CONTENTS
Friday, April 11, 1997
Bill C-5. Consideration resumed of motion forconcurrence 9590
Division on motion deferred 9590
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of report stage and onMotion No. 2 9590
(Motion No. 2 agreed to.) 9592
Motion for concurrence 9592
Motion for third reading 9592
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9601
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9601
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9601
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9602
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9602
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9603
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9603
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9604
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 9604
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9604
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9604
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9605
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9605
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9607
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 9608
Bill C-401. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9609
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 9611
Division on motion deferred 9620
Division on motion deferred 9625
9589
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, April 11, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, I am now prepared to rule
on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on Friday, March 21,
concerning the actions allegedly taken by officials of the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
I would like to thank the Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, as well as the hon.
member for St. Albert for their comments in this matter.
[English]
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley
claimed that on the morning of March 21 officials of the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration refused to allow her to
attend a briefing on changes to the immigration investor program.
The hon. member argued that, by making this information available
to the media before members of Parliament, the department acted
in a way which constituted a contempt of Parliament as well as a
breach of her parliamentary privileges.
I have reviewed the facts surrounding the incident, and after
further consultations, my understanding of the matter is as follows:
a notice was issued to the media by the office of the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration announcing that the minister would
be holding a press conference regarding the immigrant investor
program in the National Press Gallery theatre at 10.15 a.m. on
Friday, March 21. The notice further specified that the press
conference would be preceded by a technical briefing by
departmental officials at 9 a.m.
It was also confirmed to me that the National Press Gallery
applies certain restrictions on the number of people permitted to
attend a press conference in the theatre. Yet no such restrictions
exist for briefings which, I am told, are frequently held in the
theatre by government departments. Finally, the Chair was
informed that the briefing in question was ``off the record,'' which
meant that it would not be televised in the closed circuit system of
the House of Commons and, consequently, could not be viewed by
members of Parliament.
[Translation]
In the case which is presently before us, the Chair must address
two issues. I will first deal with the issue of whether or not there
has been a breach of privilege insofar as the member was denied
access to information by departmental officials. I will then
examine the claim that the actions of the department constituted a
contempt of Parliament.
[English]
On December 1, 1992 when a member complained that the
media had been given information by the government concerning
financial assistance to Canadian Airlines when the same
information was denied to members of Parliament, Speaker Fraser
ruled page 14360 of the Debates there was no question of privilege.
He also reminded the House that:
Privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it
impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a
member of this House.
On December 15, 1987, a member objected to the fact that the
government had established a press lock-up and briefing regarding
a proposed agricultural program and that members were denied
access to the information. Speaker Fraser's ruling which can be
found at page 11788 of the
Debates, stated that this was not a prima
facie question of privilege because it did not impinge on the
member's ability to carry on his duties as a member of Parliament.
In the matter submitted by the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley, the Chair cannot find that she has been
obstructed in the performance of her parliamentary duties. The
question raised did not involve access to parliamentary
proceedings, either in the Chamber or in a committee meeting
room. Ultimately, as the hon. member pointed out in her
presentation, the officials offered to give her the same briefing after
question period.
On the issue of contempt, I would refer again to Speaker Fraser.
In a ruling given on October 10, 1989, Speaker Fraser said:
9590
``Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority or
the dignity of the House of Commons''.
(1010 )
Does the fact that the media was given information before it was
going to be made available to the member constitute a contempt of
the House of Commons? At page 125 of the 21st edition of Erskine
May, in chapter 9 dealing with contempts, it is stated:
The House will proceed against those who obstruct members in the discharge of
their responsibilities to the House or in their participation in its proceedings.
It seems to me that members of Parliament were not denied
information or obstructed in their duties in the House. There was,
after all, a press conference scheduled for that same morning and it
was broadcast on the closed circuit television system of the House,
making it accessible to all members. The Chair finds it difficult to
conclude that the actions in question were an affront to the
authority and dignity of the House.
For the reasons previously stated and in light of the precedents
dealing with similar matters, I do not consider that this is a prima
facie case of privilege.
The Speaker has no control and should have no control over such
events, whether it be the manner in which they are organized or
how access to them is managed.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley may
have a valid grievance which she may wish to pursue elsewhere;
however, procedurally the matter has been settled in that it does not
amount to a breach of parliamentary privilege, nor does it
constitute a contempt of Parliament.
I thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to the
attention of the Chair.
_____________________________________________
9590
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from March 20 consideration of the motion
on the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-5, an act to amend
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the order made April 10, the
question is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is
deemed to have been deferred.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from April 8 consideration of Bill C-17, an
act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee; and of Motion No. 2.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to a justice bill. It is nice to see a plethora of
justice bills coming in here at the last minute because of the
cacophony of noise that has been raised out in the field. That is for
the benefit of the minister who, I am sure, is attempting now to fix
some of the things that somehow slipped through in his department
with loopholes that have had some very negative results.
I think the minister knows about those and is aware that there has
been a botch-up in the drafting. We brought in a couple of
amendments to try to fix some bills last week after we were well
into the process. Somebody in the department was not doing the
work and we have been trying to fix things up.
We are, as we get closer to the election, trying to deal with issues
such as victims rights. That has suddenly become a priority item.
We are trying to deal with fixing the conditional sentencing
provisions of some bills now. We have always realized that
conditional sentencing should not be an option for a judge who is
considering a serious violent offence. It is still an option, which is
unfortunate.
However, the minister is bringing in all these bills: C-17 now,
C-27 likely on Monday, debating the victims bill of rights in
committee this week, and dealing with all the issues that have been
on the table for two or three years. Finally, on the cusp of the
election, the epiphany has struck. The conversion is a bit on the
road, not of Damascus, but perhaps to the next election. I think we
9591
are going to see quite a bit of this discussion about the justice
system, how to fix it, what should it entail and so on.
We have been trying to emphasize in these debates on the justice
system the need for some guiding principles. Whether it is called
the charter of rights for victims, it should be a guiding set of
principles that would direct judges, parole boards, people drafting
legislation, on what should be considered as they draft legislation
or directives for their employees. The justice system should make
sure that victims have the standing they require and make sure they
do not fall through the cracks.
(1015 )
In my riding a lady beaten unconsciousness and her body was
further beaten for a couple of hours. It was actually the noise of the
beating that got the police involved. Thankfully the woman
survived. Her eyes were swollen shut for a couple of weeks. She
was black and blue. It was a wonder she survived.
The fellow was charged with attempted murder but then charge
was dropped because it is so difficult to prove. It was a sad case.
The guy got off with nine months in jail.
The woman felt her rights had been compromised. I sent a letter
to the minister about the need to do something about the part of the
code dealing with attempted murder. I also wrote to the attorney
general of British Columbia who agreed with me and asked to have
the issue put on the agenda of the joint meeting between the
attorneys general and the minister to see if there was some way the
charge of attempted murder can be proven. It almost never
successfully prosecuted. It is very disturbing.
This lady came to see me in my office pointing out that
something needed to be done. The guy got nine months in jail for
beating on an unconscious body. What tipped off the police was the
blood stains on the ceilings and walls when they got to the door.
That is how much he beat on her. Attempted murder could not be
proven even though he used every conceivable object to beat her.
I raise that case because it is a horrible one. I had to deal with it.
The guy was sent to prison and a red tag was put on his file saying
that the victim should know where he is at all times. I guess the red
sticker fell off the file and the guy was transferred to a minimum
security prison 20 miles from the lady's home in the Chilliwack
Valley in my riding. It is about a three or four hour walk to the
lady's home from that jail. She found out about it only because a
guard tipped her off. She immediately went into hiding. There are
no fences. It is a minimum security institution, not a federal
institution, that I am talking about.
The woman has been in hiding, has changed her name and done
everything she could to try to protect herself. She says that every
time she asks for assurances from the justice system that the man
will not have access to her, or at least she will know where he is
incarcerated, she is assured it will happen and then it does not
happen. He phones her from jail.
The woman needs some protection. When we talk about the
guiding principle of protecting the rights of the victims that is what
we are talking about. She needs that assurance. She should not have
to come to see me. She should know that her rights are being
protected so that she is not endangered and not in fear.
She is in absolute, hopeless fear for her life. I need to assure her
that we are working on it and that we will push forward with some
sort of bill of rights for victims which tells them that we more
worried about them than anything else and they do not have to live
in fear. When she comes to me for that assurance and I cannot give
it to her she is very discouraged.
Another case which was raised in question period in the last
while was again in my area, in Abbotsford. The Ursel case has been
well thrashed out here. It was about someone who was abused
sexually and the justice system did not seem to provide a straight
punishment clause for that guy. We are not worried about
rehabilitation here. We want that guy punished and society
protected. It did not happen in that case.
The justice minister should know there are approximately
10,000 signatures of people who are upset about that rapist and are
now lobbying day and night with petitions and letters to editors and
so on trying to have that judge removed from the bench. Now they
are attacking our justice system. That again is a very negative
trend. We need to deal with issues that protect our judges. We have
to give them the tools and restrict them from using the freedom
they have been given to so misjudge a case that the whole justice
system has fallen into disrepute. I like to think I could protect our
judges, leave them with their autonomy and not get into that fray.
(1020)
What do I say? That lady has been in my office too. She is
distributing the petition. She has a very active group of people.
Thousands and thousands of people have signed the petition saying
that the judge has to go. That is not the right way to do it. We do not
want to start petitioning against judges and kicking this one out
because we did not like his ruling. The judge needs his autonomy.
We cannot give him the degree of freedom we have under
conditional sentencing which allows him to do that.
There is another case in the Peace River area. A fellow
threatened to kill his wife. He was estranged from her. They had
lived common law for some time and had a couple of children.
They separated. He moved away, got together with another lady
and had some more children. They were well separated.
9592
He was not paying his child support and there was some
acrimony about that. Finally he got disgusted and drove 300 or
400 kilometres to her home. He broke down her door, raped her,
beat her and left her unconscious on the floor in her kitchen. Of
course they caught him. They knew who had done it because they
had a history of squabbles. The judge ruled under conditional
sentencing-and Bill C-41 gave him the right-no time in jail for
that crime because he might miss a child support payment.
What are we supposed to say to that? What would the
parliamentary secretary have me tell the woman? The man drove
300 miles with malice aforethought to kick in her door, rape her,
beat her and leave her on the kitchen floor. Then the judge said that
if he put him in jail he would miss child support payments. He was
given no time in jail, a conditional release. There is something
wrong with a system that does not put the rights of the victim ahead
of the rights of the guy who is making child support payments.
There is something wrong in our system that it does not provide for
some sort of protection, a victims bill of rights or something to
allow people to know that when some heinous violent sexual
assault happens they can be sure minimum time will be served.
What about community protection? That lady is part of the
community. The guy beat her, raped her and left. He is 300
kilometres away, exactly where he was the night he got drunk and
did it to her the last time.
What are we supposed to say? I say the justice system needs to
give a guiding set of principles to the whole mishmash of the
justice system, whether it is the code, the legislation, the
regulations, the parole board or whatever. The guiding principle
should be that the rights of the victim have to be protected. It is not
happening yet. It has been talked about. I am tantalized by the talk
just before the election, but I have not seen it in 3.5 years. It has not
received the emphasis we need. We will be on the campaign trail
soon. It will be raised at those meetings.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is Motion No. 2. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion No. 2 agreed to.)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1025 )
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Rock moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
just spoke on report stage and was happy to detail some of the
broad concerns I have with the justice system and some of the
emphasis I would like to see changed within the whole application
of justice in Canada.
All too often I am hearing a very disturbing trend in coffee shop
talk that they are going to take matters into their own hands. It is
our job as parliamentarians to make sure that does not happen.
Vigilante justice is not the answer to injustice in the land. A proper
justice system is the answer.
I have been a member of a party that has raised the mantra of
victims rights to a new level in Parliament. We have talked about
the need for that change in emphasis. The emphasis should not be
on the rehabilitation of criminals. It should be on the rights of
victims.
