundamental work
under way in our federal penitentiary system to help offenders
acquire the skills they need to make a clean start in life.
I said earlier that our approach to fighting crime is a two
pronged approach. The other side of the public safety coin is the
need to find more effective ways of dealing with repeat violent
and sex offenders. Improvements to handling and treatment of
these offenders in the federal corrections system is a priority.
In its election platform the government recognized that
Canadians want better protection from dangerous offenders and
we are serious about following through on our commitment.
Several reports, including those coming from inquests and
Commons' committees on justice and legal affairs, have
stressed the need for action in this regard.
We are developing a series of amendments to the Criminal
Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. For
example, we are working on measures that would enable us to
more easily detain until the end of the sentence repeat sex
offenders who victimize children.
(1330)
The Solicitor General has also stated that he wants to look at
tightening up the sentence calculation process so that offences
committed by repeat offenders on conditional release will result
in more time served in penitentiaries.
We are also reviewing with the provinces a number of
measures which could improve public protection from high risk
offenders, including the greater use by the provinces of the
dangerous offender provisions at the time of original conviction
and sentencing. As well, the federal government will take steps
to address the release of high risk offenders into society at the
end of their custodial terms.
Society must protect itself from individuals who may be unfit
for release and we are working with the provinces to deal with
this issue in a way which is consistent with the charter.
Also being studied are methods of bringing the corrections
and mental health fields together in a co-ordinated and
integrated manner. While supporting tougher measures for
violent and repeat sex offenders we must also highlight their
need for enhanced rehabilitation programs while in prison to
reduce the chances of these individuals reoffending.
2424
The government in line with its red book commitment is
putting various measures in place to improve the parole
process. Among them are better training for National Parole
Board members, legislative changes to better deal with those
who are not performing satisfactorily and the requirement that
members' appointments be based on merit, competence and
integrity. After all, parole board members have a difficult and
demanding job and only the best qualified people will be
considered for future board positions.
In recent years a relatively small number of well publicized
cases involving high risk offenders on conditional release have
done much to erode public confidence in the institutions that
have been entrusted to protect society.
In the parole system the Solicitor General is working to
rebuild that public trust and restore that confidence. I believe
the government's commitment to work to improve public safety
from high risk offenders and to improve the parole process are
firm examples of the type of action that will put us on the right
track to win back that confidence.
Another example is the government's commitment to address
the issues of youth violence.
[Translation]
I can of course only be concerned about the marked increase
in violent crimes committed by young Canadians in recent
years. We have all heard or read media reports on youth gangs
and their criminal activities. Most incidents occur in large cities
such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but small
communities are not completely immune to the problem.
We do not yet know the real scope and seriousness of the
problem of violence and criminal gangs among young people in
Canada. According to some research on criminal justice, the
crime rate among young Canadians is rising, but the rates for
homicides and serious offences involving violence have
remained relatively stable.
The number of charges for minor assaults such as slapping,
punching and kicking has significantly increased. However, we
do not know if this reflects an actual increase in the number of
violent offences, or if it simply means that victims are more
inclined to go to the police, or that the police is more likely to
lay charges.
I want to be clear: I am not trying to minimize the problem of
violence among young people, which is unfortunately
worrisome. As a concerned citizen, I know how acts of violence
can generate fear and intimidation in our communities.
In its program to promote justice and fight crime, the federal
government clearly states that one of its priorities will be to take
action on the increase in violent offences and delinquency
among young people. Canadians of all ages should be able to
enjoy the fundamental right of being safe in public and private
places.
[English]
Last, I would like to turn to the issue of victim's rights. When
the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
tabled the motion we are debating she was obviously unaware
that victims have more rights under today's criminal justice
system than at any other time in Canadian history. Victims of
crime are now formally recognized as legitimate and essential
players in the federal corrections and parole process.
(1335)
This recognition ensures that victims can be kept informed of
an offender's prison and parole status if they so do request.
Information from victims can now be considered at parole
hearings and the victims may now attend parole hearings at the
discretion of the parole board. No longer is their attendance
dependent on the agreement of the defendant.
Aside from these changes police services and courts across
the country are now much more sensitized to the needs of
victims and this sensitivity is embodied in guidelines and new
police policies which reflect an understanding of victims and the
emotional trauma that they have often suffered.
These are positive and much needed changes. The
government also recognizes that further change to accommodate
the needs of victims is still necessary. As I said in my opening
remarks we are not going to act in haste only to have to repent at
leisure. When the government brings about change to the
criminal justice system it will be lasting change, change that
will stand the test of time.
Last year we travelled across the country meeting and
listening to thousands of Canadians and seeking their input as
we built our electoral platform. We did not spend all that time
reflecting, consulting and listening just to turn our backs on
Canadians the moment we were elected to office.
Canadians told us then and they are telling us now that they
want change based on a thorough examination of all the issues,
consultation with all interest groups, and a calm and rational
appraisal and weighing of all the facts.
That is the type of change that we are committed to bringing to
the criminal justice system and that we are working for even as I
speak. It is the type of change that Canadians expect and deserve
and the type of change that the government will deliver.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I listened
attentively to the hon. member's speech. I found it an affront
that this member would suggest we are asking for a quick fix.
2425
I have a newspaper clipping here that tells about an injustice
that occurred to Mr. Howard Gowan from the Swift Current area
of Saskatchewan where 27 years ago he was picked up by the
RCMP and taken from his farm and interned in the Weyburn
Psychiatric Centre where he underwent a month of electroshock
and drug therapy. After that month was up he was released.
The commissioner of the RCMP then sent him a letter
expressing his sincere regrets, trusting he had not been
inconvenienced and acknowledging that the RCMP member
strictly speaking acted outside the authority provided by the
Saskatchewan Mental Health Act. This man and his family have
been striving for some degree of reconciliation with the justice
system for 27 years without avail. I am sure that this man would
find the comments of the hon. member quite hard to understand
and accept.
The weaknesses of the Young Offenders Act have been
emerging over the last number of years and are clear to all who
want to examine it. We have been waiting and waiting for some
kind of action that would show up the weaknesses of that act. We
are still waiting.
I suggest that we have a cottage industry built around
consultation in the justice system which simply results in delay
and more delay. It was this government that produced the Young
Offenders Act and the Conservative government that
implemented it. Where was the leadership at that time when it
came to enacting new laws? Where was the foresight and the
vision that produced that kind of a flawed legislation?
(1340 )
We have talked, both in the House and privately with
members, concerning the whole question of the mercy
applications I have spoken about here and privately with the
Minister of Justice where again there seems to be an inordinate
amount of delay in the process of our justice system.
Look at the stories in the newspapers today with regard to
over 30 charges, indictments against Alan Eagleson by the
American justice system. My examination of that case indicates
that the law enforcement agencies in this country did nothing for
long periods of time, which included the RCMP, the Toronto
Metro Police and the Law Society of Upper Canada which is the
law society of this province. They did nothing with the
complaint information and nothing was done until the
information was being looked into by the justice department of
the United States of America. Only then was something done
here.
This motion is appropriate and I believe we are filling a
proper role. We do not know what the justice department is
doing at the present time. Understandably this is all done behind
closed doors and it will be brought forward at a later date.
Perhaps our job in bringing forward this motion is to put the
pressure on the government and hold it accountable as is the
rightful role of members in the opposition. I believe this motion
is proper at this time.
I would invite the hon. member's comments on anything that I
have had to say in response to his speech.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member raised a number of interesting
comments.
He should keep in mind that the percentage of incarcerated
people in Canada is second to the United States. We should also
add that there are costs, $8 billion a year. He is also telling us
that the U.S. judicial system is somewhat better than the one that
we have in Canada. When we look at the number of crimes,
murders committed in the United States, it is nothing
comparable to what we have here or anywhere else in the
civilized world I should add.
I am shocked that the hon. member is saying that they have a
better system when we know in the city of Detroit there is more
criminality going on in one year than all of Canada put together.
Look at the statistics.
I am asking the hon. member to check the facts. We have been
here for four months. We have taken various initiatives. It is a
very complex matter. We are dealing with aboriginals. We are
dealing with children. We are dealing with all walks of Canadian
life. It is not an easy issue to solve, granted. We know there are
problems. There are cracks in the system.
The initiative being taken by the government is to ensure that
we close these gaps. That is why we need the co-operation of the
opposition. We also need their compassion. That seems to be
lacking with the party opposite, certainly with the member
opposite who says he is appalled at the way we want to address
this issue.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I find it really offensive to hear the opposition
member tell us that the American system is much better than the
one we have here in Canada.
In closing, I am convinced that the plan in the government's
red book will make all Canadians more secure in the years to
come.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard everything today. Some members on this
side want to separate while others seem to want annexation.
There are some things that I do not understand.
Still, we have been discussing this Reform Party motion since
the morning and many speakers have talked about the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell me which section
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the
rights of victims and whether there is a balance between the
rights of victims and those of the accused.
2426
(1345)
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Mr. Speaker, I am not able to talk to you about the
provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I am here
to confirm to hon. members that the government intends to deal
with this rather sensitive situation.
We know that the crime rate is rising in Canada. The other
opposition party tabled a motion asking for a total change in the
way we treat not only victims of violence but especially
prisoners. I will simply remind it that the government's purpose,
which I am sure the hon. member will applaud, is to strike a
better balance in the penal system and justice system we have in
Canada.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, the
motion presented by the hon. member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley on behalf of the Reform Party reflects in
its wording and intent the obsessive fears of a society
manipulated by certain media.
What I find disturbing in this motion is that it is a perfect
example of disinformation. It cultivates and takes advantage of
a tide of public resentment. Clearly, the motion before the House
today is an expression of the gothic fantasies of an extreme right
that is not living in the real world. I hope the hon. member does
not base her concept of what is wrong with society by listening
only to public rumours.
The motion asks us to condemn the government on two
accounts. First, for its alleged inaction on reform of the criminal
justice system and, second, because its penal laws allow the
rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim.
Every single word, idea and gratuitous statement in this short
motion raises a host of questions. What we have here is a
compendium of reactionary, preconceived ideas. While we are
at it, we might as well blame the government for the terrible
winter we just had. The Liberals were elected in the fall,
remember.
An hon. member: It is not over yet.
Mrs. Venne: And as the hon. member just said, winter is not
over yet.
According to this motion, we should reform the whole
criminal justice system. Does the Reform Party know why it
wants this reform? Does it have any alternatives to suggest?
What does it not like about the system? We all have complaints
about the judicial system. Saying the system is not perfect is one
thing, but to say it should be overhauled, without suggesting any
alternatives, is something else altogether.
Does the Reform Party want to change our penal laws and the
Criminal Code? Does it want to change the powers of the
Minister of Justice, of our judges and lawyers? Is it dissatisfied
with the procedure in the courts? Does it want to abolish the
presumption of innocence? What does it want, Mr. Speaker? We
do not know, and I really wonder whether the Reform Party has
a single constructive idea on the subject.
If I understood the motion correctly, it raises the whole issue
of the rights of criminals as opposed to the rights of their
victims. Here again, the Reform Party is echoing public
dissatisfaction. I think this House should remind them of certain
facts and explain some of the centuries-old principles of our
criminal law. For better or for worse, since the Magna Carta,
Canada, the United States and all democracies that adhere to the
British system of law have enshrined certain incontrovertible
rules in their laws and judicial systems.
The Reform Party is actually blaming the government for five
centuries of Western jurisprudence. This may enhance their
prestige with people who listen uncritically to what they have to
say, but it is a clear demonstration of ignorance taken to
rhetorical heights.
(1350)
The presumption of innocence, to start with this absolute of
our criminal law, protects and, unfortunately, will continue to
protect for many centuries, all criminals in society. Our laws
oblige the police arm of the state to prove that an accused person
is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The Reform Party cannot
change this. It is the basis of our criminal law. Fortunately, that
same rule of law also protects the honest citizen who is accused
by the state.
When we say rule of law, we also mean procedural fairness for
all accused persons. Our civilized society does not condone
lynching. At one time, in some parts of America, people were
hanged on mere suspicion. People wanted a conviction at any
price, so they took the law into their own hands, committing
murder in the process. In these societies, the presumption of
innocence, reasonable doubt, due process and the right to a fair
trial were concepts as foreign as cellular telephones. Sometimes
I wonder, when I hear this kind of motion, whether its movers
realize we are more living in the era of the cellular telephone.
The right to a fair trial is enshrined in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. If the Reform Party wants to withdraw the
fundamental constitutional document of this country, let it say
so, and we will have an interesting debate on the kind of society
we want. I am not sure Canadians are prepared to tear up the
Charter, which represents what is universal in our society. How
many citizens would follow the Reform Party in a crusade
against the Charter? I think all the converts to this new religion
would comfortably fit into a telephone booth.
I agree that our democracy pays a very high price for
protecting fundamental rights and democratic freedoms. I am as
upset as the next person about abuses of a judicial system that is
often defeated by criminals who are aware that its weaknesses
are in direct proportion to the generous principles by which it is
guided. I know that murderers, rapists and swindlers manage to
2427
survive because they are able to take advantage of the rules of
law that protect them as they protect all honest citizens.
However, the Reform Party should have checked certain
statistics, and especially one that is very reassuring. In this
country, nine out of ten accused plead guilty or are found guilty.
Ten per cent of accused persons are acquitted, and I am sure that
even if any of these were guilty, the rule of law helped to prevent
conviction of the innocent. That is democracy, Mr. Speaker.
The Reform Party should have made certain distinctions in its
motion and subsequent presentation. It should have told
Canadians that the Criminal Code and the Corrections and
Conditional Release Act are two different things. It should have
said that the Criminal Code cannot be any stricter than it already
is. If the judge does not impose the maximum sentence provided
under the Criminal Code, as often happens, his judgment is
dictated by the circumstances. Every case before the court is
different, and judges have wide discretion in sentencing a
person who has been found guilty.
We cannot say that the system gives criminals an unfair
advantage in this respect. The police and the Crown prosecutors
do their best with the resources they have. The courts hand down
judgements. They are the judicial arm of the government. They
are, and must remain, independent. When a judge hands down a
judgement, he speaks as the judiciary power, not as the
government. That is another fact that is often overlooked.
I believe our Criminal Code is an effective instrument in the
fight against crime. It will be amended again and as often as
required by changing circumstances, but it reflects a
contemporary social consensus on what constitutes
reprehensible behaviour.
(1355)
Once the sentence has been handed down, it is no longer the
criminal justice system, but the Correctional Service, which is
responsible for the individual who has been found guilty and
sentenced to a prison term. I do not know if the Reform Party is
calling for the repeal of the legislation governing the
Correctional Service of Canada, but, hey, why not. And since we
are considering reviewing all of the legislation governing the
criminal justice system, why not simply throw everything out
and start over, using the brilliant ideas of the right wing which is
all-knowing since it has a direct line to God Almighty.
I would have liked to see the Reform Party deliver an
enlightened and motivating speech, a speech inspired by a
serious review of the shortcomings of our criminal justice
system. Yet, even when she expresses compassion for the fate of
victims, the hon. member who presented the motion is using a
well-worn argument. The hon. member could have pointed out
that the Criminal Code allows a judge to order the guilty party to
compensate his victim. He can do so at the moment of
sentencing by ordering the persons found guilty to reimburse to
the victim an amount equal to the value of the material damage
suffered. The judge can also order the guilty person, in a
probation order, to compensate his victim for bodily harm
inflicted. The courts have these powers. They are in the
legislation. We can only encourage the system to use them.
Mr. Speaker, do I have time to continue?
The Speaker: You have at least one minute remaining.
Mrs. Venne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not have time to
finish, but I will continue, nonetheless. I would have liked to see
the Reform Party give an objective speech. I would have liked it
to focus not only on the public's dissatisfaction which itself is
aroused, fuelled and sustained by the media which regards the
public as someone it can easily win over. The public, whether
rightly or wrongly, has a negative view of the protection which
the courts afford victims of crime. It would be easy to go on and
on about public sentiment, but we are being remiss in our duty as
elected representatives when we use this dissatisfaction for
purely political purposes.
When they speak about victims, why do Reform Party
members fail to mention that the purpose of the criminal courts
is not to arrange compensation for victims, but, first and
foremost, to punish the guilty, according to the applicable rules
of law?
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are about to rise.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock, perhaps the hon. member
would agree to continue following oral questions.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed
to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2427
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa west): Mr. Speaker,
International Women's Day and Week for 1994 have passed into
history. Tragically what is still with us is the violence that has
damaged the lives of more than half of Canadian women.
One form of violence against Canadian women is sexual
harassment. While 37 per cent of women experience sexual
harassment, less than 40 per cent do anything about it because
they feel they have no options.
A survey in our Canadian forces shows these equally
frightening statistics.
2428
Sexual harassment both reflects and perpetuates womens'
economic inequality. Like other employers the federal
government is legally responsible to ensure a workplace free
of sexual harassment. Yet I continue to hear from victims of
harassment who are often revictimized when they try to take
action.
I therefore urge ministers of the crown to take personal
responsibility to ensure that in their departments zero tolerance
is not just a pronouncement but a reality.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, on this
March 17, St. Patrick's Day, I am pleased to pay tribute to all our
fellow citizens of Irish origin for their outstanding contribution
to the development of Quebec and Canada.
In my riding of Bellechasse, the Grosse-Île sanctuary, which
for many years was a quarantine station where thousands of Irish
families stayed after fleeing the hardships in their country, still
symbolizes the courage and determination of our fellow citizens
of Irish descent.
(1400 )
[English]
To my Irish friends and neighbours of my constituency and to
the whole Quebec Irish community, my best wishes for this very
particular day which reminds us of our origins and the way we
have achieved our common contribution to Quebec.
Happy St. Patrick's Day.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, last evening
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on its Canadian
Newsworld Service broke into regular programming for an
emergency half-hour telecast. It showed us the interior of a
courtoom in Portland, Oregon, in the United States.
The emergency telecast was the entry of a guilty plea by
Tonya Harding in a made-for-America television soap opera of
Tonya and Nancy ``As the Skate Turns''. The Tonya-Nancy
show distorted television coverage of the recent Olympics,
dominating American television for weeks.
Why are Canadians paying $1.1 billion per year to support the
CBC in its role of protector of all that is good and Canadian
when it does quick knee-jerk reactions and follows the lead of
the made-for-TV news of the U.S. commercial networks?
Canadians expect better from the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation and demand value for taxes.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I see
from the shamrock you are wearing that you well know that
today is March 17, St. Patrick's Day.
In this House we have many honourable members who are
proud of their Irish ancestry. We have Clancy, Collins and
Galloway, McGuire, Murphy and Shaughnessy, Tobin, Torsney
and Whelan, O'Brien, O'Reilly and even Sergi O'Marchi.
Mr. Speaker, from the Irish harp and the shamrocks on our
Canadian coat of arms above your chair to the beautiful ceiling
of this very chamber, fine hand-painted Irish linen, there is
evidence everywhere of the contributions of the Irish culture to
Canada.
On behalf of all hon. members in this House, I would like to
wish all Canadians, especially those of Irish ancestry, a very
happy St. Patrick's Day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker,
Monday, March 21, is the International Day for the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination. Since 1989, the City of Montreal, in
co-operation with the provincial and federal governments, has
held an event to mark this important day and I want to
congratulate them for this initiative.
I invite all hon. members to participate in events organized in
their ridings to mark the importance of that day, and to work
harder to fight racism and discrimination.
I want to remind hon. members of the words of Martin Luther
King who said: ``I have a dream that one day. . . little black boys
and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys
and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. . . I
have a dream that one day all forms of injustice will disappear
on Earth, for the greater benefit of all human beings. And when
that day comes, we can all hope that freedom will be with us
soon after.''
[English]
I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but on
the content of their character.
Let us work together to fulfil this dream.
2429
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, on this very
special day I too would like to pay tribute to all Irish Canadians
and especially those in my riding.
I would like first to pay tribute to my Irish wife of 22 years,
Mary Alice, whose contributions like so many housewives and
dedicated mothers are often taken for granted. She has dedicated
herself unselfishly to our family and without her devotion I
would not have the honour of serving in this House today.
I would also like to pay tribute to a long time friend and
fighting Irishman in my riding. Last Sunday the residents of
Kirkland, selected as one of Canada's top 10 towns best to live
in, elected their sixth mayor and for the first time in their history
an Irishman. To Mr. John Meaney and his wife Evelyn who have
served the community with pride, love and dedication for over
23 years, I wish them all the true luck of the Irish as John faces
the challenge of being Kirkland's chief magistrate.
