TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, June 6, 1994
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 4855
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 4858
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4858
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4859
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4859
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4860
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4860
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4860
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4861
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4862
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4862
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4862
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4862
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4863
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4866
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4870
Bill C-255. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4871
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) 4871
Bill C-37. Motion for second reading 4872
4855
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 6, 1994
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of Environment Week, I would like to report that the
Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development recommends the appointment of a commissioner
who would help to ensure that the federal government pursues
policies and programs that are environmentally sustainable.
What does all that mean?
It means the commissioner would evaluate and review federal
policies, laws, regulations and programs and identify those
which encourage and those which impede Canada's shift to
environmentally sustainable development. The commissioner
would report to Parliament. The commissioner would help in the
shift toward sustainable development and would also comment
on whether Canada's policies meet international commitments.
The members of this committee, most of them at least, urge
the government to act quickly in the implementation of the
recommendations contained in this report.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago
today, the Allied Forces reversed the course of history on the
beaches of Normandy. The operation that took place on June 6,
1944, marked the beginning of the end of the military and
political hegemony of the Nazis and the Axis forces.
Taking part in the invasion on D-Day were units of the
Canadian 3rd Infantry Division and the Canadian 2nd Armoured
Brigade. Also present at this historic moment in the liberation of
Europe by the Allied Forces were more than 50 ships of the
Canadian Royal Navy and 37 squadrons of the Royal Canadian
Airforce.
This day is dedicated to all those Canadian and Quebec men
and women, for the sacrifices they made in the defence of
freedom on a day that was finally to lead to the end of the Second
World War.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to share with members of this House the pride we feel
in my riding of Calgary North at the achievements of Ms. Sri
Chaudhuri.
Sri Chaudhuri is a grade 12 student at Sir Winston Churchill
High School in northwest Calgary. She has just received top
honours at the National Science Fair in Guelph, Ontario. Sri won
six awards including best overall project, the gold medal in the
physical sciences division, and the Manning award for
innovation.
Her project demonstrated it is possible to use high frequency
sound to break down toxic organic compounds that contaminate
the environment.
Sri is the first young scientist from western Canada to have
won this national honour.
Today as we remember the men and women who fought
valiantly to safeguard our future, it is especially fitting to
celebrate the achievements of a new generation of young
Canadians like Sri Chaudhuri who is conquering obstacles to
help preserve our environment.
On behalf of the citizens of Calgary North, I extend sincere
congratulations to Sri Chaudhuri.
* * *
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Tom Goode.
Tom Goode served this House, the constituents of Burnaby,
Richmond and Delta, as a fine member of Parliament. He served
with dedication, energy and enthusiasm between 1968 and 1972.
4856
Tom was a people's person. He continued to serve and work in
his community even after his term as an MP. Between 1974 and
1979 Tom Goode was mayor of Delta.
People who knew him will remember Tom as a warm and
hard-working man who had the ability to put the people around
him at ease by making them feel comfortable. He had a sense of
humour and enjoyed life. Tom Goode liked to keep himself busy.
He was a man of many interests and talents.
In addition to being an active member of his community, Tom
was involved with the business life of Delta and the lower
mainland through the construction industry. He built buildings
as he helped to build the community where he lived to which he
gave so much of himself.
Tom's good nature, warmth and kindness will be greatly
missed.
* * *
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River): Mr.
Speaker, His Excellency Governor General Ramon Hnatyshyn
has said that this year's observance of National Transportation
Week is a special one as it marks the 25th anniversary of the
celebration of the achievements and importance of jobs done by
thousands of workers in the transportation industry.
This year's theme is ``Intermodalism-The Perfect Fit''.
Intermodalism is surely the way of the future. It counts heavily
on computer applications and streamlined procedures to get
goods to market quickly and cheaply.
The transportation industry is making the best use of new
initiatives and electronic data interchange and other electronic
commerce techniques. Barriers to more integrated and
cost-effective transportation services are falling.
The transportation industry can be proud of its achievements.
To the organizers of the 25th annual National Transportation
Week, I extend best wishes for continuing success.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the 50th anniversary of the allied invasion of
Europe.
On June 6, 1944 Canadian troops joined allied forces in their
attack on the coast of Normandy. Canada was a full partner in the
D-Day landings, with units of the Third Canadian Infantry
Division and the Fourth Canadian Armoured Brigade. Over 50
ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and 37 squadrons of aircraft
from the Royal Canadian Air Force took part in the attack.
(1405)
[Translation]
For Canadians, remembering D-Day is a very emotional
experience. Our veterans recall what they went through fifty
years ago, and today, they remember their comrades who fell in
action.
Canadians must never forget the courage and sacrifices of
those who, in the name of freedom, changed the course of
history in the twentieth century.
* * *
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I was living in Belgium during the last war. In fact, I
was born there, and I want to take this opportunity to express the
gratitude of my former compatriots to the Canadian, American
and English troops who crossed the seas 50 years ago to free
Europe from tyranny.
I remember as if it were yesterday, that morning on June 6,
1944, when the radio announced that the tremendous news of the
invasion in Normandy, which was the first step towards our
liberation.
Three months later, a deliriously happy Brussels welcomed
those allied troops, covered with dust and glory, and I decided to
join them for the last part of the war.
I remember that among our liberators, the first two soldiers to
whom I spoke were two Quebecers from the 22nd Regiment. Of
course, I did not know then that one day I would become their
compatriot, but today, I am happy and proud that is the case.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker,
those who watched television programming from the beaches of
Normandy this morning will have been given some idea of the
conditions which prevailed when Canadian troops came ashore
50 years ago on June 6, 1944.
Overcast skies and cold blustery winds made for a rough sea,
especially for the small landing craft carrying our troops to the
Normandy shore. As a result, many seasick Canadian soldiers
flung themselves into the swells and on to the windswept Juno
beach to face their determined and well-fortified enemy. By the
end of this longest day, 359 Canadian soldiers would be killed,
541 would be wounded and 47 would be taken prisoner.
By the time the second world war ended more than 42,000
Canadians gave their lives for our freedom.
In these days, such a threat requiring such a sacrifice seems
almost unthinkable. Let us hope it remains that way. But if it
4857
does not, let us hope that once again Canadians will come
forward to fight for that most precious of all commodities,
freedom.
* * *
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, today the YMCA
movement world-wide celebrates its 150th anniversary. It was
150 years ago today, on June 6, 1844, that George Williams and
his colleagues founded the YMCA in London in an attempt to
replace disorderly behaviour with constructive activities.
The YMCA's benevolent spirit soon caught the attention of
Montreal, thus initiating its expansion throughout Canada and
the U.S.
Since its inception the Y has been instrumental in addressing
a multitude of social needs. To the implementation of such
programs as health and recreation, child care, employment
training, literacy and language training and international
development aid, the YMCA movement exemplifies the
Canadian spirit. This movement has not only helped to build
stronger communities and goodwill but it can be said that the
YMCA has been instrumental in building the mind, body and
spirit of humankind.
Join us today in celebrating the spirit of George Williams'
dream and the immeasurable contributions of the YMCA in
Canada. It is fitting we should celebrate this on the 50th
anniversary of D-Day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker,
50 years ago today, Canadian troops landed on the beaches of
Normandy to begin their mission to free France. The three major
Allied powers, the United States, Great Britain and Canada,
joined forces to liberate Europe from the Nazis, to restore
democracy and to deliver the millions suffering under the iron
grip of fascism. The battle was hard-fought and many soldiers
lost their lives.
So many years later, we remember that day when Canadian
soldiers, francophones, anglophones and allophones,
represented all of Canada. The language spoken mattered little
when the freedom of the world hung in the balance.
* * *
(1410 )
[English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, there are
many battles in our history from which countless Canadian lives
have been lost. Today let us remember those gallant men and
women who 50 years ago gave their lives to the cause of freedom
and democracy.
Let us also remember the unsung heroes of World War II, the
resistance fighters of France, Norway, Belgium, Holland and
Greece, who played an important role in helping to divert the
Nazi forces away from Normandy and aid in the victory of the
allied forces.
Today I salute these men and women.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the members of the Royal Canadian
Legion Flanders Branch No. 63, as well as all veterans in the
riding of Saint-Denis for their sacrifices. It is because of their
courage and their love of country that Canada is today a free,
united Canada. We will remember.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, on this the
50th anniversary of the Allied landings on the beaches of
Normandy, the Bloc Quebecois joins today with the entire
international community in commemorating this event.
During World War II, Canada participated in campaigns in the
Pacific, the Atlantic, Italy, France and the Netherlands. On June
6, 1944, thousands of people took part in what was to be the
pivotal battle to free Europe from Nazi oppression. Veterans
remain the faithful witnesses to these trying times and we must
never forget, or be indifferent to, their actions.
The Bloc Quebecois salutes the sacrifices made and feats of
bravery and courage displayed by all those involved 50 years
ago. We salute the people who served on the battle front and on
military bases, and especially those who served on the home
front, the wives and children who often anxiously awaited word
of their loved ones.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, May 16 marked the 15,000th broadcast of the longest
running one host show in radio history. The show is called ``The
Roving Mike'' and has been part of CKNW Radio New
Westminster since 1944.
It is my pleasure to honour CKNW's Bill Hughes who has
hosted the show since 1950. In fact he has hosted well over
14,000 of its broadcasts. When Bill Hughes retires in August so
will the show ``The Roving Mike''.
4858
Bill Hughes has shown people in British Columbia that
dreams can surely come true. In a recent interview Hughes said
that he often liked to pretend having a microphone in his hand
when he was a kid and often went into the bathroom to practise
his hockey game voice, despite his mother thinking he was
mentally disturbed.
Bill Hughes has given British Columbia's lower mainland a
radio broadcast enjoyed by all. He will surely be missed by all
British Columbians following his final program in August.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, 50 years ago today allied forces stormed the beaches at
Normandy marking the beginning of the end of World War II.
Some 150,000 troops took part in D-Day including 14,000
Canadians. Every province and territory of Canada was
represented on land, in the air and at sea. All wore a similar
shoulder badge with ``Canada'' on it and stood together not as
westerners, French Canadians or maritimers, but as Canadians.
They fought for freedom, for democracy and for the future
generations many of them would never see.
We celebrate them today and pay tribute to all who played a
role in the allied victory. We celebrate also the opportunity
victory brought to build a better Canada, one free from pain and
suffering for ourselves and for future generations. We continue
in earnest toward this end and we do so with tremendous
gratitude for those who made it possible.
On behalf of the citizens of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and
on behalf of my New Democrat colleagues in this House, I
would like to express sincere thanks to all the women and men
who played a role in D-Day and in ensuring that freedom
reigned.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to rise in remembrance of the Canadian
allied assault which marked the beginning of the liberation of
Nazi occupied Europe 50 years ago today.
D-Day was a day of courage, a day of fear, when more than
15,000 Canadians landed on the beaches of Normandy not
knowing whether they would be driven back into the sea or
advance inland to capture the enemy posts. Soldiers from every
province were part of that invasion and the Canadians fought
with courage, unprecedented and unsurpassed.
On the home front, Canada was a woman's world with more
than one million women in the factories turning out the products
of war and running the farms. Canada was a unified nation, a
nation with a focus, a nation with a goal, a goal of victory.
Today we salute our veterans for achieving that goal and we
thank them for securing our future. In particular I salute the
North Nova Scotia Highlanders whose Gaelic motto translated
was ``Breed of manly men''. May we always remember D-Day.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, on this
50th anniversary of D-Day, I want to pay tribute to the veterans
of World War II.
It reminds me of a trip I made not so long ago to
Bernières-sur-Mer, in Europe, where I saw young people,
unregistered people, non-francophones, non-anglophones,
natives, people from every linguistic community in the country.
I was struck by how young those Canadians were: between 17
and 20 years of age. Few of them were over 25. They were young
Canadians. They fought together and I will tell you this: I am
deeply touched by the fact that those young Canadians gave their
lives to defend our democratic values, that they threw off the
yoke of tyranny in Europe and that they did it for us, for their
children and for their country.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, in a small departure from
precedent I wonder if you would permit me on your behalf to
welcome the representatives of D-Day who are not in my
gallery, but in the diplomatic gallery. We receive them on behalf
of all of our veterans who were there on this day 50 years ago.
Gentlemen, would you stand?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4858
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, while the ministers of Defence and Intergovernmental
Affairs are passing the buck on the closing of the military
college in Saint-Jean, we learned in Saturday's issue of
Le
Devoir that it costs 60 per cent more to train an officer in
Kingston than in Saint-Jean. In addition, the work to expand the
college in Kingston in order to accommodate the officer cadets
4859
from Saint-Jean will amount to $75 million. The negotiations
between Quebec City and Ottawa are still deadlocked.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether she continues to use
economic arguments to justify the decision to close the military
college in Saint-Jean, when the cost of training an officer cadet
in Saint-Jean is $52,000 per year compared to $83,000 in
Kingston.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it will not cost a penny more
to transfer the students now at CMR to Kingston.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I would invite the Deputy Prime Minister to rectify the
facts she has just stated by reading the articles in Le Devoir
which were written by an authorized and very credible
journalist.
I would also ask her how she can insist on invoking budgetary
reasons to justify the decision to close the military college in
Saint-Jean, when for the expansion alone of the college in
Kingston required because of this closure, the contracts that will
have to be awarded in order to accommodate the officer cadets
from Saint-Jean, will cost almost $75 million.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the
information given by the Leader of the Opposition is not true. It
will not cost a penny more to teach students at the college in
Kingston than it would in Saint-Jean.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, am I to understand from the Deputy Prime Minister
that the government now denies it will expand the military
college in Kingston and that the expansion plans, that we know
about, are justified by the transfer of the officer cadets who used
to study in Saint-Jean? I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister
to check the facts and to make accurate statements in the House!
We are dealing with serious issues here!
I would ask her to follow up on what her colleague, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, said last weekend in Montreal,
namely that the federal government has presented proposals on
the military college in Saint-Jean to the Quebec government,
and to tell us whether these proposals include maintaining
military training operations in Saint-Jean.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I said it twice in French. I
will repeat it in English.
The cost of educating the students who are being transferred
represents not a single additional penny of extra expenditure in
the federal military budget.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Ontario's Minister of Francophone Affairs refused to act on the
request from the Commissioner of Official Languages, who
asked the Government of Ontario to make an exception so that
Kingston could become a bilingual area. This refusal by the
Ontario government comes just before the cadets are to move
from the military college in Saint-Jean to Kingston.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister still maintain that her
government wants to make RMC in Kingston a bilingual
institution and make that city a showcase of bilingualism when
the Government of Ontario systematically refuses to make
Kingston bilingual?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think that the Ontario
government's decision expresses more or less the same policy as
the Bloc Quebecois. It accepts institutional bilingualism at the
federal level but not at the provincial level. That is similar to the
Bloc Quebecois's policy in their platform.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the
Ontario government's attitude means that Kingston will not
have French services before the year 2000 if that city is not
bilingual? Is it really the Liberal Government of Canada's
bilingual showcase?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, unfortunately the
Ontario government's policy is exactly the same as the Bloc
Quebecois's: it does not accept bilingualism at the provincial
level. I ask you, as I ask them, to join us in defending the rights
of minorities wherever they live in this beautiful country,
Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Time and again we have asked questions in the House on MPs'
pensions. We were promised a review and action. Nothing has
happened in six months and we are three weeks from the break.
It was not in the newspaper was it? On March 7 the Prime
Minister stated that when MPs quit it is not necessarily easy for
them to get re-established in private life. Eighty-two per cent of
MPs find work within one year of leaving office.
4860
How can the Minister of Finance continue to justify the fact
that MPs are still entitled to and continue to collect pensions for
life after only six years of contributions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader has
indicated on many occasions, a commission has been set up to
examine this. The government will be dealing with it when the
commission has made its report.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I hope it does
not take another six months.
On February 8 I asked the Prime Minister about the exorbitant
pension plan. He told me I did not understand the system. I do
understand the system. The retirement allowance is legal and
represents 4 per cent of what we contribute and is matched in a
multiple of 2.4. The retirement compensation allowance
represents 7 per cent and each dollar we put in is matched by a
multiple of 7.8.
Some hon. members: Question.
Mr. Silye: I have to elaborate so you people understand. Is the
7 per cent portion of the retirement allowance act legal in light
of the fact that the private sector can only match funds up to 5
per cent each?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
simply want to repeat what my colleague the Minister of
Finance said.
The government is committed to legislating the matter of
members' pensions. He said we would be dealing with the
matter after receiving the report of the commission which is
studying issues involving the pay and pensions of members
which has to be set up after every election. The government will
be proceeding along those lines as soon as it gets the report, has
a chance to study it and reach some conclusions.
(1425 )
The Speaker: I would again encourage all members to please
include your Speaker when you are addressing questions or
giving answers.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is a two-tier system has been set up by politicians for
their pension plan that is completely out of line with the private
sector. There should not be two sets of laws in our country; one
for the people and one for the politicians.
Before the House recesses in three weeks, can the Minister of
Finance or the Solicitor General guarantee our party that we will
get a response to this overly generous retirement compensation
allowance?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
said that the government would be carrying out its commitments
to act on members' pensions.
In the meantime I would ask the hon. member if he can give us
a report before the House adjourns about the double dipping, on
the record, of all the Reform members.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
at the end of this month, finance ministers will meet in
Vancouver. It appears that the federal government intends to
discuss the main recommendation contained in the preliminary
report of the finance committee on the GST reform, and follow
up on it. The recommendation proposes that the current GST be
replaced by another GST, that all provincial taxes be combined
with this tax, and that the tax base be expanded to other goods
and services not currently covered.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister
confirm that, at this conference, he intends to start negotiating
with his provincial counterparts on the amalgamation of the
GST and provincial sales taxes to create a single tax, and that the
technical aspects, the procedures and the scope of that tax will
be determined by Ottawa?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well
aware that I have not yet received the report. As soon as we
receive it, hopefully before the meeting to be held at the end of
the month, we will certainly want to have discussions with the
provincial Ministers of Finance.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
will the Minister of Finance confirm his government's intention
to force Quebec to extend the new GST to food items, medical
care and medication, and to impose, in Quebec, this new hidden
tax which will be even more despicable than the original GST
for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
full well that this is not our intention. Our intention is to sit with
all the provincial finance ministers, have real discussions and
implement, if we can, what consumers, small businesses and
Canadians want, namely a truly harmonized tax.
4861
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, week after week we in the opposition have shown
examples of Liberal patronage appointments.
The recent appointment of Michel Robert as the new Oka
negotiator is a perfect example of the Liberal do as I say, not as I
do policy.
Who can forget the howls of outrage and indignation when the
former government appointed Bernard Roy, a former Tory aide,
as Oka negotiator, yet the Liberals have done exactly the same
thing.
My question is for the government House leader, whose
government has made a big deal about its ethics counsellor, yet
it has proven that it does not have the basic integrity required to
live up to its rhetoric. Does the government expect a new ethics
counsellor to be its moral conscience or to clean up the awful
mess of patronage it is creating?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
when the Prime Minister makes an announcement of his
proposal on the commitment to have an ethics counsellor it will
be open to the opposition parties to comment. In the meantime I
would ask them to wait until the Prime Minister formally puts
his proposal to the House and the public.
I think that would be the only fair and reasonable way to do it.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, that was not the question. I was talking about restoring
faith and integrity in Parliament itself.
Time after time we have seen appointments to big L Liberals
for advertising contracts, for committee contracts. The list goes
on.
How can the government House leader stand up and say these
appointments of well known Liberals are not patronage
appointments and will he stop them?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we made a commitment to appoint people on the basis of merit
and on the basis of competence. The hon. member's suggestion
that there are not any competent people in a particular political
party flies in the face of common sense.
The government is committed to making appointments on the
basis of merit and competence. Since close to 51 per cent of
Canadians support the Liberal Party, I do not think that half the
Canadian population should be excluded from consideration for
appointments.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, last
Monday, in answer to a question from the opposition about
double hulled ships, the Deputy Prime Minister stated, and I
quote: ``The double hull legislation was passed last year. I do not
know where the Bloc member and his colleagues were at that
time, but the legislation already exists''.
In fact, the legal counsels of the transport department we
talked to confirmed that there is no such legislation in force. Let
me remind the House that Bill C-121, an Act to amend the
Canada Shipping Act, passed in 1993, does not require ships to
have a double hull.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment. To avoid any further misunderstanding, can
the minister tell us exactly what piece of legislation on double
hulled ships she was referring to?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Shipping Act
which was passed in 1993 requires all new ships plying the
waters in Canada to have double hulls.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, how can
the Minister of the Environment claim to be able to face any
potential environment crisis in our waters, when she does not
even know that there is no legislation concerning the
transportation of dangerous goods in double hulled ships?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member asked if there
was legislation on double hulling. Indeed there is legislation on
double hulling. It was passed last year. It applies to new ships.
The reality is that we also have double hulling applying to
ships that are carrying oil cargo.
In respect of other ships, which I assume is the member's
intention, if he is suggesting that all ships be double hulled in
order to ply Canadian waters in any part of the country I would
suggest that his own proposition would see the port of Quebec
closed down today if he had his way.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Transport.
4862
For two consecutive governments the Pearson airport
privatization has been shrouded in secrecy, first by the
Conservatives and now by the Liberals. It is time to lift the fog
over Pearson airport.
Will the minister commit that all documents related to the
Pearson deal will be released to the public?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question.
As he may know, the hon. Minister of Transport is away from
the House of Commons on government business.
I would be more than happy to relay his question directly and
try to get a generous and accurate response to the member as
soon as possible.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
In anticipation of the response, would the minister assure the
House-
The Speaker: We cannot have hypothetical questions or
answers, nor hypothetical reception of answers that are not
given.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The
chairperson of the
Fédération des femmes du Québec has
sounded the alarm about the situation of women groups in
Canada. These groups have not yet received the $9 million grant
they were promised.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister see to it that her government
fulfils its commitment and grant $9 million to the various
organizations which protect the interests of Canadian and
Quebec women?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for her question and I can
tell her the reason why the funding has not been made available
yet is that the federation did not give us the evaluation reports at
the time it should have.
Obviously this matter will be resolved as soon as the
evaluations are evaluated.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, will the
Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the delay in the payment
of the federal grant jeopardizes the operation of these women
groups, including the Fédération des femmes du Québec, whose
line of credit request was turned down by a financial institution?
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, it
is extremely important that we review the evaluation but since
the hon. member is extremely concerned about the
government's commitment to women, a quick reading of the
budget will illustrate to the hon. member that women's
programs were not cut.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, we have learned that a Canadian Hercules aircraft was
attacked yesterday in Kigali.
[English]
Can the Minister of National Defence inform this House on
the status of the Canadian forces airlift operations in Rwanda?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, in response to the member's question, I wish to inform
the House that yesterday, June 5, the Kigali airport came under
artillery fire during the unloading of a Hercules aircraft. The
operation was ceased and the aircraft took off, returned to its
base in safety, and there were no injuries nor any damage to the
aircraft.
The airlift has been suspended until the investigation into this
incident has been completed and assurances given from both
sides that the safety of the airlift operation will be respected.