I find myself time and again having to calm people down. I could
inflame the situation easily in my riding. I could go over the deep
end. It is easy to do. It is easy to get angry. There are any number of
cases in which I can do that. I find myself trying to calm people by
saying vigilante justice is not the answer. They will get themselves
in trouble. This is not the wild west. We have to move past that.
However they are right to be annoyed with the system.
The other day Clifford Olson was asking for some changes to his
situation. He wanted more access to the media and so on. The
ruling of the judge in denying the application was that he felt it was
in the best interest of Mr. Olson's rehabilitation that the right not be
extended. That was his concern in the ruling. He said it was best for
the rehabilitation of Mr. Olson that he not have access to the media
because it gets him into a kind of demagoguery situation and all
that.
9593
The rehabilitation emphasis in the system has gone a bit
overboard. Clifford Olson will never see the light of day. He is
in there forever. He will die in jail. He will not get out. That is
not the concern. The concern of the judge, because of the guiding
principles that have come through the justice system in the last
20 years or so, was rehabilitation of the guy: what kind of
education he needed, what kind of courses he could take and so
on.
Mr. Olson will not get away with it. He will not be able to
manipulate his way out of jail. We all have seen cases of people
who go to their case workers and ask what hoops they have to jump
through to get out. They are not concerned about rehabilitation.
They are concerned about their access to the outside. They will
work down the list. They will go to peer counselling. They will join
AA. Many people in jail say they will become religious-and I am
of the Christian faith-if it means a red star or a green star. They do
not care much what religion it is. Sometimes they are very
insincere, but they will do what they can to jump through the
hoops.
It is very sad to watch, when we are hoping for true change and
true rehabilitation not only of their actions but of their hearts, them
manipulating the system to see if they can please enough parole
officers and enough boards to get themselves out the Pearly Gates
or through the Pearly Gates depending on their stage of life. The
emphasis has to change because society demands it.
(1030)
Recently I saw a documentary on a South American country
about the middle class suburbs. Every single one had bars on the
windows, a wall around the house, the broken shards of glass
embedded in the concrete on the top, spools of wire and so on.
In my community there are alarm systems, there is a community
watch, people are putting extra locks on their windows and so. It is
now incremental at an incredible rate what people are doing to
protect themselves.
In North America private police and private security firms now
outnumber government paid police officers. There are more people
paying privately for protection than we can provide to them
through the federal provincial systems. They are saying they
cannot trust the government to do the job anymore. When they
protect themselves charges will be pressed against them.
Three or four weeks ago in British Columbia there was a case
where an elderly Kelowna man was in his house with his wife and a
young man in his twenties came to the door and proceeded to try to
kick the door in. The elderly couple in their seventies were about to
become the victims of a house invasion. Do we tell the man to dial
911 and put his chin strap on his bike helmet and sit there and get
ready to take it? That is what the justice system says.
This man stepped out and said ``I am not going to take it. My
wife is here, she cannot run. I am 72 years old''. He got the
baseball bat out and he took it to this guy. We all say let the police
do it, try not to be alarmed and sit in your easy chair and hope he
does not kill you in your retirement. Enjoy your retirement years.
He did not do that. This 72-year old man said he was not going to
take because this guy was coming in to his house in broad daylight
to beat the ever lovin' snot out of him and his wife. And so he took
a baseball bat to the guy, and good for him. I do not encourage
vigilante justice but what are we suppose to tell people when their
lives are in danger?
An hon. member: Then he is charged with assault.
Mr. Strahl: That is right. Then he is run through the wringer of
the justice system and people say ``maybe this guy is a bad apple
and we have to prosecute the guy who is protecting his home and
his wife from a 20-year old home invader''.
I have another case in my riding, and I am sure all members deal
with these. A lady and her father came in to see me. She is about 30
years old. An ex-husband, common law relationship, stalked this
lady for two years after the break-up of their relationship. For two
years he sent threatening letters. He said: ``I'm going to get you.
I'm going to kill you. You'll never see the light of day''. He
kidnapped her once, took her down to the river to shoot with a gun
he had in his hands and he took the rifle butt to her. She wrestled
the gun out of his hands and flung the gun into the Fraser River. So
he just beat on her for a while. I am sure he was going to shoot her
and throw her corpse in the river. He was convicted and he is doing
time and he may be getting out next month.
While he was stalking this lady he phoned her, threatened to kill
her and followed her around from work. That is terrifying to any
person and especially to a single woman. At night he would come
to her home with a butcher knife and tap on her plate glass window.
She opens the drapes and there is this guy tapping on the window
with a butcher knife, smiling at her.
(1035)
This went on for two years. She reported every incident to the
police. Nothing happened. The police said that until he actually
assaulted her they could not do anything. The police tried. I will
give them credit, but the laws are so weak that they could not do
anything about the situation.
After the assault, the man got out and caught her again going to
work. Thankfully her children were at their grandparents' home.
He chased her around and around the car, in front of 50 witnesses.
She was screaming for her life. He caught her and he stabbed her
repeatedly. The onlookers did not know what was going on. He
9594
stabbed her until her body went limp. The onlookers finally jumped
the guy and wrestled him to the ground.
He was charged with attempted murder. The charges were
dropped. They could not prove that he had tried to kill her because
he only stabbed her seven times. She lived through the attack. I do
not know how she lived. He must have missed all of the vital
organs.
Imagine this. The woman and her father came to see me in my
office. She had her act together surprisingly well. She could talk
about the incident. She told me the story. I did not know what to
say. I was without words. The justice system had not protected the
woman. Worse than that, I did not know what to say to her father.
He was a regular guy. He was about 55. He was a regular Joe. He
was a nice guy off the street. He sat across from me and he said:
``Mr. Strahl, in July this guy is going to get out. When he gets out
he is probably going to assault my daughter again. When he gets
out and taps on my daughter's window with a butcher knife, I will
kill him''. I said: ``Sir, if you do that you will spend 25 years in jail.
It is malice aforethought. You have threatened him. You said you
would do it. You will go to jail for 25 years''. He said: ``That is
fine. What am I supposed to do, Mr. Strahl? He is going to kill my
daughter''. I said: ``I would do the same thing''.
The system has to change. Victims rights should be more
predominant. It has to change. I have to be able to go back to that
lady and say ``we are going to change it and we are going to fight in
this place until it is changed''.
They might issue press releases from the other side which say
there is not a problem, but I am not going to change my mind. I am
going to attempt to help that lady and too many others like her.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak to Bill C-17 for the last time. It is unfortunate that there are
two amendments which are completely unrelated to Bill C-17
which have been piggybacked on to the bill. That was done with the
unanimous consent of the House because all members of the House
supported the amendments which were brought forward. Bill C-17
was the medium through which those amendments were put
forward, but the amendments are totally unrelated to the bill. I am
going to direct most of my comments to the original bill.
Bill C-17 contains a significant number of updates and
improvements to the administration of law which are long overdue
and which we support. The efficiency of our police officers and our
courts will be aided through a number of the amendments
contained within Bill C-17.
(1040)
Sections 4(6) and 4(7) of Bill C-17 will allow a peace officer to
provide a statement of service without having to seek out a justice
of the peace or notary to have the service sworn.
This change will improve police efficiency, reduce the workload
of justices of the peace and redirect their expertise to where it is
needed.
Similarly, section 145(5) and a number of subsequent sections of
Bill C-17 will permit any peace officer to release an accused on a
reconnaissance. Currently only the officer in charge can do so.
This amendment improves police efficiency by negating the
necessity to bring in the officer in charge for a mere procedural
action.
We fully support the changes in this bill that would enhance the
way police would be able to conduct their business. We also
support the portion of the bill which strengthens the proceeds of
crime legislation by ensuring that criminals do not retain the profits
of their crime.
Initially we opposed Bill C-17 because, as most Canadians are
aware, Reform is vehemently opposed to measures that lessen
rather than strengthen penalties for serious offences.
Today, however, we are reluctantly providing our support
because we have confidence in the provinces that support these
measures and confidence, as it has so indicated, that the crown will
in the most serious of cases proceed by way of indictment by
following a sentencing protocol.
We believe the justice minister was less than forthright with
Canadians about the full impact of Bill C-17. The minister has
touted the merits of this bill in that it modernizes the law and
streamlines court proceedings but he has been noticeably silent
about the reduction in penalties for certain very serious offences.
Although Reform supports the administrative changes contained
within Bill C-17 I mentioned earlier, I would be remiss if I did not
say this bill is a nebulous inconsequential piece of legislation
which will be of little significance to the enhancement of the safety
of Canadians, their children and their property.
Canadians are very concerned about their personal security and
that of their families. These administrative changes will do nothing
to protect Canadians from murderers, rapists and other sadistic
criminals who roam our streets and enter our homes.
Bill C-17 cannot prevent serial child killer Clifford Olson from
playing out his charade. Bill C-17 does not deny killers the right to
early release.
Only a bill repealing section 745 from the Criminal Code can
deny Clifford Olson and others from seeking early release, but the
minister did not bring in a bill of this nature. Instead, he brought in
Bill C-45 which still grants Clifford Olson and other first degree
murderers an avenue for early release.
By doing so, the justice minister with the support of his Liberal
colleagues, has forced the families of murder victims to relive their
terror over and over again.
9595
Bill C-17 will not stop Robert Noyes from sexually molesting
another child. The former Ashcroft teacher admitted to abusing
more than 60 children. As a dangerous offender, he was sentenced
to an indefinite period of incarceration on 19 sex related charges.
Now the justice system has turned him loose. In June the
National Parole Board granted Noyes escorted temporary leave and
if that went well, Noyes was to be eligible for unescorted leave
with day parole in February 1997. To date I have not heard whether
he has been successful.
Only a bill like the one proposed by my colleague from
Surrey-White Rock-South Langley requiring the examination of
sex offenders by two psychiatrists will keep Noyes locked up where
he belongs.
Bill C-17 will not alleviate the fear of Canadian parents that their
children could be abducted, sexually molested or killed in any of
our communities or on our streets.
The justice minister's news release at the time of the
introduction of this bill stated that these amendments illustrate
further progress on the government's safe homes, safe streets
agenda. This is absolute nonsense. It is simply not true.
How does someone make safer streets and safer homes by
reducing the penalties for crimes such as the forcible confinement
of individuals and being unlawfully in their homes?
Canadians want substantive change within the justice system.
They want pieces of legislation that effectively enhance public
safety. They want legislation that sends a clear message to
criminals that if they do the crime they must do the time. Canadians
want legislation in the hope that it will deter ruthless thieves from
entering and destroying the sanctity of their homes.
(1045)
Canadians want a bill which repeals section 745 of the Criminal
Code. They want the justice minister to vote in favour of victims
and victims rights. They do not want a minister that upholds and
protects the rights of criminals to the detriment of the law-abiding,
peace-loving citizen.
In 1995 the minister voted against private member's Bill C-226,
which would have extinguished the right of first degree murderers
to a parole ineligibility hearing after serving only 15 years of a life
sentence. Canadians do not want the minister giving killers a
glimmer of hope. They want killers behind bars and they want them
there for a minimum of 25 years: not 15 years, not 20 years.
Canadians overwhelmingly want murderers behind bars for the full
length of their sentences.
What is the value of a human life to the justice minister, the
Prime Minister and the Liberal government? Is it just 15 years?
That is what they are telling the people of Canada. They are telling
Canadians their laws are enhancing public safety. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
On August 12, Clifford Olson was eligible to apply for a parole
ineligibility hearing and in March, thanks to this government, this
multiple child killer gets his day in court at the expense of
taxpayers. The minister saw on the day that Olson once again made
the national news how Canadians truly feel about his tough on
justice amendments to section 745. The justice minister just
recently witnessed the horror all Canadians experienced on March
11 when Clifford Olson once again was granted, courtesy of the
Liberals, the opportunity to flaunt his sadistic crimes.