Mr. Meaney has the difficult task of following in the very,
very small footsteps of a colleague and former mayor in Nick
O'Discepola. I am confident he will take Kirkland forward in
great strides.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the
Globe and Mail carried a report filled
with sensationalism unworthy of a serious daily newspaper. On
page one of its Report on Business section, the
Globe linked the
explosion of a home-made bomb at the base of a hydro pylon
tower to a lowering of the value of our dollar.
The Globe also took advantage of the opportunity to keep
alive the fear of its readers by brandishing the threat of those
``bad separatists'' in Quebec.
The Canadian dollar, which has lost close to 4 per cent of its
value since January, is affected by a whole slew of factors, of
which the appalling state of the nations finances is certainly not
the least.
For the benefit of this House, I would like to inform the Globe
and Mail that yesterday the dollar closed up, despite the
discovery of numerous acts of vandalism against Hydro-Québec
facilities.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, world renowned Okanagan valley red Delicious apples
are a major crop in my riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
This industry is also a major employer in the area. Recently
apple growers have been threatened by the dumping of apples
into Canada at prices below the American growers' cost of
production. This not only affects Okanagan growers but apple
producers across Canada.
Unless fair trade provisions under the current Canada-U.S.
Free Trade Agreement are enforced, our apple producers may
soon be forced out of business.
On behalf of the growers in my riding, I call on this
government to immediately protect Canadian apple producers
before severe damage is done to this important industry.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, I am
concerned about the distribution of survivors' benefits under the
Canada Pension Plan.
A surviving spouse can be either a legal or a common law
spouse to qualify for the survivor's benefit. A common law
spouse must have been living in a conjugal relationship for at
least one year. This is controversial because often a common law
spouse gets all the survivor's benefits after a brief relationship.
Meanwhile the legal spouse who was part of perhaps a much
longer relationship gets absolutely nothing. This is just not fair.
The government has already established the principle of
dividing pension credits.
In 1978 provisions were introduced into the CPP providing
for the division of pension credit on divorce or annulment. In
1987 this was extended to marriage breakdown resulting from
separation.
I urge the government to apply this principle to split
survivors' benefits for legal spouses. Surely if this principle is
sound for one, it is sound for another.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, in
June 1993 the Department of Canadian Heritage established the
Jeanne Sauvé award for women in communications in memory
of the former Governor General of Canada who had a long and
distinguished career in media and in federal politics.
2430
[Translation]
The award entitles recipients to a three-month internship with
the Department of Canadian Heritage to gain first-hand
knowledge of how policy and legislation are developed in the
federal government. The award program is administered in
conjunction with Canadian Women in Radio and Television.
[English]
On behalf of the Department of Canadian Heritage I
congratulate Jeanne Sauvé award recipients Susan Brinton,
Manager of Business Affairs with Canwest Global, and Kirsten
Embree, Director of Regulatory matters for Unitel.
[Translation]
I welcome them most heartily and I hope that they will find
their stay interesting and informative.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, as the member
of Parliament for Jonquière, I wish to inform this House that a
committee of aluminum workers laid off by Alcan was set up,
with a membership of 500. This committee has contacted the
Prime Minister to let him know how disappointed it was because
the federal government seems to pay little attention to those
affected by unemployment in the aluminum industry.
These unemployed workers are asking for investments from
Alcan in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region in return for the
privilege of using the hydro-electric power of our rivers. They
also ask for job creation to be promoted by limiting overtime.
These workers denounce Canada's financial support for the
construction and modernization of aluminum plants in South
Africa and Russia while Canadian aluminum workers are being
laid off. The committee therefore asks the government to
develop consistent economic and employment policies.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, what seems to
be happening in this House is most disquieting.
I believe that millions of Canadians share my very deep
concern that certain members opposite are trying to undermine,
perhaps even destroy, the reasons and ideas on which this place
is built.
The result is that ideas, honest and vigorous exchanges and
debate are being stifled by certain members opposite who label
their opponents racist, redneck, bigoted and prejudiced.
It is a habit of certain members opposite to stand in this House
and hurl insults or to go outside this House and amplify their
remarks to the media.
Canadians want to know why the Prime Minister tolerates this
behaviour. Does he truly believe that is Liberalism? Does he
believe that this is what is called democracy?
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, today millions of people around the world are
celebrating St. Patrick's Day. It is a day when our thoughts turn
to our faith, shamrocks and the wearing of the green.
For me this is a special day. It is a chance to reflect on and
celebrate my heritage and the important role our Irish ancestors
have played here in Canada.
Irish people, like my family and those throughout this land,
have made a significant contribution to help keep Canada whole.
In the mid-1800s thousands of Irish immigrants fleeing
famine and poverty came to Canada for a better life. Many
settled in Nova Scotia and the Annapolis Valley and helped
make it the very special place it is today.
To paraphrase a famous saying, it is on a day like today when
we realize there are only two types of people in the world, those
who are Irish and those who wish they were Irish.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park): Mr. Speaker, two
years ago today South Africa made a bold choice to end the
system of apartheid and instead embark upon democracy.
As Canadians we can take a great deal of pride in the fact that
Canada has always stood on the forefront of international efforts
aimed at promoting change in South Africa. We can also be
proud of the fact that Canada is continuing assistance during the
national elections taking place in South Africa on April 26.
Our Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa will lead
a delegation of election monitors and observers which will be
necessary in order to ensure a free and fair vote.
2431
I wish the Canadian delegation every success and hope that
all of South Africa puts violence aside and in the interest of
peace takes part in the democratic process.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate members from all sides of this House who
came together in an agriculture committee this week.
This committee, which I chair, deals with a very important
issue called BST which is bovine somatotropin. It is an issue
that divided a number of members who had a number of different
views. However, for the first time since I have been in this
House we had a committee that worked across party lines and
came up with what I believe to be some very concrete
recommendations to this government.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the rules in this House have been
changed to allow all committees more say in their agenda and
the setting of their agenda and more power in making stronger
recommendations to government.
I thank the Prime Minister and the leaders of all parties for
giving individual members of Parliament more powers through
our committees and more ability to work together in this House.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it is
tax time once again and I implore the Minister of Finance to
change the laws affecting the taxation of child support income.
A woman named Joan from my riding of Fraser Valley West is
about to lose her home because she is being forced to pay $1,300
in income tax this year on the child support money she receives
from her ex-husband. Joan makes only $9,800 a year in personal
income and receives $12,000 a year in child support payments to
raise her children. She has to claim child support as taxable
income while her ex-husband, who has already paid income tax
on the money, gets to claim the child support as a tax deduction.
Joan says the government is literally taking food out of her
children's mouths and she will have to move out of her home to
pay the tax bill. I agree with Joan and thousands of single
mothers like her. It is simply not fair.
2431
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
In a surprising statement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has
announced that Canada will no longer tie Canadian foreign
assistance to a country's human rights record. In so doing, the
government is casting aside the policy announced at the 1991
Commonwealth Summit in Zimbabwe and later reaffirmed at
the Francophone Summit in Dakar, a policy which ties Canadian
foreign assistance to respect for human rights.
Are we to understand from the minister's statement that the
government had a sudden change of heart and decided that from
now on business comes first, even if it means willingly ignoring
systematic human rights abuse in countries under dictatorial
rule, just to establish trade relations with these countries?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian government obviously has no intention of
turning a blind eye to human rights abuse which may be reported
in a certain number of countries around the world.
In the speech I made before the House, and in the presence of
the Leader of the Opposition, I very clearly expressed the desire
to pursue, but in a different way, our goal of getting all countries
to respect these most fundamental civil rights. I also stated that
it was not wise or appropriate to sever our ties with countries
which may not pursue the same democratic goals as we do.
The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we are
confronted with high unemployment which has to be dealt with,
that our government's priorities are economic recovery and job
creation and that, consequently, part of our economic recovery
plan depends on greater efforts to promote international trade.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is not with the minister's speech in this
House, because it was an excellent speech espousing a very
generous vision of Canada's contribution to restoring a kind of
balance between countries of the South and the North. We even
praised the minister for his magnanimous remarks. The problem
is the surprise we had on hearing the minister say one thing
outside this House, whereas he had said the opposite in this
chamber. Outside the House, the minister said that Canada's
trade policy was not tied to the issue of human rights.
2432
I would like to know if the minister recognizes that this new
policy, which he defined outside the House-because there are
two policies, one for the House, and one for outside the
House-would not have allowed Canada to take part in the trade
embargo which ultimately brought about an end to apartheid
in South Africa. Furthermore, should we expect Canada to ease
the trade sanctions imposed on Haiti to force the return of
President Aristide?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I see that Bloc members are applauding their leader for
expressing a desire to support President Aristide. They are well
aware that the government is stepping up its efforts to bring
about the Haitian President's return to his country as soon as
possible. Therefore, in response to the opposition leader's
question, obviously we will not yield on the sanctions issue. We
will continue to push for President Aristide's return to his
country.
As for the other part of his question, as to whether what I said
in this House differs from my statement outside the Chamber, I
want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for praising my
speech in the House. However, I would remind him that one
should always proceed with caution and check to see if the
newspapers have reported all, and not just some, of the facts.
(1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, never in my five years in politics have I denied
statements which the print media ascribed to me. I am not one of
those who deny statements which the newspapers attribute to us.
Mr. Speaker, there appear to be two policies, one for poor
countries which are guilty of human rights violations-and
here, Canada takes a very harsh stand-and another for wealthy
countries which are also guilty of human rights violations. In
their case, however, the government turns a blind eye.
Does the Prime Minister not recognize that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs was laying the groundwork for his trip to China,
a wealthy country, when he made this statement outside the
House? Could it be that the Prime Minister, in an attempt to
restrict the focus of his trip to China to trade issues, was hoping
not to have to deal with the human rights issue in China, even
though dissidents have been waging an admirable fight to bring
democracy to that country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have spoken with the President of China and each time Canada
has diplomatic contacts with the Chinese, we remind them that
we are not pleased with the human rights situation in their
country. However, this does not mean that we will not do
business with them.
If the hon. Leader of the Opposition is telling us that we
should have nothing to do with China, then we will take note of
his position. However, if we refuse to do business with every
country having a political system that is not to our liking, then
we will not be doing business with very many countries. We are
monitoring the human rights situation in China, but it is equally
important-and this may be the best way to improve human
rights in countries such as this-that we do business with them
to open the country up to the world. This is the way to achieve
democracy. This is precisely what happened with the Soviet
Union. When the Soviets finally understood that human rights
and democratic freedoms, as enjoyed by the Western world,
were the right choice, that is when the Berlin Wall crumbled.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
According to information received from the publishing
industry Mr. Ward Pitfield, who was in charge of the Ginn
Publishing file at CIDC, admitted last January to an attorney for
Canada Publishing that CIDC did not intend to sell Ginn
Publishing. Then a week later CIDC sold Ginn to Paramount.
Furthermore Mr. Pitfield confirmed recently that he had never
seen a written contract between CIDC and Paramount.
Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage aware of the fact that Mr.
Pitfield, the representative of CIDC on the board of directors of
Ginn Publishing, has never seen a contract of sale between
CIDC and Paramount, and can the minister tell us whether or not
the deal has effectively been completed?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the question put by the hon. member of
Rimouski-Témiscouata was intended to scare me.
[English]
I will continue in English as she used the other official
language.
I take note of the information that was provided by someone
and I am going to look into it.
The CIDC, according to the information I have, and I have
checked, was determined to sell Ginn for reasons which I have
considered and which appear to me to be legitimate reasons.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the president of Canada Publishing has informed me
today that his publishing company is willing to acquire control
of Ginn Publishing for the same price offered by Paramount. In
these circumstances, is the Minister of Canadian Heritage
2433
prepared to stop the deal between CIDC and Paramount with
regard to Ginn Publishing?
(1425)
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the government made a
legal obligation some while back. It was committed by the
previous government to complete the sale to Paramount. The
legal obligation was there.
I might add, however, that it was made in January 1989 when
the secretary of state in the cabinet of the previous government
happened to be the current Leader of the Opposition.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The minister has been consistently unable to define the
government's vision of aboriginal self-government except to
refer to vague generalities in the red book. I ask the minister,
whatever new order of government is negotiated with
aboriginals, can he assure the House that the spirit and the letter
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be respected?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, certainly.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for that assurance.
As the minister knows the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees everyone: aboriginal, non-aboriginals, Reformers,
even the member for Athabasca, freedom of thought, belief,
opinion and expression.
How tragic it would be if a House which professes a profound
respect for the charter would become the place where anyone
who questions language policy is accused of being anti-Quebec,
where anyone who questions immigration levels is denounced as
being anti-immigrant and where anyone who questions a
non-existent aboriginal policy is denounced as anti-Indian.
Why should Canadians believe any of the minister's
assurances regarding respect for the charter when he denounces
members of Parliament who disagree with him as racist and
rednecks.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, throughout the campaign and our
four months here it is apparent we have a different philosophy
and it usually involves groups at risk, whether it is linguistic
groups in the province of Ontario where we have a half million
francophones, whether it is women, whether it is aboriginal
people or whether it is multicultural groups or whether it is what
we talked about yesterday.
I am not questioning freedom of expression. You are invited
to make the expression. But certainly you cannot disagree with
my right to disagree with your freedom of expression.
The Speaker: The hon. minister will address his remarks to
the Chair please.
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party refers
to the use of the word redneck. Where was that said?
An hon. member: Where?
Mr. Irwin: In this House.
An hon. member: Who said it?
Mr. Irwin: Who said it? A member of the Reform Party on
January 27. What did he say? Do you want to hear me say it?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Irwin: ``I have been called a redneck myself and it is a
label I wear with considerable pride''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Irwin: I see the hon. member is bowing. Now he bows.
He still accepts that. Mr. Speaker, who am I to question such
exact self-analysis given in the House where the hon. member is
free to say whatever he wants.
(1430 )
Some hon. members: More, More.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): The member
for Swift Current-Maple Creek used that term to describe
someone who did not believe in political correctness. The hon.
member used that term to denounce someone as a racist and an
ignoramus.
The minister apologized for calling Reform supporters Indian
haters a few weeks ago. Just one day ago he called a fellow
member a redneck. The minister's words provide no assurance.
What concrete thing is the minister going to do to demonstrate
his intent? Will he apologize in writing? Will he go outside the
House with the member for Athabasca and apologize in front of
the cameras? Will the minister resign?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the leader of the Reform
Party what I am going to do. If he starts telling his people not to
make these remarks in the House, I will not repeat them.
2434
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the
government says that its decision to transfer training activities
from the College in Saint-Jean to Kingston was motivated by
the need to save money. Unfortunately, we cannot get any
credible figures. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the
House: ``I do not need to spend more money to see or to have
experts tell me that we do not need three military colleges for
65,000 members'' of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Considering that it will cost $6 million to maintain an empty
building in Saint-Jean, that it will cost a lot more to train
students in Kingston instead of in Saint-Jean and that the Prime
Minister's project may end up costing a lot of money, is the
Prime Minister not afraid that all these expenses will
considerably reduce the amounts saved by concentrating officer
training at the college in Kingston?
[English]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member came to the standing committee the other day and
was given all of the facts that were available. He was not
satisfied. He was not satisfied in getting the facts in the printed
form or from the general in charge of personnel of the armed
forces of Canada.
We really do want to satisfy the hon. member for Roberval
who does have a Bloc mentality in some cases and pardon my
play on words. Therefore later today I will issue a detailed
financial statement to the hon. member and to members of the
press gallery. Hopefully the hon. member will read it tonight and
will not come back tomorrow for more explanation.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, either the
Prime Minister and his Minister of National Defence have the
figures and they refuse to make them available to Canadians by
tabling them here in the House or the Prime Minister made this
decision to close the only francophone military college on the
spur of the moment, to save his Minister of National Defence.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to answer this question. First of all, I want to say that
Saint-Jean is not a French college but a bilingual college, like
Kingston. And I am very pleased to hear that people who fought
against bilingualism in Quebec are anxious to keep a bilingual
institution in Quebec.
Unfortunately, as I said before, we are making major spending
cuts. The United States, with two million service men, have
three military colleges. In Canada, we have 65,000, so we can
dispense with two of our colleges. We have decided to
consolidate the two bilingual colleges, Saint-Jean and
Kingston, and make one college in Kingston.
(1435)
I also think the hon. member will realize that, if he looks at
this objectively, the defence cuts in Quebec were less severe
than in other parts of Canada, and if I had acted on his leader's
recommendations, we would have cut far more, because we did
not cut 25 per cent of the defence budget.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
It is becoming clearer all the time that the minister does not
understand the widespread concern over the meaning of
aboriginal self-government. The minister must know there are
several fundamentally different definitions of what
self-government actually means. These range from the minimal
concept of municipal government to the opposite extreme of
absolute sovereignty as a nation state.
Does the minister still not understand why so many Canadians
both inside and outside the aboriginal community believe we
must define at least some broad parameters around what is and
what is not acceptable in the definition of aboriginal
self-government before it can be agreed to even in principle?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. It is
a very difficult subject.
Self-government is something we are working with. That is
part of our consultative process. As the hon. member knows, we
have allocated $4 million for discussions over the next six
months. There will be models evolving which are culturally and
regionally sensitive. It will come.
I ask the hon. member for two things: be patient and be
constructive.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Speaker, aboriginal
self-government sometimes if not always is a frustrating issue.
The minister has demonstrated time and time again his inability
to control his emotions when dealing with it.
As an elected member of this Parliament, I deserve the same
level of respect as members opposite, even if we should present
a different point of view on the issues brought before this House.
2435
If the minister is truly interested in the benefits of all
concerned parties will he consider stepping aside so that we can
proceed on this issue without further interruption?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, there is only one way to earn
respect in this House: you have to work for it. You have to put
your points forward and they have to be respected by your peers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he supported
applying a new GST to health care and medication. He gave the
following answer, and I quote: ``All taxes collected by the
government go into the government's consolidated fund and this
money is used to pay for all the government's programs.'' With
this answer, the Prime Minister left all of his options open.
Will the Prime Minister tell us, yes or no, if he is preparing to
extend the GST to health care and medication, as some of his
own members have hinted?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is no.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to hear it. This is the first time I have received such
a clear, direct answer.
The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that the new GST
will not apply to health care and medication. Is he also prepared
to say that the new GST will not apply to food either, given that
his Minister of Finance was rather vague about this last week, as
vague as the Prime Minister was yesterday?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there will be no old GST and no new GST.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
It is quickly becoming a habit in this Parliament that any MP
who disagrees with Ottawa's politically correct dogma is
labelled as racist, prejudiced, ignorant or now rednecked, the
pejorative definition.
(1440 )
When will the Prime Minister instruct his caucus that
personal attacks are not acceptable? When will he demand the
resignation of ministers and ministers of state when such attacks
are committed?
The Speaker: I was going to make a little statement at the end
of Question Period today as to how well we were doing together
in the House. I hope at the end to make a brief statement.
I would hope, my colleagues, that we would continue as we
have been for the most part since this Parliament first sat to
come together and deal with each other on a very civil and very
respectful plane. I would hope that neither the questions nor the
answers would tend to inflame passion on either side.
That being said I will permit the Prime Minister, if he so
wishes, to answer the question. It is of a general nature.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is very difficult for me to blame the minister of Indian affairs for
quoting the member of the Reform Party.
The hon. member said that he was proud to be a redneck. He
got up and said that a few minutes ago. Maybe he wants to
withdraw what he said in the House. I never used that term
myself. I invite the member from Edmonton and everyone else
to be very generous with the diversity of this country.
When I was in Edmonton, I knew it would not be a popular
statement on his part but the premier of Alberta said that he
believed it is a good thing for Canada to have a policy on
bilingualism. To me it is not imputing motives to people who do
not subscribe to that but I have been in public life for 30 years.
The fact that we have two official languages in Canada is a good
thing. I can see some progress because some members of the
Reform Party apparently are taking French lessons. I am very
happy about that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, we on this
side of the House are begging for generosity on behalf of cabinet
ministers who are making inappropriate remarks.
For five years I sat as a member of this House and watched the
current government members demand resignations for far less
serious reasons while they were members of the opposition.
It makes me wonder, had George Orwell written a sequel
entitled "1994'', could he have foreseen the politically correct
movement which seeks to eliminate not only words but ideas
and even debate on issues of the day?
When does this government plan to begin living up to the
promises made in the red book by reprimanding cabinet
ministers and ministers of state who personally attack other
members of this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, it
is very difficult for me to reprimand somebody who is quoting
Hansard when a member of Parliament said proudly that he was
a redneck.
2436
When the word was mentioned today, the hon. member stood
up in his place and bowed to all of us. As long as it is on the
record and he is proud to be a redneck, I will honour him in
calling him a redneck. That is what he wants to be.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
We were informed last Saturday that $21.7 million had been
budgeted, according to the Minister of Indian Affairs, to buy
land and various pieces of property which would form the
nucleus of a future native territory in Kanesatake, near Oka.