I also want to inform the House that Canadian forces right
now are providing the only airlift into and out of the airport in
Kigali and it is the only means of communications right now into
and out of Rwanda. I want to report that they have airlifted 1,600
people to safety to date and continue to do their job, as they do in
other peacekeeping operations, with professionalism and in this
case with outstanding service to an essential operation.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.
4863
Last week in this House the minister refused to release the
terms of reference for the national health forum. The minister
said: ``The terms of reference of the forum will be released when
we are ready to release them''.
If the minister is truly interested in using the national forum
to stimulate a nation-wide debate on the future of our health
care system which is currently falling to pieces, why is she
unwilling to release the terms of reference?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are trying to work as closely as possible with the provinces in
order to accommodate their role.
It is very important that we do our very best to make sure they
participate in this forum, to make sure it is as effective as we
would like it to be. We will be releasing the terms of reference
very shortly.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, this health forum seems to be a bit of a farce. The Prime
Minister says one thing, the Minister of Health says something
else. The terms of reference were supposed to be released. They
have not been.
What, if anything, specifically does the minister know about
this health forum? What are its terms of reference? When is it
going to be?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as
much as the Reform Party would like to set the agenda, we set
the agenda. If the hon. member wants to know more about the
forum on health perhaps he should read the red book for starters.
We are continuing to negotiate. The Prime Minister and I are
working very closely on the health forum because we think it is a
very important exercise. We will, when we are ready, release the
terms of reference.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. After trying for days
to convene talks on a permanent ceasefire in the former
Yugoslavia, the special envoy of the Secretary General of the
United Nations decided yesterday to abandon his efforts aimed
at bringing together all of Bosnia's warring factions in Geneva.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the United
Nations and the great powers have failed in their diplomatic
efforts to get the parties involved in the conflict in the former
Yugoslavia to negotiate a lasting ceasefire in
Bosnia-Hercegovina?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the
diplomatic efforts that are being made. We are also aware that
the best way to solve these problems is through negotiations,
and that is exactly the avenue that we are pursuing with our
Minister of Foreign Affairs.
(1440)
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, can the
Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the United Nations and the great
powers intend to propose new peace initiatives in
Bosnia-Hercegovina?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Canadian
government is very concerned about the situation there. We are
anxious to pursue a negotiated settlement.
We have, along with other members in the United Nations,
been sending very strong messages to the belligerents that we
would like to see the ceasefire hold. Obviously the foreign
minister, who is now in Europe, will be dealing very specifically
at the negotiating level with these issues.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On Friday the minister said the decision to offer space for the
Canadian Vietnam veterans memorial in the capital region is to
be taken by the National Capital Commission.
However, we have been told by the NCC that if the minister or
cabinet so instructs, the NCC will give permission for such a
memorial.
This government has the authority to make this decision if it
so desires. Will the minister take action now to ensure that the
NCC will make available a site for the Canadian Vietnam
veterans memorial?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
take note of the member's question and will relay his request to
the minister.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, I
would just like to make it plain that over 10,000 Canadians
served in the American forces in Vietnam; hundreds of them lost
their lives.
Canadians have placed a memorial at Arlington to honour
Americans who served in the Canadian Armed Forces during the
second world war. We would like the minister to allow
Americans to honour Canadians who served with the American
forces in Vietnam.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
4864
In recent days questions have arisen about the tuna fishery and
especially about Japanese involvement in this fishery.
Does this government intend to permit a Japanese tuna fishery
in 1994 in Canadian waters?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the panel on the use of foreign vessels in Canadian
waters, otherwise known as the Harris panel, met in Halifax last
week and heard representation from appropriate members of the
appropriate gear sectors in Nova Scotia. The panel's advice or
recommendations will be forthcoming to me in the next few
days at which time I will make a decision.
Let me remind the House that the Japanese have been taking a
share of an international tuna quota in Canadian waters with
Canadian consent since 1977. Canada enjoys an excellent
relationship with the people and government of Japan. All of
this will be taken into consideration in making our decision this
year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
On May 31 last, the Minister announced that the government
would allocate $55 million for the development of an
advertising campaign aimed mostly at young people to make
them aware of the damaging effects of tobacco.
Can the Minister of Health tell us whether the government
intends to call for tenders for a $55 million advertising contract,
or are we to understand that the McKim Communications
agency will be responsible for this advertising campaign
through the extension of its previous contract?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, for
the moment, we are working with our provincial counterparts
and with anti-tobacco groups to develop a campaign which will
really do the job we want it to do. We have not yet decided how
we will proceed.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, before
investing $55 million in a new advertising campaign with an
agency very well known to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, what new guarantees of success does the Minister
now have, since the last campaign, as she admitted herself, has
been a complete failure?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in
terms of advertising to convince people not to take up smoking
or to quit smoking, some campaigns work better than others.
That is not to say they all fail.
In terms of our own anti-smoking campaigns in times of very
tough money, we are working closely with all groups, the
non-smokers groups and the provincial ministries, to make sure
we work together to most effectively use those dollars, to most
effectively convince young people especially not to take up
smoking.
* * *
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture. The
minister has promised farmers that he will consider holding a
plebiscite on the matter of barley marketing. He has said that
representation should be made to him regarding ideas on how to
organize such a plebiscite.
The minister has now had such representations. Could he
inform the House of his assessment of those recommendations
and if he will now support a plebiscite?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, the matter has been
before the government as we know for some time and before the
previous government as well.
Some players and some stakeholders in the industry have
responded to the six questions the minister put out with their
answers and their suggestions. The minister is reviewing them at
the present time in full consultation with the industry as he is
doing so.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister support the existing system of the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly on barley sales, or does he see
merit in allowing individual farmers and grain companies to
market barley and barley products directly?
In a simple yes or no I would ask: Should not farmers have the
freedom to choose?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, the government
supports very strongly orderly marketing systems. We will work
with the industry to continue the success of orderly marketing
systems in the country for agricultural products so that farmers
and Canadians can benefit from them in the future as they have
in the past.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
4865
Today we are all very much aware of the role that Canada has
played in fostering democracy in the world and the price that
Canada has paid.
Yesterday, June 5, was the fifth anniversary of the massacre in
Tiananmen Square in Beijing. According to Amnesty
International there continues to be very serious human rights
violations in China. There were over 1,400 executions last year.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister's government have a specific
plan to pursue the human rights abuses with China on either a
national or a multilateral level?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government
of Canada like other governments around the world is concerned
about human rights violations wherever they occur, whether it
be China, Haiti, Cuba or any other country around the world. We
would hope national governments could be encouraged to
respect democracy, something that unfortunately does not exist
in any of the three nations I mentioned.
We are working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and
with other parliamentarians to ensure that while we press for a
strong position on human rights we keep the dialogue going.
There must be a balanced approach in terms of keeping the doors
and the lines of communication open while at the same time
recognizing that to join the world community one should respect
human rights.
I think that has been an integral part of our message on human
rights in relation to foreign affairs.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I say to the
Deputy Prime Minister that we all hope there will not be human
rights violations in the world.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister's government have a specific
plan at multilateral trade talks to raise human rights issues
beyond simply hoping that it will change and to express positive
views about that?
(1450 )
In the past, I remind the Deputy Prime Minister, Canada has
taken action on boycotts or embargoes. Does her government
have a specific plan on the issue?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, obviously any policy the
government advocates is going to be striking the proper balance
between normalization in keeping the lines of communication
open and emphasizing our commitment to human rights.
I know her colleague, Premier Bob Rae, when he spoke out
last week in concern of normalization, obviously reflected that
same balance in foreign affairs.
I am sure the hon. member already knows, because she has a
longstanding interest in the issue, that one of the reasons as a
first act of government we launched the foreign policy review
was specifically that we wanted to get the input of Canadians,
Canadian premiers like Bob Rae and the views of ordinary
Canadians, to make sure that when our final foreign policy
review analysis was tabled in October it would reflect that
proper balance.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. A few days ago, some
federal public servants received, at their place of work, a letter
signed by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, asking them to contribute
financially to the Liberal Party of Canada.
You will recall that the same member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell complained about such a
practice when used by the Conservatives in 1986. Could the
Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends
to ask Liberal members to apologize to civil servants who might
have received, at their place of work, letters asking them to
contribute to the Liberal Party of Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the hon.
member accepts last week's statement by the Prime Minister's
Office to the effect that these letters were sent by mistake. There
was never any intention of putting pressure on public servants
and that is why the Prime Minister's Office itself stated that
these letters were sent by mistake.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Supplementary, Mr.
Speaker. Would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that the
government should introduce legislation limiting party
financing to voter contributions, that is to say excluding
corporate donations, the way it has been in Quebec for 17 years?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the
hon. member was a legitimate question. He asked whether there
was any intent to force public servants into contributions that
they should not be making.
The answer is no, clear and simple. There is no intent to twist
anybody's arm or indeed to have any direct contact with public
servants. It was a mistake made because we purchased a list
from a private company.
I would hope the member would honour the fact that a mistake
was made. We apologized for the mistake we made. We said to
every public servant across the country: ``Don't feel compelled
to respond to this letter that was sent in error''.
4866
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls): Mr. Speaker, my
question is addressed to the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of agriculture.
The tender fruit industry is presently experiencing trying
times and it has asked the minister to recognize its plight and to
come to its aid before we lose some of the best agricultural land
in Ontario and indeed in Canada.
Is the parliamentary secretary ready to give some assurances
to the tender fruit growers in the Niagara Peninsula?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, the government
recognizes full well the importance of the Ontario tender fruit
industry. I emphasize the fact and stress that the industry has
about $25 million in commercial sales a year.
The industry presented the government recently with a
document entitled ``Partnership for a Revitalized Ontario
Tender Fruit Industry''. That document is under review by the
staff of the department.
As recently as this morning I met with a number of
department personnel to discuss that. I can assure the hon.
member and the industry that we will be meeting in the very near
future with the industry participants to work together to
strengthen and revitalize the industry.
* * *
(1455 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice regarding the FAC or
firearms acquisition certificate. I have a question from members
of my constituency wondering about training personnel to
administer the courses.
Could the minister assure us that he does have personnel in
place to teach the courses because the courses are mandatory?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, in each of the provinces
there are people who have been trained to give the courses to
ensure that those who make application for the FAC can be
prepared for the course requirements.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, it has
come to my attention that there are factual errors in the
handbook or the manual that has come out. I would ask the
minister to check that out. Firearms experts in my constituency
say there are factual errors in that.
I have a supplementary question for the minister. In terms of
setting the fee for this particular course we have heard anywhere
from $75 for the course up to $200 and $300. Is the actual
amount of the fee for the course mandatory, or is it up to the
trainers' jurisdiction or their personal preference?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have been assured that the
contents of the course are complete and accurate, but in view of
the statement made by the hon. member I will make further
inquiries of the department to ensure that is so. I will let her
know what I learn as a result of those inquiries.
So far as the fees are concerned, the fees are actually
prescribed by the provinces on the basis of cost recovery. I can
again research further detail on that and let the hon. member
know in writing what the details are. However the principle is
cost recovery and the amounts are set by the provinces.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the mistake
the government made when it decided to close the Collège
militaire royal in Saint-Jean and transfer the students to
Kingston is obviously turning into a nightmare. The expected
savings will not materialize and might even be offset by
renovation costs.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of National Defence. Can he confirm whether RMC officials in
Kingston are planning major renovations to accommodate
students from Saint-Jean and offer special courses which are
available in Saint-Jean but not in Kingston?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned, I personally
checked today to see if the statements published this week-end
in Le Devoir were correct.
According to National Defence officials they are incorrect
and there is no plan to spend $50 or $75 million in Kingston.
Furthermore, they indicated that the area where the cadets have
their meals was being upgraded, but that the work had been
approved by the previous government as part of a larger
renovation project which had been planned before it was
decided to close the Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean.
Therefore, no new money has been allocated to transfer the
cadets from Saint-Jean to Kingston.
4867
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Agriculture. Last December, certain pessimists took
delight in saying that the future of supply management in
Canada was doomed. Obviously, the truth was quite another
story.
Can the parliamentary secretary give this House some idea of
the long-term projections for this industry? Can he also give us
a status report on his department's review of supply
management?
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food): Mr. Speaker, yes, I am able to
report, as we know, that a task force was established in January
to discuss with all stakeholders in the industry the future of
supply management and orderly marketing in those sectors in
Canada.
Those meetings have been taking place. The five commodity
committees are meeting on a regular basis. I am proud and
pleased to say that all stakeholders in the industry are taking part
in those discussions. We will be reporting the very optimistic
results of those discussions. The industry will be prepared to
meet the challenges and the opportunities of the Uruguay round
of GATT negotiations when they are implemented in 1995.
_____________________________________________
4867
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1500)
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago today boys
became men. Fifty years ago today men became heroes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I was there this morning with all other hon.
members who felt an incredible pride when the national anthem
O Canada was sung everywhere for those who worked for
democracy in Canada 50 years ago.
[English]
D-Day began the Normandy campaign. The Normandy
campaign began the liberation of Europe.
Today we honour the 14,000 young soldiers who landed on
Juno Beach. We honour the 1,000 who were killed during that
landing and we honour the combined efforts of millions of
women and men who sacrificed terribly for five years to end the
scourge of Nazism.
The Regina Rifle Regiment, the Canadian Scottish Regiment,
the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, le régiment de la Chaudière, the
North Shore (New Brunswick) Regiment, the Queen's Own
Rifles of Canada, the Stormont Dundas Glengarry Highlanders,
the North Nova Scotia Islanders, the Highland Light Infantry,
the Cameron Islanders of Ottawa, the First Canadian Parachute
Battalion, les Fusilliers de Sherbrooke, the Fort Garry Horse
Regiment and the Sixth Armoured Division.
The names ring of history but the landing on the beach of
Normandy was not the romance of history books. War is not
romantic. Real human beings died on the beach. Real human
beings died in the frigid channel. Real human beings died on the
barbed wire. Real human beings lost husbands, fathers, brothers
and friends. Real human beings lost their children.
Many of us alive today have no memories of D-Day and yet
we must remember. To paraphrase the Prime Minister speaking
this morning as he did so eloquently in Normandy: ``They didn't
ask us if we were Quebecers, Ontarians, westerners, easterners;
they didn't ask us what language we spoke when they called us
to the service of our country, and we responded literally by the
hundreds of thousands''.
[Translation]
Yes, I was proud this morning. I was proud to hear O Canada,
which symbolizes democracy because of everyone who died 50
years ago. Very few of us will ever be called upon to display as
much courage as our soldiers on the beaches of Normandy.
My great-grandfather, an Acadian whose name was
Gaudreault and who died in the First World War, the Magdalen
Islanders and people from all over rallied to the cause of
democracy and represented Canada with incredible pride. Very
few of us will have to choose to give our lives for others'
freedom.
(1505)
[English]
The liberty to speak out; the liberty to separate; the liberty to
exercise democracy in a way that Canada has shown both at
Dieppe and on D-Day and over the years that they did not die in
vain.
[Translation]
As we celebrate the decisive battle for the liberation of
Europe, we praise the survivors and we mourn the dead.
[English]
It would be wrong to imagine that victory was foreordained.
The war was not a book or a movie in which the good guys were
bound to win. Except for the bravery of our soldiers and our
allies, we could be living under the swastika today. Our soldiers
faced down a criminal regime which deliberately murdered
millions of people.
4868
The efforts of 50 years ago set the foundation for peace and
unity in Europe and the democracy that we experience in our
country today.
[Translation]
Our way of life, our prosperity, our pride in being Canadian,
our being ranked first among all coutries in the world, our
individual and collective freedom, our sense of international
community were built on the determination of all those soldiers
who had to land in the icy waters of the English Channel on June
6, 1944. Thanks to them, the Gaudreaults, the Baldwins and the
Clancys, thanks to them, we have made tremendous strides in
the past fifty years and forged solid ties of friendship with other
peoples.
[English]
The great danger is the belief it could never happen again. The
sad reality is that today in many places throughout the world
forces of great evil are in control and are continuing to slaughter
innocent people. Hundreds of millions of human beings on our
earth remain deprived of the most basic human rights.
[Translation]
Hundreds of millions of human beings in this world are
deprived of the most basic human rights. Hundreds of millions
of our brothers and sisters live under tyrannical and murderous
regimes.
[English]
The vigil for peace must be constant. We pay true honour to
our heroes only if we use the lessons of the past to guide us into
the future. We pay true honour to our heroes only if we
understand that liberty and freedom can never be taken for
granted.
We pause today for a few moments of reflection out of
respect, but our obligations remain for a lifetime. Our duty is to
pass on to coming generations the principles for which our
armed forces fought on D-Day.
Throughout Canada today children prepare for their summer
vacations and their trips to the beach without a care because 50
years ago soldiers, barely older than children, put their lives on
the line on the beaches of Normandy. People gave up their youth
to safeguard the future of young people.
We say prayers for those who lost their lives and we offer
thanks to those who survived. However, we remember that the
soldiers at Normandy did not fight just so that we could say a
few words of thanks. They fought to give us a chance to build a
better world. Our true thanks can only come through our actions
in offering future generations the same opportunities that they
gave to us.
We can best pay tribute for the sacrifices made 50 years ago if
we keep faith with the ideals that inspired those sacrifices.
[Translation]
Sometimes democracy hurts.
[English]
Sometimes democracy and free speech hurt. Sometimes they
hurt people who are concerned about the future of their country,
but the reality is that what Normandy gave us 50 years ago is the
opportunity to stand in this place and fight for the survival of our
country or for its breakup. The reality of what those soldiers did
on D-Day was to bring to Canada a real sense of liberation that
says: ``Whatever your views, whatever your opinions, whatever
your agenda, we welcome them'' because that is the democracy
for which they fought.
(1510)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the ceremonies taking place here today and elsewhere
are an expression of the gratitude we feel as well as an
opportunity for us to reflect on the meaning of June 6, 1944, and
on the lessons to be learned from that fateful day on which the
largest military operation of all time unfolded.
The word gratitude does not begin to convey the full measure
of the debt we owe to the 5,000 Canadians of all origins and to
the tens of thousands of allied soldiers who selflessly made the
supreme sacrifice during the battle of Normandy.
Words can never express the debt we owe to those lying
silently in the cemeteries doting the coast along the landing
beaches, their graves marked by white crosses and bearing
inscriptions which tell the tale of 20-year-old boys who died in
the name of democracy and freedom.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to their fellow soldiers who
survived the fury of battle. They returned home to their families
carrying with them the memory of their fallen comrades. How
can we not think of the mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters,
widows and betrothed, and orphaned sons and daughters left to
grieve for those buried on foreign soil? Their pain, sacrifices
and selfless actions were made greater by the reasons that
inspired them. On this day, we must also remember the nurses
who worked in the hospitals on the front, as well as all those who
toiled in the factories and plants.
The importance of the Allied landings in Normandy cannot be
overstated. The invasion marked the beginning of the final
assault by the Allied forces on Berlin. Forced to defend itself on
two fronts, Hitler's army surrendered less than one year later,
shortly after our troops linked up with Soviet divisions.
The success of the landing in France clearly demonstrated the
combined industrial might of the United States, Great Britain
and Canada. Above all, it was an expression of democratic
solidarity. Hearts and minds were mobilized in the quest to
4869
defend the principles of freedom that underlie all truly
democratic societies.
At a time when the very principle of our collective allegiance
was threatened, our citizens rallied to take up arms. The threat
must have been perceived as great indeed for a people as
fundamentally peaceful as we are to become involved as we did
in the most devastating armed conflict in history.
The determination was also great to erase the threat of any
future conflict. If there is one view shared by all veterans who
are haunted by the terrible atrocities they witnessed, it is their
condemnation of war.
We owe more than mere gratitude and admiration to those
who lay down their life or endured terrible suffering. We have a
duty to them to remember, because it is by remembering the
horror of war that we will remain vigilant defenders of peace.
[English]
It is with gratitude and humility that I pay tribute to the
Canadian men and women of every background, race, religion,
language and political persuasion who laid down their lives in
Europe, or lost their friends and comrades and returned to
Canada, some maimed, and all forever marked by an experience
of tragedy and a knowledge of bravery and sacrifice of a kind
rarely encountered in our times.
In remembering the sacrifices made on D-Day, let us resolve
once more to honour the memory of the men and women who
fought against fascism by continuing in our day the struggle for
democracy and human rights. In order that the spirit of
democracy be allowed to flourish, and not simply its structures,
I would wish for us all throughout the coming years the
understanding and sensitivity that we perhaps experience in
heightened degree on occasions such as this when we remember,
above all, our shared values and common democratic goals.
(1515 )
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, on
the sixth of June, 1944 Canadians joined allied forces in the
assault on Festung Europa, Fortress Europe, a continent held for
more than four years in the iron grip of the Axis forces: Adolf
Hitler's Third Reich and Benito Mussolini's fascist regime.
Prior to the D-Day invasion Canadians had twice been
engaged against the Axis: at Dieppe on August 19, 1942 and in
the Italian campaign which started with the invasion of Sicily on
July 10, 1943.
In these previous actions Canadians took heavy casualties but
established themselves as a formidable adversary; determined,
courageous and effective fighting troops, respected and feared
by their opponents.
On D-Day the five Normandy beaches to be assaulted were
designated Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword. On this, the
longest day, more than 150,000 allied soldiers would complete
their crossing from England to occupied France.
Inland over 23,000 U.S. paratroopers had jumped into battle
while another 57,000 American soldiers landed on the beaches
designated Utah and Omaha.
Concurrently British and Canadian troops had jumped or
landed in gliders while 60,000 British and 15,000 Canadian
troops joined the assault on the beaches, the British on Gold and
Sword while the Canadian came ashore on Juno. Thus, one in ten
of the allied forces landed in the D-Day invasion was Canadian.
This ratio carried through to the total Canadian population
with over one million of Canada's 11 million people in uniform
and behind them was a Canadian public committed to supporting
the war effort. Canadians were united in rejecting the
totalitarian forces of Germany, Italy and Japan, a regime which
had it not been effectively opposed would have subjected the
world to a reign of terror, discrimination and oppression.
Canada's D-Day success resulted from a combined effort of
navy, army and air force units, 109 ships and 10,000 sailors,
15,000 soldiers and 37 RCAF squadrons working as a team.
Canadians achieved two firsts during the Normandy
campaign. The Canadian 7th Brigade was the first formation to
reach its D-Day goal, and 441, 442 and 443 squadrons RCAF
were the first to commence air operations from French soil since
the allied 1940 withdrawal from France.
The Canadians who went ashore at Dieppe, at Pachino, at
Normandy and those who fought to liberate the rest of Europe
considered themselves ordinary people but they were willing to
jeopardize their all to support a cause in which they believed.
I want to conclude with a quote from Jack Granatstein's book,
Normandy, 1944 where, speaking of Canadians who landed on
D-Day, it is said:
They were not all saints. They were not all heroes. But there were saints and
heroes among them. Remember them and remember their achievements.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I
could have the unanimous consent of the House to speak on this
occasion on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my
thanks to colleagues for agreeing to my request.
I think it is only appropriate on the 50th anniversary of D-Day
that we have an opportunity to reflect in the House and across
the country, to gather together all those feelings and thoughts
and reflections that we have had over the last few years as a
number of different 50th anniversaries have come to us as a
result of the 1990s.