Olson is not the only eligible murderer. On July 10, Ralph Ernest
Malcolm Power applied for early parole on his first degree murder
conviction. In 1981, the 28-year-old Power, an ex-con out on
mandatory supervision beat 20-year-old Sheryl Gardner's face to a
bloody pulp with a hammer. He confessed he was attempting to
stun her just a little so he could rape her. Power was caught and
arrested for the murder of Sheryl after attempting to kill another
woman.
The Minister of Justice should have brought in a bill that would
keep Clifford Olson, Ralph Ernest Malcolm Power and many
others behind bars. Why is the Minister of Justice not listening to
the victims of violence and the Canadian Police Association? Why
has the minister not repealed section 745? The Minister of Justice
should be dealing with crime first and then administrative matters,
not vice versa.
In the wake of the horrific crimes against Leslie Mahaffy and
Kristen French, capital punishment is resurfacing as a major issue
with Canadians. The evidence is growing that if Canadians were
given the opportunity to vote in a binding referendum on capital
punishment, an initiative the Reform Party supports, Canadians
would choose to sentence our most ruthless and sadistic killers like
Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson to death. The Liberal
government refuses to give Canadians this opportunity.
Canadians welcome Bill C-55, the dangerous offender
legislation, but they want it strengthened and they want the
minister to end statutory release. They want to end the automatic
release of prisoners after serving only two-thirds of their sentence,
even when science indicates these people will commit further
crimes. Malanie Carpenter who was kidnapped, raped and
murdered is one of the latest victims of this kind of Liberal
mentality.
The minister promised to bring in an omnibus bill encompassing
these two initiatives which would significantly enhance public
safety. Instead we got Bill C-55, which falls short of Canadians'
expectations. All Canadians have been given in the last year are
half measures or bills like Bill C-2 and Bill C-42 which amend the
Judges Act, Bill C-9 which re-instituted the law commission and
now Bill C-17. Bill C-27, which we do support because it deals
with child prostitution and stalking should have pre-empted all of
9596
these bills. All Bills C-2, C-42, C-9 and C-17 do is make life a little
easier for those involved in the justice system. They do not and will
not make Canadians safer.
In fact Bill C-17 may give Canadians more reason to be
concerned about home invasions because the Liberal government
through Bill C-17 has lessened the punishment for this Criminal
Code offence. That is why we give our support reluctantly to this
bill.
(1050 )
Bill C-17 reduces maximum sentences and changes strictly
indictable offences to dual procedure offences. The redesignation
of offences from indictable to dual procedure permits and
encourages judges to consider those offences as less serious and
therefore permissive of a lesser punishment to include mere
financial penalties.
While most of these offences are non-violent, with the exception
of forcible confinement, they do involve intrusion into the sanctity
of our homes and forgery which may deprive our most vulnerable
citizens, our seniors, of valuable financial assets.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1994 break and enter
accounted for 15 per cent of all Criminal Code offences while 25
per cent of all Criminal Code offences were for property offences.
Eighty-one percent of break and enters involved forced entry.
Property was damaged in 71 per cent of the cases and property
stolen in 81 per cent of the cases.
Instead of expressing concern and outrage over these figures, the
Liberal government is now saying these offences deserve a lesser
penalty. These offences, which infringe on the financial and mental
security of Canadian citizens, are going to be dealt with more
leniency because of Bill C-17.
Unbeknownst to Canadians, the Liberal government has been
slowly moving in this direction over the course of its mandate, a
direction we are opposed to because not only has it not been
sanctioned by Canadians, it may very well lead to an increase in
crime, not a reduction, which is what we in this party seek as do
most Canadians.
A shift of this magnitude in how we punish or-should I say in a
politically correct manner-how we hold criminals accountable for
their actions should be reviewed and then approved by the public.
Bill C-41, which has now been in force for a number of months,
introduced alternative measures: alternatives to incarceration,
alternatives in fact to a court hearing. This portion of Bill C-41 was
overshadowed by the hate crime part of the bill which gave added
protection under the law to a category of citizens including those
classified by sexual orientation, an undefined term.
If asked today, I am confident very few Canadians know that the
Liberal government has provided the means for a whole host of
criminals, including sex and other violent offenders, to do
community work rather than spend time in jail.
It is most unfortunate Canadians were not aware of the full scope
of Bill C-41 which was described by the Canadian Police
Association in the following manner: ``Bill C-41, with few
exceptions, is unwieldy, complicated, internally self-contradictory,
duplicitous and what is worse, all of it completely unnecessary for
anyone of any knowledge of or use for the common law heritage of
Canada''.
We would not have objected so vehemently to the alternative
measures section of Bill C-41 if the government had specified
which offences may be applicable to alternative measures. We
could support the use of alternative measures for specific
non-violent offences, to reduce expensive court procedures and
incarceration. However, no such specifications appeared in Bill
C-41.
The Reform Party submitted an amendment to Bill C-41 that
would have exempted violent offenders from alternative measures.
However, the Liberals on the justice committee killed that
amendment.
Since the proclamation of Bill C-41, which also encouraged the
courts to use conditional sentencing, at least two convicted rapists
and others are walking free on conditional sentencing while their
female victims are afraid to leave their homes. That is
unacceptable. I hope the minister will bring in an amendment to the
Criminal Code that will restrict conditional sentencing to
non-violent offences so that rapists do not walk free like the two in
British Columbia.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House the sections of
Bill C-17 which concern us. The present law dealing with forcible
confinement of a human being makes this offence an indictable
offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years which classifies this
as a very serious offence.
Under Bill C-17 the severity of this offence will be lowered
significantly. The maximum penalty will still be 10 years but it will
become a dual procedure offence which may be processed by either
indictment or summary conviction. This means that under a
summary conviction procedure, this offence can be reduced to a
maximum sentence of 18 months or only a fine of up to $2,000.
Section 348.1(e) of the Criminal Code regarding breaking and
entering for places other than a dwelling house is also changed to a
dual procedure offence and the maximum sentence will be reduced
from 14 years to 10 years under indictment. Not only that, but it
can be tried by summary conviction with a maximum penalty of 18
months or simply a fine. What does this say to society? What does
it say to the criminal?
9597
(1055)
The offence of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, Criminal
Code section 349(1) has also been changed to dual procedure with
imprisonment of up to 10 years or processed by summary
conviction. Currently, unlawfully being in a dwelling house is an
indictable offence with a maximum imprisonment of up to 10
years.
Similarly, section 367 of the Criminal Code regarding forgery
and section 368(1), uttering forged documents, will be amended to
dual procedure offences with imprisonment of up to 10 years or
processed by summary conviction, whereas the current punishment
is indictable only with imprisonment of up to 14 years.
It is these sections which initially had us opposed to Bill C-17.
As stated earlier, we remain concerned that these Criminal Code
amendments will signal to the courts that these types offences are
to be treated in a less severe manner than is currently the case. As
we know, the decision on whether to proceed by indictment or by
summary conviction is made by the crown. It is with this fact in
mind, and following consultations with some provinces which
provided us with the assurance that in most of these cases the
crown will still proceed by way of indictment, that we reluctantly
provide our support today for Bill C-17.
Canada is facing rising crime rates, particularly violent crime,
raising fears regarding personal safety, escalating costs to
administer justice and to house prisoners and to top it all off a
growing debt which severely limits spending.
The task of the federal Minister of Justice to deal with these
problems in unison will be difficult but not insurmountable. Bill
C-17 is not at this time part of the answer. It does not address the
increase in crime in Canada and it does absolutely nothing to
confront the causes of crime.
Therefore, we will support Bill C-17, an inconsequential piece of
Liberal legislation, but we do so regrettably for the reasons given.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-17. I am encouraged by the
statements that my colleague from Crowfoot has made in reference
to this bill concerning its shortcomings and the fact that we will be
supporting it reluctantly. I too have very deep concerns about some
of the provisions of the bill.
I have paid some attention to the shortcomings in the area of the
reduction in maximum sentences. That really concerns me. As as a
police officer for 20 some years in the city of Calgary police
department I have experienced what reductions of sentences
actually do in the courts. There seems to be a trivializing of
sentences that are delivered when parliamentarians start tinkering
around and reducing the maximum terms allotted to some
offenders.
I look in particular at section 279(2) which deals with forcible
confinement. When is the section on forcible confinement often
used? What kind of offender is charged with such an offence? For
the most part it deals with the rapist, the sexual abuser, the person
who has intent to kidnap or to hold against his or her will someone.
It is most often a female or a child that the offender has attacked or
is attacking.
(1100 )
In Bill C-17 the government introduced a reduced sentence
lowering an indictable offence which had a provision of 14 years to
one of 18 months and making it a dual procedure. A minimum
sentence of 18 months can be delivered if the courts proceed by
way of summary conviction.
Rape or sexual assault is a very serious offence. Yet the
government has trivialized a good portion of the number of charges
of forcible confinement laid in sexual assault offences.
Another provision in Bill C-17 comes under section 348(1).
Breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house is now
considered a dual procedure offence with a maximum of 10 years.
Again it has been decreased.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will have the floor
immediately after question period when we resume debate on this
matter.
_____________________________________________
9597
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues in the
House to visit my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington during the maple syrup season.
The sap is running and communities right across the three
counties are transforming this liquid into the most delicious syrup
ever tasted. Everyone who is tired of the sloppy sidewalks and dirty
snows of the urban streets in March and April is invited to the
pristine outdoors of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington
to tour a sugar bush, watch the syrup being made, and taste the
flavour of spring on pancakes or in the form of maple candy.
The maple leaf is our symbol. Maple sugar is the ultimate
flavour of Canada. Although members might suggest my opinion is
biased, I invite them to take the taste test. They will receive a warm
welcome from my constituents. They should come and taste the
9598
best of nature's treats. They should come to
Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington this season.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Le
Gravillon, a newspaper published by the polyvalente
Charles-Gravel in Chicoutimi, is among the winners of the merit
award for French in education. The paper received the award from
the conseil pédagogique interdisciplinaire du Québec in the
secondary school category.
Le Gravillon has become well known
for the quality of French in its articles and editorials, all of which
are written by students at the Charles-Gravel secondary school.
Under the supervision of teacher Martin Tremblay, Le Gravillon
has over the years become a tool for promoting the French
language, while mobilizing the school's resources and energy to
offer a quality product.
Three cheers for Martin Tremblay's team and for the students at
Charles-Gravel.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
many of my constituents practise preventive health care using
herbs and other natural health supplements, but the Liberal
government wants to criminalize these law-abiding Canadians by
arbitrarily reclassifying herbs and natural health foods as drugs.
This sets in motion an expensive and time consuming testing
process that will remove access to health supplements for many
Canadians.
Health food stores are being raided, products confiscated and
stopped at our borders, and consumers are denied access to
products they have enjoyed for years. That happens even though
there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the products have
ever produced harm and there is no reason for these actions.
The burden of proof should be reversed for these products.
Health Canada should be required to demonstrate that they harm
human health and well-being before it imposes restrictions in their
trade or consumption. Reformers say call off the Liberal
government's health police and give Canadians freedom of choice
in health care because foods are not drugs.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Meredith Doyle Rink arrived home in Truro last week
boasting a bronze medal from the World Junior Curling
Championships in Japan. Every country set their sights on Canada.
The Canadian team was the team to beat. Although Canada lost to
Scotland in the semifinals, the girls played extremely well and
defeated the United States team five to two to bring home the
bronze.
The team produced a number of all star players and was
considered a model of youth sportsmanship on and off the ice.
Members of the Meredith Doyle Rink served as excellent
ambassadors for Canada.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in thanking and
congratulating the team on its excellent performance and its
awesome world victory.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was
April 16, 1897 in a small village in Austria when a little girl was
born to Pauline and Thomas Kowalchuk. They named her
Magdalena.