My question is as follows: Can the minister tell us whether the
$21.7 million is for all, and I mean all non-native land along
highway 344, including the land owned by the people who are
called the forgotten ones of Oka?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, when I took over this ministry I
found that the Conservative government had acquired over 80
pieces of property including 57 houses in the area to which my
hon. friend refers. I have had four or five meetings with the chief
of the First Nations to encourage him to take over the property.
As of now it has not been taken over. There is a serious concern
by the chief that if he takes it over he cannot properly administer
it by allocating some type of point system.
(1445)
What has happened is that the houses have been taken over by
other people who should not be in there. Until I solve that
multimillion dollar problem I have been trying to solve I cannot
go to the other side of highway 344.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
this has been dragging on since 1990 and the minister has given
no indication of being more anxious than his predecessor was to
help out the people of Oka who are at their wits end. When does
the federal government intend to act on this issue?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.
My first meeting with the Mohawk nation was to deal with
that point to which I brought Grand Chief Bill Montour, Grand
Chief Ovide Mercredi and my wife. We drove down there to deal
with that specific problem.
We have met on four subsequent weeks. It is still not solved.
We are putting our best people on it. We are trying to solve it
because I know it is of serious concern not only to the hon.
member but to me.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Industry.
The Walmart purchase of Canadian Woolco is now a fact. A
network of manufacturers and suppliers in Canada was built up
over the years to service Woolco stores. Some of those are in my
riding of Peterborough.
Could the minister give us his assurance that he will do all he
can to ensure that Walmart does not abandon these Canadian
suppliers where they can show they are competitive with the
U.S. suppliers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
can and I do give that assurance.
I can also assure the hon. member that we have obtained from
Walmart very specific undertakings with respect to the
development and maintenance of a Canadian supplier network,
as well as an undertaking to increase the acquisition and sale of
Canadian books, magazines and other cultural products in their
stores.
I took the undertakings seriously enough that I felt they
warranted a direct call to Mr. Walton. He gave me his personal
assurance of the importance of the undertakings to us and to
him.
I would like to quote the CEO of Walmart who was quoted in
the Financial Post in February as saying: ``It is our intention to
run a Canadian company with Canadian people, fitting in as best
as we can with the Canadian culture''. I suggest that is probably
the best formula for success that Walmart could follow in
coming into Canada.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Solicitor General.
As the hon. minister knows the Bowden Institute is located in
my constituency. Recently it has come to my attention that the
government is expanding the institution by 745 square metres
with a new recreation complex which is to include a lavish
weight room, new gymnasium, hobby rooms, barber shop, et
cetera. The cost to the taxpayer is $675,000.
In light of the recent budget does the government not find this
expenditure on lawbreakers somewhat hypocritical?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member's question is an important one but it is quite
detailed and technical. Therefore I will take it as notice and get
back to him soon.
2437
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, a great number of
constituents have asked this question and are quite concerned
about it. At a time when they have to tighten their belts they
are finding it a little difficult to understand this extravagant
waste of money on this facility.
Could the minister assure us this sort of waste will not
continue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
do not accept the hon. member's premise underlying his
question that what is happening is necessarily a waste.
I will look into it and get back to the hon. member. We are very
interested in sound expenditure of taxpayers' funds and that is
the starting point of my inquiry into this matter.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. The eviction from
Kahnawake of 143 families affected by the band council notice
contradicts principles in the Indian Act as well as in the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec minister
responsible for native affairs, Mr. Sirros, recommended that
federal authorities issue an injunction to prevent this eviction.
Does the Minister of Indian Affairs intend to take appropriate
action to ensure that none of the 143 families are evicted from
the Kahnawake territory, and not only the persons explicitly
protected by the injunction currently in effect?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the information I had yesterday
which I brought to the attention of the hon. member was on the
main action. There is an injunction. It stays there until the court
hearing.
On the rest of the individuals, they received notice that if they
sit tight it is up to the band to bring some type of judicial
process. If the band does this then it is open to the rest to do the
same thing and ask for the same type of injunction.
As I understand the situation now, no one is being forced to
move until after the court case. If the court case solves the
problem, so be it. If the court case does not solve the problem
then we will have to look at legislation.
I do not think we should be interfering in a judicial process
every time someone issues a writ. Under our custom and our
creation we wait until a decision is rendered and deal with the
decision accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, will the
government finally assume its twofold responsibility under both
the Indian Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? How
does it intend to respond to the Quebec minister, who refuses to
negotiate on a discriminatory basis?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Again, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to
negotiate or legislate until the court deals with the issue.
As I indicated several times it would be inappropriate for me
to comment on this judicial process. Naturally I will be making
comments on the outcome of the process.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. I raised this issue in the
House several days ago.
My question is based on the report that a researcher in
Montreal has falsified information on breast cancer research.
Incredibly it is suggested that he used patients in a study without
their consent. The conclusions from this study have helped to
formulate breast cancer treatment for the last 10 years.
Could the minister assure the women of Canada that the
treatments they are receiving are safe and the very best
possible?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am very much concerned with what happened in the report that
has come out of Montreal.
Let me assure Canadians first that no Canadian dollars were
used to fund any of the research by this particular physician.
Many other studies have proven the kinds of treatments being
administered in Canada are good and effective in the treatment
of breast cancer.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I do
acknowledge the hon. minister's comments to me. Having said
that then I am certain the hon. minister will definitely agree with
the statement that I am now about to make.
Women across the country are outraged by such an incident.
The medical community has known about this for three years.
The Canadian public has been misled by yet another health
related cover-up.
2438
To guarantee the quality of women's health in this country,
will the minister agree to investigate this serious incident?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
will be meeting early in the coming week with the Medical
Research Council which governs the use of research dollars and
the studies which come out of those research dollars.
I am very interested in establishing some kind of practice
guidelines for these kinds of reports in order that we can
reassure Canadians that when these reports are made public they
are indeed factual, using factual information and data.
* * *
(1455 )
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, my question
for the Minister of the Environment is about the recent spill of
over 820 kilograms of the pesticide Busan-52 into the Winnipeg
River by Abitibi-Price.
Abitibi-Price took four days to report the spill. Meanwhile
3,000 of my constituents who live on the Sagkeeng First Nation
reserve and another 3,000 of my constituents in the Pine
Falls-Powerview area were unaware that they may have been
drinking contaminated water.
What is the minister doing about this intolerable action by
Abitibi-Price?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet
with representatives of the band who obviously are very
concerned about the negligence shown by Abitibi-Price in this
particular case.
Subsection 36(2) of the pulp and paper regulations makes it
very clear that when there is a spill, the spill is to be reported
immediately. In this case it is intolerable that the company
waited four days before notifying authorities that 828 kilograms
of this particular pesticide were dumped into a river which
subsequently serves as drinking water for Canadians.
We are vigorously investigating with provincial authorities.
There are a series of charges being contemplated, both charges
for non-reporting and charges for deleterious substances being
released into the river system. We intend to report back to the
member and to other interested members on this issue as soon as
we have a final conclusion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
The electronic highway will have a major impact on many
aspects of society such as consumer activity, personal privacy,
industry and education, to name only these. We have learned
that the committee that will develop the government's strategy
will meet behind closed doors.
My main question is this: Given the electronic highway's
strategic and determining role in the economy, how can the
minister justify his decision to have this committee hold its
discussions behind closed doors?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we
decided to have a consultative process with a committee, a fairly
open process. All those with opinions to express can inform us if
they wish; we even have an Internet address for submissions to
help us prepare our policy on the electronic highway.
I do not understand why the hon. member thinks that a
committee must open all its business to the public. Perhaps
when the Bloc wants to open the doors to its caucus discussions,
we can consider it.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I have a second
question. To avoid looking too much like the Conservatives,
whom the government denounced on many occasions in the past,
does the minister not agree that the government should be more
open and involve the public and Parliament in the work of this
committee?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
think the member misunderstands what we are trying to do here.
We have formed an advisory committee. Everyone in the
country is not on it. Therefore by its very nature some people are
going to be excluded. The process is multifaceted. There are
many ways for people to express their points of view.
With respect to the advisory committee itself, as we explained
yesterday the committee will be receiving submissions from
people as they wish. Reports as they become available will be
made open to the public. For that matter, if the chairman and
members of the committee wish to hold public hearings as far as
I am concerned they are most welcome to do so.
We want a process that is both functional and inexpensive to
get us to the conclusion of this part of our policy development
process as expeditiously as possible and as I am sure the member
would like us to do.
2439
(1500 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday I asked the minister if she would table the
guidelines that help to guide her department in the allocation of
advertising contracts under her jurisdiction. I hope to get those
guidelines sometime soon.
When it is a sizeable contract, like the one that has been
awarded to McKim Advertising in Winnipeg, surely the minister
has conducted a detailed investigation into this or any
prospective contractor, especially if the agency has come under
new management just two weeks before the major contract was
awarded.
Was the minister personally aware of the political background
of the new owner of McKim Advertising when she signed off the
new contract?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me explain to the hon. member how this all works.
McKim is the advertising agency on specific issues for my
department. It was chosen through the competitive process
prescribed in the government communications policy and
overseen by the advertising management group of the
Department of Government Services.
By the way, this particular agency was chosen before this
government came to office. Pending the review by government
of contracting procedures for advertising companies, Health
Canada was authorized to extend the contract to McKim for six
months. It is not a huge contract. I believe yesterday the amount
mentioned was $185 million. That is the whole tobacco strategy.
This extension of contract is very small.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Warner, Speaker of the
Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have notice of a question of privilege arising
from question period. I will hear it because it did arise from the
question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker. I feel that, while answering a question today, the
Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions
violated my privileges as a parliamentarian by attempting to put
some of the blame on me for his government unacceptable
abdication to the American giant Paramount.
What he suggested is absolutely false. I have never been
associated in any way with this issue. It is the minister's
responsibility to name the anonymous entity behind which he is
taking cover to justify this abdication on the part of his
government.
No minister has the right to cast such a doubt on me when the
government knows who is the guilty one but will not name him.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to ask that the member have the
decency to withdraw these allegations.
The Speaker: The Speaker was present during Question
Period today. We heard an answer in which there may have been
an allusion to a member having done this or that at some other
time.
I am not sure this is a question of privilege; it may simply be a
point of fact. I am taking the request into consideration, but I
want to consult Hansard. Agreed? Thank you.
[English]
There is another question of privilege. If the question of
privilege by the member from Swift Current is arising out of this
question period then I will hear a question of privilege from the
hon. member.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, it is a pity so many members
opposite think that irony is something found in a scrap yard.
It is equally a pity the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development has attempted through my remarks to
divert attention away from a personal attack he made on one of
my colleagues. It was indeed a personal attack.
(1505 )
If the minister would care to read my entire speech in Hansard
rather than taking a few lines out of it, he would know full well
that I was taking a shot at people who use the term redneck as a
conversational A-bomb to devastate anyone who does not agree
with their politically correct views. I then proceeded to define
redneck in my terms and I stick to it.
I still am a redneck by those terms, but not by the insulting
terms used by the minister which imply-
The Speaker: Once again I believe that surely the hon.
member would have a point of debate and perhaps even a point
of grievance. However, I would not see a point of privilege at
this particular juncture.
2440
It is my understanding that any statements allegedly made
by the minister were made in committee. I would ask hon.
members involved if they could perhaps seek redress on their
grievance first in committee. If the committee of course
chooses to report this to the House, then it will become a matter
for the House to decide.
My colleagues, if I may be permitted I would point out with
all respect that this House has conducted itself immeasurably
well. I encourage all hon. members to act with one another as
they have for the greatest part of the few months we have been
sitting. It is a measure of the Parliament that we have been able
to have the quality and the substance of debate we have had. I
would hope that is the forerunner of the good relations to
continue.
I believe the hon. member does have a point of grievance and
indeed of debate. I would ask him and other hon. members who
would feel aggrieved in committee to please address themselves
to the chairman of that committee. They would have recourse
there.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, could the
Government House leader tell us what business will be dealt
with tomorrow and next week?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his
question.
As we know, today is an allotted day on the criminal justice
system.
Tomorrow we will ask the House to consider Bill C-14
respecting borrowing authority. If this were to be completed we
would turn to Bill C-17 regarding implementation of the recent
budget followed by Bill C-9 respecting a previous economic
statement.
On Monday the House will consider a measure now on the
notice paper for introduction tomorrow concerning the electoral
boundaries system. When this is completed we will return to the
point where we left off on the list for Friday.
Tuesday shall be an allotted day under the auspices of the
Official Opposition. Since it is the last allotted day in the
present supply period, at the end of the day there will be motions
to concur in final supplementary estimates and in interim supply
followed by the passage of appropriation acts.
Starting on Wednesday and continuing for the rest of the week
we will resume the legislative list outlined for Monday. If we
make progress on the items already mentioned, we will bring
forward as well Bill C-7 regarding the control of certain
substances, Bill C-11 respecting tobacco, Bill C-4 respecting
the NAFTA side deals, and Bill C-2 respecting Revenue Canada.
Mr. Collenette: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I was
wondering if I could seek unanimous consent of the House to
revert to statements by ministers.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2440
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1510)
[Translation]
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Madam Speaker,
yesterday, in an answer to a question from the hon. member for
Charlesbourg, I said: ``I will not be able to comment on the chain
of command or anything to do with the Canadian Airborne
Regiment, anything that could be construed as interference in
the judicial proceedings''. I have a few more details to add.
[English]
I thank hon. members opposite for allowing me to add a few
words to what I said yesterday to the hon. member for
Charlesbourg.
As a result of the several incidents arising out of the Canadian
Airborne Regiment Battle Group deployment on United Nations
duties to Somalia, a series of investigations were undertaken by
Canadian forces authorities.
Military police investigations into the incidents commenced
on April 15, 1993. They have resulted in a series of charges
under the National Defence Act being laid against members of
the Canadian forces. These charges have and will result in
disposition by courts martial.
As well, on April 28, 1993 the previous chief of defence staff
directed that a board of inquiry be convened to investigate
leadership, discipline, operations, actions and procedures of the
Canadian Airborne Regiment Battle Group. Phase one of the
board of inquiry is completed. Phase two will not commence
before the disciplinary process which is presently under way is
completed.
The evidence given at any of the courts martial will be
reviewed by appropriate military authorities who will determine
what, if any, further action is required.
2441
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Madam Speaker, this is a
ministerial statement which complements an answer and does
not require a long comment on my part.
I simply want to tell the Minister of National Defence that we
appreciate obtaining supplementary answers. This particular
one does not provide a lot of specifics. It simply tells us about
how things should normally proceed from now on. But we want
to point out to the minister that our colleague was very
concerned about the negative situation prevailing on that
military base, with a regiment whose behaviour seems very
unusual.
I reiterate my colleague's concerns and remind the minister of
the importance of ensuring that all the facts are known about the
incidents which took place on that military base, which are
disturbing, to say the least.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Madam Speaker,
all Canadians were disconcerted and disappointed by the
incident that occurred in Somalia. We are watching with great
interest the outcome of the courts martial.
We agree with the government that the appropriate time to
discuss phase two in detail is following those courts martial
when all the details are known.
We will be very attentive to the results of that phase two
investigation and even more interested in the recommendations
of the minister and chief of defence staff as to how to rectify it to
ensure that this does not happen again.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(B), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
four minutes.
_____________________________________________
2441
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Saint-Hubert has seven minutes left.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Madam Speaker, I
will now resume my comments on the Reform Party's motion. I
was talking about damage and compensation suits that fall under
the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Several provinces have programs to compensate victims of
crime. Provincial and federal legislation on this is still
inadequate, I agree, but let us at least be honest in our remarks.
(1515)
We all know that the judge in a criminal trial is not there to
pass the sentence desired by the victim.
Madam Speaker, I would ask the two hon. members to my
right to maybe move to the back if they want to talk to each
other. Thank you.
As I was saying, we all know that the judge in a criminal trial
is not there to impose the sentence we or the victim would like to
hear but one that he deems fair and acceptable taking into
account social standards and the circumstances of the case.
That a victim or his or her loved ones are dissatisfied with the
accused's acquittal or shocked by a light sentence is
understandable. Many people see a criminal trial as legitimate
revenge on a thief or an assailant. They identify with one side of
the criminal trial and see themselves as prosecutors. For these
people, the trial is a game between themselves and the accused.
We must correct this mistake and not reinforce it through
comments such as those made in today's debate.
We must tell Canadians that the criminal justice system is
adversarial. We have the public prosecutor on one side, the
accused on the other, and the judge in the middle. And they all
get together to decide if the evidence supporting the charge
against the accused is conclusive.
The victim is a witness, not a party at the trial. That is where it
would be appropriate, in my opinion, to suggest major changes
to the spirit of the Criminal Code and to court proceedings. That
is what the Reform Party should say if it is sincere in its motion.
Either the system remains as designed and victims continue to
play the role of ordinary witnesses at trials, or the victim
becomes a party in the proceedings. That is the true problem:
victims as witnesses or as parties at the trial.
I am convinced that we will not start a real debate on
improving the lot of victims before the courts unless we make a
radical choice between these two conceptions of the criminal
justice system. Either the criminal trial remains a judicial
inquiry where evidence is presented against the accused, whom
a judge or a jury must find guilty or acquit after hearing the
defence.
Traditionally, the two opposing parties are the public
prosecutor and the accused. Each party calls its witnesses who,
in principle, are total strangers and independent in the case.
In this system, the victim must testify on the events he or she
experienced, mainly to identify the accused as the one who
committed the crime.
Once the evidence is presented, the accused is found guilty
only if there is no reasonable doubt about the essential facts
2442
with which he is charged. That is our system. In most cases, it
works when the evidence is conclusive.
There is an alternative to this system which has reached its
limits. We could now allow the victim to be a civil party in a
criminal trial. If I understand what is behind the concerns
expressed by the Reform Party, I believe that such a proposal
would win immediate support from most of the public. I can
very well imagine a victim participating actively in a criminal
trial in support of the accusation, making representations on the
sentence and demanding full monetary compensation for the
material and physical damage suffered.
In France, for example, the victim can be a civil party for such
purposes and I do not see why we could not amend our criminal
legislation to permit an active presence of all interested parties
in a trial.
The victim could be represented by lawyers, produce his or
her own witnesses, question and cross-examine those brought
by the Crown and by the defence, plead on the evidence
presented, suggest the sentence or take part in negotiations; in
short, participate in the whole judicial process and even appeal
any judgement.
(1520)
We found out the wording of the Reform Party's motion only
late yesterday afternoon. I would have liked a little more
research on the subject of the motion, but I excuse the Reform
Party because I believe that the motion was improvised and
made up just hours before. We will agree that it only conveys a
vague criticism of the whole judicial system and of the
underlying legislation.
Still, I must admit that this slapdash motion gives us an
opportunity to propose a major change in the spirit of criminal
law to the government. I believe that the victim cannot be a mere
passive witness outside the proceedings in which he or she
should be a full participant, like the accused.
I think that if people feel that criminals are better treated than
their victims by the courts, this perception is largely due to their
exclusion from the proceedings.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member. I
was anxious to hear it. At first I was under the impression that
she was a newly elected member such as myself who has been
here for only a little while. Shortly after listening to the
beginning of her speech I began to realize that she was not a
newly elected member because she was running on with the
rhetoric we have heard over and over from various members
who have been here in the past.
It is the same kind of thing we hear constantly. Things are
going well. We have a great system. We do not need changes.
She was making statements that had nothing whatever to do with
the motion before the House but was suggesting that the motion
states that a fair trial for criminals should be eliminated.
On searching the motion I cannot see anywhere it suggests
anything like that. We are trying to say that in a number of cases,
and it is an unlimited number, we have evidence that the rights
of the victim are being overrun by the rights of the criminal.
I would ask the member the same question which I referred to
earlier. To give a lady in Montreal peace of mind, to give her the
ability to continue the healing process she is going to have to go
through after being raped a number of times by an individual,
she requested the perpetrator be tested for AIDS so she could at
least eliminate that from her worries. The courts in our system
ruled that the criminal did not have to submit a sample to
determine if he had AIDS and the request from the victim was
denied.
Had the hon. member been the person to make the choice I
would like to know if she would honour the request of the victim
and have the criminal tested for AIDS or would she make the
decision the court made, that the criminal did not have to submit
under his rights under the charter.