4870
I think of the 50th anniversary of Dieppe, the 50th anniversary
of the Italy campaign, the 50th anniversary of Hong Kong, the
Battle of the Atlantic, and all the other campaigns and battles in
which Canadians participated with equal courage.
(1520 )
Today is the 50th anniversary of D-Day and something which
I think brings it all together because this was the last big push;
this was the beginning of the end.
I am very glad to be able to rise on behalf of my colleagues in
the NDP caucus to express our appreciation for the men and
women who participated in the D-Day landings and to extend
our warmest wishes to all the survivors who are here today in
Ottawa and overseas with the Prime Minister.
I would like to particularly mention, if I might be parochial
for a minute, the two Winnipeg regiments that participated in the
D-Day landing, the Fort Gary Horse and the Royal Winnipeg
Rifles.
Finally, as a young person I had an opportunity to go to
Europe. The people of my generation went with packsacks on
their backs, Canadian flags on their backs, hitchhiking or
bicycling as the case may be. I first came face to face with the
sacrifice that young Canadians of a previous generation made
when I was cycling through Holland in May 1971. I saw a big
cross and a monument. My friend and I stopped. We had a good
look. It turned out we were in a placed called Bergen-op-Zoom.
There is a Canadian war cemetery with about 2,000 Canadians
buried there.
We started to look around and seeing it was a Canadian war
cemetery, we started to look at all the different headstones. It
struck us, as we were 19 at the time, that most of the men lying
there were the same age as we were. We could not leave until we
had visited every grave. It took us a number of hours. We were
captured by the weight of the images before us.
Ten years later as a member of Parliament I had an occasion to
go to another Canadian war cemetery in Edegem. It struck me
then, as it struck me when I returned again when I was 40 to
Vimy, how really young these men were. I did not know how
young they were the first time I was in a Canadian war cemetery
because I was the same age as they were. Having looked again
when I was 30 and again when I was 40, I realize what these
people gave up and what they sacrificed. That is what we
remember here today.
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce today on behalf of
the President of the Treasury Board that the federal government
is lifting the freeze on the amount of grants in lieu of taxes which
agent crown corporations pay to municipalities across Canada.
The decision to lift the freeze that applies to properties owned
by agent crown corporations such as Canada Post and the CBC is
retroactive to January 1, 1994.
[Translation]
The federal government's objective was to remove a major
irritant in relations between municipalities and the federal
government. This is the area in which municipalities have not
collected their fair share of realty taxes since 1992. The amount
available for paying these grants in lieu of taxes had been frozen
since an announcement by the previous federal government.
[English]
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services will
undertake a review of the municipal grants program so as to
ensure that the fiscal relationship between the federal
government and the municipalities is stable and predictable.
Finally, the federal government expects to face severe fiscal
constraints in its 1995 budget. Municipalities have been asked
to recognize this and refrain from taking advantage of the lifting
of the freeze by targeting crown corporation properties for tax
increases.
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, it is normal
for the federal government to give grants to municipalities in
return for their services to Crown corporations. To lift the freeze
on these grants and continue to index them to inflation is only
fair and should always have been done in the past.
The Minister of Finance tells us that the government expects
to face severe fiscal constraints in its 1995 budget. His
statement contains no surprise. Given the 1994 budget plan, all
Canadian taxpayers will face harsh financial realities in 1995.
What is really needed is a global and comprehensive review of
the tax system and of all federal government spending, instead
of what is being proposed today in the minister's statement.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
extend a compliment, although a qualified one, to the Minister
of Finance for today's announcement regarding the lifting of the
freeze on grants in lieu of taxes that crown corporations pay to
municipalities.
Certainly governments should live up to their tax
responsibilities if they expect the public to do so, especially
since the Minister of National Revenue and taxation has just
raised the interest from 6 per cent to 8 per cent on late payments
on income tax payments.
4871
Recently higher levels of government have been accused of
passing on the burden of fiscal restraint to lower levels. It is nice
to see the situation changed in this instance. Now if only the
federal government would take the same attitude toward such
things as maintaining funding for health care, another source of
intergovernmental dispute might disappear, or if it cannot, allow
provinces some flexibility.
One small comment in the minister's announcement does
however cause me a bit of concern and that is his comment that
the federal government expects to face severe fiscal constraints
in its 1995 budget.
I wonder if this is the same minister who has been assuring
this House and the Canadian public for months now that the
government will meets its budget targets, it will reduce the
deficit to 3 per cent of GDP, and it will create jobs for everyone,
and yes everything is coming up roses. Has he looked at the
interest rates lately?
I look forward to hearing just what kind of fiscal constraints
the minister expects so the Canadian taxpayer can have an idea
of what to expect as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts.
In addition to its annual report and the special reports
provided for in section 8(1), the Auditor General should be
allowed to present to the House up to three additional reports a
year. We also recommend that the Auditor General send a
detailed advance notice to the Speaker of the House. The
additional report would be submitted to the Speaker of the
House on the 30th day following the advance notice.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-255, an act to amend the Auditor
General Act (approval of appropriations for the office of the
Auditor General and an audit of the office of the Auditor
General).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that the public
accounts committee of the House of Commons would be
responsible in future for examining the annual estimates
provided by the office of the Auditor General, and where the
committee approves the estimates the chairman of the
committee will transmit them to the President of the Treasury
Board who will lay them in front of the House of Commons as
government business.
This bill also provides that the public accounts committee
will be responsible for appointing a qualified auditor to examine
the operations of the office of the Auditor General every five
years.
This bill is very interesting. It gives this House a say. It gives
this House credibility. It will give Canadians accountability.
(1530 )
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, the right
to petition is one of the oldest rights of Canadians. On behalf of
my constituents I table a petition asking the Minister of Justice
not to go ahead with the same sex rights with regard to the
human rights bill.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present this petition on
behalf of my constituents in Crowfoot.
The petitioners believe that if section 241 of the Criminal
Code were struck down or amended, the protection of the most
vulnerable members of society would no longer exist and the
disabled, the terminally ill, the depressed, the chronically ill and
the elderly would feel an implied pressure to end their lives.
They are therefore asking that Parliament not repeal or amend
section 241 in any way and to uphold the Supreme Court of
Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted
suicide.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker,
I present this petition on behalf of a number of constituents in
my riding. They are asking that we amend the laws of Canada.
They petition the House of Commons and Parliament
assembled to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards in
law and to advise producers of killer cards that their product if
destined for Canada will be seized and destroyed.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
two petitions today, both of which I would like to say that I
personally support.
4872
In the first one, the petitioners are saying: ``Wherefore the
undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray upon Parliament to
enact legislation that would give protection in law to pre-born
human beings and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever
pray''. There are several names on the petitions.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, the second duly certified petition which I support states
that section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada states:
``Everyone who counsels a person to commit suicide or aids or
abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment of a
term not exceeding 14 years''.
The humble petitioners therefore pray that Parliament not
repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way
and to uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of
September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions be allowed to
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that
because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be
extended by 26 minutes pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).
_____________________________________________
4872
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1535)
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved that Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce debate on
second reading with respect to Bill C-37.
In beginning may I observe that last week the government
took steps to improve the youth justice system in Canada, both
in terms of immediate and long term changes to the justice
system for young people. By introducing Bill C-37 the
government addressed the very real public concerns about
crimes of violence by youths in Canada.
The government recognizes the importance of public
protection in the justice system, but it recognizes that protection
of the public is best achieved through the rehabilitation of
offenders wherever possible.
The government emphasized the accountability aspect of the
justice system and at the same time, it fulfilled commitments it
had given to the electorate last year during the election
campaign.
[Translation]
All Canadians want to raise their children in safe and
crime-free communities. But we do not always agree on the best
way to reach our goal.
There is no miracle solution, no panacea. However, I believe
that this bill represents a step in the right direction, a better way
for the federal government to deal with young offenders,
especially those guilty of serious offences.
[English]
I wish to touch upon the essential elements of Bill C-37 as I
introduce second reading debate in this Chamber. As I do so,
may I invite the attention of hon. members to the balancing
aspects of the legislation, to the distinctions it draws between
for example, violent and non-violent crime, and between young
offenders in different parts of the age groups covered by the
legislation. I ask hon. members to agree that those distinctions
based on a rational assessment of risk and of need are an
appropriate adjustment for the youth justice system in Canada.
I deal first with maximum penalties for murder. Bill C-37
would increase to 10 years in the case of first degree murder and
to seven years in the case of second degree murder the maximum
penalties in youth court for those convicted there of murder.
This change is motivated by an acknowledgement on the part of
this government that Canadians recognize that the present
maximum penalty for first degree murder of five years is simply
not sufficient to reflect society's abhorrence and condemnation
of what is simply the most serious single criminal act.
[Translation]
By toughening up sentences, we give a clear indication to our
young people that serious offences also have very serious
consequences, whether they come before a youth court or an
adult court.
[English]
The second significant change introduced by Bill C-37 has to
do with those 16 and 17-year old young people who are charged
with the most serious crimes of violence. The bill would adjust
the present transfer provisions in dealing with those young
persons so as to obligate them to satisfy the youth court judge
that their trials should be held in youth court. Failure on the part
of such persons to persuade the judge would result in their being
4873
tried in adult court and facing the sanctions which the criminal
law provides in adult court.
I ask members of the House to observe that this is not an
automatic treatment of 16 and 17-year olds in the youth justice
system. We do not favour an automatic transfer of people in that
age group. Rather it is simply a reverse onus for the test on
transfer that exists at present, obligating those persons of that
age when charged with the proscribed crimes to bear the burden
of persuading the youth court judge that they should remain in
the youth court.
(1540)
The offences in respect of which this changed onus applies
are: murder in the first and second degree; attempted murder;
manslaughter; aggravated sexual assault; and aggravated
assault. Simply, it applies to the most serious crimes of personal
violence in the code.
Our purpose in proposing this change to the transfer provision
is to reflect the belief of this government that when alleged
offenders at the highest ages of the age range covered by the act
are accused of crimes of the most serious violence, then they
should bear the burden of establishing their entitlement to be
tried and sentenced in youth court.
The third change to which I would draw the attention of the
House has to do with victim impact statements. As I met with
victims and their families over the last several months, I was
impressed with the extent to which such persons want to have a
role in the administration of criminal justice, particularly youth
justice, that permits an acknowledgement of their pain and their
loss. By introducing in youth court the same opening for the
filing of victim impact statements in the sentencing process as
exists at present in criminal courts generally, we will extend that
right to victims and their families.
The next change of significance has to do with the sharing of
information. The changes we propose will enable peace officers
and the provincial director for youth justice and other
appropriate authorities to share with school boards, schools or
other institutions or agencies, information about young people
involved in the criminal justice system.
[Translation]
The current provisions have had the unintended result of
impeding the communication and sharing of information
between experts working with young offenders, such as police
officers and school authorities.
[English]
I have been persuaded from my meetings with members of
police forces, school board trustees, high school principals,
worried parents, indeed young people themselves, that the
structure and the scheme in place at present often works against
the kind of partnerships we need in society to deal with the threat
of youth crime, to deal more effectively with protecting students
and staff and others when young people are prone to violence.
The changes we propose will enable the sharing of information
responsibly so as to overcome that structural difficulty.
The new system proposed in Bill C-37 will require the
recipient of information, for example the principal or the
official in the school, to keep that information private. It will be
shared only with those with whom it must be shared for the
purpose of putting precautions in place. It will be kept separate
on file from the educational record of the young person, and then
the information will be destroyed when the young person has
left the jurisdiction, for example of the school board.
The next change to which I wish to refer has to do with the way
in which Bill C-37 affects the manner in which the courts
respond to non-violent crime by those covered by the Young
Offenders Act.
[Translation]
Adolescents who are guilty of minor infractions should
assume concrete responsibility for their acts and repair the
damage done to their community whenever possible.
(1545 )
[English]
For us the emphasis should be and must be upon non-jail
sentences for young offenders who commit non-violent crimes.
Some 10 years ago, when the Young Offenders Act was
drafted, introduced, debated, enacted and proclaimed, the stated
expectation was that the emphasis for young people caught up in
the criminal justice system would be on community based,
positive, rehabilitative dispositions so that they were not sent to
custody and nothing more. The emphasis was to be on
restorative justice so that young persons who made mistakes
would be punished and corrected but could learn from it through
a community based program involving supervision to get them
back on track.
For the most part that promise has not been fulfilled. In fact
the level and extent of custody as a sentence for young offenders
are vastly higher than first expected. Over 30 per cent of those
young offenders found guilty in youth court receive a sentence
involving custody. Over half those in custody are there for
non-violent crime.
Studies establish the outcomes for those held in custody are
not as good as for those who are not. At the same time the cost of
custody vastly outweighs the cost of other dispositions. Over
$350 million a year is spent in the youth justice system on the
costs of custody nation-wide.
4874
The federal government which contributes $160 million a
year to youth justice finds that $130 million of that sum goes to
help defray the cost of custody. The Department of Justice
estimates that it costs somewhere between $70,000 and
$100,000 a year to keep a young person in custody.
Surely the direction we must take is that plotted by Bill C-37
in this respect which emphasizes that in cases involving
non-violent crime jail as a penalty must be a last resort. The
emphasis in that direction flowing from the bill arises by the
provisions that require those who prepare reports about young
offenders, predisposition reports for example, to explain if they
are recommending a custody term why all other dispositions are
inappropriate. They call upon the judge sentencing the young
offender to resort to custody only when other dispositions are
not appropriate. Then they call upon the judge to state the
reasons, if custody is the sentence, why other dispositions are
not appropriate or available.
If we shift the focus through these changes in the statutory
framework and if we follow up on this initiative in working with
our partners in the provinces to ensure community based
dispositions are there in a meaningful way, we will surely turn
the page to a better day for youth justice in the country.
We encourage community based dispositions in the statute.
These changes will advance that encouragement. Hopefully the
money saved with the reduction in custody costs can be devoted
toward the development, the funding and the administration of
positive and helpful community based dispositions for
non-violent young offenders.
Let me now turn to the question of records.
[Translation]
Through this bill, we are proposing changes, for example, to
the provisions on offenders' records. These amendments will
facilitate the difficult work of police officers who conduct
inquiries concerning these offences, and they will enable
authorities to retain for a longer period the criminal record of
young offenders who are found guilty of serious crimes.
[English]
Surely the provisions with respect to records in Bill C-37
reflect common sense. Those young offenders who are
convicted of minor infractions or the less serious offences for
the first time should have their records kept for a shorter period
so as not to stigmatize them or interfere with efforts to advance
their education or their employment. At the same time those
who commit serious offences should have their records retained
for a longer period, and in the most serious offences some
forever.
(1550)
Those are some of the principal changes proposed in Bill
C-37. I also emphasize that the bill must be seen in the context
of the general parliamentary review we have initiated through
my letter last week to the chair of the House Standing
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
In that letter I asked the chair of the standing committee, after
considering and reporting to Parliament with respect to the bill,
to undertake a comprehensive review of the Young Offenders
Act and of the youth justice system in Canada in general; to look
at present social circumstances; to examine our experience with
the Young Offenders Act during the past 10 years; to engage
Canadians in the discussion; to hear from a wide spectrum of
persons with experience with the act; to examine how the youth
justice system in general could be improved; to look at the cost,
the purpose and the principles of the present act; to determine
how to weave our priority for crime prevention into the system;
to comment on how the youth justice system should reflect the
changes we are considering in connection with special program
review, on how we can get parents more involved in juvenile
justice, and on how best to restore and enhance public
confidence in the youth justice system.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this review is essential, to allow for a more
thorough examination of other aspects of the act and to get the
public's reaction on juvenile delinquency in general.
[English]
It is essential that Canadians be involved in the process of
reassessing this statute. As I made clear in my letter to the chair
of the standing committee, I want the committee to look at
fundamental issues surrounding the present act including the
ages to which the statute applies and how best to deal with repeat
offenders.
At the same time I tell the House there will be a parallel
process in place involving the provinces and territories so we
will have the views of our provincial and territorial partners in
the process and we can look together at questions like cost
sharing because they have the responsibility for administering
the statute and we must be sensitive to their views.
I should also tell the House I have asked the standing
committee to report on the second phase of its work by February
1 next. I have given the chair my assurance that the government
will respond quickly to the recommendations the committee
may sees fit to make.
[Translation]
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the government firmly believes that
these changes will provide adequate flexibility to provinces, so
that each will be able to administer and implement the act while
taking into account its own specific situation.
4875
[English]
We believe the changes we have proposed, the distinctions we
have drawn and the emphasis we have selected meet the
imperative of public protection while preserving the
fundamental principles of the statute and enhancing juvenile
justice in the country.
I commend the bill to the House.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Justice has finally caved in to pressures from the
most conservative elements of his party. Bill C-37, which
proposes to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal
Code, draws its inspiration from a philosophy that is repressive.
Although they criticized the amendments proposed by the
Liberals as lacking in vigour, I am sure Reform Party members
will be very satisfied. This bill responds to many of their
demands. I remind you of the debate on May 12, 1994, on the
Reform Party motion.
(1555)
This debate gave us a chance to measure the full extent of the
philosophy-I know that is a very big word-of the Reform
Party with respect to youth.
How do they see young people, these people who want to
punish them at all costs because they imitate adult behaviour?
How do these supporters of repressive policies see young
people? Listen to what was said by the hon. member for
Westminster-Burnaby: ``Our young people, the promise for
our future, are seen by many not as our hopeful legacy for
tomorrow but as strangers to be feared''. There is more: ``Young
people speak differently, they do not want to dress anything like
the rest of us, they do not seem to value or give due regard to
what we hold dear''.
The hon. member went on to say: ``Indeed there is an innate
sense that the fundamental social order of the community has
broken down when the average Canadian thinks of youth
crime''. At the time, I responded by saying that if the hon.
member introduced this kind of motion, he must be convinced
that young offenders were, both numerically and socially, a
criminal group that was a severe threat to public safety.
At the time I objected to this motion because it reflected the
hysteria of a few agitators who were using some unfortunate
aspects of recent cases for clearly political ends. On the same
occasion, I asked the Minister of Justice not to give in to
reactionary pressures within his own party.
Today, we see that the bill introduced by the Minister of
Justice is intended first of all as a concession to unruly members
of his own party, who could easily be mistaken for members of
the Reform Party. A repressive bill, because its only purpose is
to repress, despite the high sounding principles contained in the
amendments in the first clause.
This kind of legislation would reflect a disturbing view of
society, and I think what was said by the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby during the debate on May 12 was the
most incredible and most disturbing embodiment of this view.
If these comments had not been reproduced in Hansard, it
would have been hard to believe that this was actually said in the
Parliament of a country that is supposed to be the most
democratic in the world. I would like to make a few general
comments before discussing the merits or lack of merits of this
bill.
The attitude of these reactionaries tells us far more about their
perception of the problem of juvenile delinquency than about
the problem itself. Both Liberal and Reform Party members
have only one thing to say about youth crime, and it is that the
solution to the problem is in the penitentiary. I believe, and I am
supported in that belief by my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois,
that repressive legislation never achieves anything but
repression.
Using repression as a deterrent will never reduce the already
low rate of youth crime. Does prison prevent adult crime? Why
would it be more of a deterrent in the case of a young person who
is less aware of the consequences of his acts?
This bill sends a very positive message indeed to our young
people. You are children and infants as far as civic duties go, but
responsible adults before the Criminal Code. You do not have
the right to vote or buy a house or open a business, because you
are not responsible, but if you do not act like good citizens, you
will go to jail, because you are responsible for your actions.
This is very simply put, but I think we must use simple terms
to explain to some people that the problem is not that simple,
that it is not enough to throw a young person into prison to make
him smarten up, that society will not be better protected if our
prisons are filled with new inmates, and that being sentenced
like adults will not deter young people from committing adult
crimes.
However, this is tantamount to asking that the legislation be
dropped. Unfortunately, although the government means well,
the bills sole purpose is to appease a faction of the public by
sending young people over 16 to court for very serious crimes.
This will surely reassure the fanatics and quiet them down for a
few months, but this will not prevent criminally inclined gangs
from continuing their activities. On the contrary!
(1600)
Here again, we see an adult model. Just as adult criminal
elements resist police by organizing, we see juvenile criminal
elements banding together to resist law enforcement. The
message is clear: you are criminals, act like criminals and we
will treat you like criminals.
4876
I wholly subscribe to the words of Queen's University law
professor Nicholas Bala, an expert in the area of young
offenders, who was quoted in the Toronto Star of June 3 as
saying that ``Whoever believes that our society will be better
protected by this legislation is sadly mistaken''. The same
article also quoted Dr. Clive Chamberlain, a Toronto
psychiatrist who treated 65 young people who had committed
murder. He was saying that the money would be better spent on
family support than on amendments to the act.
We could go on for hours quoting all the arguments against
harsher treatment of young offenders, but they would not
impress those who want an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
I will conclude this long introduction by an observation.
Several members, especially from the Reform Party, quote at
length letters they received from constituents concerned about
young offenders. I am starting to believe that the concerns of
these citizens are directly related to the political activism of the
extreme right. I see a direct relationship between the number of
virulent letters we receive and the fact that the riding has elected
a Reform Party member. Indeed, I did not receive a single letter
from Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba, but I got
boxes full from ridings in southern British Columbia and
Alberta who, strangely enough, elected Reform Party members.
I ask you: are people in Langley, Rosedale, Courtenay or
Chilliwack really scared of young people? Do they consider
young people like strangers you should be wary of? Are they
hiding in the closet waiting for these barbarians, armed
naturally since, by a strange coincidence, they are also opposed
to arms control? Are young people in British Columbia and
Alberta more dangerous than those in the east? What inspires
such a frenzy against young people?
I am convinced that citizens in both these provinces are just as
well informed and democratically minded as people in the rest
of the country. The scare campaign orchestrated by a few
members from western Canada brings us a daily quota of
stereotyped form letters, often mailed in bulk. None of them
articulate a personal opinion. I would have liked one of those
who signed them to send me a hand-written letter he would have
composed and mailed himself. The Reform Party does not
impress anyone with those tons of impersonal documents.
Through its excess, this campaign shows its authors for what
they really are. I hold Reform members responsible for the fear
expressed by some of their constituents. It should not impress
the minister nor the House. Even if I were to be harassed by such
tactics till the end of my mandate, I will never depart from my
principles.
They are simple and can be summed up in one small sentence:
Treat humans humanely. It is something I have never heard in all
the emotional speeches given by the hardliners. Humanity,
generosity, understanding. It is indeed what the first clauses of
the bill seem to promise. We are told with great pomp that the
bill is preventive, that it will set up intervention mechanisms to
address crime by young persons and that it is aimed at
rehabilitating young offenders.
(1605)
It is all talk, no action. Young persons are going to be
rehabilitated in prison. It is in prison that intervention
mechanisms will be set up. It is in prison that the underlying
causes of crime by teenagers will be dealt with and that the
framework for disciplinary action will be developed. And it is
again in prison that young persons will learn that they are
responsible for their crimes.
We had not seen such an example of legislative deceit in a
long time. Where are the provisions for implementing clause 1?
How is the minister planning to follow through on this lofty
statement of principle which sounds the death knell on all the
efforts of these past 30 years?