Magdalena sailed to Canada with her family in 1903 and they
settled in Tiny, Saskatchewan. In 1915 Magdalena married Michael
Filipowich. The couple built a small, two-bedroom home in Swan
Plain, Saskatchewan, where they had 10 children. The little house
still stands as a reminder of the hard work and dedication of one of
this country's great families.
Magdalena has lived in my riding of St. Catharines since 1956.
She now boasts 37 grandchildren, 85 great-grandchildren and 24
great-great-grandchildren.
This Sunday, Magdalena Filipowich and her many friends and
family will celebrate her 100th birthday. I want to join with them in
this special celebration and say to Magdalena happy birthday,
congratulations and God bless.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one of
my constituents, Martine Ayotte, is putting together the world's
biggest puzzle. This is a very special puzzle where each piece in
fact consists of a petition to ban toys that are an incentive to
violence.
So far, this initiative by a mother of five children has resulted in
26,000 signatures, and there are more to come. The purpose of this
courageous initiative is to prevent the manufacturing, importation,
marketing and advertising of toys which carry instructions that are
clearly an incentive to violence.
Next month, Mrs. Ayotte will be at the House of Commons to put
together all the pieces of this impressive puzzle. On this occasion,
9599
she hopes to make the government aware of her initiative to push
for appropriate legislation.
I fully support Mrs. Ayotte's initiative, and I would urge
members of all parties to do the same. On behalf of my colleagues
in the Bloc Quebecois, I want to commend this woman on the
imaginative way she is trying to improve our society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I take great pride in extending my sincere congratulations
to the New Liskeard Cubs, a AAA midget hockey team that
captured the Ontario title on April 6, 1997. I am proud of these
young hockey players for their hard work and team spirit. It is the
second consecutive year that the Cubs won the Air Canada central
region championship.
The Cubs have a long tradition of excellence in hockey.
Residents of the tri-towns in my riding are proud this team will
represent Ontario at the Air Canada Cup National Championship
Tournament which will be held in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, later
this month.
[Translation]
I am proud of the success of the New Liskeard Cubs, one of the
hockey teams in our riding. I am sure the team will make all
Canadians proud when it participates in the national
championships.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, B.C. produces 5,000 tonnes per year of oysters. This
provides high paying jobs.
France imported 100 tonnes of oyster broodstock from B.C. 15
years ago and is now producing 150,000 tonnes per year or 30
times greater than the production of B.C.
The aquaculture industry continues to be bogged down by
counterproductive federal rules and bureaucracy. Shellfish
production needs to be moved to an advocacy ministry such as
agriculture. The federal aquaculture development strategy of 1995
has never been adopted by DFO. The current attitude and practices
of DFO and DOE are costing west coast jobs, jobs, jobs, big time.
This has led to calls for provincial jurisdiction. This is probably
the only answer unless there is a federal attitude transplant.
I ask the respective ministers to get with the program to allow
the industry to prosper.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
seems to be some confusion over the impact of the new
employment insurance system. I just want to set the record straight.
The government has acted in a responsible and prudent manner.
Seasonal workers have not been compromised. The Atlantic
Liberal caucus ensured that seasonal workers were protected.
Unfortunately after EI went fully into effect in January a
problem surfaced which affected all Canadians. Again the
government acted on recommendations that would protect seasonal
workers.
The solution will work. Small weeks are counted for eligibility
but are bundled for calculating benefits. This change gives
claimants the best of both worlds.
I doubt there are many who would argue that reforms were not
needed. The changes implemented help Canadians. Every hour
counts. More people will be covered and many will qualify quicker.
More important, they are better active measures to get Canadians
back to work. The new system is good news.
* * *
(1110)
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Edmonton East is home to six vibrant healthy co-operative housing
communities. Each is unique. Each serves a valuable social
purpose. Each provides an economic benefit to all Edmontonians.
Edmonton East co-operatives provide stability, safety,
independence, privacy, affordability, diversity, equality and dignity
to both advantaged and less advantaged families.
At a recent public forum someone expressed these benefits
beautifully:
For the first time in my life I belong to a place I feel safe, know my neighbours,
make a positive contribution, live in a community where there is space to grow a
family, to have a yard, to have a pet and to be protected from adverse market forces.
Artspace provides our disabled with cost effective independent
living.
Acoxual provides newcomers to Canada with the language,
skills and job training needed to positively contribute to
Edmonton's economy.
Sundance and Riverdale provide safe affordable communities to
raise happy, healthy children.
It is imperative that our government ensure the long term
viability of co-operative housing.
9600
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I will raise
an issue close to my heart, gun control.
Having just returned from Europe where I was repeatedly
congratulated on our government's courage in enacting a bill to
restrict the ownership of firearms, I am utterly amazed at the flip
flop of the New Democratic Party on the issue.
I have always had grudging admiration for the party of M. J.
Coldwell and Tommy Douglas and its reputation as the conscience
of the Canadian nation. It is with extreme sadness that I see its
descent into political expediency.
I beg members of this old and formerly honourable party to
rethink their attitude on this issue at their upcoming convention.
My plea applies not only to members of the House but to aspirants
for election to the House including the candidate in my home
riding.
Let us preserve our distinct society as opposed to our neighbours
to the south. In Canada guns are bad. In the U.S.A. guns are good.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members from the Lower Laurentians,
including myself, are disappointed, but more determined than ever
to continue the fight for the long term survival of Mirabel airport,
following the appeal court decision concerning ADM.
All the efforts and energy invested by people from that area over
the past weeks will not have been in vain. The public is rallying
strongly in favour of Mirabel. It is up to us to do everything we can
to find solutions.
In Quebec City, work has already begun, with the creation of the
joint commission on the future of Mirabel airport, and we should
be pleased. The Liberals, who have landed us in this mess, should
get moving as well.
The region's Bloc Quebecois MPs urge the public not to give up,
but instead to redouble its efforts to have traffic transferred back to
Mirabel. People in the Lower Laurentians should not be held
hostage by the Liberal government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, fisheries
management in Canada has reached a new low. In spite of massive
expenditures by DFO the Atlantic groundfishery is in ruins, capelin
stocks are dangerously low, Pacific salmon stocks have fallen
dramatically, and now the Bay of Fundy scallop beds are all but
wiped out.
It is getting so bad that the portfolio of the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans will soon be changed to just the minister of oceans
because we are fast running out of fish.
Digby scallop fishermen who have families to feed and
mortgage payments to make want to know what the minister will
do for them. Is the minister prepared to shoulder his responsibility
and make responsible and rational management decisions?
Scallop fishermen in Digby who have been occupying DFO
offices for the past eight days want answers. They want to know
that they will be able to earn a living in an industry that they
pioneered 75 years ago.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that
April has been designated Parkinson Awareness Month by the
Parkinson Foundation of Canada. In addition, April 11 marks
World Parkinson Day.
Parkinson is a chronic brain disorder. It is the most prevalent
movement disorder and one of the most common neurological
disorders affecting some 100,000 Canadians.
The Parkinson Foundation of Canada was established in 1965. It
is made up of more than 100 chapters and support groups
nationwide.
(1115)
The foundation is dedicated to funding research into the cause,
treatment and ultimate cure for Parkinson; providing training,
counselling and workshops for patients, caregivers and health care
providers; developing and distributing material; and heightening
public awareness about Parkinson.
I invite the House to join me in wishing the Parkinson
Foundation of Canada and its many volunteers a very successful
Parkinson Awareness Month and World Parkinson Day.
_____________________________________________
9600
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, before the UN Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva, Canada refused to co-sponsor a Danish resolution
condemning human rights violations in China. Yet, since the
massacre in Tiananmen Square, Canada had never failed to
co-sponsor
9601
similar resolutions. Canada has apparently given up defending
human rights internationally.
In light of the fact that China is systematically, blatantly and
continually violating human rights throughout its territory, and
particularly in Tibet, can the minister tell us why the Canadian
government did not support Denmark's action, which condemns
the failure to respect human rights in China?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have not refused. The hon. member is totally wrong in
his statement.
A resolution was tabled by Denmark with a number of
co-sponsors. We are still looking at the question of whether we
would be a co-sponsor but we have not refused in any way. It is a
matter under consideration.
The Prime Minister already said a few days ago, if the hon.
member had paid attention, that they would be examined by a
meeting of cabinet ministers probably at the beginning of next
week.
In the meantime we have also indicated our intention to vote for
the resolution. The Prime Minister said that in Washington in his
speech Wednesday. The hon. member should check his facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for the past seven years, China has succeeded in blocking
any vote concerning its human rights violations. But the real vote,
the one he is talking about, is when a country sponsors a resolution.
Is the minister telling us that, with all these changes, these things
he will be deciding about in the future, and so on, Canada has caved
in to the blackmail and threats of political and trade reprisals from
this country?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat what I said. We were faced, as was everybody
else, with a decision by the French to break the consensus
established by the European Union, the major sponsor of the
resolution.
That certainly changed the circumstances in which one would
want to look at the resolution. Because of the trip to Washington
and other activities, we did not have the opportunity to have a
cabinet meeting on the matter. The Prime Minister indicated that
there would be a meeting at the beginning of this week at which
time we would make a decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it has only been going on for seven years, so I can
understand that the minister has not had the time to hold a meeting
of his officials.
I find the responses of the government and of the minister this
morning most puzzling. If I understand the minister correctly,
Canada seems to have abdicated its traditional role as defender of
human rights. Otherwise it would have cast its real vote by now,
and we would know where it stands. As things are now, we do not
know where it stands and are still waiting, despite the importance
of the issue.
By refusing to stand up to intimidation by China and by putting
the defence of international human rights on the back burner, does
the minister agree that Canada is a party to the imprisonment of
Chinese political prisoners, and to the detention of the 11th
Panchen Lama, the chief spiritual adviser of Tibet?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member is trying to inflame and to
exaggerate his position. Unfortunately the hon. member is basing
his premise on sheer ignorance.
If he had paid attention rather than to a headline but to the facts,
he would know that last week I was in China. I met with Chinese
officials. I raised the issue of human rights. I raised the issue of
political prisoners. We put them on the table.
Canada maintained a continual constant opinion that we would
raise those kinds of issues directly with the Chinese and we did. It
is too bad the hon. member does not have the fortitude and the
resolve to make the same kind of commitments we are prepared to
make.
* * *
(1120)
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question as well is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We know that Canada played an important role in the world
movement of sanctions against apartheid in South Africa. At the
beginning of this month, the UN Human Rights Commission
published a report in which it urged the international community to
take steps to combat violence against women, such as rape and
trafficking.
Can the minister tell us the measures he intends to take in
response to the publication of this report, which reminds us that
violence against women is still considered a form of entertainment
or a normal practice in a number of countries?
9602
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly share very much both the spirit and the intent
of the resolution in Geneva. There are several ways of follow it
through. Certainly one would be to ensure that in our domestic
situation we take all steps possible. The Minister of Justice has
already indicated in the House several times this week that we have
a number of initiatives to combat violence against women, in fact
violence against all people.
I think the commitment made by the minister is a clear example
of the way we want to act domestically.
A second initiative we can take is to work internationally to
ensure that there are covenants and that through the work of CIDA
and other groups we work within those countries to provide
assistance and programs that will assist women and combat
violence against women.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know
that many countries with which the Canadian government has
dealings are directly implicated in this serious problem of violence
against women.
Does the minister intend to denounce these countries during his
upcoming international dealings and in his trade relations with
these same countries, and thus maintain the leadership role that
Canada has always played with respect to human rights?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can answer that by way of example. Canada was very
instrumental in working with Indonesia for the establishment of an
independent human rights commission which is taking on those
individual cases by the support we give.
In the discussions we held recently with Cuba on human rights
issues, we have agreed to co-sponsor a major meeting in Havana to
deal with the questions of rights of women and rights of children.