(1525)
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Madam Speaker, we keep saying that we are here
as legislators and nothing else. So, I will not put myself in the
shoes of a judge and, based on the very succinct summary of
facts presented by our colleagues, tell you what I would have
done. First of all, I would need to be apprised of all the facts, as a
judge would, before I could hand down a judgement. I think that
it is inappropriate to ask me what I would have done in the place
of a judge, since I did not get to hear all the witnesses as the
judge did at the time. I think that the hon. member's question is
totally unjustified.
On the other hand, the member's comment tends to indicate
that the system is flawed. That is exactly the point I made in my
speech. In case the hon. member did not hear, I will repeat what I
said, because that is exactly what I said: our system is flawed
and there certainly is room for improvement. In fact, I brought
up a suggestion whereby the victim would no longer be just a
victim but rather take an active part in the proceedings. I think it
was an interesting proposal, at least that was my opinion, but
that may not be what the hon. member heard. So, this is my
answer to the hon. member.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Madam Speaker, I listened with some interest to the first part of
the hon. member's comments. I was a little surprised to hear her
criticizing the motion that is before the House. It talks about
changing that which has been part of the Canadian system over
centuries.
2443
Why is it that when my party talks about changing something
because we feel it is not serving its purposes that we are
criticized and yet the party that she represents is questioning
the whole make-up of the country because it does not believe
that it is justified? How can she criticize us for wanting to
change the justice system when she wants to change the whole
fabric of our country?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member heard
correctly. I did criticize the motion, which is very vague and is
reminiscent of what any small tabloid would use as a main
headline. That is what prompted me to say this motion was
haphazard, disjointed. It is like saying that we are all in favour
of virtue and hate winter. In fact, that is very much the style of
this motion. I made an effort to debate it in an intelligent and
appropriate manner because I found it to be incredibly general.
That is why I criticized it the way I did.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington): Madam Speaker, I rise to
speak against the motion of the hon. member.
As the member of Parliament for Burlington I spent much of
my election campaign discussing these issues. As previous
speakers on this side have quite rightly pointed out, the
government has barely passed the 100-day mark in office.
My constituents are very concerned about justice issues. They
are also concerned about crime. They look to the government to
address these issues and they want changes that will have a
positive impact on Canadian society.
The government has just assumed its position. We have only
been here for 100 days but we have already signalled quite
clearly and the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General
have forcefully stated that we are committed to action to reform
the criminal justice system.
I speak here of balanced, thoughtful reform that addresses the
needs of Canadians for protection and Canadians' belief in
compassion.
[Translation]
I must remind hon. members that this government has already
provided full details on its policy concerning criminal and
justice issues. Even before the election, we laid down our
agenda for reforming the criminal justice system once we would
be in office.
(1530)
This agenda reflects the expectations of Canadians, as they
have expressed them. The Liberal Party has consulted the people
of Canada and obtained their full support.
[English]
As a party we said explicitly what action we intended to take
on a range of issues, issues such as young offenders, crime
prevention, gun control, prostitution, sentencing and
rehabilitation of sex offenders, violence against women and
children, and we talked about parole.
The range of issues speaks volumes. It cries out for a
comprehensive approach, one that considers root causes, that
thinks of prevention as a key element of every solution, not just
shutting the barn door after the horse has gone.
That does not mean, as the hon. member opposite would have
us think, that considered approaches somehow place the rights
of criminals over the plight and the rights of victims. This is a
cant. This is a one dimensional perspective that does not stand
up to scrutiny.
As I have said, we have already signalled clearly that we
intend to follow through on our promises. The Minister of
Justice and the Solicitor General have indicated that work is
already well in progress on these areas. This work will reform
our system so that the victims of crime, the public, both
specifically and in the larger sense, are first, the paramount
consideration in the operation of our criminal justice system.
The Minister of Justice has indicated in the House that he
intends to bring in amendments to the Young Offenders Act. The
Solicitor General has said here and elsewhere that he intends to
bring forth amendments to the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act.
I am pleased that all the foregoing topics are on the agenda
next week at the meeting of federal, provincial and territorial
ministers of justice which both the Minister of Justice and the
Solicitor General will attend. The government has also signalled
its intent to bring forth amendments to sentencing, again with
the intent of improving the lot of victims during the judicial
process.
Probably the most crucial plank in our paper on crime and
justice issues had to do with crime prevention. I am pleased that
we are working on the elimination of root causes of crime. Many
of Canada's criminals have known a life of poverty and
inequality, an environment that taught them little about positive
conflict resolutions, an environment quite unfamiliar to many
members of the Chamber.
I am pleased we are focusing on a national crime prevention
program because we can perhaps make the biggest strides in
helping victims there. I believe we must do our utmost to ensure
that as few Canadians as possible become victims of crime in the
first place.
Members opposite would have us believe that one
dimensional answers such as increasing the rate and length of
incarceration would be a key solution. We already have one of
the highest incarceration rates in the world. If locking up people
was a
2444
measure of absence of crime we would be one of the most crime
free countries in the world. As I have said, we are looking at
approaches that address underlying causes of crime and that
integrate crime prevention strategies.
Law enforcement has been the traditional mainstay of crime
prevention strategies, but law enforcement is not enough on its
own and that has been demonstrated. Experience shows that for
truly effective crime prevention law enforcement must be
integrated with social development, including social programs
and better education, community level participation in crime
prevention and in crime solutions, not just locking up people.
Burlington as part of the Halton region has been extremely
successful in its crime prevention strategy. Under the direction
of Chief Harding, Burlington in the Halton region has become
the safest community in North America. Block Parent programs,
community involvement in conflict resolution strategies and
incorporating support groups such as rotary clubs ensure that we
will have a multipronged approach to crime prevention.
It is important to remember as well that Burlington has seen
some very sensational crimes and has been wracked as a
community by crime. Two of our young women died very
violent deaths: Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy. Kristen
French from down the highway a ways was found in our
community. We were all brought home very horribly one
summer to the reality of violence in our communities.
However, the government recognizes that when incarceration
is the only solution to protect the public it is in fact what we
must do.
(1535)
The Solicitor General has promised tough measures for repeat
sex offenders and high risk offenders who offer little hope of
immediate rehabilitation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General has enumerated the reforms the minister shall
be bringing forth to offer better protection from those who
would prey on the vulnerable. He has also noted that the
government does not intend to give up on these offenders.
Surely the mark of a civilized society is how it treats its
offenders. Communities need to become participants in the
process of safely reintegrating offenders into Canadian society.
Rehabilitation programs need to be expanded and improved so
that offenders return to our communities with a much lower risk
of reoffending. We need more victims aid programs, to be sure,
and our crime and justice paper focused on that concern. It also
identified the need for more public education and research on
criminal justice, recidivism, crime prevention and alternatives
to incarceration and victims aid.
Surely a grave cause of concern in the area of victims of crime
is the suffering caused by violence within our families. Family
violence results in a great many victims, both directly and
indirectly. I believe we are paying a very high cost for allowing
such violence to continue. We have pledged as a government to
do our utmost to break the cycle of family violence.
Statistics demonstrate the undeniable link between sexual
abuse of girls in their own families and prostitution. Many of
Canada's prostitutes are also drug addicts, condemned to a very
dangerous life because of the misfortune of being born into an
abusive family.
I believe the Reform motion is motivated out of fear. While
we cannot ignore the very real fear and the very justified fear
some Canadians feel, we must temper it with rationality. As a
woman I am aware that I can become a victim in two ways.
Merely because I am a woman I am more vulnerable to assault
including sexual assault and, second, the fear of crime takes
away my freedom. Like other vulnerable groups, children and
the elderly, women must always be conscious of their
environment on the streets, at home and at work. We must think
of these issues all the time. We must never let our guard down.
Sometimes it is exhausting; always it is unfair.
The member speaks of elderly women at home and afraid. I
too am very concerned about this issue, not just because I have a
significant number of single and elderly women in their homes
in Burlington. I also recognize that at one point I too will be one
of those women. However, I am encouraged that some of our
young women are starting movements and marches such as
``Taking Back the Night''. My old high school in Hamilton,
Cathedral Girls, organized such a march after the death of Nina
de Villiers.
I am also aware that pornography, killer cards and sometimes
advertising campaigns which present women as objects rather
than as persons deserving respect and safety, encourage
violence against women.
As a nation we must address these issues. We must educate
our young people to respect others, to respect their person and to
respect their property. The government must lead that
discussion. We must enact laws that reflect our abhorrence of
violence against women, against children and against the
elderly. These are the issues we must address if we are to ensure
the rights of victims. I hardly think we can be expected to
redress imbalances in these complex issues overnight, but we
can be expected to think long and deep about solutions and to
ensure these solutions are comprehensive in scope.
There are many crimes, many victims of crime, and many
causes for such crimes. That is what our crime and justice issues
paper recognized.
2445
Any knee-jerk reaction that promises to help victims is
doomed to failure. I do not condemn the outrage crime causes,
especially to its victims. On the contrary. What I do condemn,
however, is offering simplistic solutions to complex
inderdependent and intertwined problems of society. For
example, perpetuating the perception that all criminals are
violent is grossly misleading, as is the myth that the system is
somehow dedicated to the rights of criminals over the public.
(1540)
Maintaining that solutions to crime simply involve the
criminal justice system getting tougher, meaner, stiffer, is to
offer totally inadequate and in the end bankrupt answers. In fact
such a philosophy will prevent us from ever getting to and fixing
the root causes of crime and victimization. As long as we
pretend to the public that there is the possibility of easy answers
we cannot count on its support and participation in the search for
a multidimentional solution to crime will be limited.
I will concede and even argue that the public is increasingly
concerned about crime and about being victimized. That is why
the Liberal Party took the unprecedented step of laying out a
comprehensive crime and justice agenda almost one year ago.
The government plans to act deliberately, methodically and
systematically with this agenda. I for one will be an active
participant.
We do not wish to rush in with hastily drafted laws, with a
scatter-gun approach, so that when the smoke has cleared
something would not measure up. These are crucial issues. They
need to be carefully addressed, closely studied by Parliament
and properly debated. They need a wider public airing in cities,
in towns, in villages and in neighbourhoods, and often even
within families.
In the end we will be measured by what we accomplish, not by
what we promise. We will proceed in a measured pace with our
agenda, an agenda I remind members that recognizes the
complex nature of crime, its origins, and the corresponding need
for proper solutions.
The Canadian public expects solutions from the government
and we will deliver on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member's comments. Her approach is very
generous and her objectives noble. I know that she is not a
Cabinet member, but I would appreciate it if she could elaborate
on some comments she made concerning young people and
prevention.
As the opposition's youth critic, I have a particular interest in
this issue. Young people are often described as being a problem
when, in fact, they are the human resources of the future. I
believe it is very important to have programs, especially for
first-time young offenders, to rehabilitate them, to help their
social reintegration, so that they can become productive
citizens.
I want to make a comment before the hon. member answers. I
notice that, in spite of the observations made by government
members in general, a whole slew of measures, such as
legislation on young offenders, juvenile prostitution, etc., are
announced by the government. Yet, when we ask why nothing is
done, we are invariably told about how difficult it is to
implement even existing legislation. There is nothing wrong
with suggesting a new piece of legislation, and parliamentarians
will certainly co-operate, but it is obvious that the government
has some problems with implementation.
I now go back to my question, which is: What specific
measures will the government take for prevention and
rehabilitation?
Ms. Torsney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. This is a pressing issue in my riding and I often
referred to it in the election campaign.
I believe there is a serious problem. We seem to be saying in
our committee that there is a problem with young people, that
young offenders are really dangerous, that they are terrible
children, that they murder people, etc. This is not fair since it
does not apply at all to the young people I know. We must do
something about this notion some members have in our
committee.
(1545)
There is a problem with some young people. When a young
person breaks the law, it must be recognized that such an offence
will have consequences, and it must be understood that there are
laws in our society and that they must be respected.
We often hear some people say that they would like to see
young offenders appear before an adult court, which I think is
very dangerous. I have a problem with that approach. I think that
if you send a young man to Millhaven, you are only giving him
the opportunity to become a smarter criminal which, I think, is
terrible. This government discussed amendments to current
laws with provincial justice ministers, because provinces are
responsible for rehabilitating children and young people.
It must be spelled out in the Act that some young people are
dangerous and we must have another approachor them, I think.
We must have specific rules on this.
I think we must review changes to the system by having, for
instance, a record that would follow these young people.
[English]
I will have to speak in English on this part or I am going to get
myself into trouble.
We have to change it so that there is a record kept on youth
who have committed crime, especially when they are very
dangerous. We have to ensure that society is protected and that
in some cases the record is not wiped out. In some cases we
could do a better accounting of these young people and ensure
that they do not get caught up in worse crime.
2446
However, in terms of crime prevention I think we can do a
lot through education and by removing the root causes of crime.
I mentioned family violence in my speech. Kids learn this stuff
at home and from television sometimes. They learn it from an
environment that is hostile to many people in our communities.
They learn that it is okay to be violent against women.
All of us have to take responsibility for that and we have to
change that system. We have to tell kids that it is not okay, that
they can resolve conflict by discussing things, by coming to
resolutions, by using alternative methods whether it is in the
school yard, in the family or with others as they grow up.
I think we can do a lot as a nation about improving our society
if we can address that. We as a community have done very well
in Burlington on some of that. I have been pleased by some of
the initiatives in the greater Burlington area and the greater
Hamilton area that have incorporated Rotary Clubs and school
children and teaching them this sense.
However, we do have to address those issues.
(1550 )
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker, I think
the hon. member missed some of the point in the motion of the
Reform Party today, the point being that when there is a question
of whether the convicted person's rights are to be weighed
against the victim's rights that the victim's rights should
supersede in every instance.
The member referred to prevention as far as crime is
concerned. That is great. That is exactly the route that we have to
go in the long run.
If your house were burning down, I suppose you should at
some time figure out what caused that, but before you do that
you should put out the fire. That is kind of what we are facing
here today.
We have problems with young offenders particularly. I would
ask the hon. member if she agrees with the way young offenders
are treated today, especially repeat offenders who are not tried in
adult courts. I know she made some allusion to adult court
treatment. Nobody in the Reform Party, by the way, agrees with
incarcerating young offenders in facilities like Millhaven.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I gather the hon.
member is asking the hon. member for Burlington to respond.
With unanimous consent I can give the member a couple of
minutes to respond, if she wishes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Torsney: I do not think that I in fact missed the comments
in the motion.
I think there is a perception perhaps by some members of our
community, and some members of the Reform Party, that
suggests that the house really is on fire and that we are all
running from it at this very moment. That is not correct.
I have heard hon. members say that people are falling left and
right every day. That is not what is happening in Canada. That
might be happening in the United States and I certainly will be
working to make sure that our community of Canada is never
like the United States. But the house is not on fire. There is
smoke in one of the rooms, maybe in two rooms, but the house is
not on fire.
We have to address the right of victims. I for one believe that
we have to consider victim impact statements. In Burlington
CAVEAT and other groups addressed this issue and they are
working on solutions with the government.
I do not buy this perception and the encouragement of this
perception that we are all at risk all the time. I am probably at
risk most of the time, but we have to recognize that there is a
careful balance. I do not want this government to turn around
and have knee-jerk reactions to everything that is going on. We
need to have a very careful balance. We need to have a
methodical approach. Otherwise we run the risk of making
mistakes that will only further encourage crime in our
communities and I do not want that.
I will be encouraging the minister, as I have on many
occasions, as he will say. I think we are big enough to address
crime prevention as well as some of the issues related to the
Young Offenders Act and current criminals, as well as
prevention and removing some of the root causes of crime. I
think we can handle the job.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Madam Speaker, this is a very
strong motion. It is strongly worded in that it condemns the
present system. Condemn is a strong word, but the people of
Canada are in fact doing that.
Certainly in my area of the country they are condemning
various aspects and portions of the criminal justice system that
turns murderers and rapists out on the street to commit those
offences again, that cannot even hold 10-year-olds accountable
for criminal conduct. These are some of the things that I will be
touching on in my speech.
I am sure the Young Offenders Act was not a knee-jerk
reaction. It was well thought out and planned by the previous
Liberal government. We see the fruits that are being borne by
that ill-conceived piece of legislation, at least in parts of it
where now it has to be reformed. I ask, as I asked before in this
House, where was the leadership and where was the vision.
2447
Past and present governments inaction with regard to the
reform of the criminal justice system, which is of course the
topic of today's opposition motion, is of particular concern to
me.
(1555 )
I rise today to speak about a section of the Criminal Code
which I believe is a blatant example of the growing disregard for
the rights of victims versus the rights of criminals.
Section 745 of the Criminal Code, which gives convicted
murderers access to the courts to seek a reduction in the number
of years they must serve in prison before being eligible for
release on parole, is a prime example of this disregard and
makes a mockery of the term life imprisonment.
I would like to briefly provide members of this House with a
history of this section of the Criminal Code. Murder was first
classified as capital or non-capital in 1961. Before then only
one punishment was prescribed for murder which was the death
penalty. After 1961 only capital murder was punishable by
death. This was the murder that was planned and delivered for
the murder of a police officer or a prison guard. This was further
reduced and only the killing of a police officer was punishable
by death.
Persons convicted of non-capital murder were sentenced to
life but were eligible for parole after seven years. However, this
too changed and after 1967 all those serving a life sentence for
murder could not be recommended for parole before serving at
least 10 years.
In 1974 amendments were made to the Criminal Code which
allowed the sentencing judge to increase the parole eligibility
period to a maximum of 20 years. On February 24, 1976 Bill
C-84 was introduced to abolish the death penalty and to create
two new categories of murder, first and second degree murder,
both of which carry the minimum sentence of life imprisonment.
Those convicted of first degree murder would serve 25 years
before being eligible for parole, while second degree murderers
would serve between 10 and 25 years prior to parole eligibility.
Apparently the 25 year minimum penalty was the trade-off
for achieving the abolition of the death penalty. Instead of the
death penalty, society was to be protected by incarcerating
murderers for a minimum period of 25 years. Prior to Bill C-84,
death sentences commuted to life imprisonment had resulted in
an average of only 13.2 years served prior to release on parole.
Contained within Bill C-84 was a clause which created
section 745 of the Criminal Code. Although first and second
degree murderers are not eligible for parole for 25 years, under
section 745 after 15 years murderers can apply for a parole
review which effectively decrease their sentence.
Section 745.(1) of the Criminal Code reads:
Where a person has served at least fifteen 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 his number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for
parole.
In my opinion section 745 makes a complete mockery of the
so-called life sentence. It provides what one parliamentarian
said: ``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 former parliamentarian obviously had no
consideration whatsoever for the victims of murder or their
families.
What murderer in this country has ever given his victim or his
victim's family a glimmer of hope? When a murderer takes an
innocent life it cannot be returned. The victim cannot be brought
back to life, and likewise when a murderer is given life
imprisonment it should mean exactly that, life, with no glimmer
of hope nor any incentive to ease the burden or the severity of
the punishment for this awful crime.
The glimmer of hope advocates have made a farce of our penal
system by extending to murderers a right they denied to their
victim. Section 745 had not been reviewed until 1991 and 1992
when two private members' bills were introduced in the last
Parliament challenging the existence of section 745.
This morning the hon. member from York South-Weston
introduced a private member's bill to get rid of this law which
gives convicted killers a chance for early parole. I would like to
tell the hon. member that he has a great deal of support from our
party for that bill. I am confident he will also have the support of
many Canadians, including the Potts family of Hamilton,
Ontario, whose daughter was murdered 15 years ago by Norman
Joseph Clairmount.
In 1978 Clairmount was handed the statutory life sentence
with no chance of parole for 25 years for the brutal and savage
murder of the innocent 19-year old Potts girl.
(1600 )
On February 8, 1993 an Ontario jury deliberated less than
three hours before deciding to reduce the number of years. This
murderer is eligible for parole in 18 years instead of 25 years.
Because of section 745 and the jury's finding in favour of
Clairmont, he was immediately eligible to apply to the National
Parole Board for unescorted, temporary absences. He is now
eligible to apply for full parole in 1995 instead of the year 2002.
This is not an isolated case. A number of convicted murderers
have been successful with their section 745 applications.
Brian John Boyko of B.C., convicted in 1974 of capital
murder, won a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility to
16 years from 20 after a 1990 hearing.
2448
At a 1990 review hearing in Winnipeg, Larry Sheldon,
convicted in 1974 of non-capital murder in the rape-murder
of a nine-year old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment
without parole for 20 years won a reduction to 17 years.
Convicted of first degree murder in the shooting of a Calgary
policeman during a credit union hold-up and hostage taking in
1976, William John Nicols won a reduction of his parole
ineligibility period to 20 years at an Alberta hearing.