Clause 1 marks the end of the rehabilitation philosophy. It
signs its death warrant, making sure that it will be bogged down
in correctional red tape. It is a smokescreen.
I will now deal with the major provisions of the bill, the ones
the minister would quote if we were to ask him where is the
beef? The major reform brought about by this preventative piece
of legislation aimed at rehabilitating young offenders, is to
automatically send them to adult court.
Indeed, in spite of the consensus on this issue in Quebec
which, incidently, administers a true youth protection act, in
spite of all the valuable opinions provided to the minister to the
effect that the legislation gives good results, is spite of all that,
and because of the cries of a handful of activists, 16 and
17-year-olds will be proceeded against in adult court for
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual
assault and aggravated assault. In every case, the young person
will have to convince the youth court that he should remain
under its jurisdiction and not be referred to an adult court.
This new legislation, which is primarily concerned with
rehabilitation, provides that the maximum sentence will be
lengthened to ten years for first degree murder, and to seven
years for second degree murder. In the case of an accused over
14 years of age, the court will have discretion to order that the
young offender be referred to an adult court, except where a
minor offence is involved.
Several MPs will certainly point out that juvenile crime has
been declining drastically since the initial amendments made to
the former Young Offenders Act. Statistics compiled by the
Department of Justice also tell us about the proportion of serious
crimes committed by young people. You do not have to be an
4877
expert to figure out that most offences against a person involve
16 and 17-year-olds. Social conditions, personality changes,
the existence of gangs and leaving the family home explain, to a
large degree, this unavoidable and normal result.
Babies do not commit murders. Children do, exceptionally,
and young teenagers, rarely. By the age of 16 or 17, young
people are closer to the adult model. It is therefore unavoidable
that this group will commit somewhat similar offences. People
keep referring to the murder committed by two 10-year-olds in
Great Britain, but this tragic incident must not make us forget
that childhood is the universal age of innocence and that when
children do something wrong, it is invariably the reflection of
something done by an adult. Close to 54 per cent of crimes
against a person are said to be committed by 16 and
17-year-olds.
I also noted that the group just before that one, namely the 14
and 15-year-olds, accounted for 36 per cent of those crimes. In
other words, 90 per cent of offences for which the legislation
seems to provide diversion mechanisms are, or could be, dealt
with by a common law court.
Why does the minister not simply repeal the act? At the rate
things are going, the legislation will only apply to 12 and
13-year-olds, unless the minister implements the brilliant
proposal by the Reform Party and lowers the age for criminal
liability to ten years of age. In fact, why not bring it down to
seven? Is that not the age of reason?
(1610)
This bill reinforces the transfer procedure to the judicial
system. Even though the minister announced that he would not
force any of his provincial counterparts to go along, he is
obviously helping those who favour harsher justice. The
minister can rest assured, because he probably will not have to
force any of the ministers, since his bill gives them all the
leeway they need to give stricter instructions to their Crown
attorneys.
Nonetheless, I can only hope that if this bill ever passes,
Quebec will continue to render justice in youth courts and to
pursue its rehabilitation objectives rather than steer a course
toward repression, all means of which are warranted under this
bill. It is not surprising that the headline on page one of the
Globe and Mail last June 3 read that rehabilitation would lose
priority if the bill was adopted as is.
Those who are familiar with the system know that requests for
transfers to adult courts are not always simple. They often
correspond to proceedings within proceedings with all parties
having their witnesses and experts appear. Hard line supporters
should attend such hearings at least once in their life. Up to now,
transfer requests were only treated in youth courts by Crown
attorneys, with whom the burden of proof rested.
Imagine what the new procedure introduced by the minister
will be: young persons charged with a serious offence will have
to prove that they should be tried in youth court. Every
procedural tactic and constitutional argument will be used,
including interlocutory appeals up to the Supreme Court. These
motions will be similar to extradition proceedings. It is going to
be a waste of energy and public funds, and through it all, young
persons will learn how to foil the system and scoff at the law.
I totally agree with William Trudel, Toronto vice-president of
the Criminal Lawyers Association, whose views are widely
shared by the legal profession. He warned the minister that this
new referral procedure will be very costly and very contentious.
It will first be challenged under what will seem like
well-founded constitutional arguments.
Besides, who in the Liberal Party is responsible for
constitutional issues? I am not talking here about division of
powers, an issue far from settled, but about fundamental rights
enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The minister
does not ignore the fact that excluding 16 and 17-year-olds from
the universal system is obviously a discriminatory measure. In
fact, since the Young Offenders Act includes all young persons
under 18 years of age and over 12 years of age, who would argue,
based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that
such an obvious exclusion is fair and reasonable?
If all young Canadians are protected by the YOA, they should
all be treated the same way, on a equal basis, whatever the public
opinion is. In fact, constitutional texts all aim at protecting
individuals against public condemnation, restoring and
maintaining equality among all men and women and ensuring
fair judicial proceedings. I repeat, this bill respects neither the
spirit of the Young Offenders Act nor the guiding principles of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This reform would make two categories of young people for
some offences, whereas all young people are included in the
definitions of the Act. This is age-based discrimination. If this
House passed this discriminatory bill anyway, I predict and I
hope that the courts will strike down the justice minister's new
law because youth courts and appeal courts will certainly have
to deal with this kind of case if and when the proposed
amendments take effect.
(1615)
Not only does this bill remain strangely silent on the fine
principles but, although intended to protect society, it will
achieve exactly the opposite result.
By seeking to repress, the minister is putting in place
mechanisms which are bound to make the law itself challenged.
Rehabilitation will no longer be a goal; social reintegration is
now only a remote objective. The key word now is protection of
society.
4878
I say that the essence and the very reason for the law have
been set aside. Moreover, by seeking the maximum deterrent
effect through repression, the means to act and the courts'
authority are being reduced.
A law is not just a piece of legislation in a collection of
statutes. It must be applied and people have to live with it, so we
must think of its impact on society. I say that it will be a social
disaster.
Just as much as the minister, I am revolted by violence, but
not only youth violence. Do we hear those fanatics from the
West who demand internment for ten year old children complain
about the non-stop violence on television? Will the Liberal
Party table a bill to control these programs broadcast to young
people? These same reactionaries flood us with letters
denouncing gun control. Reform members and the Liberal
Party's right wing should do some serious soul searching.
One of the reasons why our society generates violence is the
lack of effective control over firearms, which are the weapon of
choice for murderers of all ages including young people.
Yes, I am outraged, as outraged as these reactionaries, by
murder. I am revolted by sexual assault. I am outraged and
disgusted by the decline in morality in our society as a whole.
And I am outraged when I see that these murders are committed
with firearms that the right-thinking members of the Reform
Party and the Liberal Party would like to see circulate without
restrictions. But my outrage is not like that of the pharisees who
single out young people to assuage their own guilt because they
feel powerless to educate our youth.
Social violence does not come from young people but it is
picked up by some of them. Newspapers put isolated cases on
their front pages to sell more copies. How do they invariably
report on cases involving young people? By denouncing the
sentences given out and fuelling the spirit of vengeance and
powerlessness. This spirit of vengeance is the symptom of a
disease which undermines our Western society, a society that
generates its own violence like an internal combustion engine.
This violence tears at the social fabric and isolates the young
people who are its first victims. This violence that we show and
maintain as a favoured way of affirming success, we pass it on to
these children and we then act outraged when one of them
commits a murder, as though we as adults should have a
monopoly on evil and stupidity.
We are transferring our feeling of guilt. We refuse to accept
that a person who cannot yet be seen as responsible can be tried
for a crime in the same way as someone who ought to be
considered a responsible person. This instinctive, irrational and
primary reaction is triggered by the notion of vengeance,
something which is foreign to Canadian democracy.
Ten years ago, a reform of the whole process was undertaken
after countless public consultations. Since then, in those
provinces where the law is well understood and implemented
adequately, juvenile delinquency is controlled in a modern,
effective and humanistic way.
In 1984, we chose to deal with the problem by putting in place
a rehabilitation process rather than leaving young offenders
stuck in the dead end of the criminal justice system.
Juvenile delinquency certainly does exist. The law is not
designed to prevent it but to control it. Social conflicts will exist
as long as we live as a society.
Crime is the expression of social conflict at the level of the
individual. Whether the delinquent is an adult or a minor, he
must face the justice system when he violates the social peace
code. There is social conflict when an act committed by an
individual disturbs social peace. Delinquency and crime will
always exist because they are social phenomena. Criminal laws
do not make criminality.
(1620)
Hardliners think that juvenile delinquency exists because of
our Young Offenders Act. In their narrow view, they see a cause
and effect relation between the cold blooded murder of a corner
store owner and the fact that no criminal liability is put on the
young murderer. For them, everything is simple. If a young
person becomes or remains a delinquent, it is because he is not
subjected to the Criminal Code provisions. Based on this view of
the past, young people would be better citizens if sentences were
harsher.
They still do not understand that the Young Offenders Act did
not invent juvenile delinquency. They fail to see that young
people are more violent because society as a whole has become
more violent. They do not realize that despite the existence of
the Criminal Code, in Canada about 500 murders are committed
by adults in Canada every year. These murders are just as
intolerable as those committed by young people.
Reform Party members, whether they are in Liberal disguise
or wear the true colours of the Reform Party, may not have
realized that the 1984 legislation was a considerable change
from the previous legislation on young offenders that had been
in effect since the beginning of the century.
Contrary to what they say in their speeches which smack of
disinformation, the present legislation treats the young person
who commits an offence as a responsible human being, but
always within a special framework set up to provide for his
rehabilitation
In 1984, Canadian society had become sufficiently mature to
realize that a young person who committed a first offence, even
4879
a very serious offence, must be given every opportunity to
understand the consequences of his actions and to rehabilitate
himself.
Unlike the system for adults, who are assumed to be
responsible, the young person needs to develop within a
supervisory framework. That was the view in 1984. They were
right then and the same approach is still taken by all sectors
responsible for dealing with this problem. However, it is not the
position taken by the extremists and reactionaries who have
managed to enlist the Minister of Justice for their crusade.
In any case, experience has shown that in Ontario and Quebec,
the system works very well. Perhaps the provinces where the
hysteria about the subject is greatest have yet to introduce
effective mechanisms.
I would urge hon. members from the Prairie provinces and
British Columbia to take a look at the youth protection agencies
and youth courts in their provinces and find out whether they
have this kind of institution which is indispensable to the proper
application of the legislation. Maybe they should start
campaigning in their own backyard. Perhaps they should send
the protest letters they receive in such numbers to the members
of their provincial legislatures.
By the way, I think that what was said by the Quebec and
Ontario ministers about this legislation is a good indication of
how it will be received in Quebec City and Queen's Park. A very
conclusive experiment was conducted in Quebec at the Centre
Boscoville, covering the rehabilitation and social integration of
24 teenagers who had been found guilty of homicide and were
admitted to this reform institution between 1968 and 1983. I
repeat that Quebec is probably the province where the
application of the Young Offenders Act has been most
comprehensive.
I also repeat that western reactionaries would do well to look
at the Quebec experience. Maybe they would, then, stop seeing
young people are strangers that you should be wary of, as the
hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby was saying. He
seems to have forgotten that he was young once.
The study conducted in Boscoville demonstrated that all these
young people had a good prognosis, that there had been no
subsequent offence, nor any return to delinquent behaviour. The
murders had circumstantial and neurotic causes. Moreover, the
follow-up of these young offenders showed a perfect social
rehabilitation, some having very good positions in society.
(1625)
A document from the research branch of the Library of
Parliament dealing with the impact of repressive measures
concluded: ``Increasing the capacity to punish by passing
harsher legal sanctions could lead to longer prison terms for a
larger number of young offenders''.
``The advantage for society, in the short term, is that it would
be protected from the offender. However, this solution would
further strain the already insufficient resources affected to
detention and rehabilitation infrastructures-and assumes a
greater criminalization, without reducing the crime rate''.
Some members in this House see young people as the enemy.
Whether they express a personal opinion or are echoing the fear
of some of their constituents, the message they send to young
people is vindictive.
I reread the speech that the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby made in this House on May 12 of this
year. I hope that we will never again hear, in Parliament, such a
war cry against young people. I would like Parliament to
repudiate this desire to set up a police state.
Our attitude towards juvenile delinquency will reflect our
democratic commitment. I call upon the conscience of every
member. I urge everyone, irrespective of their political
affiliation, not already committed to a more repressive attitude
towards young people, to consider seriously, from the bottom of
their hearts, what we are debating today.
I am convinced that on the government side, there are
members who will not take an active part in this debate, but who
are torn between their party line and their own sense of social
justice. I am asking them to counterbalance the action of their
colleagues who are vigorously campaigning in favour of the
hardening of the legislation and demand a more in-depth
reflection on juvenile delinquency.
I have already quoted various statistics during previous
debates, and I do not want to bring any more numerical data to
the debate. Statistics only explain the past. Even if they can be
used to show trends, they can only reflect outdated situations.
At the risk of having to quote numbers regarding the past few
years, I will talk briefly about that period when crime by young
people went down. The experience in Quebec proves beyond any
doubt that the system is working. I am not saying that it works
perfectly. Do criminal courts work perfectly?
The system is working to the general satisfaction of all parties
involved, starting with those in the judiciary, who all say not to
change anything for the time being. Why is the Minister of
Justice not listening to those who deal with this problem on a
daily basis? Because he lets people tell him what to do, because
he was unable to convince the cabinet and members of his party
that nothing would justify such a drastic switch towards
repression.
Because the minister, whose extreme competence and honesty
I deeply respect, is being unwillingly caught up in a popularity
contest. The Liberals are dragging behind Reform Party
activists. The Liberals are being told what to do by Reform Party
supporters. The minister has no other choice. Between those
4880
who are calmly telling him that the system is working and those
who are crying wolf, he chose the latter.
Unfortunately in so doing he is promoting a repressive piece
of legislation, divorced from the reality and the underlying
causes of crime by young people, to quote clause 1 and its
meaningless wording. Now that the minister has thrown a bone
to silence those who were barking the loudest, how is he going to
put some balance back into the administration of the law?
Let us not be naive. Even if the minister is promising a review
in committee, his bill is complete. Unfortunately, we will wait in
vain for intervention mechanisms dealing with young people
identified as redeemable, which would counterbalance the
harshness of these repressive amendments.
Since 16 and 17 year old young offenders committing serious
crimes must now prove to the judge why they should remain
before the youth court, there should be provisions in the act for
the implementation of some solid care and rehabilitation
structures. In other words, in such instances, the judge receiving
a request for the maintaining of the jurisdiction could consider
that the youth court offers good corrective measures that would
achieve results at least equivalent to those promoted by this bill
which proposes transfer to a criminal court.
(1630)
The judge could then consider that the law provides for
treatment by the youth court to be just as efficient as any
treatment by an ordinary court. There is no doubt that the burden
of proof will be considerable for young people if the bill is
passed as it is worded now. All cases will be transferred to adult
court except when exceptional circumstances justify otherwise.
And as if this was not enough, the minister adds to it. Young
people will be subject to the rules of the Identification of
Criminals Act. Their records will be kept for longer periods and
information on young offenders will no longer be confidential.
In other words, according to clause 29 of the bill, any young
person can now be fingerprinted. Except in certain cases, the
young persons' records would be considered the same as any
other court or criminal records and, in spite of the limits
proposed in the bill, anybody could consult them at any time, in
the public interest. Where is the minister going?
A bill aiming at reintegration into society, rehabilitation and
identification of the underlying causes of juvenile criminality?
That is all bluff. Where is the minister heading? We now know
where he is heading; I do not think he believes in the values
which inspired the 1984 reform. I do not feel he is seriously
proposing that rehabilitation be the fundamental principle.
While at present the support workers are all professionals,
tomorrow, they will be members of the police forces.
To my knowledge, police officers do not have any kind of
mandate to rehabilitate accused persons. The only message to be
derived from this bill is that there will be more young people in
federal penitentiaries, not less youth crime, more young inmates
among the prison population, more young people learning how
to become lifelong criminals. Having read and reread this bill, I
can see no other message.
If this were question period, I would ask the Solicitor General
how much more the Liberal Party expects to spend on the
incarceration of young people in federal penitentiaries.
Bill C-37 amounts to nothing more than sentencing young
people to prison. Those who had been loudly demanding such
action are congratulating the Minister of Justice. He has just
scored a lot of political points by currying favour with this
radical faction.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are mindful of the serious problem
associated with violence that is not only committed by young
people, but is also inflicted upon them. We refuse to push the
panic button and we invite all those who are interested to
consider our experience in Quebec. We call upon this House to
give the existing legislation some more time and to listen to
those working in the system who all agree that the status quo
should be maintained for the time being.
The existing legislation strikes a difficult balance between the
need to protect society and the need to rehabilitate young
offenders without turning them into criminals, between the need
to prevent crime and the need to spare young offenders from a
life of crime.
I intend to vote against this bill which seeks to make crime
punishable by making criminals out of young people.
In conclusion, I would like to move, seconded by my
colleague, the hon. member for Abitibi:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word
``That'' and substituting the following:
``this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-37, An Act to amend the
Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, the purpose of which is represssive,
because:
(1) it introduces no concrete measures for the rehabilitation of young offenders; and
(2) it does not encourage the provinces to take legislative or other measures
necessary in order to set up comprehensive crime prevention programs.''
4881
(1635)
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert for sending me a copy of this amendment. I
believe the motion is in order.
[English]
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 Winnipeg
Transcona-Tobacco packaging; the hon. member for
Oxford-Urea formaldehyde foam; the hon. member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle-Magazine industry.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill
C-37 and respond to the long awaited changes to the Young
Offenders Act.
The Young Offenders Act in its operation is critical to
Canada's view of the justice system. Its implementation touches
at the very heart of the future of our society. Freedom from fear
ranks with food and shelter as one of our basic needs. Our
communities today are crying out in their fear for the safety of
innocent people walking in our neighbourhoods. They are
deeply concerned for the safety of their children in playgrounds
and schools, even in their homes. Every week we hear another
horror story involving young offenders and violent crime.
Ottawa police arrested young offenders after the drive-by
shooting death of Nicholas Battersby.
Three young offenders in St. Jerome, Quebec, were arrested
after a shooting spree. They were in possession of rifles,
handguns and hand grenades.
In British Columbia, Jason Gamache was found guilty in 1992
of rape and murder of a six-year old girl. When she was reported
missing Gamache aided in the search for her and spent hours
babysitting her siblings. Gamache was just 16 years old when he
committed this offence and had been previously convicted of
sex offences involving young children. The public had no way of
knowing. The Young Offenders Act prohibits publication of
details which might identify such an offender.
Just over a month ago an Edmonton woman was stabbed in her
home by teenage burglars while trying to protect her children. A
few weeks ago a 14-year old was stabbed with a pair of scissors
in the hands of a 10-year old boy during a soccer game at
Medicine Hat, Alberta.
In a small town near Kelowna, B.C., a 44-year old family man
is recovering in hospital after being hit on the head with an axe.
Two 16-year-olds have been charged.
A 72-year old man was murdered outside his home in
Saskatchewan by a young offender. The sentence: the maximum,
three years in custody.
In Edmonton last month a teenager was shot in the back of the
head with a stolen handgun. The alleged killer is a 16-year old
repeat offender who was on probation for another crime.
In 1992 a man had his car totally demolished by six young
offenders. The penalty for this group: none. They were let off
scot-free.
Two weeks ago the father of a 10-year old girl was out for a
walk in his own neighbourhood in suburban Mississauga when
he was viciously beaten to death by young offenders. The
motivation: a robbery attempt.
As we struggle with social programs to address the causes of
our youth turning to crimes such as alienation, family
breakdown, and drug and alcohol abuse, we must also address
the effect youth crime has on our families in our communities.
By failing to take bold action to correct what has largely not
worked and introducing legislation just to mollify a restless
public and fulfil an election promise with the call of trust us, the
government has fallen short and let us down despite its well
intentioned effort.
The Liberal red book speaks of safe homes and safe streets as
a basic right and a distinguishing characteristic of Canadian
society, while pledging to combat the 40 per cent increase in
violent crime that has crept in to threaten that basic right.
The proposals brought forward in the bill are woefully
inadequate to reverse the current trend I have mentioned.
Tinkering with the internal mechanisms of the act does not rally
community confidence. Nor does it reflect an attentiveness to
community concern. It is merely a top down, we know best
answer to an increasingly aware and justifiably demanding
populace.
It is said that the proposed amendments to the Young
Offenders Act will improve public protection by improving the
act's ability to deal effectively with serious crime.
(1640)
I have heard the government's side today. We in this corner of
the House take government members as sincere. However it is
possible to be sincere but sincerely wrong. I applaud the
government that the bill today is not going to be the last word on
amendments to the act during this Parliament. The two stage
approach offered by the government is indeed welcome.
I have said a lot in the House about the shortcomings of the
Young Offenders Act. I have made very specific and pointed
suggestions both on paper to the justice ministry and in a speech
in the House. One wonders if anyone ever listens. Certainly folk
at home wonder if the government does any adjusting at all to
public grassroots input as distinct from the bilateral
negotiations with the provinces and those on the inside of the
justice system community.
4882
We will constructively criticize the many shortcomings of
Bill C-37. However we are thankful the government is finally
prepared to change some parts of the Young Offenders Act,
largely in response to the pressure that we in this corner of the
House have brought. We will be Her Majesty's loyal,
constructive alternative with advocacy for improvements to Bill
C-37 based on what the community wants rather than merely on
what Reformers want.
Bill C-37 is full of problems, but we will likely support any
small measure to shift the emphasis within the juvenile justice
system away from its reputation of being too soft. A new Young
Offenders Act must be socially resonant and clearly
demonstrate Canadian society's values and Canadian mores. It
must be an instrument not only of rehabilitation and treatment
but also of deterrence and orderly denunciation.
The criminal justice system must be a mirror reflecting the
community's sense of what is right and wrong and what is
socially acceptable. People are looking today at an image that is
distorted, that has little relevance to the social order we have
that may have formerly existed.
Parents are concerned for the safety of their children. They
are demanding an accountability of the justice system to the
community. They want to have a sense of ownership in the
process of justice. They are frustrated and angry that the current
system seems to operate for and around a select enclave of
justice professionals: the criminologists, the legal community,
corrections workers, offender care agencies and the police.
Offenders seem to be the ones protected by legislation and are
the preoccupation of the system. Victims, particularly victims
of violent crime, do not feel well served. They have little
opportunity to represent a public denunciation of violent crime.
There is no legal recognition for their stake in the general
proceedings.
The YOA does not require statutory service of proceedings to
victims for court appearances. A whole new community
accountability model of justice is required to address the needs
of public concern and involvement. The public at large can also
be a victim as the publication of names in critical and violent
and repeat offences is not routine. The violent young offender
can be released to offend again with no assurance of safety and
the public has no way of knowing the person is in their midst.
Particular concern is expressed by teachers and social
workers who traditionally had no access to a dangerous
offender's history. It is pathetically futile for a teacher to
reprimand a student and order a detention for bad behaviour in
the classroom when the student has been involved in the latest
convenience store robbery or is living in a local group home
because he has committed sexual assault. It shortchanges not
only the teacher and the other students in the classroom but also
the young offender.