I have made it very clear and very explicit in the statement on
Canada's human rights approach that we believe the most effective
way of promoting democracy, human rights and the protection of
basic civil liberties is to promote and support those working within
the countries to provide the changes within those countries. That is
the central trust of our policy.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
during question period the justice minister read a letter from the
president of CAVEAT, Mrs. de Villiers, while responding to a
question about conditional sentencing and the case of rapist Darren
Ursel.
By doing so, is the justice minister saying to the House and the
victims of this country that Mrs. de Villiers and her organization
support a law that allows a convicted rapist to walk free?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the response spoke for
itself.
I was asked yesterday about the position of the government in
relation to victims. The allegation has been made all week by the
hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party that the
government either does not understand or has not acted in the
interests of victims in the criminal justice system.
My purpose in referring to the letter from Priscilla de Villiers,
the president of CAVEAT, was to demonstrate that one of the most
respected spokespersons for victim rights, who has suffered her
own personal tragedy and has turned from that tragedy to make
something constructive come out of all that, has looked at the
record of the government and has said we have made significant
change, that we have demonstrated a willingness to listen and a
willingness to act.
I said yesterday, as I say today, that when the people of Canada
come to make their choice between the Reform Party and the
Liberal government as to who to believe on the issue of victim
rights, I believe they will turn to respected and credible third
parties such as CAVEAT.
The people of this country will have no difficulty deciding that
this is a government which has acted and the Reform Party is
absolutely wrong.
(1125)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister's reading of Mrs. de Villiers' letter in the House yesterday
indicates clearly that the minister remains committed to a law that
allows rapists and child sex molestors to walk free and has
attempted to defend his position by leaving the impression that the
victims of crime support this law as well.
If this impression is wrong and the minister does not really
support rapists and violent offenders walking free, will the minister
move immediately to amend the Criminal Code to restrict
conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points.
First, no one would suggest for a moment that anyone, whether it
is this government, CAVEAT, I or any other responsible person,
favours anything but prison for those who commit serious violent
crimes.
My reference to the CAVEAT letter was and is in relation to its
commentary on the performance of this government in relation to
victims and their rights under the law.
9603
On the subject of conditional sentences, the Criminal Code
already contains serious penalties, including life in prison, for
those who commit serious violent crimes such as sexual assault,
aggravated sexual assault and the like. It is already in the criminal
law.
If a court somewhere makes a decision about a sentence in a
specific case, if the prosecutor believes that sentence is
inappropriate an appeal can be brought and argued and that result
may well be changed. It depends on the judgment of the court.
The reference this week has been to a specific case in British
Columbia which is before the court of appeal. I ask the hon.
member to let the court do its job. The penalties are already in the
code. If the penalty in this case was inappropriate the appeal court
has all the power to correct that result.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, conditional
sentencing has been used in a host of violent cases across this
country where the offenders are walking free. It is not simply the
case of Mr. Ursel. There are a host of child molestors and violent
offenders walking free because of the loophole this justice minister
has left in the law through Bill C-41.
Since the justice minister likes to hear and read what victims
have to say, I would like to read the words of Jana Rosenfeldt, the
sister of one of Clifford Olson's victims:
Actually we met with the justice minister last year. He had a chance to stop this.
He basically spit on all the graves of all these kids.
That is how a victim really feels about this justice minister and
his great concern about victims of crime.
I ask the justice minister one more time will he do the right thing
and amend Bill C-41 to plug the loophole that allows the courts to
let rapists and violent offenders to walk free? Will he bring that in?
We will support it.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are already
penalties in the criminal law to provide for lengthy imprisonment,
if necessary life imprisonment, for those who commit serious
violent crimes.
Monday of last week I proposed and all parties agreed, including
my hon. friend, an amendment to the conditional sentence
provision that will require the courts to look at sentencing factors
in general, including denunciation, when deciding whether
conditional sentences are appropriate.
In terms of the hon. member's reference to graves, the party
opposite makes it very difficult to engage in rational debate. If its
members have succeeded in anything this week it has been to
fortify their position as a party of the narrow edge, a party of the
extreme, a party that prefers slogans over substance, a party that
prefers rhetoric over results. They have made themselves the
spectacle this week.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Tension continues to mount in the Middle East where, yesterday,
the Israeli defence minister warned that, if friction between
Palestinians and the Israeli army continued, Israel would have no
trouble taking back Hebron or any other Palestinian city.
Since this statement could inflame the situation and irreversibly
topple the peace process arising from the Oslo accords, can the
minister tell us what actions Canada intends to take to maintain
peace in the Middle East?
(1130)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very concerned about the increasing tensions in the
Middle East. We continue to call on all parties to find ways of
following the peace process established by Oslo of reconciling
differences, of living up to their commitments.
Canada is the chair of the working group on refugees. It is the
one working group that came out of the larger peace process that is
still functioning. We will be leading a mission into the Middle East
shortly to see if we can bring the parties together to work
specifically on the refugee issue.
That area is perhaps the most burning source of tension and
instability. If we can bring progress about by bringing the parties
together on the refugee issue it may contribute in its own way to
providing a sense that solutions are possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister intend, in light of the new context, to renew Canadian
opposition to the Israeli plan to build new Jewish settlements in
East Jerusalem?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have always said that any attempt to bring those
settlements about runs contrary to the resolutions of the United
Nations. We have constantly stated that and our position has not
changed.
9604
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on June 15, 1995 this government invoked time allocation
to ram its sentencing bill, Bill C-41, through the House.
Reformers supported the Canadian Police Association in calling
for the rejection of this ill conceived piece of legislation. We feared
judges would use conditional sentencing inappropriately in cases of
violence. Our worst fears have become victims' worst nightmares.
The Bill C-17 amendment the justice minister just referred to
only cautions judges to use this so-called tool appropriately. It does
not prevent them from using it in cases of violence.
Will the justice minister now admit his mistake and take
corrective action to ensure conditional sentencing is never used
again in cases of violence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conditional sentence provision
provides on its face that the court must take into account the safety
of the community, the danger to the community, before deciding
whether a conditional sentence is appropriate.
By virtue of the amendment that all parties agreed to this past
Monday we will add words that require the judge before
considering a conditional sentence to take into account the usual
factors, including deterrence, denunciation and protection of the
community.
The Criminal Code has over 800 sections. Many provide
expressly for terms as long as life imprisonment for those who
commit crimes of serious violence, including sexual assault and
aggravated sexual assault. The tools are there. This government
does not sit in the courtrooms to decide cases or pass sentences. It
provides the law. The law provides well to deal with violent crime.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on November 4 last year I drew this minister's attention to
the misuse of Bill C-41 in three cases involving violence against
women. He chose to ignore the facts. One week later, on November
12, Judge Harry Boyle turned Darren Ursel free into the
community.
Had the minister acted then rather than mock the question, this
travesty of justice need not have occurred.
I will ask the minister the very same question I asked him almost
six months ago. Does he believe conditional sentencing, no jail
time, is appropriate for rape?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member looks at the cases he referred to last
November, he should look at the appeal court decisions from those
results. If the hon. member is suggesting that any time a judge
somewhere in Canada makes a sentencing decision that he does
not agree with we should pass another law, then he does not
understand the criminal justice system.
Judges are to apply the criminal law which includes penalties up
to life in prison for serious violence, including sexual assault and
aggravated sexual assault. The tools are there. They are spelled out
in the code for the courts to apply.
I urge the hon. member to reconsider what the purpose and
nature of the criminal justice system is.
* * *
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The Bloc Quebecois welcomes the fact that Canada and the
United States have reached an agreement on amendments to the tax
treaty between our two countries. However, retroactive payments
will not be made until the agreement is ratified by the Senate.
Is the minister prepared to pay an advance to people on low
incomes who will otherwise have to spend nearly two more years
deprived of 25 per cent of their U.S. pension income?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
previously said that we need to set up a system because of the
rather complex administration involved. We have already taken the
requisite steps to ensure that, if an agreement is not reached in time
for the U.S. Senate to be able to act, we are prepared, once the
system is set up, to make payments on an interim basis.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, am I to understand from the minister's reply that he thinks
it would be normal for a person whose sole income amounts to
$10,000 annually to receive some compensation so that he will not
have to live on $8,000 a year for two years, while waiting for
retroactive payments because of an unfair tax treaty?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No Mr.
Speaker, I think the hon. member did not understand the answer.
I said we needed to set up a system in order to have the data
required to make these payments. Now if there were some delay in
the U.S. Senate and the system is ready to go and we have the data,
then we will make these payments. So the delay is not due to a
matter of principle on our side but is purely administrative.
9605
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in
question period the Minister of National Defence told the House
that Canada was involved in negotiations with the United States
over the clean-up of abandoned military bases across this country.
Now we have learned that there are not any negotiations taking
place and none planned for the future.
Why did the Minister of National Defence mislead the House?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon.
member is in the grip of this monumental question that was
resolved last fall. The fact is an agreement has been achieved with
respect to the clean-up of a number of bases, including distant early
warning systems at Argentia, Goose Bay and a couple of others.
However, it is a contingent agreement because it still remains to be
dealt with by the American government.
What we are looking at is, hopefully, that there will be a
resolution on the basis of this tentative deal, but we are still making
sure that there is progress toward a final resolution which will
include the decision of the Government of the United States
through the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian
taxpayers are being stuck with a $500 million tab to clean up
American garbage. I cannot believe the subject did not come up
when the Prime Minister was smiling for the cameras and sipping
white wine with his close friend Bill Clinton.
We would appreciate the straight goods this time. Will the
government force the Americans to clean up their own mess or will
Canadian taxpayers be stuck with toxic waste and a $500 million
tab?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the only
thing toxic is whatever the hon. member is sniffing.
What we are trying to achieve here is an arrangement whereby
the American government takes some responsibility for a situation
that has developed over the last 40 or 50 years.
The hon. member may have a slight capacity of recall that there
was a second world war. Subsequent to that there was a cold war,
during which time American military establishments were set up in
various parts of the country.
We have come a long way in trying to negotiate a deal with the
American authorities to assist us in the clean-up of a number of
these sites.
The number he referred to, specifically the $500 million figure,
was not a number put forward by the Canadian government. It was
a number that may have been put forward by someone else. The
$100 million U.S. that has been agreed to, contingent on approval
by the American Congress is, we feel, a significant improvement
over what anybody else has been able to negotiate with the
Americans subsequent to their deployment to various parts of the
world.
(1140)
I know if the hon. gentleman took on this cause and went to
Washington to meet with his friend Newt Gingrich and others, he
would scare the hell out of the Americans and would get whatever
he wants.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Before the Easter recess, in answer to my question about
employment insurance benefits for members of the reserve, the
Minister of National Defence said he would let us know as soon as
possible why members of the reserve did not pay premiums for
service in class A or for contract jobs with a duration of less than 30
days.
Could the minister finally explain why members of the reserve
are excluded from the Employment Insurance Act, while all other
workers are not?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank
the hon. member for the question he asked a few weeks ago.
I would like to point out, however, that all employees are not
necessarily covered by the act because if I am not mistaken, the
Sûreté du Québec is not covered, since the Quebec government
decided it would be better for employees of the Sûreté not to be
covered.
However, since the hon. member raised a matter I thought was
very important, we looked to the whole picture. Since it is a
fundamental principle to ensure that all Canadians who have a job
have access to the employment insurance program, we are now
changing the regulations at the Department of National Defence to
give members of the reserve access to the employment insurance
program, even for a period of less than 30 days.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again
the Bloc Quebecois has made major gains. We are often in the
House to push this government to do things, and we do that on a
regular basis.
9606
Since the minister agrees that the government should change
the regulations for members of the reserve, will he promise that
he will take action as soon as possible, in other words, by the end
of this month?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will do
everything we can to act as quickly as possible.
My only regret is that the hon. member is surrounded by people
who once sat on this side of the House as members of the
Conservative government, including the leader at headquarters in
Quebec City, and all these people let this situation go on for many
years. However, we will act a lot quicker than the hon. member
may think, and I want to thank him for recognizing the fact that we
reacted appropriately to a problem that had to be dealt with.