Jean-Louis Rodrigue, convicted of second degree murder in
the killing of a Montreal peace officer, Charles Simard who
murdered two teenagers and convicted killer Gilles Levine, all
of Quebec, won reductions in their parole ineligibility period to
15 years.
Also in Quebec, Real Chartrand, sentenced to hang in 1972 for
killing a police officer after an armed robbery, obtained full
parole after serving 17 years of his sentence because of section
745.
There have been numerous applications made under section
745 of the Criminal Code. Some murderers have been successful
and some have not but those who have not can make application
again and again, all at a tremendous cost to the Canadian
taxpayer.
Under section 745(1) the convicted person must apply to the
chief justice of the province in which the conviction took place.
The jury review must take place in the same province which
means the inmate must be transported to the appropriate
jurisdiction.
The Canadian Police Association believes this is only the
beginning. It says that approximately 655 murderers over the
next 15 years and as many as 180 in the next four will apply for
early parole under section 745. This, it contends, will
effectively reduce a life sentence by about 40 per cent. In other
words, killers could serve just over half of their 25 year
sentences. This raises two important concerns.
The first is with regard to the financial aspects and the second
involves the integrity of the criminal justice system. Repealing
section 745 will result in an enormous reduction in the costs
associated with holding jury reviews and in transporting
inmates to the province in which they were convicted.
The greater issue at the heart of this matter and the purpose of
today's opposition motion is that the criminal justice system is
allowing the rights of the criminal to supersede those of the
victim.
Section 745 is a prime example of this fact. It gives a
convicted killer the right to apply for a reduction in his sentence
in which a jury reviews only selected evidence-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but the hon.
member's time has expired.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Madam Speaker, I see
from the hon. member's speech that he has spent considerable
time and effort in doing research and obtaining statistics.
Could he tell the House if he spent an equal amount or any
effort in looking at some of the proposed measures in crime
prevention that have been studied by committees of the House in
the past? Has he reviewed any of the recommendations in
looking at whether any of the measures would be of assistance?
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, I will try to be as
straightforward and frank in answering questions as possible. I
will try not to duck them or dodge them.
I would like the hon. member to make specific reference to the
reports and surveys that have been done. I spent 14 years as a law
enforcement officer and we looked at all sorts of plans and
programs in the area of prevention. I support any program that
will successfully provide results in the area of prevention.
(1605)
I know that the Young Offenders Act was designed to do that. I
know that some of these other measures were designed to do
that. However, I would advise the hon. member that mercy does
not rob justice. When very serious acts are committed against
individuals which denies them freedom to move and takes their
lives in many cases, then there must be an appropriate penalty. If
through our desire and feelings for mercy we create a justice
system that is not going to hold an individual accountable for his
or her acts, then do not expect the system to prevent crimes of
that nature as a result of the sentence that is imposed. That
simply will not work.
If we do not to enforce the law in areas where there is law, if
we do not amend those areas that do not hold people accountable
for their actions such as in the area of the Young Offenders Act
and I refer specifically to 10 year-olds, all the preventive
programs in the world are going to fail. We have tried many of
them.
I hope my answer satisfies the hon. member.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Madam
Speaker, I want to intervene and comment for the purpose of
clarifying the section 745 provision and ask a question of the
member. I have considerable sympathy for his position on this
issue and how his views relate to the position of victim, which is
of course the way the opposition motion is phrased today.
The section 745 provision enables someone who has a 25 year
minimum incarceration to ask a jury if they might have an
earlier parole eligibility date than the 25 years. A person who is
sentenced to life imprisonment has a sentence for life.
Therefore, it is parole eligibility that is shortened not
necessarily the sentence.
2449
Could the member comment on how that would relate to the
position of victims, victims beyond the person who is dead of
course. I guess we are talking about family when we talk of
victims of a murder.
Mr. Ramsay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I was not able to complete my speech. Perhaps if I
had I would have been able to cover that area. The concerns
raised by members of families of murder victims, when they see
the murderer released early, are very significant. We would like
to see provisions whereby the victim's family can appear and
testify at the section 745 hearings. We would like that section
removed. I would like to see it removed entirely.
The hon. member brings up a good point of whether or not a
parole should be granted to someone who is sentenced to 25
years in prison. Those who have advocated section 745 and
would advocate the retention of it would say yes. But then where
do we stop?
If the murderer in court says: ``I am sorry and I will never do it
again'' should that mean we should release the person? Or
sentence the person to a month imprisonment? I think there is an
area of penalty here that we must address and I do not think the
system is addressing it.
I hope I have answered the hon. member.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to take part in the debate today. I would like to
commend the hon. member for Crowfoot on his comments. I did
not know until he spoke just now that he was formerly a member
of a law enforcement agency. I would like to say that in my years
as a practitioner of law, both as a defence counsel and as a
prosecutor, I worked extensively with members of various
police departments; municipal police in Halifax and Dartmouth
and the RCMP, and I have great respect and admiration for them
in what is a very tough job. I know that the hon. member has
obviously worked in that area and knows what a tough job it is.
(1610)
I want to make perfectly clear that I am not specifically
referring to the member for Crowfoot here, I am referring to the
resolution itself but when we debate these matters we tend to
forget the basis on which our law is built and the fact that the
system which we live under and the system that governs us is, at
best, faulty. But it appears to be in the evolution of both politics
and law enforcement the best thing we have come up with thus
far.
I look at the words of the resolution: ``That this House
condemn the government for its inaction with regard to the
reform of the criminal justice system, in particular its allowance
of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the victim''.
I guess I have to say that the resolution is almost charming in
its naivety. I am not going to get into the question that the
government has been in power a scant four months and that there
are many things that have to be done within the legislative
calendar to ensure that the government runs as it should and that
the government fulfils its promises, which it has done to date
and will continue to do. I want to talk about the phrase ``the
allowance of the rights of criminals to supersede those of the
victim''. As always I like to declare my prejudices early in any
debate.
As those on this side of the House know, I represent the city of
Halifax in the province of Nova Scotia. There is a name that will
ring down the annals of criminal justice in Nova Scotia for many
years to come, and that is the name of Donald Marshall Jr. I do
not know whether my hon. colleagues on the other side of the
House are aware of the Marshall case-they certainly should
be-but I can tell them that for a period in the province of Nova
Scotia, finishing in 1989-90, this case was a preoccupation of a
great percentage of the legal profession, both prosecutors,
defence counsel, the judiciary. There was a special royal
commission to look into what had happened.
Donald Marshall was a young man who served 11 years in
prison for a crime he did not commit. Some terrible things were
uncovered in the Marshall inquiry in the way criminal justice
worked, or conversely did not work, in the province of Nova
Scotia.
We have talked a lot in the House lately about questions of
racism and bigotry. There is no question that one of the reasons
Donald Marshall served 11 years for a crime he did not commit
was racism. One of the reasons was bigotry. There were police
officers who suborned perjury, there were dreadful miscarriages
of justice, a complete lack of accommodation for cultural and
lifestyle differences in the fact that even the ability to
communicate on the part of the accused was ignored and so on.
Evidence was suppressed. It is a black mark on the escutcheon of
the province of Nova Scotia.
The Marshall inquiry report is 26 volumes. I know I have a
copy in my office and I have read major parts of it, but in the life
of a member of Parliament it would be hard to read the entire
thing. But it is something that most practitioners of criminal law
in Nova Scotia have availed themselves of and have read.
Over and over again what rings through your mind when you
read the reports of the Marshall inquiry, when you read the
reports of what happened to Junior Marshall, the words
``innocent until proven guilty'', ``the rule of law'', ``due
process'' come back again and again.
(1615 )
I want to make another thing perfectly clear. In my years in
the courts and practising law, particularly in my years as an
advocate for women's rights and for the protection of women
who are abused and battered and of children who are abused and
2450
battered, I probably spent more time enraged at the lack of
protection that our system has for victims of crime than
anything else.
This country is littered, as unfortunately are other countries of
the west, with the detritus of violence against women and
children. Nonetheless we have to look to the whole picture to
solve the problem and not merely zero in on one side and what I
think, with the greatest of respect to the framers of this motion,
what is ostensibly an inadequate response.
We have talked here about lowering the age of young
offenders and with the greatest respect I do not think that is the
answer. I can tell you as someone who has thought long and hard
about this, someone who has served on committees dealing with
criminal legislation in this House over the past five years, the
situation that I think we must all remember is those two little
boys in England who murdered the baby. This a situation that
must come to the fore when we are talking about this very thing
today.
I was discussing this in the lobby just a minute ago with one of
the minister's staff. On the one hand we both agreed that we are
horrified at the actions of those two boys, 10 years old when they
killed the baby, to even go back and think of the testimony that
came forward at that trial of that two-year old who kept getting
up when he was hit again and again.
I am equally horrified that two 10-year old boys are found by
the courts in English justice to be bad seeds, if you will. I think it
very strange and very unlikely, too much of a coincidence, that
two innately evil creatures would end up living next door to each
other. There has to be more to it than that.
I use that example to illustrate the fact that merely increasing
sentences, merely incarcerating for longer periods of time,
merely going at the punishment angle is not going to give us the
answer.
What we have to do is look at the causes. There are a variety of
causes. I know that my colleague from Crowfoot and my
colleague from Calgary who is also a former police officer
would agree that other things come into the formation of
criminal activity, that poverty is a part of it, that lack of
education is a part of it, that poor nutrition is a part of it, that
lack of education is a part of it, that the cycle of violence within
the home is a part of it and on and on and on.
Criminals are made. They are very rarely born.
The whole question of how we deal with victims and how we
deal with criminals should not be connected in this death battle
if you will that is one before the other. The rights of victims must
be respected. They must be listened to. There must be services
for victims unquestionably.
The fact that we have not addressed this as a nation and as a
society is, I agree entirely with the mover of the motion,
something that we have to deal with and we have to deal with
soon.
It is not an either-or situation. It is not going to improve the
lot of the families for example of the McDonald's victims in
Sydney River, Cape Breton, if you extend the sentences for the
murderers, now convicted. Revenge is not what the framers of
the criminal law should deal in. What we deal with in legislating
the criminal law has to be deterrence and protection of society.
Those are the reasons that we legislate in criminal law.
(1620)
If we look at it as redress, how do we redress the families of
the McDonald's victims? How do we redress those families? We
cannot restore the lives of the victims. We cannot restore
shattered families in the emotional sense. No money could
possibly come along to fill that terrible void at the loss of young
people. No money can do anything to restore the fact that the
McNeil girl has major and serious brain damage and that
however long she lives, she will never be the bright articulate
young woman she was when she went to work in that
McDonald's restaurant last May. Nothing can change that. It
should not be connected.
Yes, we prove the crime and we have the appropriate response
to the crime and we deal with the victims, but we are dealing in a
separate theatre. We are dealing in a separate area.
When we talk about the rights of victims vis-à-vis the rights
of criminals, I go back again to the Donald Marshall case. To
hon. members across the way who I feel think that we on this
side are somehow lax on the criminal law, I say to each one of
them to remember the adage that those of us who suffered
through law school will all remember, that it is a truism in legal
education that it is better for a thousand guilty to go free than for
one innocent to be convicted.
I wonder whether those on the other side would agree with
that or not. I see that my friend from Calgary does not agree. It is
an interesting point that that phrase has hung around for a very
long time. I wonder if each of those members on the other side
would look at that question and if it was not objective, if it were
subjective-in other words, if you were the innocent
victim-does that phrase become more valid? If it were your
child who was the innocent victim, does that phrase become
more valid? If it was your neighbour's child-all politics is
local, all issues are local-think of it within the context of your
own group, your own circle, and whether that makes it more
relevant.
It has been talked about here today that we should lower the
age of young offenders. I do not have children. I borrow my
friend's because I can give them back. I know that most of you
on the other side are parents and you do have children and you
2451
know that children get into difficulties. They make mistakes. Is
the answer to deal harshly?
An hon. member: Yes.
Ms. Clancy: It is? I guess I have to say that is the reason that
you are on that side and I am on this side and we are the ones
with the majority, praise the Lord.
I can only say that in my years as prosecutor under the old
Juvenile Delinquents Act I saw a number of cases where the
child was given the benefit of the doubt. I remember one in
particular where a young man came up before us accused of 40
counts of break and enter. He had made the mistake in the
particular exercise on the day. He was breaking into cars and
stealing car stereos. He happened to be doing it in a shopping
centre in Halifax. The cars were all parked against the fence and
an off duty policeman who happened to be mowing his backyard
heard the noise, looked over the fence and the inevitable
happened.
The boy was charged and I was prosecuting. There were a
number of people who came along. It was a very difficult family
background.
(1625 )
A very well respected school principal came to speak for the
boy, who had scored very well on intelligence tests, who had
certainly a lot going for him as he had a lot going against him. In
consult the prosecutor, the defence, the judge, the probation
officers, the police officers, everybody got together and asked:
``What are we going to do about this?'' There was a compromise
reached. A family member would be willing to take
responsibility for this young man and ensure that he was not
subjected to the same influences he had been subjected to in the
family group, that he would not see the rest of the family who
were the bad influences, et cetera.
To make a long story short, that young man eventually won a
scholarship to a famed international institution of higher
learning and is today leading a very productive and wonderful
life in this country where he is making a great contribution.
I do not hesitate to say in the interests of truth, justice and the
Canadian way that was one of the success stories. As I know my
two colleagues on the other side from law enforcement would be
quick to agree, we did not have a lot of those success stories. We
had more of the other kind.
The point again is if that young man had been, as we used to
say in those days, piped to the juvenile detention home I do not
think he would be where he is today. I do not think he would be a
productive member of society. I think he would probably be in
super max or he would be dead in all likelihood.
I guess I have to say that success story means more to me than
all the ones with whom we did not succeed because they were
too far gone, it was too late and so on. The ones with whom we
did not succeed went through the detention process, many of
them in detention until they had passed the age of being
juveniles, until they turned 18 whereupon they went out and
committed some further offence and went to Dorchester
Penitentiary or Sackville correctional centre.
If we do not take risks to attempt to save young people then we
are just consigning young people to a life of crime. That is why I
speak against this motion. That is why I say we have to look at
the way the child is going. The word child is very important here
because we are talking about children when we talk about young
offenders. We are not talking about hardened criminals.
I also in conclusion would like to say that given the tenor of
this motion and given the statements I have heard from the
members of the Reform Party in particular, I am sure that we can
then count on the support of such members as the member for
Crowfoot and the member for Calgary Northeast to support us
when we come in at some future time, as I am sure we will, with
stronger gun control measures. I am sure as former police
officers both of these gentlemen know how important it is that
guns in particular be kept out of the hands of a majority of
people who have no idea how to use them.
What about those kids who are potential criminals. You do not
want guns lying around the house do you?
I hope that hon. members will see their way clear to support
this kind of legislation when and if it comes up in this session of
the House.
I have spoken with police officers in my riding in the province
of Nova Scotia and among the strongest supporters of tougher
gun control legislation are indeed the members of the police
force.
At any rate, I would just like to say that I am delighted to
speak on this topic today because I am very proud of the crime
and justice package that was in the red book. I know that the
crime and justice package will in due course come into this
House in the form of legislation. I am sure that as with all of the
promises in the red book those legislative measures will make
Canada a better place. Also remember that being a better place is
also a place of humanity and compassion.
(1630)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Before proceeding to
questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Frontenac-the environment; the hon. member for
Brant-guaranteed annual minimum income.
2452
I would like to apologize to the member for Fraser Valley
West for having missed his turn. We will now have the
10-minute questions and comments period.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Madam Speaker, I can
only applaud what was said by the hon. member for Halifax,
especially her concluding remarks on the issue of gun control.
As you know, following certain tragic events, a committee was
asked to make a thorough review of this question, but the result
was a bill that was a compromise, both in substance and form,
since in most cases any action that may be taken will be based on
regulations that have yet to be approved by Cabinet or the
government. At the time, the minister was able to get a bill
through Parliament that could be seen as a major step forward
but left the government with considerable discretion in drafting
regulations, unlike the previous legislation, and this, we felt,
was a major shortcoming.
Not surprisingly, we now have regulations that are largely
unsatisfactory. For instance, so-called semi-automatic
weapons, which are practically assault weapons, are still sold
across Canada. The weapon used at the Polytechnique can still
be purchased as a hunting weapon.
I know the Minister of Justice intends to take action. I simply
want to point out that he can act very quickly on many aspects of
gun control through the regulations, without having to go
through the legislative process.
I may add that we would welcome improvements to the
legislation itself, especially with respect to the registration of
firearms. In the course of our consultations, I met many hunters
and groups of hunters who had no objection to firearms
registration. And contrary to what was said at the time,
especially with respect to the cost, since we register cars and a
number of other products, it would not be very difficult to use
our current system to register firearms. We both encourage and
request the government to act.
Would the hon. member for Halifax support us in our
endeavour to get the government to speed up the passage of
firearms legislation, perhaps even before the Act comes into
effect?
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. As he knows, unquestionably the minister has
responded in the House on several occasions by referring to his
own commitment to the subject of gun control.
On the actual legislative itinerary the member will have to ask
the minister. Certainly it is part and parcel of our policy.
Certainly, as the hon. member knows as well, this question is
extremely close to my heart and one that I along with many
members on this side support very strongly.
I suggest to him that if he is just patient all things will come in
due course.
(1635)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member has quite a spirit of debate, undoubtedly obtained
through her years in the courtroom. I should point out that to
debate an issue such as this, there has to be some basis of fact.
The example of the Marshall affair in Nova Scotia was one
where Mr. Marshall had actually contributed to his own demise
in the sense that he lied to the police as was evident at the trial.
I would also like to point out the member brings to mind
certain things that happen in society that may be contrary to the
norm, where mistakes in judgment could be made in court. We
do not live in a perfect society. This is one of the reasons we
have laws. We also have high expectations for members of
Parliament, yet often they have gone awry. MPs should be held
accountable and are not above the law, yet it has happened that
they seem to have been above the law on occasion.
Justice must not only be done but it must be perceived to be
done. I believe the hon. member should get out of the
committees she is on and into the society which she talks about.
We cannot have deterrence if we do not have punishment. Would
the hon. member address that point. How can we have deterrence
if we do not have punishment?
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Calgary Northeast for his questions and comment. First let me
speak to something that has been addressed because I know he
would not want to carry on with a misconception.
The question of whether Junior Marshall contributed to his
own misfortune was addressed by the inquiry. The appeal court
judges who sat on the case were reprimanded by the judicial
counsel for saying exactly what the hon. member said, with the
greatest respect. I know the member did not mean to perpetrate
it. He did not contribute to his own misfortune. He did not lie,
absolutely not. He was in the park that night and was hurt by the
same man who killed Sandy Feal. He did not lie and the judges
who said that were reprimanded by the judicial counsel, in the
words of Casey Stengel. The hon. member could look it up.
At any rate with regard to deterrence, not at any time did I
suggest to the hon. member or to the House that there should not
be deterrence and punishment. I did not say there should not be.
An hon. member: Capital punishment.
Ms. Clancy: Capital punishment, not on this side of the
House. The hon. member should wait; he might get another
chance. I never at any time suggested there should not be
2453
adequate punishment. Of course there should. That is why we
have the Criminal Code. That is why we have the sentencing
policies that we have in place. Some of them are insufficient
and some of them must be changed.
My point to the hon. member was that we do not, to use
another cliche similar to justice must not only be done but must
be seen to be done, throw the baby out with the bath water. We
have children in this country who go wrong. We must do
everything we can to put them back on the right track.
Necessarily lowering the age to 10 and frying them is not the
answer.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I
do not intend to be so kind about the criminal justice system
when I talk. I am not a lawyer but I am one who has been affected
by such things as the criminal justice system and I live in an area
with many prisons around it.
I want to refer quickly to a newspaper article that appeared not
too long ago in the Abbotsford Times in my community:
Corrections Canada reports all 57 inmates granted temporary absences this
Christmas from B.C. prisons have returned to jail.
But that doesn't impress local police.
I am going to refer to this point a little later. It is nice to see
they came back from their Christmas break.
I rise today to speak to one of the most contentious emotional
aspects of the Canadian criminal justice system, the reform of
parole. The entire issue of the rights of victims revolves around
the parole system and how it has let us down. Let us not mix
words here tonight. It has let us down.
(1640)
Parole horror stories have become so commonplace in the
media that the majority of Canadians has completely lost faith in
the system. Nowhere is this more evident than when we talk to
people who have lost someone dear to them as a result of the
breakdown of that system. When we sit in the living room with a
family whose life has been forever altered, as I have recently in
Langley, British Columbia, we see their eyes. These people are
victims. There is sadness, despair and anger in their eyes. It has
been a powerful, moving experience for me. I do not know if I
would have the strength to be as forgiving as some of those
victims are.