There are many programs in the educational system tailored
to deal with problems the students are encountering, but the lack
of vital information about a student precludes the opportunity
for that student to reap the benefit of those very programs.
Social workers who are called to work with the young person
have no way of knowing the full character of the young offender
they are supposed to help. It is somewhat like asking a gourmet
chef to prepare a meal and supplying only unmarked packages
for the ingredients. It is a little recipe for disaster. Yet we spend
millions of dollars on social programs and provide workers who
are uninformed and ill equipped for what they face.
The new half-measures place a monitoring burden perhaps
solely on the youth worker for in systems advisory, another
bureaucratic nightmare. The whole business of non-disclosure
is an abstract premise at best based on a hypothetical, on a hoped
for future reformation of the offender.
The government recognizes the problem, for victims have
died directly because of the non-disclosure provisions of the
YOA. Now we are going to open it up a little. How many
bureaucratic screw-ups will have to occur before it must be
recognized all non-disclosure provisions that go beyond the
adult standard of control should be scrapped. The government
admits the problem. Let us deal with it square on.
(1645)
The judiciary is also faced with a dilemma when resulting
from non-disclosure of records in adult courts. Once a young
offender has served the prescribed sentence for a serious offence
and then five years more has elapsed, youth records are no
longer admissible in court. This provision is based on the belief,
or should I say the hope, that a run-in with the courts will
motivate a young offender to rehabilitate and have a chance to
contribute to society without the fear of his young foolish
mistake unreasonably standing in his way.
Nine pages of this bill relate to amendments around a faulty
premise. I say clearly to the minister let go of these outdated
notions and stop the tangled bureaucratic response. One line in
the act would suffice that would simply state that a youth court
record and an adult criminal record are one and the same, a
continuum to be kept in one computer, handled like all criminal
records. The bill requires the RCMP to have a separate
repository for youth records.
All these provisions are social engineering at its worst.
Take for instance the case of a convicted paedophile. If he
manages to escape detection for five years and then offends
again, the judge in adult court is not allowed to hear the pattern
of record and he is bound by stare decisis of the courts of appeal
to sentence as a first offender. The judgment is based on
inaccurate information and the offender is treated accordingly
and truth does not appear in the courtroom as the judge is
deliberately misled. If a lawyer deliberately misled in the court
4883
it would be contempt. This is repeated countless times in
countless courtrooms across our land, and the government
would have us believe it is seriously responding to the
submissions and correspondence it has received from Canadians
in recent months.
Society sees violent crime as an abhorrence needing
retribution and a sensible social defence response. If a violent
offender of 16 or 17 years of age is kept within the bounds of the
Young Offenders Act the maximum penalty available for first
degree murder would be 10 years. If that same violent offender
were dealt with in adult court, the penalty for first degree
murder would be life imprisonment with no parole for 25 years.
While 10 years under the new proposal would seem to be
sufficiently harsh, the reality is that probably only six years
would be spent in detention, with the remaining four years being
spent under community supervision. How tragically painful for
the families of the victim and perhaps how dangerous for the
community. It is blatantly obvious that this provision is written
for the protection of the offender, and a violent one at that, with
disregard to the rights or protection of the victims, past and
future.
Anyone capable of committing a premeditated murder at 16 or
17 years of age must surely be accountable to society at a level
commensurate with the severity of the crime. I choose to
highlight the charge of first degree murder as that is as severe as
it gets in Canadian law. This does not even begin to touch less
serious crimes, which in reality seem no less serious to the
victim. I say this clause does not appropriately respond to these
offenders. These criminals are not young offenders; they are
youthful appearing adults and should be treated as such.
At the other end of the spectrum there are youngsters 10 and
11 years old who are flexing their muscles and daring society to
take them to task. Under the provisions of Bill C-37 they remain
untouchable. By the time they are 12 years old they are street
wise and are becoming increasingly sophisticated in testing the
system. When they finally appear as young offenders they are
often already beyond being intimidated by the system and the
successive warnings and breaks they receive as young offenders
become meaningless. They are often too deeply entrenched in
the game to see or desire a way out.
I believe that 10 and 11-year olds, if brought under the
umbrella of the justice system, publicly denounced and placed
in programs of education and rehabilitation, would be much
more responsive to efforts to set them straight.
Sometimes violent patterns in children are identifiable at the
kindergarten level. Schools and social helping agencies
respond, but by the time these exceptional children are 12 years
of age, a justice system response of monitoring and intervention
is problematic. By identifying these young offenders before
they graduate into the teen world of crime set before them, we
drastically reduce the number of youthful adults we are forced
to deal with six years down the road. This is social engineering
at its best.
Statistics indicate that of the 42 murder cases heard by youth
courts in 1992-93, 25 cases or 60 per cent involved 16 and
17-year olds. That means a full 40 per cent of the cases involved
children 15 and under. Of the 74 cases of attempted murder, 39
per cent were 15 and under. Manslaughter saw an even split of 50
per cent. For aggravated assault, some 311 cases or 32 per cent
were 15 years old and under.
(1650)
These are astounding figures in themselves, but consider the
burden placed on the youth court system and the correctional
facilities. It has been argued that 16 and 17-year-olds should
not be placed in full adult prisons, a position we endorse. There
is ample flexibility within the correctional system to
accommodate the youthful adults who would be sentenced in
adult court.
It is imperative that 16 and 17-year old violent offenders be
removed from the environment in which true young offenders
are housed. The younger we are able to begin the process of
education and rehabilitation, the greater chances of success.
Seeing negative role models who are 16 and 17-year olds who
can exert tremendous power over the younger population
decreases the chances of positive redirection.
Teens themselves are frustrated and concerned about how
they are perceived within our society. There are so many young
people who are really trying to make a positive contribution to
their world. They see themselves as victims within the youth
culture. They are in fact victims of the violence which is so
prevalent in the high schools.
Inner city schools have gang wars between ethnic groups,
punkers, skinheads and others of diverse styles and attitudes as
well as drug dealers. These differences erupt in fighting over
territories and are typified by aggression using weapons. It is
easy to say that the problems of the schools are provincial
jurisdiction, but if there is little accountability for violence
under the law the schools have little recourse.
Teens often feel that society blames them for all its problems
and they feel condemnation for just being young. At a recent
high school meeting of 40 young people, my colleague, the
member for North Vancouver, addressed the issue of the Young
Offenders Act. Thirty-nine of the 40 students raised their hands
to appeal for changes to the act. Locally about 250 students
participated in a march through downtown Hull to protest the
violence of a schoolmate's death. Melanie Moore was quoted as
saying: ``We just want all this violence to stop''. Student Renée
4884
Moreau feels that the accused should be tried in adult court as
``at that age he is conscious of what he has done''.
These young people are tired of being painted with the same
brush as those who are doing the offending. They are fed up with
losing close friends to violence. They are sending a very clear
message to us in this House that they demand change.
We have received correspondence from parents who are
terrified to send even young children to school because of
threats from older students, typically 10 to 12-year-olds. They
would bully, set up vigilante parties and generally make it
impossible for their targets to function in the classroom,
hallways or schoolyard. The assault is often so subtle that it is
many months before parents or teachers are aware there is
anything wrong. By definition these bullies are young offenders
and should be held accountable.
One failing of the age parameters corresponds directly to the
situations I have just outlined. The police are very reluctant to
become involved in answering calls involving children under 12
years. The result is that the schools and parents are left to deal
with such behaviour with little community resources available
to them. The offenders are therefore left to wreak havoc until
their 12th birthday, when they are often firmly entrenched in
antisocial behaviour.
Parents cry for help but receive little satisfaction. The case of
Michael Smith has been mentioned in this House before. He is
the 11-year old who has stolen over 30 cars and stands defiantly
dedicated to continue to do so until he turns 12. Michael is quite
literally an accident going somewhere to happen as he careens
through the streets of the Vancouver area. His mother has
publicly denounced his behaviour in the press identifying him
and his actions but authorities are powerless to help her. More
tragically, our system is unable to help Michael. He is
desperately crying out for limits to be set and under the Young
Offenders Act and now under Bill C-37 we stand unable to
provide those limits. He is not a young offender by definition.
The Liberals speak so eloquently that the causes of violent
crime are patent, and they are poverty, and they are
dysfunctional families, and they are abusive children and it is
hopelessness. I am sure Bonnie Hartwick, Michael's mother, is
not pleased that the minister has so glibly packaged and labelled
her life in one line of rhetoric. That her pleas are falling on deaf
ears is ample proof that this government really has no clue about
the reality of ordinary people's lives. I suggest that the
hopelessness she feels is a direct result of the age limits the
minister is unwilling to change.
The minister announced highlights of the bill which merit a
focused response even at second reading. Increased sentences
for teenagers convicted of first and second degree murder in
youth court are increased to ten and seven years respectively
from the former five years maximum.
(1655 )
In reality for first degree murder within the maximum
10-year total sentence Bill C-37 provides six years of custody
followed by four years of community supervision. Only by
exception after a hearing can a judge choose at the automatic
annual court reviews of custody sentences that an offender can
be kept in custody another year rather than receive community
supervision. It can only be done if the offender if released is
likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm. The
maximum, no minimum stated, combination sentence of jail and
community supervision is 10 years for the individual murder
offence. Second degree murder brings a maximum seven years,
a four and three combination.
There is enough inherent discretion and flexibility in the adult
system for individual circumstances to be taken into account for
the adult consequences to generally apply to youths 16 years and
over. The age of operation of the YOA remains unchanged at 12
to 17 inclusive under Bill C-37, rather than to the desired 10 to
15 inclusive.
An adult convicted of first degree murder is liable to jail for
life without eligibility for parole for 25 years, section 742(a) of
the Criminal Code, but may apply for judicial review of the
period of ineligibility after 15 years, section 745 of the Criminal
Code. A person convicted of second degree murder is liable to
jail for life without eligibility for parole for a period between 10
and 25 years, section 742(b) of the Criminal Code.
Bill C-37 expands the consequences for murder within the
Young Offenders Act. Therefore, by this greater accommodation
it will be less likely that youth murderers will be transferred to
adult court. The result may bring about a softening of the law as
more murderers will remain under the Young Offenders Act and
then be released earlier instead of being transferred to the adult
court under the former provisions.
The bill highlight also mentions that 16 and 17-year-olds
charged with serious personal injury offences can be transferred
to adult court unless they can show a judge that public protection
and rehabilitation can both be achieved through youth court. For
this new category the onus is on the offender to demonstrate.
Previously it was the crown which had the onus to demonstrate,
as it still does on all other transfers to adult court applications.
Currently a young offender must be 14 years old to be eligible
for transfer to adult court and must have committed an
indictable offence, section 16 of the YOA. Bill C-37
additionally says that those 16 and 17-year-olds who commit
murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual
assault and aggravated assault will have the onus on them to
show they should not be transferred.
4885
The government will not admit the basic flaw of the YOA, as
all youths 16 and 17 years should be judged in adult court. There
will likely be many more transfer hearings under C-37 which
are expensive, full trials used to determine where the real trial
will be heard.
The Reform alternative would retain transfers but they should
be available for any youth charged with an indictable offence.
However, the threshold of appropriate circumstances, section
16(1.1) for transfers is quite high from the precedence of the
case law. The likelihood of inappropriate transfers to adult court
is very remote under the Reform alternative. They would be
used only rarely if all 16 and 17-year old youth were already in
adult court.
C-37 extends the time that offenders 16 and 17 years old at the
time of offence who have been convicted of murder in adult
court must serve before they can be considered for parole.
Parole eligibility currently is five to 10 years, section 742(1) of
the Criminal Code. C-37 makes it 10 years for first degree
murder and seven years for second degree murder. The minister
announces this provision as a highlight. In view of the public's
lack of confidence in the national parole board this is a minor
change that cannot be considered as a provision ``that would
crack down''-from the justice news release of June 7.
First degree murder, the most heinous category, planned and
deliberate, should be applied the same for all in adult court: no
parole eligibility for 25 years, the fair exchange for removing
the death penalty.
Next is proposed that there are improved measures for
information sharing between professionals such as school
officials and police and selected members of the public when the
public's safety is at risk, as well as retaining the records of
serious young offenders longer. This is a tangled provision but
hopefully it does loosen things up so that a province can
designate social workers and school authorities to be given
confidential information about offenders they have dealings
with.
(1700 )
The basic non-disclosure aspects of the YOA unfortunately
remain. The misguided blanket media publication ban remains
concerning identifying an offender even though the operations
of local young offender courts are open to the public.
The argument that the media will sensationalize does not hold
and there would be no difference in operation from the adult
system. Only the high profile and socially significant cases will
be published, as they should.
Media publication of court operations is fundamental to the
effectiveness of general deterrence as well as developing public
confidence in the justice system.
The media restrictions for youth court should be the same as
adult court. Any half measure qualification of non-disclosure
for youth court is unacceptable.
The government defends C-37 under the United Nations
standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile
justice, the Beijing rules: a child is someone under 18 years; in
courts the best interest of the child should be a primary
consideration. Current Bill C-254 refers to these measures. It
suggests children should not become soldiers under 16 years,
and yet they are still to be treated as children until 18 years? It
also suggests that in courts the best interest of the child should
be paramount but does not address the balance for the offenders'
victims.
The government is making a most stretched argument to
defend the YOA by invoking the United Nations thereby telling
Canadians what its standards should be rather than submitting to
community judgment on the results the system delivers.
The YOA applies to the wrong set of youth. The complicated
provisions arise largely because of the misapplied age of
operation. Young offenders should be dealt with more
compassionately and separately from adults based on the theory
of diminished capacity to formulate intent, mens rea, guilty
mind, and to fully appreciate future outcomes.
Separation also addresses the contamination theory from
older hardened criminals in adult institutions. Privacy
provisions also rest on the clean slate, fresh start theory in the
hope that young offenders can be rehabilitated.
There is no evidence that the complicated system that has
been developed to address these ideas is needed. It is not much
more than an abstract ideal. However, it is a fact that victims
have been killed as a direct consequence of the YOA privacy
provisions.
The YOA has not received the support of the public because it
is basically flawed concerning the age of application. We
maintain there is consensus around the operating of a separate
youth court system that should apply to 10 to 15 years inclusive
rather than the current 12 to 17 inclusive.
The concept of dealing with young offenders differently from
adults is sound. However, how that is actually accomplished
reflects differences in social values. We propose that the justice
system must be accountable to the community for the results it
delivers. Does it denounce crime in a public, straightforward
and speedy way that inspires confidence? Does it seem fair to
all? Is it flexible but firm in its role of protecting the
community? Does it balance the rights and needs of victims with
those of the accused?
Canadians currently spend millions on social services for
young offenders. Appropriate public response to crime must be
broadly based with adequate investments in the public school
system, recreation and social services. The role of a vibrant
economy is also important, but it is too easy to always say we
4886
need to throw more money at a problem. We need to respond
better to the social causes of crime.
However, societal concerns cannot be used as an excuse not to
tighten up the justice system while we work on the broad social
policy objectives.
The juvenile justice system in its operation should mirror the
adult system as much as possible if it is to be understandable by
the community and develop general deterrents.
Consequently, the YOA court should be completely open to
the press. YOA court records should be one and the same as
adult criminal records and the same rules for the control and use
of adult records should apply to the YOA: access,
dissemination, subsequent court use. Without the social
engineering limits of the YOA justice must be seen to be done as
well as done.
We advocate the increased use of a variety of residential
young offender facilities, some of which may be secure.
Alternative measures such as diversion from further court
process, community accountability panels, victim
reconciliation programs, community work service, restitution
orders, fines, educational attendance programs and treatment
programs for behavioural disorders and substance abuse are all
being used at present at great expense to the taxpayer.
The community could always use more helping alternatives
but there are financial limits. There is no end to the demand for
more and better social programs, and government must balance
its priorities.
(1705)
Although C-37 tries to encourage the broader use of
non-custodial alternatives there is no additional cost shared
funding forthcoming related to the C-37 initiative.
In summary, it is my prediction that the half measures of C-37
are not going to fundamentally alter the operation of the young
offenders system and future results will still bring outcries of
dissatisfaction from the community.
The Liberals gave us the Young Offenders Act after years of
wrangling at the end of the former Liberal administration. It was
an overly optimistic social experiment, idealistically designed
around a wishful view of the community rather than reality. We
have now lived with the consequences of the YOA for 10 years.
It has been amended and improved by the Conservatives, as the
first version passed by this House was bleeding heart Liberal in
the extreme. It was a bureaucratic approach from the experts
down to the community.
Bill C-37 is finally an admission for the Liberals that the
original YOA was fundamentally flawed. The public pressure
has been building against the misguided YOA and C-37 is
another in a line of amendments to reflect reality rather than
idealistic theory.
As the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
undertakes the more long term fundamental review, I hope the
government will remain open to the common sense view of
ordinary Canadians and let them have what they have been
asking for. Canadians have said loud and clear they want a
juvenile justice system that they can have confidence in.
As Reformers we will work to let the people speak so that our
legal system reflects a higher standard which Canadians
deserve.
The motion of the Bloc members is oppositional in an
unhelpful manner. It says if it is not their way then it should be
no way and do not amend the act at this time.
Reformers are the true opposition and we will work with the
government to make the YOA reflective of what the community
wants. Again I say let the people speak and Reformers will bring
their voice to this House.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Bruce-Grey.
I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak to the
amendments to the Young Offenders Act as presented by the
Minister of Justice. I have studied for many years the behaviour
of young people across the spectrum from so-called normal to
abnormal, in part as a parent in anticipation of the needs of my
three sons and also as a family practitioner with a large
adolescent practice.
After all these years I still cannot say what I understand or that
I can always predict the reactions of young people to the
stresses, anxiety and confusing conflicts created by the
transition from child to adult.
I believe I have gained some valuable insights into these
issues with the help of my three sons and my young patients,
many of whom confided in me over the years the nature of their
feelings and anxieties, and by yet others who were brought to me
by their parents or social workers because of problematic
behaviour.
I do know from painful experience that the solutions to the
problems of young people's behaviour, violent or otherwise, are
neither simplistic nor linear because the problems and anxieties
that beset our youth are highly emotional, complex and volatile,
and the answers need to be flexible, individually focused and
multi-faceted. They also need to strike a careful balance
between the requirement to punish and the need for
rehabilitation and prevention.
As a member of Parliament for a very metropolitan urban
riding the issue of young offenders is particularly pertinent. I
have heard from many of my constituents, both adults who are
anxious and fearful, and youth, particularly street youth who are
homeless and lost.
4887
I believe I have heard all sides of this complex, emotional and
controversial issue and I agree that there is urgent need for
appropriate and sensitive action. It is in this light that I have
assessed the amendments to the Young Offenders Act proposed
by the justice minister.
I will not go into specific details of each amendment, as time
does not permit. I will instead deal with the overall intent and
philosophy of these changes. I believe that they need to fulfil
three specific criteria: safety and protection, accountability,
which must include punishment and rehabilitation, and cause
and prevention.
We need to balance within these concerns the rights and
responsibilities of all persons, the victim, the offender, the
justice system and society at large.
I will deal first with the issues of safety and protection. I think
we all agree that our responsibility as parliamentarians is to
ensure that Canadians are protected from harm and to maintain a
safe environment for them to live in wherever possible. We
know that women, seniors, youth and the most vulnerable in our
society live with anxiety and fear because of the perceived or
real escalation of violent crimes among our youth.
(1710)
Allaying these fears and ensuring safety are of prime
importance. To do this it is essential to securely isolate young
offenders at least until we can be sure that they are rehabilitated
enough to re-enter society without threat.
The Minister of Justice's amendments concerning the
lengthening of sentences for severe violent crimes regardless of
age address this issue appropriately. The provisions for the
sharing of information regarding the violent offender with those
in society who have responsibility for the safety and protection
of others such as school authorities, law enforcement officers
and child welfare workers will also be effective in ensuring
public safety.
At the same time by restricting the information only to those
who have a clear need to know and authority to act, the minister
has achieved a balance between protection of society from the
young offender and protection of the young offender from
understandable but illegal vigilante action and media
sensationalism.
With regard to the second issue of accountability and
punishment, I believe that the amendments separating the
punishment for severe violent crimes such as murder, rape,
aggravated assault and manslaughter from those of the less
severe young offences address appropriately the maxim from
Gilbert and Sullivan's ``Mikado'', that the punishment must fit
the crime.
Punishment should take into consideration not only the
enormity of the act and the culpability of the perpetrator but
must also be mindful of the responsibility to impart a lesson. If
this responsibility is not observed then punishment is nothing
more than revenge.
I believe this important balance is achieved in the new
proposals that would allow a judge to authorize medical or
psychological assessment of a serious or chronic offender and to
impose treatment in rehabilitation as part of a sentence. The
amendment that allows for a victim impact statement is another
extension of this accountability lesson. It teaches the offender
that singular, specific acts of violence have far reaching
consequences that affect the lives of more than the victim.
Further to this whole issue of culpability, I support fully the
minister's decision to keep the minimum age of the young
offender to 12. I believe, based on my experience as a parent and
family physician, that young people under 12 do not fully
comprehend the broader, more abstract concept of cause and
effect, especially in the very serious crime of murder.
There is a clear difference between a child's understanding of
right and wrong and the more mature understanding of the tragic
consequences of murder and rape, especially on the victim's
family and on the permanence of the deed. Our children do not
live in a vacuum. Media messages today glorify and condone
these extreme acts of violence and minimize the enormity of
effect, often rendering them trivial and commonplace,
especially to a child. Persons under 12 are children.
Moreover, the amendments that now require a young offender
between the ages of 15 and 17 to be treated in adult court further
strengthen this concept of maturity as a factor in culpability.
Finally, I would like to address the proposed amendments to
the Young Offenders Act under the third criterion of cause and
prevention. In this, the International Year of the Family, we have
a clear duty to all children, especially as parliamentarians to
Canadian children.
Children and youth are among the most vulnerable in society.
In the early years of life they depend on us completely for
security and protection. We have a responsibility as parents and
later as teachers to guide and nurture them, imparting to them a
sense of self-esteem and worth, an understanding of our societal
values, also furnishing them with the skills for coping with the
conflicts and stresses of life within the context of good
citizenship and with regard for rights and responsibilities.
Our children and youth have no secure ground on which to
build a future. In these times of economic instability and
unemployment our children are filled with a sense of futility and
hopelessness. As they see us, adults, buffeted often helplessly
by these endless stresses, they also experience our sense of
powerlessness.
4888
In this environment some of our young people are fortunate
enough to weather these stresses in a family atmosphere of love
and security, but there are many others whose fears are
compounded by the isolation of neglect and abuse. Our
neglected and abused children come from all social and
economic groups. Abuse is not only an active thing, it can be
inflicted passively when we deny love and guidance. If then
some of our children and youth act out their feelings of anxiety
and powerlessness in violent behaviour we must seek not only to
be protected from their actions and to punish them
appropriately, but we must also recognize these actions for what
they are, a tragic response to seemingly insurmountable odds.
(1715)
Whenever we exert our right to punish we must be conscious
of our responsibility to rehabilitate and our duty to prevent the
creation of further generations of lost and violent youth.
As parliamentarians we must act now as a priority to provide
resources for families who need assistance in coping with
difficult and recalcitrant children and youth. However these
measures must be remedial and preventive rather than punitive.