* * *
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not so
long ago, the minister responsible for the infrastructure program
announced the federal government's offer to continue the program
for a year. Provinces have been signing agreements for a number of
weeks now.
Could the minister tell the House how negotiations are going
with Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to announce that the Government of Canada has reached an
agreement with the Government of Quebec on continuing and
expanding the infrastructure programs.
Under this agreement, $185 million dollars from the
Government of Canada will be spent on municipal infrastructures
over the next twelve months, and we hope to create over 5,000 jobs
with this expanded program. It will enable municipalities to put in
place the infrastructures that are vital to all Quebecers.
* * *
(1145)
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Standing Committee on Government Operations tabled its report
on contracting yesterday. The report was particularly critical of the
government and found that Treasury Board was not following its
own rules. It was found that fully 37 per cent of contracts worth
over $3.2 billion were sole source or non-competitive contracts.
In the red book the Liberals promised accountability and
integrity in government. What do we see? Millions of taxpayers'
dollars being squandered by the government. It is not following its
own Treasury Board policies and guidelines regarding the
awarding of contracts.
My question is for the minister responsible for Treasury Board.
Will the minister guarantee that Treasury Board will follow its own
rules with respect to the awarding of contracts and, in particular,
drastically reduce the number of contracts awarded without going
through the competitive bidding process?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
committee of the House has been doing what we believe is very
good work for about two years. The members submitted a
preliminary report in the fall of 1995. We agreed with quite a
number of their recommendations.
In fact, already we have put in place a number of measures to
implement these recommendations. For instance, in order to
increase the number of contracts that went to competitive bidding
the threshold was lowered from $30,000 to $25,000. The new
bidding procedures have been tightened. The monitoring is much
stronger. We are waiting to see the other recommendations in the
final report in order to act on them as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is tinkering around the edges. He has not dealt with the
meat of the issue. We are talking about $9 billion in contracts. That
is nearly 10 per cent of total government spending and yet the
government has not addressed the key issues.
The committee report recommends that Treasury Board address
four areas of abuse by the government: sole source contracting,
contract splitting, contract tailoring and contract amendments.
These abuses fly in the face of government policy and are contrary
to the standards of fairness and transparency that Canadians expect
from their government. The committee report calls for strong
sanctions to be imposed to prevent such abuses from continuing in
the future.
Will the minister guarantee to Canadians that his department will
follow the committee recommendations and put an end to contract
splitting, contract tailoring and excessive contract amendments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first, more than 60 per cent of the contracts that are concluded are
concluded according to rules that involve competitive bidding. The
great majority of these contracts are clearly recognized as being
efficient, fair and under proper procedures.
In the circumstances that were mentioned by the committee we
have recognized that in certain cases the recommendations make a
lot of sense. As I mentioned, we have already implemented a
number of these measures. We will now study the other
recommendations. We have, I believe, 90 days to respond. We will
9607
respond to all these recommendations. When they make sense we
will implement them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In the report to the Prime Minister entitled ``Leadership and
Management of the Canadian Forces'', there is a common thread to
the reforms proposed by the Minister of National Defence. They do
not touch anything that sets the army apart, well out of public view,
and that affords it government complacency.
Why did the minister refuse to act on the recommendation by
Professor Albert Legault that civilian and military companies be
integrated and the ombudsman accountable to Parliament?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we tried to take
into account a number of recommendations that came from a lot of
people, not just Professor Legault.
I would point out to my colleague that, as regards the system of
military justice and the operation of the military police, we will be
establishing a tribunal to oversee the activities of the military
justice system and to look into complaints about the system. This is
completely outside the chain of command of the Canadian forces
and outside the bureaucracy of the Department of National
Defence. It will report directly to the Minister of National Defence.
However, as is generally the case, because he has no regulatory
power but rather the power to verify and encourage so that the
appropriate changes are made in cases where the system has treated
individuals unfairly, the ombudsman is to report, as is often the
case, to those persons in a position to make the necessary changes.
(1150)
In the case of National Defence, the ombudsman's reports will
be made public as will those of the tribunal I have just mentioned.
This will, I think, ensure a transparency heretofore unknown in the
organization of the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the military police and the ombudsman, who will both
remain under the authority of the chief of staff, and the minister's
refusal to review the army's traditional role, including its readiness
for combat, lead us to conclude that the minister's reform is
nothing more than window dressing.
Does the minister not agree that, in fact, his reform accords full
and unconditional amnesty to the chief of staff of the Canadian
armed forces and treats all those guilty of murder and of covering
up all the events in Somalia as innocent, without any formal
decision? Does the minister realize that he is proposing not only
amnesty, but total amnesty?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but when I
come face to face with incomprehension, I certainly realize it.
There is no doubt that some of the 65 recommendations we made
in fact concern a number of the points the hon. member has raised.
However, I would point out to him that the recommendations on the
military justice system and the operation of the military police
were prepared and submitted to the Prime Minister and the
government without a single letter being changed. The
recommendations are the result of work presided over by a former
chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I think the hon. member should make sure his facts are right and
that he understands what he is saying when he refers to the
recommendations on the military justice system and the military
police. Because when the time comes to judge the content, I believe
the opinions of the hon. member will be measured against the
ability of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.):
Canadians are up in arms. The government is pursuing a course to
ban commonly used herbs and medicinals that people have been
using safely for decades.
Would the Minister of Health get his priorities straight and allow
people to use these substances without restriction?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member is so
exercised. Health Canada is discharging a responsibility that he
would impose on it and which he would want all Canadians to
ensure it fulfilled, specifically to ensure that all products that come
on the market claiming a medicinal function be both safe and
effective.
Second, he is well aware that Health Canada already has a
committee in place to study all such herbal products. Over 100 of
them are approved on an annual basis. Surely the member would
not want Health Canada or any other body to release products on to
the market before they have been tested for efficacy and safety.
9608
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, no party is more committed to the health of Canadians
that the Reform Party, and that is a fact.
The hon. member needs to be corrected. I am talking about
substances that people have been using for decades, substances
which are found in our own bodies, like tryptothan.
The health minister first wants to ban cheese and now he wants
to ban vitamins. I suggest that he get his priorities straight. While
Canadians a dying on waiting lists, this is what the government is
doing.
Will the minister get his priorities straight and allow people the
choice in health care that they deserve?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all choices are, in effect, good choices
if they result in a consequence that is healthy and productive.
The member opposite would surely not ask us to allow a product
like Ephedra into Canada. It was widely allowed into the United
States.
(1155 )
For example, in Texas over 500 reports of adverse reactions have
already been reported. Or comfrey, which has been identified as a
causing agent of liver diseases and deaths.
We could go on on this list but it is important-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Mike Harris and his Conservative government are slashing
Ontario's hospital services. They are trying to lay the blame on the
federal government, citing cuts to the province's transfer
payments.
Of the large hospitals slated for closure, three are in the national
capital, including the Montfort hospital, the only French language
teaching hospital in Ontario.
[English]
Would the minister inform the House who is really to blame and
responsible for shutting down hospitals, especially the only
francophone teaching hospital in Ontario?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is to be seen in the actions
of this government in comparison with the government in question.
First, in 1996 the budget delivered on what the provinces had
asked for specifically: stable, predictable and secure cash transfers.
In the 1997 budget, an additional $150 million in investment for
the future of health care was added in the health transition fund to
take Canada into the 21st century. That is in addition to funds that
had been already put in place for other health related measures
including prenatal nutrition, community action programs for
children.
I caution all members in the House to put that in the context of
what is going on in Ontario where the government had the
opportunity to impose tax cuts or to close-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec.
Last March 8, 23 days before the end of the fiscal year, my
colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, reminded the Secretary of
State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec that
his government had not yet kept its promise to turn over a quarter
of a million dollars in funding to the Parc technologique du Québec
métropolitain. Last March 26, the Minister of Industry told the
Sainte-Foy chamber of commerce that the amount would be only
$150,000.
How can a minister who says that the jobs of the future will be
built on savoir faire and knowledge break the government's
promises like this, by depriving the Parc technologique du Québec
métropolitain of financial resources, the very purpose of which is
to create jobs in the high tech sector?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
confirm what my colleague, the Minister of Industry said: this
government has focused on job creation based on businesses in the
new economy.
As for the Parc technologique du Québec, it was created and
exists in large measure because the Canadian government
supported it from the very beginning. We recently stepped in with
an additional $150,000, which seems to have satisfied the people of
the Parc technologique.
However, I would just like to mention that the Parc
technologique du Québec is a paragovernmental corporation
belonging to the Province of Quebec, and I think that members of
the official opposition are knocking on the wrong door. I think the
Canadian government has more than done its part for the Parc
technologique and we are happy to have done so. They can try
knocking at the door of head office now.
9609
[English]
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the task force on aquaculture appointed by the Prime
Minister has finished its field work and submitted its report in
January.
When is the report going to be made public? Why is the
government sitting on it and losing valuable time?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right that the report is
finished. I have had a look at it. We are studying it and when we are
ready to act, we will.
* * *
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the minister of agriculture. Jobs and education are just as
important to rural Canadians as they are to people living in urban
centres.
Can the minister tell me, regarding the government's jobs
strategy, what benefits are planned to be available for those
Canadians living in rural Canada?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last budget provided about
$275 million in tax benefits to help all students and parents to
defray the costs of post-secondary education.
(1200 )
Second, my department is developing a national agricultural
scholarships program and is committing about $1 million over the
next two years to provide 30 masters and doctoral awards per year
in agricultural related fields.
Third, within the national system of internships, which is being
supported by the government, there is a science horizons program
to assist young Canadians interested in finding first jobs related to
the agricultural sciences. That is a part of the internship strategy.
Finally, we have a summer fair program by which we will be
providing Canada kiosks at some 164 rural locations across the
country. They will be managed on a local level by 4-H members
across the country.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: I would draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of His Excellency Javier Solana, Secretary
General of the Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
9609
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, April 7, 1997,
your committee has considered Bill C-46, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (production of records in sexual offence
proceedings), and your committee has agreed to report it with
amendments.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance has the honour to
present its 10th report.
In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, June 17,
1996, your committee has considered Bill C-37, an act to
implement an agreement between Canada and the Russian
Federation, a convention between Canada and the Republic of
South Africa, an agreement between Canada and the United
Republic of Tanzania, an agreement between Canada and the
Republic of India, and a convention between Canada and Ukraine
for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal
evasion with respect to taxes on income, and has agreed to report it
without amendment.
A copy of the minutes of proceedings related to this bill is
tabled.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-401, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(broadcasting policy for Canada).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce my
private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Broadcasting Act
(broadcasting policy for Canada).
The bill would change the mandate of the CBC to include in its
responsibilities the duty to ``contribute to the development of
national unity and provide for a continuing expression of Canadian
identity''. This obligation was originally included in the CBC
mandate but was removed by the previous government.
I strongly believe that the CBC is a national institution which
helps more than any other to foster understanding among Cana-
9610
dians which in turn contributes to the development of national
unity. I think its mandate should support this fact.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity that was
denied me the other day by the government to present a couple of
petitions.
I have two petitions. In the first one, the petitioners pray and
request that Parliament introduce mid-term disability benefits
legislation which allows working Canadians who suffer from a
debilitating illness or injury to receive continuous sickness benefits
in the following form: 15 weeks of unemployment insurance,
mid-term disability and Canadian disability pension plan.
(1205 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition I would like to present
today, the petitioners urge all levels of government to demonstrate
their support of education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax
on reading materials.
The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST. As the provinces and Ottawa are
considering harmonizing the sales taxes, reading materials must be
zero rated under the provincial sales taxes as well as GST.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have several petitions that I would like to introduce today.
In the first, 28 petitioners call on Parliament to urge the federal
government to join with the provincial governments to make a
national highway system upgrading possible beginning this year.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): The second
petition, Mr. Speaker, is one on ``don't tax reading''. It has 103
signatures and I concur with the comments of the petitioners.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): I have several
petitions, Mr. Speaker, dealing with pedophiles.