What drives me to distraction is the attitude of the
bureaucracy responsible for the tragedy. There is no emotion in
those eyes; just cold, hard, vacant stares, and endless recital of
the regulations. No one is responsible. It is no one's fault. No
one seems willing to do anything about it.
In my riding we are surrounded by federal correctional
institutions, as I have said, and there are no shortages of
incidents involving parolees. Also the article in the Abbotsford
Times quoted local RCMP members saying that whenever they
have an unsolved crime they just check the list of parolees loose
in the street, find out what they were doing at the time of the
crime and, bingo, the crime is solved. At the time of story their
success rate for solving crimes in this way was 75 per cent.
While there were not a large number of those cases, the lasting
impression in the public's mind was that criminals were simply
being let out too soon.
What response do we get from the criminal justice system
when it breaks down? I realize the Parole Board and Corrections
Canada are two separate bodies, but in a recent meeting with the
head of corrections for the Pacific region I was told that the
responsibility for improving the criminal justice system lies
with Parliament. They simply follow the rules laid down by
politicians.
Another common response is to quote surveys. The Parole
Board likes to quote a particular number. It says that long term
research shows that 75 per cent of paroles granted were
concluded without any return to federal custody during the
sentence. As we all know, statistics are a matter of perspective
and in some cases outright deception.
Benjamin Disraeli said it better: ``There are three kinds of
lies: there are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics''.
If it is true that 75 per cent of paroles are successful, I want to
know what the cost was to society of the other 25 per cent. In my
eyes it is a failure rate of one in four and that is just not good
enough.
It is time the rules were changed. It is time to stop awarding
old friends and party hacks with appointments to the Parole
Board. It is time to establish competency tests for board
members which address the need for an understanding of the
justice system. It is time there was a system of redress for
victims who have been injured as a result of incompetence of the
board. These board members must be held accountable. Most
important, it is time criminals did real time for real crime.
At the heart of this discussion is the fact that somehow we
have lost the resolve as a nation to stand and say that when a
criminal is sentenced to 10 years he should serve 10 years; not 3,
not 5, but 10 years. Sentencing reform is key. It must be
mentioned in this discussion as an integral part of the solution.
Where do we start? One of the major hurdles is the way the
public sees these issues as falling under one umbrella. In a sense
they do. It is all in the justice system. What happens typically is
that public outrage is diluted because it often takes a scatter-gun
approach. People blame the police for not warning
communities, even though they are handcuffed by the charter of
rights. They blame jails for letting prisoners out, even though it
is the Parole Board's job. Or they blame judges for not imposing
stiffer sentences when it might have been a poor submission by a
crown prosecutor who caused the miscarriage of justice in the
first place.
2454
(1645)
As I mentioned before, no one is to blame. If the system is so
complicated and intimidating to those not close to it, then the
first step we must take is to make it clear. We must commit to
allowing victims greater access to the halls of what now passes
for justice. The public has the right to take part in the decision
making process. It must be an integral part of parole hearings.
Before that, victims must be given greater opportunity to be
heard at the trial stage. Victims' impact statements are not given
enough credence in the system as it now stands. In short, the
simple request we have for the criminal justice system
establishment is ``open your eyes and open your doors to the
people whose rights have been trodden upon, the victims of this
country''.
I would like to close on a personal note which will help to
explain why I referred earlier to the eyes of victims. I recently
sat in the home of Mr. Chris Simmonds of Langley, British
Columbia. There is a picture on his coffee table of two beautiful
daughters. The picture and the memory is all that is left to one
daughter, Sian.
She was brutally murdered by a hired killer who claimed he
was only trying to scare her with a loaded gun. He was out on
bail on his own recognizance at the time. I do not have time to
explain this complicated case today but what is striking about
Mr. Simmonds is his calm resolve to have justice done.
The latest travesty in this case is the decision of the court to
move the trial of the man alleged to have contracted the killing
to Port Alberni from my constituency. The court says that he can
receive a fair trial safe from the influence of the media. Once
again, the victim's rights are secondary. The criminal's rights
come first.
Out of respect for the Simmonds privacy I will not detail the
effect of this savage murder on the remainder of the family.
Besides the financial strain, emotionally they are near ruin.
However they fight on.
When Mr. Simmonds approached victims' assistance for
some kind of compensation for the extra expense of travelling to
and from Port Alberni he was told by another steely-eyed
bureaucrat that he did not qualify because he did not witness the
death of his daughter. This is the only point in the story where
Mr. Simmonds eyes give him away. He told that man: ``Don't
tell me I did not witness my daughter's death. Every night when
I go to bed I close my eyes and I see her die''.
Madam Speaker, from time to time in this House, you are
called on to witness a vote and say that the yeas have it. When it
comes time for us to vote on the long overdue reform of the
criminal justice system, I for one will remember the eyes of
Chris Simmonds.
I call on every one of my colleagues to join me in saying yes to
the reform of parole and no to those who would put the rights of
the law breakers ahead of the rights of the victim of crime.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech, as I do all the
speeches in the House.
My questions to him are these. First, what is his position on
gun control and second on capital punishment? On this side of
the House we are proposing changes to the laws. Is he prepared
to let us know what his positions are on these two issues so that
they can be taken into consideration by us and by Canadians
watching us today.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I will give
my position on both of those but all we are hearing today is that
we are going to study, study, study, talk, talk, talk.
This is not a new phenomenon, the criminal justice program
we have and the problems we have with it. This is something that
has been going on for years. If we study this for another term
there are going to be some serious problems in the country. Let
us stop talking and discussing. Let us just get on with the job.
(1650)
I suspect members opposite differ because they would be
more liberal, but I think we have to stop worrying about trying to
control the guns of recreation users, farmers and hunters and
worry a lot more about the criminals and the guns they have. In
fact if a crime is perpetrated by someone using a weapon while
robbing a bank, in my opinion there should be two separate and
distinct charges. Get off the backs of the recreation users, the
farmers and the hunters and start worrying about the criminal for
a change.
On capital punishment, I support capital punishment.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, I am particularly pleased to follow my hon. colleague
from Fraser Valley West. I thought he used a particularly
poignant example to conclude his address. After hearing it, it is
very difficult to move to another phase of the debate. However I
would like to talk about the cost of crime as it pertains to
ordinary citizens. We do not even think about it on a day to day
basis.
I know when I was door knocking during this campaign, and I
am sure it was the case of virtually everyone in the House, what
we noticed was that everyone has a burglar alarm. Did hon.
members notice that? When we went into the higher income
areas, then everybody had burglar alarms plus dogs.
The cost of crime and the paranoia associated with crime and
the fear of crime is a tax every one of us pays to businesses
which have increased costs because they have had to install
burglar alarms.
2455
For those of us here and those Canadians at home watching,
we all know what happens when we have been the victim of
crime. During the campaign when I was making this point I
would just ask people: ``How many people here in the last year
have been a victim of crime either personally or someone in
their family?'' Members would be amazed. I think it was
something like 15, 20 or 25 per cent of the people would raise
their hands every time. That was just in the past year.
I know as a victim the first thing that happens is you feel like
you have been violated. You think your sense of safety is no
longer there. The street that you have lived on, the neighbours
that you have had all those years, all of a sudden you are locking
the door. You just do not feel good about it anymore. Gradually
that fades. You get over it. You get your alarm company. You get
your alarm in. You start feeling good about it. Then you go into a
drawer to get something that you have forgotten about and you
find it is not there because that is one more thing stolen.
The frustration comes back in the neighbourhood with young
offenders, when people know who is breaking in. A street with
20 or 30 houses and 5 of them have been broken into and they are
all the same people.
That is the situation. It is partly due to our wonderful Charter
of Rights and Freedoms that has put the cart before the horse. We
have the rights of the criminal paramount to the victim.
Let me give another example. A rape victim wanted to find
out whether she had been infected with AIDS. She went to court
to get a court order so the convicted rapist would be tested for
AIDS but it was said to be a violation of his rights. He raped this
gal and it is a violation of his rights that she cannot have the
peace of mind of finding out whether she ended up with AIDS
because of what he did.
(1655)
My friends, we have to rethink, we have to deal with the
situation as it is. No wonder people think that we have lost the
handle on this.
In doing a little research I asked: Where did we start to go off
the rails? No one on either side of the House got up one morning
and asked: ``Well, how are we going to screw up the criminal
justice system? How can we make it worse instead of making it
better''? It did not start that way. But that is how it has ended up.
It is only a mistake if it is recognized as a mistake and it is not
changed, then it is experience. Let us get some experience from
it.
This is how it started and I quote from Hansard, Thursday,
October 7, 1971, and the words I am going to read from the Hon.
Jean-Pierre Goyer, Solicitor General, are going to shock you.
Folks at home, when you hear the words I am going to say you
are going to realize why we got into the mess we are in. It is quite
a long and involved quote but it says: ``Consequently we have
decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals
rather than the protection of society''. That is right out of
Hansard. The Solicitor General of Canada, Thursday, October 7,
1971 in this very House and I well bet he was standing right over
there somewhere when he said: ``Consequently, we have
decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals
rather than the protection of society''. Is it any wonder we are
where we are at today?
It started because in 1971 the recidivism rate was 80 per cent.
People went to jail, they served their time and 80 per cent of
them were back in after they were released. Something was
wrong somewhere, so we had to change things. This was an
attempt to change things.
I think they were on the right track. They just went too far. It
ended up with the rights of the criminals coming before the
rights of the victim. It has come to the point where we do not
have enough money to go around to pay for day care and other
things that people would love to have but we can put $675,000
into expanding the recreation complex at Bowden Institution. Or
we can build a jail in Grande Cache where all the rooms face the
mountains.
I want to point out the fact that we did not get started on this
track yesterday. We have been on this road for a long time and it
is now time to make about a 180 degree U-turn.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Madam
Speaker, in listening to the member's speech I note that the
quote was taken from a time, while certainly not the middle
ages, some 23 years ago.
I would also point out and perhaps the member could respond,
that about a year and a half ago in passing legislation dealing
with corrections and parole, the statute dealing with
penitentiaries and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
and in reviewing the draft of the statute the priorities which were
to be considered by the department were listed in the statute. For
some particular reason and we did not know why, the safety of
the public was not number one.
I say that in revising the statute for passage we in the
committee moved the item up from No. 3 or 4 up to No. 1. I want
to suggest that perhaps the pendulum is swinging back the other
way after some 20 years. I accept the member's approach and I
wonder if he would comment on the swinging of the pendulum.
(1700 )
Mr. McClelland: I thank the hon. member for the question.
That was on my list but I did not get to it. That is a good example
of one of the cases where we have to be careful. We do not want
to let the pendulum swing too far in either direction.
2456
At the time of reforming the penitentiaries in 1971 it was
very Draconian and there is no question we were not saving as
many souls as we were possibly able to under those conditions.
Therefore in swinging the pendulum there is a very good
possibility we went too far in the other direction. Now is the
time to put the rights of the victims at least where they should
be, which is always ahead of the rights of the criminals.
I accept the hon. member's point and thank him.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I foresee the hon.
member rising on a point of order. There was a mixup in the lists.
Members of the Reform Party were splitting their time and had
lost a 10-minute slot through an error of the Chair. I gave it back
to them and the government spoke and now it is back to
opposition.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it your
intention to have two members from the same party speak in a
row?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is what I was just
explaining. There was an error on the part of the Chair when I
overlooked one Reform member and passed to a government
member in his place.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker, it is
indeed an honour to be able to address the House on an issue of
such importance. I only hope that my colleagues on the other
side of the Chamber will look upon this motion seriously and
thoughtfully.
In the minds of a vast number of Canadians there is no more
important issue than crime and the failure of the justice system
to deal adequately with crime.
During the course of my campaign I had the opportunity to
unscientifically poll the mood of the public in my constituency
to find out which issues held their attention the most. In my
riding perhaps no other issue touched people as directly as
crime.
There is no more glaring and headline generating problem
than that of crimes committed by non-citizens, especially those
who have come to this open country. Some of them have actually
abused Canada's generosity and to make matters even worse, are
coddled by our justice system.
I know that given our present levels of immigration the
number of immigrant offenders is relatively low. Certainly
immigrants are overwhelmingly committed to living peacefully
and making a better life for themselves in Canada. Nonetheless
there is a broad opinion that the rights of criminals who are not
citizens or legal residents of Canada are being given precedence
over the rights of law abiding members of society, both citizens
and non-citizens alike.
As I mentioned before, there have been numerous examples of
criminal activity on the part of illegal residents and new
residents of Canada. The focus of these headlines and the
subsequent public outcry over these examples has not been on
the crimes per se, but on the fact that those criminals have been
cycled through the Canadian justice system rather than simply
removed.
In my own city I recently acquired information about two
convicted drug traffickers, both of whom were in Canada
illegally, having overstayed their visas. Both were sentenced to
significant amounts of jail time. The obvious question to ask is:
Why are these two criminals, neither of whom possess legal
status in Canada, still in Canada after having committed these
criminal acts and have served their time, or at least a part of their
time? That is a good question to ask.
That is not the end of the story. These two gentlemen,
predictably, did not serve their full sentences in prison. Instead,
after a fraction of their sentences had been served they were
released on parole. They were released back into the community
where they could visit and live and begin to re-establish their
lives despite the fact that neither of these men were legal
residents of Canada.
The story still is not over. At the time of this case, one of these
drug pushers when out on parole acquired the status of
whereabouts unknown. In other words, he violated his parole.
The criminal justice system did not have the sense to simply
run these two out of the country on a rail. Instead it used tens of
thousands of taxpayers' dollars to prosecute and imprison them
for a short time. Then the justice system was kind enough to
allow these two out on parole, never mind the fact that neither
should legally be allowed on Canadian soil in the first place.
(1705)
When I spoke to the parole officials concerning this case, they
informed me that any Parole Board decision imposed on an
illegal alien took precedence over deportation proceedings. This
particular case is not an isolated one.
Some may interpret this as an attempt on the part of the justice
system to dole out just punishment. However, my constituents
and many more Canadians across the country see examples like
this as a drain on the system and a risk to our communities posed
by a justice system that is rule driven, not common sense driven.
When Canadians are forced to support criminal illegal aliens
through years of incarceration on our soil and then are forced to
live among them when those criminals are released on parole,
then all of us become the victims. We are victims not only of
crime but also victims of a criminal justice system that does not
have the sense to deal expediently and in a common sense way
with people who come to Canada and commit crime.
I wonder if this House is aware of the fact that refugee claims
are often heard not in the offices of Immigration Canada nor in
offices abroad, but rather in Canadian prisons. As hard as it is to
believe, current policy allows for refugee claims to be heard in
prison. Even more difficult to believe is that refugee board
2457
members are not permitted to take into account the character of
the claimant as demonstrated by the fact that the claimant is in
prison as they assess the individual's acceptability as a refugee
claimant.
There are two issues apparent here. The first is the ridiculous
disregard for character inherent in the refugee process. The
second is Canada's willingness to house in prison law breakers
who have not yet received the right to legally reside in the
country.
Canadians are outraged that this government would not only
subsidize the trials and incarceration of aliens, illegal or
otherwise. They are also outraged that their safety is being
jeopardized when instead a speedy deportation order would be
the way to go.
One of the guiding principles of the Reform Party is the
attention we pay and the regard in which we hold the common
sense of the common people of Canada. People outside the
justice system, but who nevertheless provide for its funding
through their taxes and who are the victims of it when it fails to
provide for their protection, have expressed to me and my
colleagues that Canada's justice system is in dire need of some
common sense reform. That is not just shared by the Reformers
on this side of the House, but I hope members on the other side.
My colleagues have pointed out the tragic irresponsibility of a
system that promotes and protects the rights of criminals over
victims. I stand before this House to report that Canadians have
lost faith in the justice system which spends thousands of dollars
to harbour illegal aliens when they commit crimes. As I stated
before, that victimises every Canadian who either has to foot the
bill for such nonsense or is forced to live in a community that
must needlessly be the home for criminals from abroad.
Recently the existence of another kind of foreign criminal has
been brought to light in Canada. It has been discovered that
Ottawa is the home of a former minister of justice in the brutal
Barre regime of Somalia.
The existence of this individual in Canada has been known for
some time now. Members of the Somali community in Toronto
have brought to my attention the fact that they had made this
government aware of the presence in Canada of several other
members of that regime, people who may also have perpetrated
horrible crimes against their own people in Somalia, but to no
avail.
After a great deal of correspondence with the government and
several pieces of investigative journalism which proved the
existence of such people in this country, law abiding Somalis
who now call Canada home are still waiting for justice to be
done.
(1710 )
So many Somalis have fled Somalia and have come to Canada
hoping to find a refuge. They soon discovered that Canada's
immigration system seems unable to distinguish between
genuine and non-genuine refugees. Also they discovered that
Canadian politicians do not have the political will necessary to
take action to apprehend and deport political criminals who have
followed them to Canada. This is yet another example of the
apparent disregard for the rights of the innocent and the law
abiding while the rights and privileges of criminals are
protected.
When will this government display the political will
necessary to enforce laws that are on the books? I am concerned
that we may never see that sort of political will exercised as long
as this government is in power. Instead of firm proposals to help
protect all Canadians from both Canadian and non-Canadian
criminals, we will hear more soft talk about the charter, about
the need to be fair, and about the need to protect the rights of the
few.
This government will be in grave danger in four years. The
unprotected may rise up in anger and demand that the criminal
justice system be taken back from the constitutional attorneys.
They will demand it be taken back from the special interests and
brought back into the hands of those who can listen and respond
to the common sense pleas for protection, truth, justice and
national security which are being made across the land.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member who just spoke and some of his colleagues touched on
some quite particular aspects. We see that they each chose a
subject in turn. In this case, it is illegal immigrants who commit
murders while they are in Canada illegally.
The motion before us today concerns victims' rights, we must
agree, but it is very, very general. I would just like to point out to
the hon. member that a study, which I do not have on hand now,
reports that about 80 per cent of the murders in Canada are
committed by family members or someone in the victim's
immediate circle. We must keep that in mind, because a very
large majority of murders are committed in such circumstances.
Knowing that, I think that we should deal again with the whole
issue of the availability of firearms or other dangerous weapons
that violent spouses or other persons in the victim's circle might
use.
There is also another aspect. Murder is not the only crime,
theft is another, but all studies show that such crimes are often
related to poverty and social problems.
I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say on these
two aspects in particular and not only about illegal immigrants,
which he emphasized before, since all in all, crimes committed
by illegal immigrants account for very little of the problem that
we are talking about today.
2458
[English]
Mr. Hanger: Madam Speaker, I made general comments
about more than just murder. If the member would recall, in my
statement I was referring to drug pushers who have come
illegally into this country although I am aware of other
situations certainly. In several of them illegals have committed
violent crimes as the member speaks of such as murder, robbery
or assault.
It is not a question of directing our attention elsewhere. We
have many problems in enforcement. There should be a
deterrent to those with any serious negative intentions as far as
our laws are concerned when individuals come into this country.
What I am expressing here is that they are not adequately
being dealt with when they are perpetrating acts of this kind. We
have laws. They should be enforced.
The opinion among the judiciary seems to be that aliens
should be handled in a different way. People are fed up with that
kind of thinking. They are looking for action. If you commit
crime in this country, I do not care what your background is, you
should be dealt with. You should be placed on the same plane as
the individual who lives here and is breaking the law, the only
difference being with the outsider is he should be immediately
deported upon serving his sentence.
(1715)
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Madam Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for York
South-Weston. I will try to cut mine down so that we both get
time to do our share.
I am pleased to speak on this motion by the third party that
indicates a concern that this government is not acting to reform
the criminal justice system. I do not want to be too critical of the
Reform Party. However I want to set the record straight about
this government's action to bring reform to the criminal justice
system.
Of course we are concerned about the rights of victims and
those who are closely associated with victims of crime. These
Canadians want us to take not just short term, but long term
actions and to include the public in decision making, including
the victims. The Liberal approach is an integrated approach. We
want to get tough on criminals. We are looking to clean up the
justice system.
As the minister stated on January 27: ``Crime prevention must
take account of the deep causes of crime: poverty, sexual
exploitation of children, family dysfunctions, racial inequality
and inefficient or underfunded social services''.
He further stated: ``Our government is determined to develop
an integrated crime prevention strategy. Together with the other
levels of government, the police, victims' groups and the
community organizations, we will make a priority of looking at
the deep causes of criminal behaviour and eliminating them''.
I personally find it astounding that the Reform Party seeks to
condemn the government for its inaction when they know the
Minister of Justice the moment he was sworn in began to listen
and act. In fact the motion before us seems to condemn the
minister and this government for listening, something I thought
was high on the priority list of the Reform Party. They should
praise the Minister of Justice.