Like it or not, our youth are our hope for the future. We are the
only ones who can influence that future by how we deal with the
problems today.
I support the justice minister's amendments to the Young
Offenders Act because I believe they present realistic solutions
to the problems of today while building a secure and safe future
for tomorrow.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for her speech and ask a few questions.
The Minister of Justice has gone part of the way in
acknowledging that 16 or 17-year-olds who commit murder and
attempted murder perhaps should be tried in adult court.
However the onus has been switched. Why not just put them into
adult court and not go through this exercise of switching the
onus?
Second, it was not clear from the hon. member's speech why
the Young Offenders Act should not be amended to incorporate
the youths of 10 and 11 years of age.
This morning as I was leaving my house I had to stop my car,
get out and go back because a youth whom I had seen walking
down the street opposite my car was heading into our back yard.
I ran back and yelled: ``Hey, what are you doing there?''. It was a
person of this younger age scouting out a house. This was in
Vanier.
I want to know why we would not incorporate a system that
captures these people so that they are held responsible as well.
Ms. Fry: I forgot your first question. I do not believe that is
what the minister means by changing the onus for 15 to 17-year
olds to be tried in adult court. He said they should be tried in
adult court and it should be shown why they should not be tried
in adult court. It is clear they will be tried for very violent crimes
in adult court and the onus is on them to prove that they should
not be tried in this court. I think that is very appropriate.
Second, you talked about lowering the age from 12. I made it
quite clear that I do not believe we can put 12-year olds and
under 12-year olds in the same category. I do not believe that the
abstract concepts of crime and punishment really apply to young
people. I say this from experience, both as a parent and as a
practitioner who had lots of young people in my practice.
We need to help these young people by prevention, by
remedial help and by helping their parents with the resources
they need to help bring their children into line. However we
should not be throwing these children in jail at all.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, British Columbia has
the third highest youth crime rate in Canada after the Yukon and
the Northwest Territories.
Could the hon. member for Vancouver Centre tell me what
impact the amendments to the Young Offenders Act will have on
young people in two specific areas, namely the tougher
sentences and the referral to adult court which I, like the hon.
member, think is automatic?
[English]
Ms. Fry: With respect to increased sentences, it is in fact
appropriately punishing the young people for the very serious
crimes. Sorry, what was the second part of your question?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we are just about out of
time. The hon. member is going to be the next speaker so he will
have a chance later on.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I want to
digress for a moment. Fifty years ago today something
significant happened. I want to make reference to it.
There were three Victoria Cross medalists in my riding of
Bruce-Grey, Messrs. Bishop, Holmes and Currie. Billy Bishop
was a World War I flying ace. He worked as a consultant and
helped to train people for the second world war. David Currie
was married to an Owen Sound girl by the name of Isabelle Silue
and I understand she is still alive and lives in Ottawa. Thomas
Holmes was 18-years old-these people were only between 18
and 25 years with an average of maybe 22 years old-when he
stormed a bunker two or three times, giving his life to throw a
grenade into a pillbox. Eleven Germans had surrendered to him.
I would like to pay tribute to them as well as one more person,
4889
Lloyd Clark who was at Passchendaele and was also on the
beaches of Normandy.
(1720)
Ever since I rose in the House to respond to the throne speech,
one of the things I hoped we could do was work collaboratively
together. The Young Offenders Act is one of those topics. All
members owe it to their communities to make them safer.
We owe it to Canadians to be as factual and as analytical as
possible in dealing with the issue that most critically involves
striking a balance between the rights of the victim, the offender
and society in general.
No matter what our political stripe or gender or cultural
perception, we must get this one right. In our daily work we deal
with tax issues, procedural issues, political issues to mention a
few. I would argue with my colleagues on all sides of the House
that this is one on the human side like no other.
Simply put, all members in the House and Canadians in
general want to be in a community that is safe and secure. This is
a public policy issue and a priority for us as a government.
In this democratic forum I call on all sides to make sure that
we benefit from the discussions here. The hon. member for
Saint-Hubert made a good presentation and a passionate one. I
know that she does a good job for the province of Quebec,
notwithstanding the fact that she disagrees with us completely
and would like to make an amendment to the act.
In the era of Aristotle and Plato the justice issue was
discussed. I am intrigued by the fact that in this debate in the
year 1994 we are attempting to debate that very notion. This is
an intergenerational problem and it requires from time to time
that in places like the House of Commons we debate this kind of
policy.
Margaret Mead, the sociologist that studied society, said that
a family that did not care for all of the children within that
family was a family that would fail. In every society she studied
there were problems in terms of the way the family is.
The way we deal with our young people is very important.
Recently, during the election, I had a whole lot of street kids
right in front of my campaign office. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,
by the end of the election they were all working with me. One
guy even got five bucks. He got his picture in the papers. They
changed completely. They tell me that a lot of adults walk right
by them, not admitting they exist. Sometimes we have to look at
ourselves when dealing with young people.
Recent events within various communities have increased
public fears, fueled the debate and intensified the attacks on the
Young Offenders Act. Canadians empathize and are saddened by
the tragedies. However I strongly feel that we must analyse and
make sure that we do not get into misinformation and prompt an
emotional response to this question. The minister is trying to
find a good balance to make sure that some of those needs are
met by allowing youths to say why they should not go to adult
court, of sharing information with the police, the teachers and
the people in the community that require it and using all those
agencies within the communities to make sure that when the
person is convicted that they are going to be able to work with
them in order to get them rehabilitated.
It is all well and good to put a person in jail, but sooner or later
he has to come out. If the apprenticeship they get in prison is one
that teaches them to be criminals, that is what you are going to
get. If the response is one we can deal with in our communities,
which is one of caring and and trying to find out what makes a
person tick, there are certainly going to be some individuals who
will respond. When I took psychology we studied people with
the xyy chromosome and some postulated that there was not
much that could be done with people who had that tendency.
(1725)
If members watched the movie One Flew over the Cuckoos
Nest they will remember McMurphy. At that time frontal
lobotomies were given which removed parts of the brain.
Members will remember that when they did that to McMurphy
he was no longer the person we knew. That was something that
happened in mental hospitals and was a response to a problem of
humanity.
Human beings are very complex organisms. I listened to
members from both sides of the House saying: ``We are
legislators, we pass legislation''. One thing I want to say in
passing is that in this legislation we are trying to strike a
balance. There can be no perfect solution because God created
each one of us differently but equally. It is that diversity which
has made us the kinds of people we are. We allow that.
There are societies where they use very harsh methods. I just
came back from South Africa. In South Africa if a person
committed a crime and was caught they were brutalized, beaten,
their families were intimidated, incarcerated and virtually
disappeared. Some were even killed.
Do you know what is the response to that kind of harsh
system? If criminals saw your face they would kill you. It got
very bad in that community.
Statistics from the United States tell us that more people are
incarcerated there than in any other country in the world. They
have extremely violent crime activity and it seems to be
increasing so I do not know if that system would help us.
Incarceration costs us a lot of money. Why not provide some
means of restitution, some means of rehabilitation. Let us make
sure we have the infrastructure to ensure that the needs of people
are met in our communities.
4890
I fully support the example in the recent study by the John
Howard Society. It estimates the cost of keeping a young person
incarcerated as $191 per day. The minister mentioned earlier
that it costs some $70,000 to $100,000 to keep a person in jail.
If those resources were reallocated and we do not put young
people in jail for activities that are not severe and could be
solved, we could reallocate those funds to those people, making
them into productive people in our communities and getting
them back into society.
A lot of human tragedy is involved in this debate, both on the
victim's side and the offender's side. I do not want to make light
of what has happened in some peoples' lives in terms of the just
desserts situation or any other situation that has occurred within
the last little while.
The amount of crime in our society, as based on studies, is
really going down. According to StatsCan, the number of youths
arrested for all crimes fell by 4.7 per cent in 1991. Less than 3
per cent of young offenders charged with a violent crime
committed a serious personal injury crime.
The murder and manslaughter rate is less than 1 per cent. As
bold and horrible as violent crime is we in government have a
duty to act responsibly. It is correct for us not to panic and that
we make the changes being considered by the minister.
No one can critically analyse youth crime without considering
societal conditions and the root causes. There are simple
solutions to this. I would ask members to give this the weight it
deserves in this discussion.
The proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act reflect
a reality. We know that youth crime is related to societal
conditions, poverty, school failure, substance abuse, child abuse
and neglect, spouse abuse, unemployment and dysfunctional
families. However this does not make excuses for violent
offenders.
(1730 )
Therefore, a balanced approach by the minister is what we
would require. I urge all members on this side to take a balanced
approach. We do live in a society in which we have to allow
people to reach their potential. We do not incarcerate people.
That is not our technique. I think the minister has found the best
balance in his solution.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that, first of all,
the opposition will co-operate on an issue like young offenders.
We will certainly work on and examine this bill very seriously.
However, when we deal with such an important issue on which
there seems to be unanimity in Quebec, a unanimity that is
growing in the other provinces, you may find that our
involvement will be one of opposing this measure. But you can
be sure that we do it for young people, because 10-, 11-, 12-,
17- and 18-year-olds are not here to defend themselves, few
groups will defend them, and I think it is our duty to do so.
However, I have a little question for the hon. member. I
listened attentively to his speech and I like his approach on the
issue of young offenders. Compared with the justice minister's
bill before us, which everyone, except the government, of
course, recognizes as a more repressive approach than that of the
hon. member, which, as I understood from his speech,
emphasizes rehabilitation and social reintegration.
I would like the hon. member to tell me where he stands on all
this, how he reconciles his approach with that of the minister
through Bill C-37.
[English]
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for not
speaking in his first language.
In my previous job as a mayor one of the things police asked is
that the names be made public. I believe there is a mechanism
for that. In some cases when young offenders only had a
five-year sentence they knew that the five years went very
quickly and that did not give them a chance to be introspective
and to take courses to get rid of their inhibitions and some of the
problems that they had in working in society. The latitude that
the minister put in there will help.
I say to the member opposite that basically what we have is a
tightening up, to some degree. He is right, we are moving toward
a more strict society. In order for a society to work and to have
the judges, police and teachers on side we have to take some of
these measures.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
the member who just gave a very good speech.
I agree with him in the sense that we ought not to be
incarcerating people thinking that thereby we can make them
good. As a matter of fact, I do not believe there is a law that we
can pass that will make people good.
I grew up in a very special home, one in which we were not
permitted-I grew up before there was television-to listen to
radio programs which had violence. We were not permitted to
settle our differences with violence. It had to be with negotiation
and compromise. As a youngster I grew up so that as an adult for
me to impose a criminal act on someone else was not even within
the realm of my thinking.
How does the member propose to deal with those people who
did not have that training, who do not have that built in morality
that restrains them? How do we restrain those who actually find
it very easy to pick up an axe, a gun or a knife to harm other
people?
4891
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have enough
time for this question but I will try to answer it very quickly.
I guess censorship is another question. We do not censor
things. People are supposed to know what is reality and what is
not. I agree with the member. Most of us on this side of the
House who grew up during his time know that there were very
strict acts and most of us tried to confront that.
There is a great tendency within society as it stands now. I
taught high school before I came here. A child may be subjected
to four or five parents and there are some complications in those
relationships. In a lot of cases they are given love. Talk to people
from the children's aid or anybody who takes kids in who cannot
deal with them. Unfortunately there are no tests for families, and
part of our problem is to try to do that.
(1735)
The other alternative is to lock them up, shoot them or hang
them, and that is not what we do in our society.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, in a few words, to begin, I think I can say, and not be
too far off the mark, that an elephant has just brought forth a
mouse; the elephant, of course, is the problem of young
offenders, you understand.
Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois has proposed an amendment
which the House can accept, for the sake of young people who
need help in Canada.
After receiving much media coverage, reading thousands of
briefs and attending federal-provincial conferences, the
minister let it be understood that the problem of young offenders
was very complex and deserved special attention to produce
amendments for correcting the deficiencies in the system. The
big problem of youth is supposed to be solved with the bill we
have in our hands.
So where do we stand? What is the wonder prescription to
achieve this objective? So as not to be accused of distorting the
major points of the bill, I will use the justice minister's press
release of June 2. Here are the ingredients of the wonder formula
to deal with the problems of young offenders.
First of all, the minister proposes extending the penalties for
adolescents found guilty in youth court of first- or
second-degree murder to ten and seven years respectively. What
a stroke of inspiration. We see that the essential element of the
bill is repression. Indeed, the government stresses this point at
the outset so that everyone understands.
Secondly, the minister proposes referring to adult court 16-
and 17-year-olds accused of an offence involving serious
bodily harm, unless they can convince a judge that the
objectives of public protection and rehabilitation can both be
met if they are judged in a youth court.
This is an important change. In our system, one is presumed
innocent until proven guilty and the Crown must prove beyond
any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty; however, if the
accused is 16 or 17 years old, he is presumed to be an adult for
the purposes of his trial unless the public interest does not
require it.
Under our laws, an underage person will have to show that the
public can be protected and he can be returned to society if his
case is referred to youth court; this is a dangerous breach of legal
principles which concerns me greatly.
With this bill, the government is dividing 16- and
17-year-olds into two classes: persons under 18 who are docile
and can be rehabilitated and those who, at age 16 and 17, are
incorrigible, as implied in the bill. If we can speak of the long
arm of the law, we can now say that it is also selective.
How can such unfair treatment be compatible with the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? In any event, we in
Quebec have at least 25 years of experience in reintegrating
young offenders in society. Although we need to invest to
expand the program, and although I agree that a lot remains to be
done, we have a system to provide support to a young person
who needs help. But in those English-speaking provinces where
rehabilitation is not a priority, where will a 16 or 17-year-old
go, even if he asks for protection under the Young Offenders
Act? I am quite sure that legal precedents will quickly be created
and based on the principle that a 16 or 17-year-old must be held
accountable for his acts, must be treated like an adult, must be
dealt with by an adult court, and must also be sentenced as an
adult.
In the reform he tabled last week, the minister also lengthens
the sentences to be served by 16 and 17-year old offenders who
are found guilty of murder by an adult court, before they can be
eligible for parole. Again, the underlying message being
conveyed is one of repression.
(1740)
The fourth element mentioned by the minister to help young
people avoid getting into trouble with the law is to improve the
sharing of information between professionals, for example
school authorities, the police and some public representatives,
when public security is threatened, and to retain criminal
records for a longer period in the case of young offenders who
have committed serious crimes.
I am curious to see how clause 38.(1.14) will be interpreted as
regards public security.
Many well-meaning but tactless people will append the
criminal record and the court order to the academic record,
precisely for so-called security reasons. What a nice introduc-
4892
tion, for the young person, to this self-proclaimed tolerant and
generous society.
The message is quite clear when you read the bill, especially
as regards that issue. It says: you are a petty criminal and we will
make sure that you do not forget that. We will try to ensure that
you are periodically reminded of that by appending this
information to your school record.
If the provisions of this bill are strictly implemented, a young
delinquent will spend more time in an institution, will have less
chance of rehabilitating himself and, when he gets out, will be a
branded person. The last ingredient of the minister's recipe is
rehabilitation and treatment. We cannot say much on this
because the minister certainly did not elaborate on this
particular point. He merely said that, in the case of young
offenders, rehabilitation and treatment will be used when
appropriate.
I am sorry, but I believe that a 10, 11, 14 or 17 year old has a
right to whatever rehabilitation or treatment is required in his
case. This should not be a conditional but, rather, an
unconditional provision in the bill. Once again, our views are
very different.
The Minister of Justice told us he consulted a lot of people,
including representatives of the legal profession, police
officers, school authorities, provinces and many others. Among
all of the proposed amendments, I wonder which ones were
requested by the Quebec Minister of Justice, the Director of
Youth Protection, the Quebec Judicial Council or even the
National Assembly of Quebec? Which criminologist or
sociologist in Quebec would want such repression? Who in
Quebec asked for this kind of amendments?
If the minister held consultations, and I am sure he did, we can
only conclude that, for the government to have come up with
such a flimsy effort, as I said earlier, the Liberal Party of Canada
must have felt unbearable internal pressure from Western
Canada. To please the majority, they once again ignored the will
of Quebecers, even though Quebec had made it very clear what it
wanted. To be heard, the National Assembly of Quebec as well
as Bloc members in this House have always maintained their
positions.
As I intend to make myself clear, maybe for the last time, I
will quote none other that the Quebec Minister of Justice whom
the federal minister allegedly consulted. On May 4, Mr. Roger
Lefebvre, Liberal minister in the Quebec government, said: ``I
think it is important for the federal and provincial governments
to focus their actions more on rehabilitation than on repression.
Young offenders need help and support to re-enter society. It is
important not to condemn in advance all young offenders who
commit violent crimes''.
I wonder if the minister, a federalist I might add, is happy with
the bill introduced by his big brother. Yet, according to the
Quebec Minister of Justice, the message was made very clear at
the federal-province conference. Mr. Lefebvre sums up his
position in this way: ``At the federal-provincial conference of
the Ministers of Justice which took place in Ottawa on March 23
and 24, I had several opportunities to express the positions of
Quebec, particularly on the proposed amendment to the Young
Offenders Act. I also said that the Quebec government intends to
pursue and intensify its search of durable and effective solutions
that will meet the real needs of young people, and leave some
hope for their future''.
I would like to expand a little bit on that point of view because
it is important to understand the inconsistencies in the current
situation. I stressed that federal action must be respectful of
Quebec jurisdiction and seek to reduce overlapping so that
Quebec does not end up with higher costs.
(1745)
I also indicated that experience in Quebec has shown that the
present maximum sentence of five years is adequate for an
overwhelming majority of murders committed by young people.
The present transfer mechanism for serious offenses makes it
possible to judge young offenders in a regular criminal court
when their rehabilitation requires a long period of detention that
cannot be determined.
And in the last paragraph, we have the explanation of the bill
of the federal minister of justice. It is Mr. Lefebvre who says this
to the National Assembly on May 4: ``It seems to me that it
would be more appropriate to make better use of current
legislative tools for referrals instead of changing the rules, as
some of the other provincial ministers of justice indicated
during that federal-provincial conference''. That is clear
enough. Without having been present at that federal-provincial
conference, I can say that Quebec City's concerns did not carry
much weight in the decision of the federal justice.
I consider the Minister of Justice a progressive and I have a lot
a respect for him but, unfortunately, I have to say that this bill is
disappointing and dangerous. With due respect for the opposite
opinion, I can say that the alarm has been sounded. Next time,
what principle of our justice system will disappear? Who will
take the rap so that we can silence and calm right-wing people?
This bill misses the target and ignores the real flaws and the
present problems.
I hear members of the government telling me that I am playing
well my role of official opposition in criticizing a bill coming
from the Minister of Justice. However, I will do more than that.
Sometimes, I dream about putting myself in the place of a
minister to try to understand his position, to follow his logic and
to ask myself what I would have done if I had been in his shoes.
4893
In the present case, it has been difficult for me to understand the
minister's position and to follow his logic, but in spite of it all, I
would have never meddled with the Young Offenders Act.
The problem is not the act, but its application. Indeed, if I had
been in the place of the Minister of Justice, I would have
outlined the situation in this way. First, I would have encouraged
Western provinces and other Canadian provinces to follow the
example of Quebec where rehabilitation is the basic objective.
In summary, I would not have reinvented the wheel, I would
simply have insisted on respect for the meaning and the purpose
of the Young Offenders Act as it now stands. We do not even
know the results of the latest amendments to the act and we
already want to bring in some new ones. We cannot deal with
such an issue on the short term, we must know where we are
going.
Second, I would have talked about statistics because they are
important. The most recent statistics show that crime by youths
is declining. The media exaggerate the situation and the public
has the wrong impression about today's young people. However,
in larger cities, statistics seem to be influenced by a series of
factors like the presence of gangs, new cultural communities, et
cetera. Some of the things that certain members said in their
speeches called this to mind.
Also in my dream, as justice minister, I would have
introduced a program in partnership with the Minister of Human
Resources Development in order to encourage the development,
effectiveness and efficiency of youth houses, streetworkers,
centres and other places for young people, by means of
employment and development programs and sections like
section 25. I think that prevention, education and
consciousness-raising can prevent crime. I would not have
condemned anyone but I would have tried to understand the
problem and eliminate it at the root. The bill does not mention
anything to that effect.
Third, the public rightly responds to the facts reported by the
media. One particular case which recently resulted in a general
outcry deals with the robbery of a convenience store by minors
who were controlled by adults. The organizer of the crime, an
adult, was sentenced to two years in jail even if a murder was
committed in that store. This kind of case is not new. It is
well-known that well organized criminals and unscrupulous
bums use young people to do their crimes.
(1750)
Is the minor the problem or the adult? We all know that a 10 or
11-year-old looks up to his elders. They are prepared to do
anything to be accepted, even commit armed robbery or kill
someone. In this case, the culprit is not the 10 or 11-year-old.
The real criminal, the dangerous offender is the adult who uses a
young person for his own perverted ends.
And what did the minister put in his bill to stop this shocking
and shameless exploitation of young people? Nothing.
If I were the minister, I would have proposed amendments to
the Criminal Code. I would not be satisfied with the current
sentences these adults receive when they are caught. A person
who conspires with a minor to commit a crime should answer for
the same crime as the minor. That is why I would have proposed
a new section in the Criminal Code, to follow section 465 which
deals with conspiracy, and to be referred to as section 465.1
``conspiracy with a minor''.
I am not an expert on legal drafting, but to give hon. members
an idea of what I would like to see in this section, I will read you
a section that would have read as follows: ``Except where
otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions
apply in respect of persons who conspire with minors to cause
them to commit offences: (a) everyone who conspires with a
minor to cause him to commit an offence in the meaning of
section 231, first degree murder or second degree murder, in the
meaning of section 239, attempt to commit murder, in the
meaning of sections 233 and 234, manslaughter, in the meaning
of section 273, aggravated sexual assault, in the meaning of
section 268, aggravated assault, is guilty of the indictable
offence of which the minor is accused and liable to the same
punishment, provided under each of these sections, to which he
would be liable if he had himself committed the offence''.
The second paragraph of this section would have read as
follows: ``Everyone who conspires with a minor or causes him
to commit any other offence punishable on summary conviction
or an indictable offence is, if the offence is committed by the
minor, guilty of the offence as though he had committed the
offence himself and is liable to the same punishment''.
This section is intended to fill a gap in our legislation. It
would send a very clear message that trying to be clever by using
young people in our country is a criminal offence. In this way we
would deal with the real problem.
Since in many cases, the adult would receive a more severe
sentence than the young offender, the objective of this
amendment would soon be reached. We cannot just stand there
and let a young person's life be ruined. We need constructive
proposals. Unfortunately, I am not the Minister of Justice, and
this House has to live with Bill C-37, where it looks like in the
minister's mind, there has to be a link between repression and
crime. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe that we should not forget the extensive study
undertaken last year in the United States, in two or three states
where the young offender legislation had been amended to
lengthen sentences. It shows that, instead of going down as
expected, the crime rate among young people went up. How do
you explain this? I do not know. I am not a psychologist, but I do
4894
know that it is true. To claim that repression is going to lower
the crime rate is ludicrous.