In the first one, the petitioners call on Parliament to eliminate the
right of convicted pedophiles to be let out of jail on bail pending an
appeal.
The second petition on pedophiles deals with a registry and
states that Parliament enact legislation to establish a pedophile
registry.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition calls on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of
Canada to set the age of consent at 18 years of age except within a
husband and wife relationship so as to provide protection from
exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Finally, Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with two strikes legislation.
They have 273 signatures.
The petitioners call on Parliament to enact two strikes legislation
requiring everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or
more sexual offences against a minor to be sentenced to
imprisonment for life without eligibility of parole or early release.
Also, for anyone awaiting trial on any such offences mentioned
in the petition, the petitioners pray that such a person be held in
custody without eligibility for bail or release in any form or any
manner until the case is concluded in a court of law.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I have the privilege to present more petitions on
``don't tax reading''.
The petitioners ask Parliament to zero rate books, magazines and
newspapers under the GST. They also ask Parliament and the
provincial governments to zero rate reading materials under the
proposed harmonized sales tax.
These petitioners are from Edmonton, from Rocky Mountain
House and other parts of Alberta. This is very important and I hope
the government takes it seriously. We should not be taxing reading
material.
* * *
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to
stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9611
9611
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-17,
an act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts, be read
the third time and passed.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast
has 37 minutes remaining in his intervention.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
relating some of the shortcomings of that bill. I dealt with section
348(1) of the Criminal Code, breaking and entering a place other
than a dwelling house for which the maximum sentence is being
reduced from an indictable offence only to a dual procedure one,
having a maximum sentence of 10 years.
I was relating a situation that occurred in Calgary. It was a shop
break-in. Several offenders had entered the shop in the early
morning hours of a weekday. While they were conducting their
activities within that shop, the owner, a recently arrived immigrant
to Canada, had come into the shop to do his work. Unbeknownst to
him three culprits who had entered through the roof were in the
store. When he walked in he was immediately confronted by the
three shop breakers, one of whom was armed.
(1210)
There was a physical confrontation and the shopkeeper was shot
in the neck. He was a breath away from dying. The culprits
scattered. Some climbed back on to the roof, the point of entry. One
ran through the parking lot. Fortunately a call was placed to police
and a nearby cruiser responded. The police response was so
immediate that two culprits were trapped on the roof. The third
culprit ran through the parking lot firing his gun as the police
approached him. It was a semi-automatic weapon.
There was the offence against the owner of the shop and charges
were also laid as a result of the culprit firing at police officers.
Fortunately no one else was hit. There was a good resolution to this
incident. For one reason or another the police never returned fire
although they had every opportunity to do so. Maybe they looked at
the conditions around the site at the time and did not return fire for
that reason.
That is a very serious offence, a shop breaking. It can be looked
at as a property offence which is the way it has been classified. It is
unfortunate that the government seems to be looking at those
offences as being rather minor in nature. As a result of that view we
see a change in the legislation that trivializes the offence by it being
reduced with its maximum sentence diluted.
There was a shop breaking. Armed offenders entered the
premises. A confrontation ensued because a man who had
contributed to society got up a little earlier than normal and went to
work to look after his books and a few other items. He confronted
these subjects and almost lost his life.
As far as I am concerned shop breaking is a serious offence. So is
house breaking. However, the maximum penalties will now be
reduced to a dual procedure. They can be proceeded with as
summary conviction offences which may yield just a few months in
prison.
To my way of thinking and in the eyes of a lot of Canadians,
culprits like that should get the maximum penalty just for that
offence. Now it has been reduced. It should be an indictable
offence. Even if the crown proceeds in that fashion the maximum
time delivered will be 10 years which is not acceptable.
Another thing will happen in this case. The charges will all go
forward: discharging a firearm in a public place; attempted murder;
and all forms of criminal charges adequate to this offence. They
will be presented in court. As in most cases of this nature where
multiple charges are laid, the courts will look on the charges in the
following fashion. The most serious charge is attempted murder,
the second most serious is shooting at the police officers and the
third is the shop breaking itself.
(1215 )
Those three charges will go forward and most likely the most
serious penalty will be allotted to the attempted murderer, as it
should be, but all the rest, even though they may yield four, five or
however many years the court deems necessary, will serve their
sentences concurrently. In other words, they will all be served at
the same time, as opposed to consecutively. Seldom do we see the
courts ordering consecutive sentencing. I find that a little unsettling
because it is so common in our courtrooms today.
Charges such as shop breaking, a breaking and entering offence
other than in a dwelling house, have been reduced in scope.
Frequently charges for shop breaking are reduced. I have a concern
about the provision in section 348(1) which would reduce
maximum sentencing.
The member for Crowfoot has been diligently following this bill.
He is very much aware of its ramifications. He clearly pointed out
the fact that our party would have voted against this bill. However,
other provisions have been thrown into the legislation which make
it almost necessary for us to support it.
Section 349 deals with being unlawfully in a dwelling house.
Again it is a dual procedure which has a maximum sentence of ten
years. It is an indictable charge. We are talking about a dwelling
house in which people live. It is their castle. It is their refuge. The
charge concerns an uninvited person being in the house. It is a
situation which occurs frequently. The person may not even give a
9612
reason for being in the house but will only face a maximum
sentence of ten years.
I was a police officer. The hon. member for Crowfoot was in a
similar type of career. He struggled through 14 years and saw some
very significant happenings when it came to the things that some
people will do to others. I know that people are very unsettled when
someone walks uninvited into their home and disturbs the
possessions they cherish. I am concerned about the reduction in the
sentencing for being unlawfully in a dwelling house. There is no
reason an uninvited guest should not get the maximum penalty.
I see that the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister is in
his seat. I do not know if he understands what I am saying, but
when it comes to breaking into a house, the victims do not forget
that there was an intruder in their house. They never forget it. It is
very unsettling for them, especially if the intruder touched their
possessions.
It has happened to me. Some of my police paraphernalia was
stolen from my home by an intruder. I know how it feels. I want to
point out that for female members of a family it is very disturbing
and they never forget. They have to wash all the clothes because
somebody uninvited intruded in their privacy.
(1220)
When it comes to a dwelling house I see the need to keep
offences much higher than most. It is so important that people get
the message that the government intends to protect what they own,
their refuge, the only refuge that really no one else is permitted to
enter apart from members of the family or those who have
permission to do so. That is my concern about this part of the bill.
There are other provisions in the bill. One is dealing with
forgery. Again it is being reduced from 14 years to a maximum of
10 years.
Prior to my election to the House I was a commercial crime
investigator. I have been involved in some major cases of
embezzlement, fraud and misappropriation of funds. I have seen
numerous people lose their livelihood over the greed of others who
had been hired or who were in partnership with them in businesses.
It troubles me to see again someone who has committed such a
crime and who can lay a complete business to waste because they
were in a trusted position and then get away with a lower sentence.
I refer to a statement that was made in one of the government
reports. It was the intent of the government to modernize the
Criminal Code in these areas. What on earth does modernizing the
Criminal Code have to do with reducing the sentences on very
important sections of the Criminal Code? What on earth does that
have to do with modernizing it?
Mr. Kirkby: Reformers do not understand modernization.
Mr. Hanger: The parliamentary secretary cannot grasp what is
being said here. The courts have taken this trend, and a lot of it is
because of appointments from the government to many of the
judges within the court of Queen's bench appeal court and the
supreme court and the pressure coming to bear to change some of
the sentences delivered.
That is not what the people in this country want. They are crying
out, calling out, for stiffer sentences. Take the troublemaker off the
street, not turn him out earlier, not reduce his sentence and
especially with violence and those areas where there is a potential
for violence. With break and enter there is always the potential for
violence.
I know many people do not talk about the fraud side of things but
there are hundreds of millions of dollars lost every year in credit
card fraud. That would certainly address the point of organized
crime.
Organized criminals have engaged in this activity big time. They
are the most abusive and intrusive form of criminal into the whole
area of credit card fraud and deceit through other means. It
stretches into unemployment insurance fraud and welfare fraud in
the organized criminal mind.
When the drafters of the Criminal Code brought these sections
into being they were very much aware of what had to be done. The
legal minds of the day were concerned about organized crime.
What would it take to shut down an organized criminal? I know the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice may not be
aware that some of these fraud criminal rings operate on an
international scale. It is international crime with hundreds of
millions of dollars in credit card fraud alone. They obtain cards and
they can actually change the data on the strip on the back of the
card. This is a very sophisticated, organized type of criminal. It
certainly has an impact on the community and society. Who pays
for it all? We do. We pay for the service charges at the bank. We
pay for the purchase of those goods that are never recovered. We
pay the price at the stores because everyone builds into their price
list the losses incurred because of this organized criminal element.
These sophisticated crimes should addressed by a maximum
penalty that is higher instead of lower.
(1225)
We talked about the greatest shortfall of the bill, the reduction of
maximum sentences in the Criminal Code. The real reasons
Reform will have to support the bill are two provisions that the
justice minister put in at the last minute.
There is the conditional release where violent offenders are
actually given conditional sentences, some of them for rape. Some
did not even go to jail. The other one is the victim impact
statements on section 745. They were not mandatory. In Bill C-41
9613
the government granted victims the right to give their statement
and then in Bill C-45 took the right away.
Seeing the error of its ways, the government brought in the two
quick amendments to Bill C-17 which have nothing to do with the
original bill, but the subsections are essential and Reform has
chosen to support the government on the bill.
On section 745 under the Criminal Code, the faint hope clause,
there has been so much talk about the faint hope clause over the
years and especially since many of these first degree murderers are
now eligible for application for a hearing. There has been a lot of
controversy surrounding this.
The government introduced legislation that tinkered with it. It
now requires the unanimous consent of a jury to reduce the killer's
request for a reduced sentence.
I want to talk more about victim impact statements. However, I
think we should look at some other facts before we get into that
aspect. Let us look at the judicial review decisions as of mid-1995.
In total there were 46 judicial reviews. I looked at the record of
those making application for early release. I am talking about first
degree murderers. Of the 46 killers who had their sentences
reduced 11 killed women. Some were their wives. Some were
acquaintances. Some were female children.
(1230)
The government talks about what it wants to do when it comes to
supporting women and giving them opportunity. There is nothing
wrong with that, but I have to question the government when it
comes to looking at the cold hard facts.
Why would a government want to allow killers who deliberately
took the lives of someone else to be released back into society?
They prey on moms, wives and children. As of mid-1995, 11 of the
46 applied. Another 8 killed police officers. A police officer has a
significant role in society, as do mothers. As the statement goes,
the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Let us think of the
power of that statement about mothers. It is a powerful statement.
One day children have significant influence on society.
Of the 46 applicants, 11 females were murdered by these killers,
8 police officers were murdered by these killers and 3 children. The
applicants had reduced sentences.
I would like to have those statistics brought up to date. What is
the record from mid-1995 to today? I could add one or two more to
the list who killed police officers and had their sentences reduced.
How many more women and how many more children were killed?
The government is intent on letting them out. It could have stopped
that once and for all by repealing section 745. Ultimately we
should be talking about repealing section 745.
The statistics send a shiver up my spine, to think this is what
society is doing. There is no punishment. Speaking of punishment,
it used to play a very prominent role in the judicial system. It was
essential. There was a different understanding of what had to
happen. That different understanding dealt with the view of the
Liberal thinker of what a man is capable of doing and of what
would stop him from doing it.
The role of government is to protect those who have done good
in society and to punish those who have done wrong. That is what
order is all about. It is about punishing those who do wrong to
correct their behaviour. Only punishment can do that.
The model of rehabilitation is struggling. It has fallen into the
mud. It has failed society. Yet the Liberal mentality of the day
continues with rehabilitation as the way to correct problems when
it comes to offenders.