Finally we have a Minister of Justice who is taking action
based on what Canadians want. Certain actions have already
been initiated. A national crime prevention council is being
actively planned and will be functioning within four to six
weeks. Amendments to the Young Offenders Act will be tabled
early in May. The re-establishment of the law reform
commission is well under way. The court challenges program
will be reinstated in about six months. Appointments to the
National Parole Board are now made on the basis of merit and
expertise.
Yes, we have to take further steps. The minister has promised
that from the beginning. In his speech on January 27 among
other things he promised to address concerns about the release
of high risk offenders into society at the end of their custodial
terms and to address the serious problem of violence against
women and children. He has promised to tackle the problem of
illegal arms smuggling. He will be looking into the broad
category of equality before the law.
The minister will search for better ways of ensuring that
justice needs of aboriginal people are recognized and acted
upon. He will introduce legislation to deal with the sentencing
aspect of criminal law.
I have worked for two and a half years with Priscilla de
Villiers whose daughter Nina was murdered August 1991.
Priscilla de Villiers began a petition telling the government that
there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system of
Canada. The petition asked that Parliament recognize that
crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent
in our society.
We learned that Nina's experience was not unique. The
petition brought to light similar cases where the justice system
had failed. In fact 2.5 million Canadians have demonstrated
their concern by signing the petition. The hon. justice minister
accepted those petitions at a press conference on February 7 and
stated his objective to provide and maintain the fairest and most
effective system of justice for Canada and Canadians.
2459
Mrs. de Villiers realizes that violent crime cannot be
addressed through the justice system alone. We all have to make
a long term commitment to a safer society that rejects violence
and instils non-violent values in our children.
Through an organization called CAVEAT which Mrs. de
Villiers formed, many deeply concerned Canadians will
continue to promote public awareness and crime prevention in
its broadest sense.
(1720 )
Many groups across Canada are participating in dialogue
regarding the changes that are needed in the justice system. The
Canadian Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association
are both putting forward a suggested bill of rights for victims.
Local police in many areas including Hamilton are moving
directly into the community to better understand the needs of
our citizens.
I have been listening and have become more and more
convinced that we need this national, rational debate that is
going on across the country. We all need to share our
experiences. I find it strange that the Reform Party wants us to
take action without taking the time to consult with all
Canadians, including the victims of crime.
The opposition has to get a grip on reality. It needs to see the
link between crime and the social structures of our society. It
needs to see the need to consult with the citizens of Canada, with
victims themselves, to make changes in the justice system truly
meaningful.
In truth, we need to compliment our Minister of Justice. He
has been listening not just in the House but across Canada.
Priscilla de Villiers mentioned to me only this morning that she
feels that the minister is moving in the right direction with his
consultative process and the suggestions for change that he has
been proposing.
The member who moved this motion may be interested that
the minister while in Vancouver last weekend met with a group
of victims and personally heard their concerns. The members of
the opposition need to listen to their constituents and need to
bring their concerns to the consultative process here in the
House.
This would be a more effective use of our time and would
better serve our common goal to bring meaningful change to the
justice system. I look forward to working with members on both
sides of the House while we work together toward our common
goal.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston): Madam
Speaker, the motion before us by the Reform Party is a
mischievous motion.
The Reform Party was elected in part based on a platform that
said that rather than being mischievous in the House, its
members would be constructive and work with the government
in order to achieve changes for the common good of the country.
Therefore when the Reform Party puts forward a motion
condemning the government for its inaction, given the early
mandate of this government I would suggest that it is
mischievous.
I would have expected more from the Reform Party. I would
have expected its members to provide some constructive
alternatives or suggestions in order to assist this government in
its changes to the criminal justice system.
The Liberal Party in the last election campaign made it very
clear in its red book that it would deal effectively, unlike the
previous administration, with changes to the criminal justice
system.
All I need do is refer the hon. member and the Reform Party to
page 84 of the red book where the Liberal Party set out its
commitment in advance of the election campaign with regard to
the criminal justice system.
We said on page 84 that dealing with the growing incidents of
violent crime will be a priority for a Liberal government. I can
assure the member that members on this side of the House are
dedicated and committed to changing and correcting the
criminal justice system.
I have every confidence that the Minister of Justice will bring
about significant change. He will ensure that in due course
Canadians will once again have respect for and confidence in the
criminal justice system.
The minister earlier today indicated a number of initiatives
that he has taken. All I can ask of the Reform Party is to work
co-operatively with the minister and other members on this side
to ensure that the changes take place.
I have but a few short minutes to discuss some of the matters I
wanted to discuss with regard to the criminal justice system.
There is no question we agree that the justice system is in
desperate need of reform.
I have before me the Criminal Code of Canada which is the
basis of our criminal justice system. It tells us how we deal with
criminals in this country and yes, this thick book needs a lot of
reform. There are two areas that I have addressed through the
private members' process in the last several weeks.
Today I introduced a bill that would eliminate section 745 of
the Criminal Code. Section 745 as I indicated to the House
earlier today allows individuals convicted of first or second
degree murder to apply to a court to have their parole eligibility
dates brought forward. In effect it means that a first degree
murderer, for example, someone who commits a deliberate
murder, premeditated, can apply to the court after 15 years to be
released from prison. I do not believe that that provision has the
support of the public.
2460
(1725)
It means that life does not mean life. Most Canadians realize
that when you commit a first degree murder it does not mean you
are going to serve the rest of your life in prison. Most Canadians
believe that life means 25 years. It does not even mean that.
Under section 745 it could mean 15 years.
The likes of Clifford Olson will be eligible to apply in less
than three years. Helmut Buxbaum who had his wife murdered
would be eligible in the next five years. Colin Thatcher, in
several more years, after 15 years will be able to apply for a
reduction. That particular provision is a significant error in our
criminal justice system in the Criminal Code and it ought to be
eliminated.
The next subject I want to touch upon briefly is the Young
Offenders Act. We all know that the Young Offenders Act is not
working.
On February 17 I introduced in this House a private member's
bill that would address three areas, and there are a number of
other areas that must be addressed, that I believe must be
addressed at the earliest opportunity.
The first is to change the age limits under the act. At present
the Young Offenders Act defines a young offender as a child, if
you will, between the ages of 12 and 17. The bill I introduced
would redefine a young offender as being a child between 10 and
15. In effect 16 and 17-year olds would be dealt with as adults in
criminal court. They would be prosecuted just like any other
adult would be prosecuted.
In my view a 16 or 17-year old understands and knows the
difference between right and wrong and ought to be dealt with
accordingly.
With regard to the second aspect of my bill, the minister has
already indicated that in the amendments that he will bring
forward he will increase the maximum penalty for first degree
murder to 10 years. I applaud the minister for that initiative.
The third aspect of this bill would allow for the publication of
the name of the young offender after the second indictable
offence.
In effect the young offender would be given two chances. The
third time around, in my view, the public interest would dictate
that the public should know the identity of the young offender
and the circumstances of his or her crime.
There are other areas that have to be addressed. The minister
indicated a number of the areas that he will be dealing with in the
months ahead. I have taken the position in the past for example
that the parole system is in desperate need of reform again.
Mandatory supervision, the automatic release of inmates after
serving two-thirds of the sentence, in my view ought to be
eliminated. Sentencing reform is a package that the minister
said he would bring forward. Parole reform again is very
important. In the area of prostitution changes are necessary
because of the effect of prostitution on communities right across
the country.
In the few moments that remain I want to indicate to the
Reform members that they certainly do not have a monopoly as
far as having concern about the criminal justice system and
reform of the criminal justice system.
Members of the cabinet and backbench members of the
government are all dedicated and committed to making changes.
I would ask members of the Reform Party to come forward with
their ideas because I know that the minister and others will
listen. In a years time or two years time I would ask them to look
back and I think they will be proud of the work of this
government in the area of criminal law reform.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services):
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their contributions
today. There have been a number of important suggestions and
recommendations.
Everyone heard the Minister of Justice say today that he
would listen very carefully and in fact welcome the ideas of
people.
(1730)
I have heard a number of points. I want to make a very brief
comment. There is a tendency and a real need to ensure the
victims of crime have many more supports than they now have.
The Minister of Justice indicated that he agreed and wanted to
do something about it.
There is also a feeling that for certain crimes there ought to be
much tougher sentences. I applaud that and I believe it is true,
but we have to be very careful, as one colleague in the Reform
Party indicated, not to let that pendulum swing too far.
Otherwise we distort the system in another fashion which is
perhaps just as bad.
How important is it to attack the causes of crime embedded in
poverty and unemployment in order to reduce crime? I would
just like to get my colleague's opinion on that.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, there is no question that a
balanced approach is necessary. We have to deal with those
people who commit criminal offences. That is a must. We have
to deal with them effectively, taking into account the public
interest and the rehabilitation of the offender.
I agree with those persons who say the pendulum has swung
too far in one direction. We have to seek that equilibrium or that
balance. On the other hand we have to do what we can to ensure
that people do not embark on a life of criminality. We have to
deal with and address root causes of crime such as
unemployment. I am convinced the government will deal with
the question of unemployment. If people are working they are
less likely to commit crime.
Also we have to deal with the question of poverty and the fact
that so many Canadians go to bed hungry at night. If we deal
with poverty we will deal at the same time with crime. We will
reduce criminality. A multifaceted approach is necessary. I
agree with the hon. member that we must deal with the root
2461
causes of crime because in the long run that would be a more
effective way of dealing with crime in our country.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.34 p.m. it is
my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order
81(19) proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2461
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved that
Bill C-219, an act to amend the Immigration Act (visitors'
visas), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the background to the bill takes us
into the inner workings of the Immigration Act. A bill similar to
this private member's bill was presented in the last Parliament. I
guess it is fair to say we are taking another crack at the issue.
The background relates to the procedures which are used by
visitors who wish to come to Canada, visitors from what we call
visa countries, countries where it is necessary for residents to
get visas from Canada before they visit here. The bill would
permit the Canadian relatives of such visitors to put up a bond or
a surety. It would require a Canadian immigration officer who
was considering a visa application to take the existence of that
surety or bond into account when the application was made.
The best way I can describe the types of difficulties that the
bill is aimed at resolving is by referring to an individual case.
The individuals involved know I will be speaking about the case
because I mentioned the same case a couple of years ago in
Parliament. They are good enough to permit me to use it as a
good example of why the bill might be of assistance.
It relates to members of the Saravia family who live in
Scarborough. They have lived in Canada for about 20 years.
They are originally from Bolivia. They have brothers, sisters
and other family in Bolivia.
(1735)
A couple of years ago after some discussion it was proposed
that one of the brothers visit for Christmas. He had never met his
nieces and nephews here, and everyone thought it was a good
idea. The mother had successfully visited Canada with a visa
about a year and a half prior to that time. In this instance the
visitor, Mr. Torres, travelled to Peru because we do not have a
visa issuing office in Bolivia. He made his application about a
week prior to Christmas. He went with his airline ticket and a
document sent to him by the family here and was turned down
for a visa. Regrettably while in Lima he was robbed by some
people there. The Christmas visit did not take place. That was
the bottom line and my constituents were unhappy about it.
This is one case in hundreds I have had to deal with as a
member of Parliament. I know all members of Parliament,
particularly those of us from urban areas, have had to deal with
the problem of applications by family members for visitors'
visas.
In this particular case we received a letter of explanation in
our office. It was a good letter, a good response. I am not in any
way critical of our officials in Lima. They replied and gave their
version of an explanation. I am going to read portions of the
letter because they help describe some of the background. They
wrote:
Visitors visas are a very tricky part of our work. As you know, a great number of
aliens enter Canada each year as tourists and try to stay after their original stay has
ended. We have to determine in each case, with very little information at hand if
the applicant is really a visitor or if the person is an immigrant trying to enter
Canada on a tourist visa. The only way an applicant can convince us that he or she
is really a visitor is by demonstrating that he or she has very strong ties to his or
her home country which will force him to return to that country.
This is what we expressed to Mr. Torres to show us. He explained he was
leaving his wife and two children behind. He declared he had a job in Bolivia to
which he wanted to return. Unfortunately he showed absolutely no proof that
his financial situation in Bolivia was comfortable or that he had any property or
good reasons to return.
It is very frustrating for a Canadian resident to know that a
brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter cannot make a
family visit because he or she does not have financial resources,
when often the family in Canada does have some resources.
Therefore the bill is intended to rectify the omission from the
process. We were just speaking a few moments ago about the
criminal process where the victim has been excluded from the
process. Here is another process, the visitor visa process, where
the resident Canadian, the relative, the person who has invited
the father or mother to come and visit, has been excluded from
the process and does not have role. The bill will provide for a
surety or a bond that will give these Canadian families an
opportunity to participate in the process and provide greater
assurance that the visas will be followed through.
The surety proposed does not require cash. The amount would
be set by the Department of Immigration in the ordinary course
as it sets other bond amounts. It provides the resident Canadian
with a role in the process. It gives the Canadian a stake in
ensuring that the terms of the visitor visa are met. Because these
are family members there is a reasonable amount of suasion
existing. There is a bond, a relationship between the visitor and
the inviting family. Surely there is a degree of what I would call
suasion in having the visitor fulfil the terms of such a visit.
2462
(1740)
The current law in section 8 creates a bit of a catch-22.
Subsection 8(1) reads:
Where a person seeks to come to Canada, the burden of proving that that person
has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this
act or regulation rests on the person.
That is the visitor. It has nothing to do with the Canadian.
Subsection (2) indicates:
Every person seeking to come into Canada shall be presumed to be an
immigrant until that person satisfies the immigration officer examining
him-that he is not an immigrant.
Basic visitors have to obtain visas and are basically presumed
not to be bona fide visitors. There is a presumption that they are
not bona fide visitors. They are presumed to be immigrants.
That is built right into the act. It is a great procedural device to
put the burden on the visitor. If I were a Canadian with a family
visitor from abroad, I would not be too happy about it.
I suggest it is a bit of a catch-22. It is not fair to these
Canadians. The challenge of setting aside that catch-22 is
exacerbated when there is a language barrier. Many visitors
coming to Canada do not speak English as a first language. If the
visa officer is looking for some subtleties in intention here, it is
going to be awfully difficult to pick up on those subtleties when
the language being spoken is not a first language. In the few
questions that are asked the information exchanged is going to
be pretty basic.
Turning to some of the statistics behind the bill on the surface
do not look bad. In 1993 the department issued 545,000 visas or
over half a million visas around the world. It turned down almost
82,000 around the world. That is not a bad statistic. One might
say that is not too bad in the face of half a million visas issued. I
think about 79,000 of those turndowns were relatives of my
constituents but that is not true. It just takes two or three of them
to frustrate the heck out of a member of Parliament.
Over 50 per cent of the people in my riding are immigrants.
This means it is likely many of those Canadians have families
and relatives abroad who want to visit. Therefore 82,000 is a big
number. Even if there were only 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 affected
by the bill, it is a big number when we are talking about
Canadians who want family visits to take place.
There are two perspectives worth noting. One is the huge
increase in the number of families in Canada with relatives
abroad. People are moving all over the globe now. There are
huge increases in travel and large increases in the numbers of
immigrants to Canada so hopefully many more family visits can
take place.
Second, the refugee claims process has poisoned the
atmosphere for visitor visa applications. In all cases visa
officers are on the lookout for phoney refugees. There might
even be a real refugee who is trying to get here through a visitor
visa. Our visa officers put their careers on the line when they
grant visas. I understand and I am sure other members
understand that they cannot be seen to be making many
mistakes. Every time a fake refugee claimant stays here on a
visitor visa the dollars start to add up. It is not $1,000; it could be
$20,000 or $30,000 in costs to the federal, provincial and
municipal taxpayer by the time we are done with legal aid for a
lawyer, welfare support during processing, the cost of the
processing, the accommodation and so on. It is a very frustrating
and high stakes games. These are some changing realities we
have to keep our eye on. Canadians have been neglected in this
process.
(1745)
I want to conclude by outlining some of the salient features of
this private member's bill. It provides a formal role for resident
Canadians to participate in the process. Right now all we have
happening with resident Canadians is sometimes they will go to
a lawyer or a notary and get a letter prepared that says: ``My
brother, John, is going to visit and I will support him while he is
here''. They get the notary to seal it. The notary charges them
$50 or $100. I will not comment on the appropriateness of the
fees. As can be seen in the letter from Lima, Peru that kind of
intervention by the Canadian family did not carry much weight
in the decision.
Second, my bill would provide a material financial assurance
of compliance with the visa by the visitor.
Third, it provides a real linkage between the applicant and the
Canadian family doing the inviting.
Fourth, my bill would not prejudice those applicants who do
not have a relative in Canada or do not put up a surety. The bill
specifically provides that the absence of a surety is not to be
taken into account by the visa office.
Fifth, it provides for individual applicants who have Canadian
relatives the same ability to be bonded as group visitors
currently have under the existing act. Group visitors can have
bonding arrangements. Individuals at the moment cannot.
Sixth, it will not change the test for visitor visas. It will not
change the underlying test and we will have the same test and the
same safeguards. It will provide a significant role for family
members here and provide a further assurance of bona fide
fulfilment of the terms of the visa.
2463
To conclude, I am hopeful that the government will listen
carefully and include this type of amendment, this mechanism,
as a new feature of the Immigration Act when it next considers
amending our Canada Immigration Act.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly not a coincidence that Bill C-219, whose
purpose is to amend section 9 of the Immigration Act, is being
discussed today, March 17, St. Patrick's Day. Wishing a happy
holiday to Canadians and Quebecers of Irish descent is a
privilege for me as one of my ancestors on my mother's side
came from green Erin. To my Irish compatriots, in particular
those from Quebec, who are proud of their roots and their
culture, I am pleased to wish a most enjoyable holiday.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Members of the Official Opposition
have, on many occasions in this House, pointed out the
considerable contribution made by new Quebecers and new
Canadian citizens to the building here of a pluralistic society
open to the world. A large number of people from every part of
the world have made Quebec and Canada riches with their
cultures and their skills.
Incidentally, the composition of this House mirrors the
Canadian mosaic as many members, in addition to being
Canadian citizens, also have deep ties to their or their parents'
native countries. On Canadian soil, it has been proven that there
is a place and a warm welcome for people who choose Quebec or
Canada, be they from Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America.
But their new lives do not erase their strong attachment to their
friends and families still scattered all over the globe. These ties
are essential and their value must be recognized by any civilized
nation by amending legislation to make it fair and humane.
(1750)
We believe that, if passed, Bill C-219, the bill to amend
section 9 of the Immigration Act before us today, will make it
easier for non-Canadian relatives of Canadian citizens and
permanent residents to obtain visitors' visas. This bill is a
legislative amendment which is both fair and humane.
The members of this House know that, depending on the
planned duration of their stay on Canadian soil, certain people
must obtain a visitor's visa from a Canadian embassy abroad.
To be granted entry, people requesting permission to come
into Canada must meet a number of requirements. They must
hold a valid passport and return ticket. They must also state the
reasons of their visit. In other words, foreign visitors who apply
for a visa to come into Quebec or Canada and visit with relatives
must prove that they are genuine visitors and comply with the
provisions of the Immigration Act and Regulations. They must
also prove to the visa officer handling their application that they
have enough money to support themselves while in Canada and
that they fully intend to return to their country of origin.
We agree with the law that people who want to Quebec or
Canada for a visit must have sufficient financial resources for
the cost of living in Canada. This provision stands to reason,
since the length of the stay is usually one to six months, with the
possibility of extending it once in Quebec or another province.
However, figures from the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration for 1992 indicate that Canadian visa offices abroad
have rejected over 100,000 applications. The majority of these
applications, Madam Speaker, were made in Third World
countries and certain Eastern European countries.
Are visas actually denied mainly on financial grounds? It may
very well be so. As the movers of this motion, we think it is
immoral and totally unjustified to assume that less wealthy
visitors who come from these countries would not act in good
faith.
Consequently, it is important that persons applying for a visa
who are not well off have their applications examined by an
official much in the same away as applications from persons
who are more financially secure are considered, if indeed
members of their family in Quebec or in Canada or members
who are permanent residents are prepared to put up a bond or
surety.
Some people may object to this bill on the grounds that
increasing the number of visitor's visas only increases the
number of refugee claimants. They will point to recent figures
released by the Department of Immigration which show an
increase in the number of refugee claims made by persons
entering Canada with only a visitor's visa.
Our answer to them must be that whether in possession of a
valid visa or falsified papers, persons fearing persecution for
political, religious, ethnic or other reasons have rights which are
recognized under international law, notably under the Geneva
Convention to which Canada is a signatory.