Bill C-37, in its present form, is contrary to Quebec's policy
and legislation regarding youth protection. It flies in the face of
the motion passed nearly unanimously, on May 5 last, by the
Quebec National Assembly, as if we were no longer part of the
federal government's concerns. Fortunately, I do hope that the
House will seize the opportunity to backtrack offered by the
Bloc member for Saint-Hubert, with her proposed amendment.
There is no shame in admitting that one was wrong, and I believe
that this amendment gives the House of Commons the
opportunity to acknowledge that it is proceeding a bit too fast
with an issue as important as young offenders. It could be that
the consultations undertaken by the minister did not yield the
expected results.
We must realize that the decision the House is going to make
regarding young offenders will have far-reaching consequences
since it will alter the course of their lives. It is not a decision we
can make lightly.
(1755)
In conclusion, I would also mention people we have not talked
about yet, except in a question I asked one member, and who are
not mentioned in the repressive amendments of the minister. I
am referring to native young offenders.
If we look at the figures of Statistics Canada, as we go west
the crime rate increases. In the Yukon and the Northwest
Territories the figures are alarming. The rate is over 30 per cent
in the Northwest Territories. What is the minister going to do
with all these young people, where is he going to put them?
Is he going to build special institutions for young offenders?
Is he going to increase funding for legal aid? Who is going to
assume the defence of the poor? How much is it going to cost?
These questions have to be answered and I am very surprised
that western members, who claim to be the Official Opposition
on certain issues, did not take up the case of the people who
elected them and are directly affected by these amendments.
Finally, with these amendments the jails are going to be full,
we will have to build more, and there will not be much
rehabilitation, because the demand will be much greater than
what the province can provide, given that no money was ever
invested in rehabilitation and social reintegration.
For all these reasons I will support the Bloc Quebecois'
amendment and vote against this bill.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member opposite a few questions about the
information he gave concerning the lack of co-operation or
consultation between the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada.
That is not quite accurate. At any rate, I want to know where
he got his information, because I know that the Minister of
Justice of Canada did consult his provincial colleague.
Furthermore, we on this side of the House are also concerned
about crime prevention. The Minister of Justice said that this is
the first in a series of measures that we will bring in as the
Government of Canada in a real effort to prevent youth crime.
This is not the only measure; it is one of a series that we want to
introduce as a government.
As far as repression is concerned, I do not think that the bill is
repressive, that is not really what we want to do in the
legislation; we want to try to help young people who are
involved in crime, to help them so they do not continue on that
path all their life, to act early to break the vicious circle of youth
crime.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer these
questions. First, I said that I was convinced the minister had held
consultations.
The problem is that he consulted with his ears plugged. For
example, what the Quebec minister of justice asked for and what
the legislation now says are two completely different things. In
other words, the federal justice minister consulted his provincial
counterpart, but did not accept any of his suggestions and
rejected everything that Quebec asked for regarding young
offenders.
In fact, I believe a unanimous resolution was passed last May
5 by Quebec's National Assembly, asking that the federal justice
minister not amend the Young Offenders Act, which works just
fine as it is. Of course, there is always room for improvement.
However, it is not by lengthening sentences and by
implementing amendments such as these that the objective of
the Young Offenders Act will be reached.
According to the justice minister's release, this is just the first
stage. The minister seems to want to bring changes in two
stages. However, I find this to be a curious strategy, in the sense
that we are taking a stand regarding that first stage and will tell
the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs what we expect from
a consultation process.
In my opinion, this process is biased and, in any case, it gums
up the works for the debate we want to have at the second stage.
The hon. member may not be pleased by the fact that I use the
term repressive. But take a look at what people say outside this
House. Psychologists, criminologists, sociologists, provincial
politicians and journalists are almost unanimous in saying that
this legislation is repressive.
(1800)
Out of five salient points mentioned by the minister, three
directly relate to longer sentences and to the reversal of the
burden of proof in order to be heard by a youth court. I am sorry,
but these provisions are repressive. There are no other words for
it. Three points out of five-a clear majority-are repressive.
4895
Consequently, I feel I can refer to this bill as a very repressive
measure. This answers your three points.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, on
this day, June 6, we remember the principles of peace and
freedom and the ability of courageous people to overcome
oppression and evil and to maintain these principles. It seems
there are certain principles under attack within our own
community. People are not at peace; they are not free when they
are under threat to their life, their property and their well-being.
My hon. colleague mentioned that a principle of justice has
been eradicated by the bill. I would simply like to ask him what
principle of justice has been eradicated by the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I may not be an expert in
criminal law, but I did practice law for seven years and I have
always understood two facts about our British-style system of
justice. First, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Second, the burden rests with the Crown to prove guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. In the matter now before us, in Quebec and
in other provinces, there are laws on the books that say that a
young person is considered to be an adult when he or she reaches
18 years of age. That is a principle. If the proposed legislative
changes are adopted, a 16- or 17-year-old could be tried for a
crime as a adult. To my mind, this provision flies in the face of
the principle whereby everyone is treated equally under the law.
In the case of some 16- or 17-year-olds, the government would
be saying that while you are considered a minor under certain
laws, we have adopted others which say that you are an adult and
will be tried as an adult.
I find this approach extremely dangerous. It opens the door to
setting aside other, perhaps more important, principles. Just
how far is the government prepared to go to appease the people
on the right and silence those who may be misinformed or even
manipulated by groups who distort the facts?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
fully support the bill but my colleague opposite raised a concern
that I share, that is the whole issue of young people 16 and 17
years of age having to prove to the judge that they should not be
transferred to adult court. I agree with him that this would
appear to be a problem where the accused is forced to prove his
innocence.
However I note the minister said in his remarks today that the
final decision on whether or not a young person goes to adult
court, if I interpret the minister correctly, is entirely at the
discretion of the judge. Surely that answers my concern and the
concerns of my colleague opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: As far as referral is concerned, Mr.
Speaker, there are two points I have not raised yet, but that really
worry me. When we talk about referral, we talk about the whole
justice system. This is going to be very costly. I cannot wait to
see how much this new referral process will cost to the justice
system? Also, this bill will make the procedure more
cumbersome.
I would like to give a straight answer to the hon. member, but I
seem to have forgotten what was his question was. I think it had
to do with judges, but I am not sure. Can he remind me of his
question?
The Deputy Speaker: I think another member wishes to ask a
question. I will recognize the hon. member for
Carleton-Charlotte.
(1805)
[English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
must certainly comment on the hon. member's presentation this
afternoon. He has made it very clear that he does not agree with
the bill the minister has brought forth. We on this side of the
House believe that it is a very balanced approach. Today we
celebrated the 50th anniversary of D-Day. Times have changed
over the past 50 years, there is no question.
I particularly want to zero in and ask a question of the hon.
member on the second component of the presentation made by
the Minister of Justice with regard to the justice committee
taking on a study of the cause, what has caused in recent years
the tremendous increase in young offenders.
Having worked with young people over many years in several
different capacities it is a concern to me. I know it is to the hon.
member. I wonder if he might like to touch on that factor.
Ultimately what everyone on this side of the House wants, and I
am sure those on the other side of the House, is not to have to
deal with the situation because the young people are not getting
themselves into those problems.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, answering this question is
easy because it is not true that there has been an explosion in
youth crime. The statistics even show a decrease except, as I
said earlier in my speech, in the major centres like Montreal,
Toronto and Vancouver where there are gangs, where new
arrivals try to enforce their own brand of justice, and so on.
4896
It is not true that there has been a tremendous increase in
youth crime and I think it is wrong to try to give that impression.
According to the statistics I have which cover the period from
1972 to 1992, the number of crimes of all kinds is exactly the
same, give or take four or five. It is wrong to talk about an
increase. We will discuss it in detail in the Committee on Justice
and Legal Affairs, but it is wrong to talk about an explosion, as
we will demonstrate before the committee.
What I do not like in the referral or the minister's request is
that we will adopt the Young Offenders Act. The committee
considered that, of course, but it also planned a second phase to
consider the amendments I want. We know that the minister
consulted or at least said he consulted several stakeholders.
Does the bill really meet these stakeholders' requests? I doubt it.
I will now take this opportunity to respond to the hon. member
who asked me a question earlier that I just remembered. Yes, it is
true that, under the referral system, the judges will decide
whether or not young offenders will be transferred to adult
court. Quebec has room to accommodate these people and I am
convinced that the jurisprudence that will evolve in Quebec will
be rather similar to that of Ontario but very different from that of
Western Canada. Why? Because Quebec and Ontario have
started to develop a whole system to accommodate these young
people, including youth protection and rehabilitation
centres-Quebec already has several such centres.
What will happen in Western Canada and the Northwest
Territories? They do not have any rehabilitation centres where
they can send their young offenders. So my main conclusion is
that the jurisprudence will be much tougher in Western Canada
and they will take the opportunity to transfer all these 16- and
17-year-olds to adult court. That is what I question and what I
find very dangerous.
I hope I have answered the question this time.
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice to the
debate on the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders
Act. I stand as someone who has worked for over 30 years in the
education system, working with young people as a school
teacher, as a vice-principal, as a principal and in several
capacities as counsellor. I am also a mother of two black
Canadian children. I am very concerned about all Canadian
youth, including the situation of black youth in the country.
We heard from across the way that the elephant gave birth to a
mouse. This is not reality. We are talking about Bill C-37 which
is intent on addressing the reality of the situation that faces us
today in our communities.
(1810 )
My constituency office in Etobicoke-Lakeshore receives
numerous calls on a daily basis: calls for reforms to the act, calls
from Canadians concerned about the safety of their families,
concerned about their communities, concerned and fearful when
they read the daily barrage of media reports and stories that
speak about teenage vandalism, random acts of violence, use of
weapons, et cetera. Some of the people I have spoken to about
the issue tell me that juveniles are laughing at the present system
of justice. They want to see reforms to the Young Offenders Act.
Public consultation has indicated a major dissatisfaction with
the present treatment of young offenders. The bill is the justice
minister's response to Canadians to provide Canadians with
immediate action that would particularly address violent
crimes.
I will direct my remarks to the situation around the call for
action. On June 2, 1994 the justice minister introduced this
comprehensive, two-phase set of proposals to amend portions
of the 10-year old Young Offenders Act. These proposals reflect
an extensive process of consultation and consideration
regarding violent young offenders who commit serious crimes.
The proposed amendments will improve the act's ability to deal
effectively with serious youth crime and improve public
protection.
There are several highlights to these proposals: increased
sentences for teenagers convicted of first or second degree
murder in youth court; dealing with 16 and 17-year-olds charged
with serious personal offences in adult court unless they can
show a judge otherwise, and we heard the debate a few minutes
ago between the Bloc member and the member on this side of the
House about the decision of the judge that public protection and
rehabilitation can both be achieved through youth court; and
extending the time that 16 and 17-year old young offenders who
have been convicted of murder in an adult court must serve
before they can be considered for parole.
Bill C-37 calls for improved measures for information
sharing between professionals such as school officials, police
and selected members of the public when public safety is at risk,
as well as retaining the records of serious young offenders a
little longer and encouraging rehabilitation and treatment of
young offenders in the community when appropriate.
Some members of the Chamber will have us believe that these
measures are not tough enough. We heard the debate this
afternoon. They are seeking harsher penalties for each category
of the Young Offenders Act. Some even advocate a hard line
approach that would call upon applying the act to offenders as
young as 10 years of age. They argue that the public will be
better protected from the serious antisocial behaviour of some
children if these children were included under the Young
Offenders Act.
4897
A federal-provincial committee studied the minimum age
issue in 1990 and recommended keeping the age of 12 and
strengthening provincial legislation where required. The act
covers youth under the age of 18 and was set at 17 because many
adult rights and responsibilities, for example voting, alcohol
consumption, et cetera, begin at age 18.
However many criminologists have argued that the preventive
and rehabilitative strategies available in the youth court system
are in the long run more effective at reducing youth crime than
strategies which rely mainly on the deterrent factor associated
with the adult penal system. In the long run harsher jail
sentences, tougher parole laws and bigger prisons will not make
our communities any safer from violent youth crime. Quick
measures will not provide a long term solution to the issue of
young violent offenders.
(1815 )
What should be done and what will be done once the second
phase of the government's plan goes into action is to change the
conditions that create violence among young people. We must
respond to the issue of violence among young people with well
thought out strategies to change the root causes of such
behaviour.
I know that over the next six to eight months the justice
committee will be undertaking a thorough assessment of the
Young Offenders Act. We must involve our young people in
these discussions, as well as those in the community who are
most affected by fear of crime.
We must not create a punitive repressive youth justice system
that will target blacks, natives and the poor. The long term
solution will call for co-ordination between the community,
social services and the justice system to tackle the complex
questions surrounding youth crime.
Violence against women and children, poverty, shortage of
recreational facilities, lack of opportunities, dysfunctional
families, racism are all underlying factors which lead to youth
crime. We must all work together toward seeking alternatives.
Prevention of violence and crime will surely be our ultimate
goal, not the punitive way in which some members of this House
would have us go.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I have an easy question for the hon. member. In her
speech, she talked about the transfer to adult court and she
seemed to be in favour of the system proposed by the Minister of
Justice in his amendments. Does the parliamentary secretary not
realize that under the present system a young offender between
the ages of 14 and 17 can be transferred to adult court? If the
prosecution asks for the transfer to adult court of an accused
between the ages of 14 and 17, the judge can order the transfer,
in which case the regular system applies and the sentences are
the ones set for adults.
If she is aware of that, why does she want to change a system
which has been operating for 10 years? If it is because of a
particular problem, I would like to know what it is and how we
could solve it, apart from the proposed amendments.
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, the changes that are proposed
and the changes that have occurred are as a result of the serious
consultation which has taken place. We have also looked at the
age at which the responsibility of sentencing could be placed on
individuals as a result of the kind of crime committed. When the
member says they could be transferred at age 14 directly into
adult court, I am not sure whether he has missed the part in Bill
C-37 which speaks to this consideration. The decision of
moving from youth court to adult court is made by the judge.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I know that,
according to the bill, a young offender between the ages of 14
and 16 can be transferred. The transfer system remains, but I
wanted to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that
the system exists in the present act, for young offenders between
14 and 17. I wanted to point that out to the hon. member.
In her answer the parliamentary secretary says that the
decision to propose automatic referral to adult court for
offenders aged 16 and 17 had been taken after serious
consultation. I would like to know which groups asked for those
changes or in which provinces they were most vocal?
[English]
Ms. Augustine: Mr. Speaker, at this point I cannot delineate
for the member which provinces and which groups provided the
specific input for the bill before us. It is important to note that
we were attempting to deal with serious crimes, first and second
offences, the ability of the judge to decide whether the crime is
serious enough or the offence is serious enough to be moved.
(1820)
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate
in this debate.
As a member of Parliament from metropolitan Toronto I can
assure members that many people in my riding of
Parkdale-High Park do not feel safe in their neighbourhoods
any more. Seniors are afraid. Women live in fear. They are afraid
to come out to town hall meetings in the evenings. Even some of
the schoolyards appear to be dangerous places for the children.
Parents complain that they are finding syringes in the sandboxes
4898
and are afraid their children could get pricked with those and get
AIDS, et cetera.
That is why I welcome tougher legislation to make the Young
Offenders Act more effective. Acting on a promise from the
Liberal election platform of October 26, 1993 the Liberal
government is cracking down on serious youth crime and
making the protection of society our first priority.
In the chapter entitled ``Safe Homes and Safe Streets'', the
Liberals promised to double the maximum sentence from five
years to 10 years for first degree murder. Bill C-37 makes good
on our election promise and our commitment to Canadians.
Let us look at parole for young offenders convicted of murder.
No longer will they be automatically eligible for parole after
serving only five years of their sentence. This is a firm measure
to ensure that the protection of society comes first.
Of course there are many critics of this legislation as we have
heard in this debate already today. Some say the government has
not gone far enough, that we should simply lock up the young
people who commit serious crimes and throw away the key. If
the solution were that simple, we would have legislated crime
out of existence long ago.
Let us look at the United States, the country with the highest
incarceration rate of all the developed nations, yet longer
sentences and stricter penalties are not enough to prevent
crimes. Canada follows the United States with the second
highest incarceration rate. It is higher than Japan, higher than
France, Italy, the United Kingdom and even Turkey, but still we
have not eliminated crime.
It is quite clear that deterrence is not enough. Government
recognizes that the justice system can only deal with young
offenders after a crime has been committed, but once a young
offender commits a crime, it is too late. The real solution lies in
crime prevention.
In my own riding of Parkdale-High Park, residents in
Parkdale have banded together to form the Parkdale focus
community watch. This highly innovative group works closely
with police and public authorities to have an impact on critical
decisions which affect the community. They liaise with the
liquor licensing board, the police, business associations,
ratepayer groups, anyone who is interested in the community to
network with this group.
Community watch will do things such as safety audits in the
community. A subcommittee will do a safety audit. They might
see that a telephone booth is in a dark area where the drug trade
is going on. There might be a lot of prostitution in that corner, a
lot of fights break out, et cetera. They report back to the full
committee. A phone call goes to Bell and negotiations start.
That phone booth is either removed or lighting is intensified.
The city is co-operating; the lighting along Queen Street has
been intensified again to help prevent crime.
Recently the Minister of Justice paid a visit to Parkdale and
met with this community watch. Its members were very
impressed with the way the minister is communicating and
dialoguing with the local communities. They were impressed
that the minister offered to come back to see how they were
doing with this community model of crime prevention. This was
a unique opportunity for concerned residents to have a voice and
affect justice reform. The Parkdale focus community watch
could easily serve as a model for other communities, a shining
example that we all have a stake in crime prevention.
(1825)
Crime prevention has to begin at home. As a former teacher,
principal and co-ordinator working with disadvantaged
children, I believe that is where we should place a lot of our
resources: helping parents to give them parenting techniques so
that children from day one are not led down the road to crime.
In the school system, I grew up in a school system and I
administered schools with 1,500 students and schools with 300
students. We used corporal punishment. I had no discipline
problems. The schools ran very well, but we resorted to corporal
punishment. I doubt whether in 1994 we should have to resort to
that kind of corporal punishment. I think we do have to make a
school policy of zero crime tolerance, as many schools are doing
today.
I congratulate the minister and I support the bill 100 per cent.
However I am very concerned with what is happening in our
Parliament. I received a letter just the other day which states:
``Dear Mr. Flis: Every member of Parliament is being provided
with a secret PIN number and asked to call 1-900-451-4020 to
vote in referendum 94 on the Young Offenders Act. If the
majority position in the referendum indicates a need to change
the Young Offenders Act, Ted White will draft a private
member's bill for introduction to Parliament''. Then it states to
call that same number but $1 will be charged for the first minute
and 95 cents for each additional minute will be billed if you stay
on the line after the beep. It states that you need your parents'
consent to incur these charges if you are not over 18. I want to
assure him I am over 18 and I do not need my parents' consent to
call him.
I do not have time to quote further from the letter. However it
shocks me that a member of the Reform Party who was elected
freely in a democratic election would resort to the use of secret
PIN numbers to give us direction on what should be in the Young
Offenders Act. Who gave that member the right to give me a
secret PIN number? It is not secret; I will give it to the public:
669746562211. That is my secret PIN number. You, Mr.
Speaker, have a secret PIN number too and you are probably on
the
4899
1-900 number which is used for getting sex into the homes and
all other advertising over the phone lines.
It shocks me. We are having a serious debate on the young
offenders bill which most people have asked for and the
government has brought in and the Reform Party resorts to this
kind of trash. I hope the Reform Party will learn that we do not
do things secretly. And you have to have a touch tone phone.
What about all those Canadians who cannot afford that service?
Are they denied the right to have input to their member of
Parliament?
The Liberal Party is very open and transparent. When we want
to put something into legislation, we put it in and debate it
openly in this House.
I hope the Reform Party will not resort to those kinds of
tactics. They have been used in many countries, but I hope they
will not be used in Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley): Mr.
Speaker, to enlighten the hon. member who just spoke, in an
electronic vote to ensure there is one vote per caller, it is
necessary to give a number which identifies that vote. Once the
vote has been cast that number can no longer be used, just in case
the hon. member was misinformed about the purpose of the PIN
number. It is not an infringement on privacy. It is so the votes
cannot be stacked or that multiple voting by one person cannot
take place.
(1830 )
The member opposite is under no obligation certainly to cast
his vote or take part in this type of a constituency poll. Perhaps
that may be more suitable to the member's wishes because this
government has for so long simply closed the doors, kept the
public out and made decisions behind closed doors. I would like
to ask the member if that is his preference, of making decisions
in government that would affect the people behind closed doors
without input from the public.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that
question. We are not doing anything behind closed doors. We are
bringing it here to the Parliament of Canada. Why do we have to
hold secret votes through PIN numbers? Is this not where we are
going to vote? Is this not where the member is going to represent
his constituents? Does he not keep in touch with his
constituents?
What about the poor people, what about the people who still
have dial phones? They cannot phone their local member of
Parliament. What is wrong with talking with them face to face,
with holding town hall meetings, telephoning them, et cetera?
I am glad the hon. member raised this concern but this is
where we vote, not through 1-900 numbers.
What about the poor people? Do they not have rights to input
to their MPs? It looks like in the Reform territory it is only for
the rich, it is only who can afford the push button numbers.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. member could make clear what his objection is.
If I understand him correctly he is objecting to the idea that
members of Parliament should be asked to express themselves
in this way because obviously we have the opportunity that other
Canadians do not. We can vote here, not with a PIN number, but
with our vote as a member of Parliament.
That is certainly what I intend to do. I was confused when I
received a letter inviting me to cast a vote in this way because it
seems to me that I have that right to do so as a member of
Parliament. I will do it when it comes up.
It would be interesting to know whether this is a referendum
among members of Parliament that is sort of a substitute
mechanism for the votes that we take here, or whether we were
simply being included in a larger referendum. I thought that is
what a certain Reform Party member was up to. I received the
thing today and now I am not sure exactly what is going on.
Perhaps the member would want to comment on that.
Perhaps he could also say whether he objects to the whole
concept. Let us assume for a minute that everyone has the kind
of phone that is needed. I take it the member would still have
some reservations about this kind of process. Would he? Is it
simply a matter of everyone not having the right kind of phone?
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member sits so close
to the Reform members and I wish they would turn around
sometimes and seek his advice because he has been here for a
long time and knows what the democratic process is all about.
Initially I paid very little attention to it because I thought it
was just surveying the members of Parliament. When I saw the
line ``you need your parents' consent to incur these charges if
you are younger than 18'', I was a little offended because I only
have one parent left. My mother is 86 and I do not know whether
she would give her consent to vote this way.
I suspect that this letter was sent to the public and it was
concerned that someone under 18 would not pay the Reform for
that one dollar call, and 95 cents thereafter. That was my
concern.
That anyone should charge to glean people's opinion, people
who voted for us, my goodness, is the hon. member not getting a
high enough salary? Is that why he is putting a charge on this? Is
he waiting for his pension or is he afraid he is not going to get a
pension because he will not be here very long?
4900
I have a concern that this letter went not only to the members
of Parliament, but I suspect that this letter probably went to the
public at large.
(1835 )
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-37, amendments to
the Young Offenders Act, amendments that Canadians have been
requesting, amendments that are long overdue.
A couple of weeks ago I received in my office a package of
information from the justice department about the Young
Offenders Act. The information was all about the perception and
reality of the Young Offenders Act. The information appeared to
be a justification of the Young Offenders Act as it now stands
with statistics and convincing bureaucrats telling us that the
perceptions that Canadians have of the act are wrong.
It was therefore no great surprise to learn that the amendments
to the Young Offenders Act that the minister is proposing are
quite minor.
I am pleased that some changes are being made to the
legislation and while I would not like to see young people locked
up and the key thrown away, I would like to have seen stronger
amendments being proposed.
Canadians have reached the point at which they are
demanding safety for women, children and ordinary people on
the streets and in their own homes. One of the fastest growing
categories of crime is that committed by young offenders. It is
not uncommon to hear of the door of a home being kicked down
and the family terrorized, beaten and robbed.
Throughout the country people are being beaten, stabbed,
kicked and murdered by juveniles. We hear the authorities
saying to people things like do not take matters into your own
hands, leave it to the police.
Instead of people being more secure the wave of youth crime
continues to rise, with sentences young people receive from the
courts being a poor reflection of the severity of the crime.
How have we ever allowed such ugly violence to become an
every day occurrence in Canada, this country that treasures
peace and beauty? We have had human behaviour experts tell us
on and on why violence is a growing phenomenon. Violence in
the home breeds violence. The structure of the schools stifles
imagination. Serial killer cards, violent cartoons, Dungeons and
Dragons games blur the line between fantasy and reality. There
is the old favourite: ``Dad was drunk and mom couldn't get up in
the morning so how can anyone expect better from their kids?''.
Unfortunate as a child may be to be born to such parents this
really is nothing new. Fewer children than we would like to
believe have ideal parents. For a long time before this present
day crescendo of modern violence children with less than ideal
parents grew up knowing right from wrong and being able to
restrain themselves from causing vandalism and mayhem.
For those who did commit an offence authorities did not
tolerate this behaviour and the offender was usually dealt with
swiftly and properly.
I always find it refreshing to go home to the
Cariboo-Chilcotin where great intelligence is not as important
as good common sense. There people remember that once they
were children too and they remember what it was like to be a
child. Childhood is not something new. People who live in
Horsefly or Tatlayoko, British Columbia, for example, offer
some other reasons for the difficulties our communities are
having with youth criminals.
What are they saying about young people and crime? In a
letter from Quesnel signed by 20 constituents they say: ``If we
are to avoid the increase in crime which is currently plaguing
Canada we must have disciplinary measures which are strong
enough to discourage criminal intent. Young people today are
more criminally aggressive because they are very aware no
action can be taken against them''.
Among some of our youth this attitude is reinforced by peer
pressure that whatever crime they commit will go unpunished.
Even if caught by the police and then moved to the family
courtroom and then passed on to the unending counselling, the
community service, the probation officer, and even perhaps the
incarceration, these only become subjects of ridicule, more
material for building the macho image, the badge of acceptance
for those who really count within the gang. However, there is
nothing to change the attitude or cause them to search for
different friends.
(1840)
It was not always this way. I once had an elderly man come
into my pastor's study. In the course of our conversation he told
me that he had once done something that caused him to be
sentenced for a long time in the former B.C. penitentiary. After
serving a good portion of his sentence he was called into the
warden's office where he was informed that by taking a number
of strokes of the paddle the remainder of his sentence would be
reduced by half. Without any hesitation he agreed to take the
paddle.
However, after having been securely bound with leather
straps and receiving those strokes he said to me: ``I didn't
realize what I was asking for. Afterwards I knew I would do
anything to avoid that kind of punishment again''.
After his release he received an education, became an
accountant, married, raised a family and contributed much to his
community. If violence breeds violence, as we are told ad
nauseam, it certainly did not in this case.
4901
What the experts so frequently fail to mention is that violence
is part of everyone's make-up. Its seeds are in all of us. Any
child psychologist knows that to develop normally a child must
have limits. How often do we hear the expression `the terrible
twos', the age when a child first realizes that he or she can try
mom or dad's patience to the limit?
One of the responsibilities of parents is to establish
appropriate limits within which their children may discover
reality. As a parent I know that these limits are seriously tested
by a growing child with expanding horizons. Whether it is the
terrible twos or a teenager who is continually coming in after
curfew, sometimes force is required to maintain even the most
appropriate limits when negotiations break down.
Such an event was reported in the B.C. media some months
ago. A mother who happened to be a medical doctor took her
little child to the supermarket to get some groceries. Things
were not going so well between mother and child and a couple of
roll around the floor, kicking the feet tantrums had to be dealt
with quietly but firmly. It was not easy to get the groceries
through the checkout and into the car with a yelling child but it
got done. While driving out of the parking lot the child had
another tantrum, almost causing a car accident. At this point the
mother pulled over to the curb, stopped the car and administered
the flat of her hand three or four times to the child's bottom.
Then with the situation finally under control she prepared to
drive home.
What this mother did not realize was that a government social
worker had witnessed the whole episode from the beginning in
the store to the end in the car. With the authority given by the
B.C. government she removed the child from the mother's care.
If we are concerned about violence in our society we need to
recall that there was less violence before corporal punishment
was outlawed. Children need protection from beatings and abuse
at the hands of abusive adults with uncontrollable tempers, but
we cannot compare a considered, well controlled spanking of a
child or a well measured, state administered paddling with the
uncontrolled violence that is being committed by youthful
criminals. There are limits beyond which behaviour is no longer
acceptable.
I am not advocating that violence is the answer to righting the
wrongs of our young people. I am all for programs in which
troubled young people have the opportunity to take stock of
themselves and with proper guidance are able to realize that a
life of crime is not the way to go. I do realize the amendments
the minister is proposing contain suggestions for rehabilitation
instead of the offender being held in custody. In some cases this
is the right way to treat an individual.
However, my main concern with the proposed amendments is
twofold. First, the age of responsibility should have been
lowered to 10. While violent crime tends to be committed by
youthful offenders, we are hearing more and more in the
communities about children who cannot be charged because
they are under the age of responsibility. They have been stealing
cars and other personal possessions. These children should be
held accountable. Their problems should be addressed before
they continue down the road to a full blown life of crime.
(1845)
Being held responsible brings me to my second area of
concern: the rights of the victim. All too often there is little
consideration for the victim or the victim's family. Young
offenders go to court, the sentence is passed, and the general
public rarely gets to know what is going on. All young offenders
who are charged and appear before a court should have their
names and the details of the offences published.
Canadians have a right, particularly neighbours, to know what
is happening in their neighbourhoods. While the proposed
amendments could allow release of information about young
offenders to affected members of the public, it is my opinion
that all Canadians should be aware of the offences that young
people commit.
The amendments would allow for victims, if they so desire, to
make a statement about how a young offender's crime has
affected them. I applaud this aspect of the amendments and hope
that all victims of crime will allow their account of the ordeal to
be read out in court.
Not only should the public be told about young offenders.
There should be accountability for young offenders' actions. I
note the minister is recommending that youth who commit
property crimes or less serious offences could be made to do
community service or pay restitution to the victim. That is a
good start, but how about holding the parents of the children
jointly responsible for their sons' or daughters' activities?
Canadians have long been calling for a better justice system.
The current Young Offenders Act, a small part of the justice
system, is simply not working. Canadians want to see sentences
reflect the severity of the crime. They want to feel safer in their
homes, on their streets and in their communities.
The minor amendments to the Young Offenders Act being
proposed are simply addressing the promises made in the
Liberal's red book election propaganda. They are not addressing
the needs of Canadians from coast to coast. Canadians are
concerned about teenage murders, the increasing number of
teenage gangs and young people going to school armed with
weapons. Canadians have a right to receive some assurance and
to know that parliamentarians are working with them in mind.
An in depth review of the Young Offenders Act will be made
by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The
public will be involved to the greatest extent possible. We are
told the committee will make consultations. Canadians are
4902
going to tell the government just what they want to see changed.
I applaud this, but some changes cannot be legislated.
In much of the correspondence I receive is an underlying
theme that children are growing up in a society devoid of hard
work ethics and moral values. We have to teach our children the
values with which many Canadians grew up, values that enabled
them to build the country to be what it is, values that somehow in
the materialistic and morally bankrupt society seem to have
been lost. If the government listens and if it includes the public's
ideas for reforming the Young Offenders Act maybe we will see
the real changes that are being called for.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my hon.
colleague. I compliment him for obviously spending a lot of
time going through all clauses of the bill. Unfortunately or
fortunately, depending on how one looks at it, I do not agree with
many of his conclusions. I want to compliment him because he
has obviously put a lot of care, time and effort into preparing for
what he has done today.
I disagree with him on a number of areas. The bill is a
compromise for what is asked by some who I do not believe
represent the majority of Canadians. It addresses those issues
that need to be addressed in the immediate future. The bill is
going to be up for review in its entirety as the minister
requested.
(1850)
Knowing how thoughtful the member has been in his remarks,
in spite of the fact that I disagree with a number of them, I want
to get back to the issue of polling as started by one of his
colleagues. I have great difficulty with legislating that way on
all kinds of grounds: on moral grounds to start with because
when we are legislating for a small group of people we can as
legislators be easily swayed, particularly when a system is
designed so that one actually pays for the call.
I submit, although I am not a sociologist, that system would
automatically lead one to pay when one is against rather than to
pay to express one's opinion. That is the way people normally
think. One would not likely pay to phone someone to say one
agrees with the status quo. One is more likely to pay to protest.
That is human nature.
Does the member think this kind of polling is proper? After
all, one has to pay a private enterprise to be issued with House of
Commons letterhead, with the coat of arms of our country on the
top. It was signed at the bottom by a person purporting to be
chief returning officer. I believe that to be impersonating an
officer of Parliament.
Chief Returning Officer Victor Bennington signed the letter
with the coat of arms of Canada on it. It asks MPs to make a
telephone call which results in an expenditure to some
enterprise, the telephone company or whatever, of $1 plus 95
cents and so on. We could easily argue that this is a fund raising
letter on House of Commons letterhead, signed by someone
pretending to be an officer of Parliament.
Is this in the name of justice? Will this make Canada a more
just society? After listening to what that member said and as
profoundly as he believes what he said, I cannot help but ask him
whether he agrees with the nonsense that all members were
distributed earlier today or whenever it was.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin did not refer to the survey in his remarks, I
am sure he is aware from question period that he does not need to
reply to the question. However, he has the floor.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, whether the questions and
comments are about what another member did or whether they
are on what I put forward to the House, I would be happy to
respond only to the extent of conversations I have had with my
Reform colleague.
Polling is something that every party does. I am sure the
Liberal Party does it. The member is attempting to poll a broad
cross-section of Canadians to find out their views. I do not see
anything wrong with that. I guess we disagree on that point too.
With regard to payment, the payment is simply for the costs of
the poll. Usually polls are done and the government ends up
paying for them from the public purse. The member has said that
this would be a poll paid by those who wish to participate in it. It
has been set up so that a person with a PIN can only vote once.
They can only vote with the knowledge that if they do so they are
going to be paying for the costs of the calls and the running the
poll. That is all it is.
The alternative to that is to hire a company, charge it to
government expense, and not let the results be known, keep
them secret. That is not the Reform way of doing it. We are
doing it transparently. We are doing it openly. The results will be
announced for the Canadian public to know. That is the Reform
way of doing it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member say
these are minor amendments. I do not think we are looking at the
same bill. If we look carefully at the highlights of the bill,
according to the minister there will be an increase in sentencing
from 5 to 10 years and from 3 to 7 years for certain types of
offences. I would not call that minor, Mr. Speaker, when we say
that a young person will spend four or five years more in prison
for a crime.
4903
(1855)
I know he has committed a crime. I know he has to be
sentenced, but this is not a minor change. Do I have any time
left, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, your time is up.
Mr. Bellehumeur: I think the hon. member should simply
read the bill, and he will realize that these are not minor
amendments, and that on the contrary, the amendments this bill
contains are very serious.
[English]
Mr. Mayfield: We disagree all over the place, do we not? It
seems to me that a victim who has lost health and lost family
members has lost a major and significant part of their life as
well.
_____________________________________________
4903
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to pursue a question that I asked of the government a couple of
weeks ago. It was actually answered by the Prime Minister.
It had to do with the testimony in committee of someone
representing the tobacco industry who threatened to use the
North American free trade agreement and the protection of
trademark and the property rights entrenched therein to get in
the way of the government's apparent intention to bring in plain
packaging of cigarettes as a way of discouraging the use of
tobacco and I presume particularly by way of discouraging
young people who may be attracted by elegant and attractive
packaging, although presumably this is something that not just
young people are vulnerable to.
I say apparent intention of the government because I am not
absolutely sure that the government and the Minister of Health
are really intent on doing this. I hope they are because I think it
is a worthwhile experiment and I hope that they will not be
intimidated by these kinds of threats.
When the Prime Minister answered my question he said he
had a different view of the free trade agreement. We have seen a
few times when the Prime Minister thinks that if he has a
different view of the free trade agreement this is enough. The
fact is that the free trade agreement has a text that can be
adjudicated in a dispute settlement process and in a variety of
other ways. It may not matter what the Prime Minister's view is
if it is the view of certain multinational corporations that regard
what the government plans to do as objectionable.
If they take the view that the agreement prohibits this, they
have a great deal of ability to enforce that. It would not be out of
sync with what the agreement actually seeks to do, as I
understand it, and that is to limit the power of government to get
in the way of transnational business.
This is not the sort of idea that comes out of left field, so to
speak. This is the purpose of these agreements, to limit the
power of democratically elected governments to get in the way
of the profit strategies of transnational corporations.
We have seen other elements of this where the same kind of
property right has been entrenched in these free trade
agreements or in the GATT or even more shamefully in this
House before these agreements were even signed. I am thinking
now of the legislation which in two different stages brought
about the abandonment of the generic drug legislation that we
had in this country. Again, it was one of the ways in which this
new free trading regime we have as a result of the FTA and
NAFTA and now as a result of the GATT has given new freedom
to the corporate agenda.
(1900)
I hope the government will go ahead with this experiment and
not draw back. If it draws back we will never know whether the
threat that was made that day, even though it was publicly
sloughed off by the Prime Minister, is in fact the real reason. I
would certainly encourage the government to test the agreement
on this and in other ways.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, I thought the Prime
Minister answered the question very well when he said to the
hon. member in reply: ``I do not think NAFTA has a lot to say
about the way we should control that type of problem in
Canada''. He went on to say: ``Sometimes we hear things in
committee we do not agree with. Evidently the hon. member did
not share that view, and I do not either''.
The member should have been satisfied by the Prime
Minister's answer. However, I will try and elaborate on it.
First I would state that possible proposals for plain packaging
requirements for cigarettes are still under review by the
committee. The government awaits the report of the committee
with great interest. The committee recommendations would be
studied by the government with careful attention to Canada's
obligation under NAFTA and under other treaties such as the
GATT.
However NAFTA contains provisions allowing exceptions to
trade mark rights. NAFTA also includes provisions that
recognizes Canada's right to adopt or maintain sanitary
measures and standard related measures for the protection of
human health. As well, the government will ensure that any
measure it chooses to adopt will not only achieve our goal of
protecting the health of
4904
Canadians but will also be consistent with our international
obligations.
I hope this additional information will be satisfactory to the
member.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, on June 1 I put a
question regarding urea formaldehyde foam and I would like to
put on record a little bit of the investigation that I have
undertaken in this regard.
I am interested in this because a constituent has been having
some trouble selling a home with urea formaldehyde foam in it.
I contacted Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and
was assured that whether a house had UFFI foam, as it is known,
in it or not made no difference to their loaning money or insuring
such a mortgage. I was told that the banks take a similar view.
However, apparently some real estate boards in their agreement
to sell a home require that it be stated if the home has urea
formaldehyde foam in it. This has caused my constituent and
others some concern.
I might just review very quickly that this insulation was
approved in Canada for use in exterior wood frame walls. It has a
good ``R'' value and in fact under the Canadian Home Insulation
Program in 1975 to 1978 the government paid $500 to home
owners who would install this insulation.
Apparently during the curing process, some formaldehyde
comes off the cure. Formaldehyde is colourless, with a strong
odour and can generally be detected at parts above one part per
million. Unfortunately, formaldehyde is found in dry cleaning
chemicals, paper products, no iron fabrics, diapers, pillow
cases, the glue in particle board and plywood, cosmetics, paints,
cigarette smoke, exhaust from automobiles, gas appliances,
fireplaces and wood stoves. It may well be that some of the
crimes attributed to urea formaldehyde foam arise from other
household products.
The irony of the situation is that the federal government
banned this insulation in 1980 and then spent $272 million in the
ensuing seven years to assist home owners in replacing urea
formaldehyde foam at a cost of $8,500 per home.
(1905 )
A further irony is that the longest civil suit in Canadian
history ended on December 13, 1991, when Mr. Justice Rene
Hurtubise from the Quebec Superior Court handed down a
decision saying that the owners of the homes who brought the
case had failed to prove that UFFI had made them sick, offered
no proof that UFFI should be removed and did not prove that
leaving UFFI in place reduced the value of their homes. This
finding has been echoed by pathologists and many others who
have tested these homes.
I will conclude with the conclusion from a report by Carson
Dunlap and Associates Limited, consulting engineers, that says:
``We believe that those who have urea formaldehyde foam
insulation in their homes should enjoy their houses and sleep
well at night. It is the sincere hope of the authors that the
marketplace will respond appropriately. The owners of
properties with this type of insulation should not be penalized
financially and no stigma should be attached to these homes. We
would further urge real estate associations and boards across
Canada to consider dropping the UFFI clause from purchase
contracts. Similarly, we would ask mortgage lenders not to
penalize those who have UFFI in their homes. UFFI is simply
not the problem it was once feared to be''.
I would hope that the minister would be able when the current
appeal which I believe is in process happens that we could get
this matter sent to rest.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in
the House and address the issue of urea formaldehyde foam
insulation and in particular its effect on market value of homes
insulated with UFFI.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, during the 1970s many
homes were insulated with UFFI. Let me assure everyone that no
Canadian whose home has been insulated with UFFI has been
denied mortgage insurance from Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. In fact during the past few years homes insulated
with UFFI have been trading on a regular basis.
I would also like to point out that for the past year a UFFI
declaration has not been required for the purpose of obtaining
mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act. Through
mortgage insurance CMHC provides Canadians with equal
access to mortgage financing anywhere in Canada.
I would further like to add that the fact that CMHC is
providing mortgage insurance on homes that have contained
UFFI even though remedial action has been taken has helped to
minimize any negative perceptions.
As my hon. colleague may know, the six UFFI cases
determined by all of the parties involved to be representative of
all the issues at stake are still before the Court of Appeal of
Quebec. An appeal date of September 11, 1995 has tentatively
been scheduled. I would further point out that in their factum the
plaintiffs have removed all their claims related to health.
My apologies for my voice, Mr. Speaker. I had my tonsils out.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to raise again the question I had raised some months ago
4905
concerning the government's response to the task force report on
the Canadian magazine industry. The task force report, I
believe, was made public in March though I understand the
government was aware of the major recommendations in
January.
It has now been approximately five months since the
government was aware of the task force report
recommendations and some decisions are needed.
The task force made some very excellent recommendations
but there was one recommendation that concerned me and I
think concerns all those Canadians who would like to maintain
our cultural identity.
The task force recommended that magazines that otherwise
would be subject to the proposed tax as of the date of this report
should be exempt at the number of issues per annum that were
distributed in Canada in the year preceding this report. In other
words, this means the task force was recommending that Sports
Illustrated which had started a split run be allowed to continue
to print a Canadian edition. There is quite a bit of opposition to
this and it is about time the government made some decision on
this.
(1910)
Split runs are American magazines which incur all of their
costs in terms of writing, editorial content and so forth in the
United States and then, in essence, dump their product on the
Canadian market. The law now prohibits Canadian advertisers
from deducting their advertising costs in those magazines.
Therefore, it is an effective barrier in attempting to maintain the
viability of the Canadian magazine industry.
So far we have had no commitments from the government
regarding split runs and the postal subsidy which was also part
of the recommendation of the task force. To consider allowing
Sports Illustrated to continue what I would call its illegal
practices, even when it initiated the split run it claimed it got
around Canadian law by not physically shipping its contents
across the border but rather electronically sending its contents
to a Canadian printing house. For all intents and purposes, I still
cannot see how this is legal and has been allowed under the law.
It is about time that the government stood up to this type of
pressure particularly from Time-Warner and its magazines.
Already Reader's Digest is deemed Canadian for the postal
subsidy. I understand for example that the revenue from Time
magazine, the Canadian edition, is greater than the entire profits
of the Canadian magazine industry.
As well there is an urgency in this matter. As things stand now
we have no law in place to prevent more split run editions. If a
number of American magazines, let us say Newsweek, wants to
set up a split run and do exactly the same as Sports Illustrated
has done, there is really no law in effect now to prevent
Newsweek or any other American magazine company from
carrying out and establishing another split run.
As well, why would we allow Sports Illustrated, having
broken the law, to be rewarded as opposed to any others which
attempt to do a split run and which will be forced to cease and
desist? It makes no sense at all.
It is time the government stood up for Canadian cultural
industries and institutions. It is time it tested the cultural
exemption under the free trade agreement. It is time the
government accepted the report that rejected the one
recommendation that would exempt Sports Illustrated.
It is time the government acted because the magazine industry
in this country is in a terrible financial situation. The
uncertainty the lack of action and determination by the
government is creating is hurting the industry even more.
I hope the government in its response today will be able to
announce to the House and to Canadians that indeed the
government has made a decision, it will accept the
recommendations of the report with the one exception that it
will not allow Sports Illustrated to continue as a split run
edition.
I look forward to the reply.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, the task force
on the Canadian magazine industry released its report on March
24. The task force recommended that a new excise tax be applied
to split run magazines distributed in Canada. The task force also
recommended that split run that would have been subject to the
tax as of the date of the report should be exempt for the number
of issues published in the year preceding the report.
We welcome the report of the task force. This is a priority for
the government and we intend to respond in a way which will
safeguard the economic foundations of the Canadian magazine
industry.
As the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated in this House on
the day the report was released, it will be important to consult
with interested parties before the government presents any new
policy before this House.
[Translation]
The government confirms its commitment to a
long-established strategic objective aimed at protecting the
financial basis of the Canadian magazine industry.
To reach this objective, the government uses instruments that
promote channelling advertising revenue to Canadian
magazines, since to be viable, a Canadian magazine industry
must have a sound financial basis.
[English]
The establishment of split-run Canadian regional editions of
foreign titles which contain advertising aimed at Canadian
markets is thus not consistent with the policy because revenues
from advertising directed at Canadians flow to these editions of
foreign titles.
4906
The government is thus committed to ensuring that Canadians
have access to Canadian ideas and information through
genuinely Canadian periodicals, while not restricting the sale of
foreign periodicals in Canada. It will be in light of these policy
objectives that the government is studying the task force report
to determine its response.
The Deputy Speaker: Under our standing orders the motion
to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Also
under our standing orders we adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow
morning.
(The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.)