(1755)
Madam Speaker, it is neither a crime nor immoral to seek
refuge in a country which respects human rights.
In conclusion, the members of the Official Opposition, who
believe in the fundamental values of Quebec society, values
such as generosity and open-mindedness, will unequivocally
support Bill C-219. The amended Immigration Act will show
even more respect for the citizens of this country who, through
their differences and their work, enrich our society.
2464
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River
on the interesting work he has done on behalf both of his
constituents and all Canadians on this issue.
I might add, and I know the hon. member made mention of
this, that it is not just in this Parliament but in the previous
Parliament as well. He deserves congratulations. His interest in
this is both timely and a good reminder to all of us who work in
this area.
This is an area that interests all Canadians and that is why the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has announced a new
consultation for a 10-year immigration framework and one that
the minister hopes to be making the first statements about this
coming fall.
Canada's Immigration Act lists clear policy objectives to
facilitate the entry of visitors into Canada for the purpose of
fostering trade and commerce, tourism, culture and scientific
activities and international understanding.
The decision to issue or not to issue a visitor's visa is based on
the intention of the person seeking to visit Canada. It is very
interesting that this bill should come up for debate today
because I was discussing this very matter with senior
departmental personnel earlier today before an appearance at
the committee. One of the more senior public servants was
telling me that one of the things he makes a point to do when he
visits our offices abroad is to go to the visa office and observe
the visa officers.
I think it is very true and something that bears repeating here
in the House that the particular knowledge and ability of our visa
officers, who are a very small but very specialized group in our
foreign service, to make the decision right there on the ground
particularly in some of the offices that are very crowded, that are
over-subscribed by vast numbers of people wishing to come to
Canada for a variety of reasons, to make good decisions and to
make the right decisions is pretty amazing. The senior staff I
spoke to today made mention of this more than once as
something that we should be very proud of, our foreign service
officials who are working for Canada.
We have in place a network of 47 full service and 25
specialized officers abroad located in Canadian embassies, high
commissions and consulates who are ready to process visitors'
visa requests all the time.
In 1993 Canadian officials overseas received 627,394
applications for visitors' visas. They issued 546,457 of these
visas. Only 81,937 of these requests were refused or withdrawn.
That is an 87 per cent acceptance rate and I think that is, again,
an amazing figure. Most of these visitor visa requests are
completed within 24 hours.
(1800 )
In general, the problems we hear of as members of Parliament
make up a very small percentage of the volume that is done by
our Canadian offices abroad.
I want to make very clear that the minister believes the hon.
member raises some very important issues with his private
member's bill. They are issues certainly worthy of review. I am
sure the minister responsible for citizenship and immigration
will take the member's words and bill for review. A great deal of
interest such as has been generated here today will continue
certainly on behalf of the minister and the department.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to be able to speak on the subject of immigration for
the second time today.
I am going to be taking another side to this debate. I should
point out this House has not been active in the promotion or
discussion of legislation dealing with immigration and I applaud
my hon. colleague for breaking ground.
Our current Immigration Act despite its enormous length has
the appearance of having no teeth as its enforcement is sorely
lacking. This also applies in the area of visitor visas. In the
minds of many Canadians it fails to ensure that Canada is
adequately protected from abuse.
Canada needless to say is a nation with a sterling reputation
for compassion and openness. However when that openness is
abused the result can be a backlash and a decline in Canadians'
tolerance for newcomers or even more so directed toward the
legislation that does not seem to fit the abuse. Polls indicate that
this is precisely what is happening now.
Canadians see example after example of abuse in the system.
They fail to see that immigrants are not to blame per se since
those immigrants or visitors who are abusing the system are
only taking advantage of the incentives for abuse that our
present immigration law provides.
One area of abuse that may not make the headlines frequently
but that is nevertheless a growing strain on our immigration
system is the failure of many to leave the country after the
expiration of their visitor visas. As a result of this abuse,
immigration officials have been tightening up the requirements
needed for visitors to enter Canada on visitor visas.
Currently one of the determining factors in whether or not a
visitor visa will be granted to an applicant is if the applicant
poses a risk for non-compliance with the terms of departure
from Canada. This security is especially hard on young males
and unattached people who it is often determined may have little
reason to return to their native land. This is especially so when
Canadian immigration is unable in most cases to undertake the
process of apprehension and deportation of people who have
overstayed their visas.
2465
However if family members who are citizens or permanent
residents of Canada were able to post a bond and the posting
of that bond were allowed to influence the decision making of
the immigration official, then not only would the possibility of
overstaying be reduced but so would the likelihood of unjust
rejection for visitor visas. At least that is how it should work
in theory.
In reality however this legislation may have the effect of
actually encouraging more abuse of the system. This legislation
if passed, may result in even more people coming to Canada
with no intention of leaving and then staying on without ever
being apprehended. Allow me to explain why.
This bill makes no mention of the size or the type of bond,
whether it is cash or security. Therefore we must assume that the
bond will not be overly sizeable. If that is the case then citizens
or permanent residents of Canada who desire to bring to Canada
a family member may well end up making a rational, economic
decision to buy a family member into Canada using a bonded
visitor visa rather than going through the long and complicated
process of sponsoring under the family class.
Further, when one sponsors a relative there is an obligation to
support the individual for a lengthy period of time. I know this
requirement has been ignored by many and is also rife with
abuse. Nonetheless it is a requirement that presents an
obligation which could be enforced, if this government would
only demonstrate the political will necessary to enforce it and to
support its enforcement officers and divisions.
(1805)
Were one to sponsor a visitor visa by posting a bond, there
could be at most the loss of a couple of thousand dollars. No
further financial or more important, legal obligation would be
pending. Instead of accomplishing what this bill on its face
seems to, this bill would in fact open the doors for further abuse.
I have brought the text of this bill to the attention of
individuals with far more knowledge than I possess in the field
of immigration. After review, the response I received from them
was that while this bill could help to make the visa process
somewhat less discriminatory, the price could very well be a
flood of visitors who intend to take up residence in Canada by
overstaying those visas.
Furthermore I was told that it is virtually impossible due to
manpower shortages and legal limitations to track down,
apprehend and deport illegals who have overstayed their visas.
A huge percentage of illegal immigrants to Canada have used
this route to enter the country. This legislation, by making the
process of acquiring a visitor visa easier for those individuals
who pose a high flight risk could make the number of illegals
that much higher.
Further this legislation could make it impossible to charge a
citizen or permanent resident of Canada with aiding or
harbouring an illegal immigrant. After all if one has posted a
bond and then forfeited the funds then legal recourse may be
exhausted.
There is also the issue of fraud to consider. Fraud permeates
the immigration process in Canada in the form of faulty travel
documents, falsified visas and the transfer of documents. It is
regrettable that this bill does not address this issue. Rather this
bill seeks to make the acquisition of visas even easier and
ignores the rampant abuse of the visitor visa system that
currently exists.
One other point should be made regarding this bill. This bill
assumes there is some mechanism to determine if and when a
visitor on a visa leaves the country. How else could the
forfeiture of a bond occur? However there is no such process.
While visa visitors do have their date of entry logged with
Immigration Canada, their date of departure is not. Thus this bill
is premised upon an enforcement mechanism which by all rights
should exist but does not.
In short, I applaud my hon. colleague for having introduced
this bill and to attempt the beginnings of a badly needed
restructuring of immigration law. However this bill is
shortsighted and suffers from the same malady that reflects so
much of the legislation that comes into this House.
In theory we have a good idea here. I know the intentions of
my colleague are laudable, but this bill would make a presently
existing problem even worse. To make our immigration system
function any worse than it does now would be to be jeopardize
the future of all immigration into Canada by further raising the
level of intolerance that this failed system has begun to create.
I respectfully oppose this bill.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Madam
Speaker, I second the private member's bill of the hon. member
for Scarborough-Rouge River. In my riding of Don Valley
North about 50 per cent of the population are new Canadians. Of
course I am one of them.
This bill will help the system in many ways. It will cut the red
tape in our embassies or visa offices overseas. It will help the
families living here. It will give them the opportunity to
celebrate holidays, important days, religious days or weddings
together.
(1810 )
It will help tourism in Canada. The more visitors we have and
the less restrictions there are on visitors, the happier they are to
spend their money and generate revenue to Canadian businesses.
I am more than happy to second this bill. I urge this House to
accept this recommendation and take it to committee. In
committee we will certainly support this bill. I hope the other
committee members will do so when it comes to the vote in
committee.
2466
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Madam Speaker, I proudly
rise to support this bill introduced by the hon. member for
Scarborough-Rouge River. He has set a course that is practical
and realistic in terms of solving some of the problems we
presently have in the immigration system.
I would like to see this idea expanded toward the family
sponsorship of immigrants. There are increasing numbers of
experiences where families sponsor immigrants to come to
Canada. Then in a very short time for whatever reason they
abrogate their contract with the federal government to continue
their support. Therefore, seems that the principle of bonding
would be a very practical means of accomplishing this.
I also suggest to the hon. member that in terms of student
visas, young people who come to Canada to get their education,
the principle of bonding could be applied as well. That would
allow Canadian educational institutions to offer their services to
young people from other parts of the world.
I speak from personal experience. Some of my friends and I
attempted to have a young Dominican man admitted into Canada
to complete his education which he could not get in the
Dominican Republic. He was turned down twice. A write-in
campaign was launched with the minister and with the
adjudicating officer in Santo Domingo. He had to participate
and take documentation with him to show he had won the
president's citation four years in a row in that country and that
he was a highly respected member of his community, and so on.
Finally after the third attempt, this young man came to
Canada. He is here now completing his education in computer
science. He will go home bringing something very new and
special to that country. His mother continues to reside there.
This is a very positive step. Having run this idea by my
constituents in the last few months in speaking to chambers of
commerce and various people I have received only positive
response. They felt very strongly that this was a good new
direction to take and that it would help very much to solve some
of those problems that end up often causing a backlash among
settled citizens in this country. Anything we can do to overcome
that is a positive step.
My constituency office has been in touch with various people
in the immigration department. The suggestion has been floated
there. I can say it has received positive response even there.
I commend the hon. member. This is an excellent move. I
would like to see it expanded and moved into a larger base. I do
not believe for one minute that my friends in the Reform Party
can be serious that this would simply be tacked on as a cost of
doing business, if you like, for somebody to buy their way into
the country.
(1815)
It seems to me that all that needs to be dealt with there is how
that bond is applied and at what level. This is a mechanical
process and I do not think it needs to be simply the price tag for
getting into Canada.
I appreciate the opportunity to endorse this bill.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Since there are no more
members who wish to speak, the period provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
Before asking unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m., I would
like to wish everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day.
[English]
Happy St. Patrick's Day, everyone.
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since it is St. Patrick's Day and I happen to know that you,
Madam Speaker, are wearing a shamrock on your gown, I
thought it would be appropriate to thank you on behalf of those
of us in this House who are of Irish descent. Of course, I include
the hon. Minister of Justice who is also of Irish descent. I would
never mention his name, it is a weird name to be Irish, but it is
there.
We do thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for your kind
comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): May I call it 6.30?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2466
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Madam Speaker, we
are starting the adjournment debate 10 minutes early, and
although I cannot make any assumptions about the absence of
members from this House, I would nevertheless appreciate it if a
member of the government would respond to this motion.
On Tuesday, I put a question to the Minister of the
Environment about Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan. I
protested the fact that Industry Canada spent only $5 million in
Quebec on Phase I to clean up a river which flows mainly
through Quebec.
2467
I suggest we look at the figures that were given initially. I
will round off the figures for the sake of convenience. Initially,
Industry Canada had budgeted $20 million. Because of the
recession, the government cut $2 million, which leaves $18
million. More than $6 million was spent on projects which, in
the end, did not make the grade, so that Industry Canada
actually invested a mere $11.3 million of the initial $20 million
that was to be used to clean up the river. However, the worst
part is that Industry Canada spent only $5 million in Quebec.
(1820)
Madam Speaker, the St. Lawrence River flows mostly in
Quebec. Consequently, I find it hard to understand why an
amount close to $6 million was used to subsidize an Ontario
pulp and paper company located in Miramichi, in New
Brunswick, several hundred kilometres from the St. Lawrence
River. After all, there are dozens of plants like that one along the
river. Why choose the Miramichi facility?
I also find it hard to understand the $450,000 subsidy to
Marsh Engineering, from Port Colborne, on Lake Ontario, for
the treatment of oil discharged by ships which could some day
navigate on the St. Lawrence River. Again, there are many ports
along the St. Lawrence in Quebec, including Montreal, Quebec
City, Trois-Rivières, Sept-Îles and quite a few more.
So, why was only $5 million of the $12 million spent in
Quebec during Phase I of the St. Lawrence Action Plan? After
all, as I said, the river flows mostly in that province.
I remember clearly that, in the 1980s, there was a serious
problem with maple trees in Quebec. The Government of
Quebec did not buy a plantation of evergreens or oaks to study
the problem, It bought an enormous sugar bush, and its officials
conducted tests and soil analysis, and found solutions to the
problem.
To clean up the river, it would have made sense to concentrate
efforts where the river flows. I find the attitude of the
Department of Industry unjustified.
In conclusion, the report on this issue states clearly that the
partnership between Environment Canada and the Department
of Industry is a failure. The two departments went in opposite
directions as regards technology.
Last Tuesday, the Minister of the Environment made a formal
commitment to the effect that all monies allocated to the St.
Lawrence Action Plan would be spent in Quebec. Can she tell us
now how she will control the monies invested by other
departments during Phase II of the Action Plan, in order to avoid
a repeat of what happened during Phase I?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): First of all, what I told the House was that
the funds earmarked for Phase II of the St. Lawrence Action
Plan will be spent on cleaning up the river.
Having said that, I must point out that the St. Lawrence runs
all the way from Brockville, Ontario, before reaching the sea in
the Lower St. Lawrence district. My brother's father-in-law has
a cottage in Carleton, on Chaleur Bay, just across from New
Brunswick.
What we want to do it is to clean up the St. Lawrence and that
is exactly what we have committed to do before this House. All
the funds earmarked for this project will be spent on pollution
control.
That being said, I think that the hon. member is taking a
narrow view when he claims that, in the event of technological
problems, investments will necessarily be distributed on a
geographical basis. He must have heard of Dr. Jonas Salk, the
medical researcher who developed the vaccine to stop the polio
epidemic afflicting so many people around the world.
(1825)
We did not tell Dr. Salk, who was with the University of
Toronto, that the funds had to be invested in Toronto.
What is important is to use the right technology. The
technology used to clean up the St. Lawrence has to be good,
whether it is developed in Quebec or elsewhere. If there were a
problem in Lake Ontario or Hamilton Sound, near where I live,
and a research scientist from Montreal could find a way to solve
the problem, I would not tell him not to just because he is from
Quebec.
I think that the decision to invest in cleaning up the river is a
sound one. Our government is not the one that signed the
agreement under which the funds were not distributed properly.
This five-year plan for cleaning up the St. Lawrence River was
signed by the current Leader of the Opposition, who was
Minister of Environment at the time, and his Conservative
colleagues. This plan did not specify how much was to be spent
on pollution control. That is only part of the problem anyway.
The other one is making sure the right technology is used. I
am sure that high-tech environmental companies in Quebec are
very competitive and would not appreciate it if we decided that
all funds for the Great Lakes could come only from companies
around the Great Lakes. What we are looking for is good
environmental technology that can be used in Ontario as well as
in Quebec or in other provinces. That is what real environmental
technology is about.
[English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Madam Speaker, I would like to
follow up on a question I posed on March 15 regarding the
concept of a guaranteed annual income.
2468
As the Minister of Human Resources Development continues
his review of social policy, I want to encourage him to fully
consider and do a cost benefit analysis on the concept of a
guaranteed annual income.
Today I would like to present five benefits that I believe
commend this notion to the minister for further consideration.
First, in terms of efficiency, we need a comprehensive
program to consolidate the patchwork of social programs that
presently exist. We could consolidate the guaranteed income
supplement, child tax credit and exemptions, married
exemptions, federal Canada Assistance Plan transfers, old age
security and possibly GST tax credits under a guaranteed annual
income. Unemployment insurance as well or parts of that
program could also be included.
Does it not make sense to provide one form of support instead
of continuing the multiple programs process and bureaucracy
that exist presently?
We talk about streamlining government. The guaranteed
annual income could help us in this regard.
Second, what about work incentives? Many people fear that a
guaranteed annual income will encourage people not to work. I
believe that is precisely what our list of programs does right
now. Currently, social programs have a high taxback rate on
additional earned income, some up to 100 per cent, that in many
cases makes it not possible for recipients to return to work. If by
finding low wage employment a person risks losing certain
other important support, that person really cannot leave the
system.
Because the guaranteed annual income would be integrated
with the tax system it could provide a gradual taxback of
benefits as a recipient finds other sources of income.
My sense is that there is only anecdotal proof that a
guaranteed annual income would be a disincentive to work. In
fact, the real proof may exist on the other side. A recent study of
the Mincome experiment in Manitoba found that a guaranteed
annual income did not affect people's work habits.
As well, the National Council of Welfare recently released a
study which showed that low income Canadians respond to
incentives to work better than people with above average
incomes. A person struggling to make ends meet does not have
the luxury to relax instead of work.
I am convinced that Canadians want to work and if properly
structured a guaranteed annual income will support Canadians
to do so.
As for effectiveness, social policy can be more effective if it
responds to the different needs of Canadians. A guaranteed
annual income is able to do just this. Flexibility in the taxback
rates and guarantee levels can provide effective income support
for Canadians who cannot be expected to enter the workforce
and those who are able to work as well. As well, in our changing
economy skills and training are essential elements that create
opportunities for lower income Canadians.
(1830)
A guaranteed annual income would provide income support
for those people who participate in training and skills
advancement.
Let us consider economic benefits. Good social policy makes
good economic sense and allows us to get lower income people
the money they need to buy the resources they need to serve their
families and they spend it in our local communities.
Finally, let us talk about dignity for Canadians. I believe that a
guaranteed annual income protects the dignity of lower income
Canadians. First of all, it provides effective income support so
that Canadians are able to meet their basic needs.
Second, there would be no requirement to go through the
humiliating needs test that are part of the Canada Assistance
Plan.
With a guaranteed annual income people do not need to
remain on welfare just because it does not pay to work.
Moreover, Canadians will have the support needed to gain the
skills necessary to compete in today's job market.
In conclusion, I believe and I try to show that a guaranteed
annual income could provide significant benefits for all
Canadians. I urge the government to do a thorough cost benefit
analysis of this concept. It is time to consider a real step change
in Canada's social assistance policy.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Human
Resources Development has asked me to furnish a response on
his behalf this evening.
I know the minister would want me to begin by recording his
gratitude and admiration for the continued interest of the hon.
member for Brant as well as for the thought provoking
suggestions which she has put on the record this evening.
I say on the minister's behalf that the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development has been listening to Canadians
express their views on social security reform. The minister has
also appointed a small task force of Canadians involved in
matters of social security and employment reform to help him
pull together the elements of the reform process.
In April the minister will be presenting an action plan setting
out the options and the choices for the standing committee to
consider during the course of the summer, using the widest
possible means of public dialogue.
2469
The concept of a guaranteed annual income program to meet
all the needs of persons with insufficient income has been
considered time and again by previous governments, both
federal and provincial.
The broad outlines of a guaranteed annual income are
consistent with the department's goal of overhauling and
streamlining current programs to make them more effective at
addressing the social security needs of people today.
A guaranteed annual income would require major reforms to
the structure and financial arrangements underlying several
components of the income security network, including
unemployment insurance, social assistance, child benefits and
taxation.
One guaranteed annual income proposal which has garnered
much attention in recent months has been the income
supplementation program for Newfoundland and Labrador
prepared by that province's economic recovery commission.
Federal and provincial officials are working together to
review and assess the Newfoundland proposal to see how it
could fit into the government's national social security reform
process.
However, this government cannot consider a guaranteed
annual income outside the context of the broad social security
reform process.
A guaranteed annual income is a very innovative approach to
reform that is not constrained by the existing program structure.
Such a proposal could be presented as one of the many options
available.
Before any such option is considered, careful consideration
will have to be given to various government objectives,
including job creation, achieving current fiscal objectives and
addressing the inequities inherent in the current system of
government programs.
The social security reform process is an ambitious plan with a
tight timetable that will result in major changes for Canada. The
action plan review process will be open to the public.
Consideration on all options will require the participation of our
partners, the provinces, as well as the Canadian public as a
whole.
These are essential programs and this government does not
intend to leave any stone unturned in considering how best to
reform the social safety net.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.35 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1)
(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)