(1235 )
In 1976 the Liberals abolished capital punishment against the
wishes of the vast majority of Canadians. I was never consulted or
asked for my opinion. Nor was anyone in my community whom I
know of. It was a unilateral action taken on the part of the Liberal
government to get rid of that section of the Criminal Code.
In 1962 the last person was hanged in the country. It was the
form of capital punishment of the day. In 1976 it was completely
abolished. Also 1962 was the last time corporal punishment was
administered. Since 1962 violent crime has increase over 400 per
cent.
Let us look at the big picture because it tells the story. Since
1962 there has been over a 400 per cent increase in violent crime. I
do not buy the story-nor do most police officers and others who
analyse the crime situation-that crime is going down. It is going
down only in the short term.
Since 1962 there has been over a 500 per cent increase in
property crime. I think 1962 is a very significant date. Not 1976 or
1984. The last time corporal punishment and capital punishment
were administered was in 1962. It was ripped away from the
people. They were never consulted. Since that time we have been
paying the price. The list of victims increases as time goes on.
It is now to the point where our jails are full. Prisoners are being
turned out quicker than we can put them in. They are being turned
out without them being rehabilitated. This is a very common
occurrence. Rehabilitation does not work. This is a deep concern.
We heard lately questions being put to the minister about
ongoing victimization. My colleague from Fraser Valley East has
9614
been very pointed with the Minister of Justice. I am ashamed to say
the Minister of Justice in his replies will never address the concern
about what is happening. We want to stop victimization.
Only a small element of criminals involve themselves in this
kind of activity. It is only 6 per cent to 8 per cent, so let us target the
8 per cent.
I was interested in the statistics and the reaction to the three
strikes and you are out legislation in California. I have
communicated a great deal with the gentleman who initiated that
bill. Two valid strikes and any one criminal offence after that puts
the criminal away for life. That bill was passed. The citizens of
California wanted it. They were tired of their sons, daughters,
moms and dads being shot, mutilated and killed in every fashion.
They got behind Mr. Reynold as he introduced that citizen's
initiative. It was passed through their legislature and became law.
(1240)
That was three years ago. Since then violent crime has gone
down. They targeted 6 per cent or 8 per cent of the most violent
criminals in their society, took them off the street and put them
away for life. It did not fill their jails up to overflowing. They had
to build one or two more but it is beginning to show results. It is
beginning to protect people.
We talk about section 745 and wanting to turn killers out. Where
the justice is in that? It is not there. We argue about how the victim
impact statement will be presented in the courtroom. It is sad to see
victims watching their statements being torn apart by a judge and
judge telling them that they are editorializing, that those sections of
their statements have to be removed and that they cannot be
emotional. They want to take emotion out of the whole process.
I would be emotional if my wife, my son or my daughter were
killed. I do not blame them for being emotional. I want them to be
emotional because it is an emotional situation to have a loved one
ripped away.
We are arguing about the statements when the government
should be completely removing the section and allowing for the
total closure on behalf of victims. They should not have to contend
with another hearing and another hearing and another hearing. It
would be over. It would be done with.
Bill C-17 certainly will go forward. We will support it. We will
give its provisions the benefit of the doubt and allow the provision
overlooked by the justice minister to go through. The bill is so
flawed and so abusive to those who do not deserve to be abused that
I have a difficult time supporting it. We should be repealing the
section completely. We should be removing it from the books.
I have sat in several hearings to listen to statements given by
victims. Some cannot even go to court. Some have a difficult time
going to court so they have the prosecutor or someone else read it.
The difficulty for me was to see those victims struggle with that
and to watch judges tear their statements apart and sanitize the
whole courtroom with filtered evidence. Reports were submitted
by so-called experts who could never be questioned or
cross-examined.
I have a parole report in my briefcase which I will not o get into
right now. It is devastating to see condensed versions of reality or
the truth. They are paraphrased and placed into a court record with
hardly any opportunity for questioning or cross-examining.
So-called experts come up conclusions to justify the existence of
their testimony to ensure a reduced sentence from the jury. The jury
sits in a sanitized courtroom. I do not think that is justice at all. The
truth is not being heard.
Again I put on the record that Reform will support the bill
reluctantly, but our fight to have this section repealed and truth in
sentencing initiated, that is a sentence delivered is a sentence
served and life means life, will not rest until such is accomplished.
(1245 )
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to speak on the motion to read Bill C-17 a third
time. During the course of debate on this bill there has been a
considerable number of subjects discussed which did not
necessarily relate to the subject matter of the bill. I will restrict my
comments for the most part to the issues discussed in the bill.
Some may remember that Bill C-17 was originally introduced as
Bill C-118 on December 14, 1995. At that time it was noted that it
continued the work of Bill C-42, the Criminal Law Amendment
Act, 1994 which had been adopted the year before. Bill C-42 was
very well received. Provincial and territorial governments through
their justice ministers have asked us to get on with producing a
follow-up bill to continue the reforms and improvements to our
criminal procedure law which were begun in Bill C-42. I believe
Bill C-17 does just this. It appears the provinces are appreciative of
this and are eager to see it passed.
When the bill was in committee a letter from the attorney
general of New Brunswick was tabled. The purpose of the letter
was to urge the committee members to seize the opportunity to
make a number of significant improvements to our criminal justice
system. It is worth referring to this letter more extensively in order
to show how important our work in Parliament can be to the
provinces that are responsible for the administration of the criminal
law.
The hon. Paul Duffie, attorney general of New Brunswick, wrote
to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
on September 17 and indicated that he wished to stress the
importance of the proposed amendments contained in Bill C-17
9615
and New Brunswick's particular interest in a number of its
provisions.
He went on to indicate the following: ``The bill's provisions can
be broken down into a number of broad categories. The first
category is those which enhance public confidence in the criminal
justice system and here I refer to the statutory basis allowing police
officers to take by warrant handprints, fingerprints and teeth
impressions from suspects; expanding the release provisions that
can be imposed by police officers to include such basic
requirements as abstaining from alcohol or drugs, reporting as
required and prohibiting the possession of firearms; retaining at the
option of the crown trial jurisdiction in provincial court so that a
limited category of offences could be dealt with expeditiously''.
The letter identified a second category of provisions, those
intended to make the Criminal Code more effective and efficient.
Mr. Duffie then identified provisions aimed at broadening the
scope of prehearing conferences, which will give judges more
leeway to deal with preliminary issues, thereby narrowing the
number of issues at trial and reducing trial time; replacing jurors
who are unable to perform their duties, eliminating delays which
can occur by restarting the trial; providing a precondition for the
court appointment of counsel so there is a means test imposed,
ensuring that the public purse is used to only assist those who
cannot legitimately afford counsel.
With regard to the third category mentioned in the provisions
intended to fill perceived gaps in the Criminal Code, he referred to
the need for an offence for those accused who failed to comply with
release conditions imposed by a police officer and those who make
unauthorized use of credit card data, those who forge or falsify
credit cards, those who possess a device for unlawfully obtaining
computer devices and those who participate along with the driver
in the theft of a vehicle for joy riding.
(1250 )
As a fourth category, the attorney general of New Brunswick
identified those provisions intended to achieve compliance with
court decisions. He referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court
of Canada in which the court interpreted the drinking and driving
law so that the statutory presumption on blood alcohol has become
less effective in contested cases, as the crown is currently obliged
to call expert evidence to extrapolate the reading back to the time
of driving and has determined that an arrested accused who is
detained by police pending a court appearance must be brought
before a judge within 24 hours of arrest.
Provisions in this bill will address these problems. He noted, in
particular, that the technologically amendments in Bill C-17 would
allow the provinces to use modern communication methods to
conduct remote appearances, using one or two judges to cover the
province, thereby greatly reducing the number of weekend courts
which, with their limited human resources, are taking their toll on
all of the participants. It is also quite costly to set up weekend
courts in each region of the provinces.
The fifth category identified by the attorney general of New
Brunswick contained provisions aimed at advances in technology
to modernize procedures. He then referred to those provisions that
would eliminate the need for a personal appearance in a court by
police officers and accused persons for various administrative
matters at various stages of the court process, including at the bail
hearing, at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. Those
provisions would enable investigators to make effective use of the
new DNA warrant and general warrant procedures in major crime
investigations by applying for and obtaining warrants using
modern communication methods.
The sixth and final category includes provisions which try to
improve evidentiary procedures. He mentioned the provision that
would eliminate the necessity of calling witnesses to establish
uncontested elements of certain events by providing affidavit
evidence and the provisions that would allow the presentation of
expert evidence through written reports, unless otherwise directed
by the court.
The attorney general concluded by noting that there are many
more provisions contained in this bill, all of which are intended to
improve the workings of the criminal law of Canada. He stated that
there is a window of opportunity for legislators, after due
consideration and informed debate, to enact these measures which,
in his view, will enhance criminal law enforcement, facilitate court
proceedings, modernize the provisions of the Criminal Code and
enhance public confidence in our justice system.
It is clear that this bill is important for the territories and the
provinces. Indeed it is a good example of co-operative federalism
in an important area where the federal government has the
responsibility to enact criminal law and the provinces have the
responsibility to administer it. I urge that the bill be passed as
quickly as possible.
There were a couple of amendments which were put forward by
the government for the purposes of clarifying existing legislation.
First, Bill C-17 was amended to change paragraph 742.1(b) of
the Criminal Code by making it explicit that in addition to the
judge being of the view that serving the sentence in the community
would not endanger the community, which was in the provisions
for conditional sentencing, the sentence also had to be consistent
with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out
in sections 718 to 718.2. Such principles include the principle of
denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the community.
While implicit before, it was felt that it was important to make the
application of those principles very explicit.
(1255 )
Over the past several months it has been the practice of the
Reform Party to refer to specific cases which may be decided
before the courts which in the view of the Reform Party are
9616
incorrect, as is the case when every new piece of legislation is
introduced.
Court decisions, provincial or Queen's bench or supreme court,
differ from one another. The vast majority of the cases are decided
correctly but there are exceptional cases where the public may be
of the view that the case was incorrectly decided or the crown was
of that view. Then the crown seeks an appeal of those decisions,
and the defence can also appeal, when it is of the opinion that the
decision is incorrect.
The appeal then goes to the court of appeal then to the supreme
court and guidelines for the use of such sections are set out and are
considered and delineated carefully. As the judicial process carries
on, there is a clarification and improvement in the setting out of
conditions under which conditional sentencing will operate. Each
time there is a court decision which indicates that certain
considerations are appropriate or if there is disagreement it is
subject to appeal and improvement by the court superior to the one
in which the decision was made.
It is probably not appropriate to simply take exceptional cases
and make them the rule. Out of the 1000 cases that are decided, 999
are decided in an appropriate manner and are never mentioned. But
the one that may not happen to be decided in that fashion is the one
the Reform Party raises in an attempt to cast the whole justice
system into disrepute.
With respect to this amendment, certainly conditional sentencing
as it only applies to those criminal activities for which a sentence is
two years or less, people are incarcerated by provincial
governments. Because this is an administration of a justice issue,
all the provinces were consulted, regardless of political stripe.
While there may well have been some differences as to details, a
broad consensus certainly existed that a change of this nature
needed to be made. Certainly those familiar with the legal system
see the jails of the land filled with people who are dangerous but
also those who posed no danger to the community, who did not
commit violent crimes. It was the desire of the provinces and the
federal government to ensure that when people commit violent
crimes there ought to be room in correctional facilities for them
and that the space ought not to be taken up by people who would
not pose a risk to society.
It is a mechanism of the conditional sentence that rather than
allowing violent offenders to enter the jail and then days later
because of lack of space being removed, it allows for
non-dangerous offenders, people who have not committed violent
crimes, to serve their sentence in the communities and more space
will be freed up for those violent offenders, those who commit
abhorrent crimes within the community. Therefore the community
will be even more properly protected.
I would suggest that the conditional sentence is one mechanism
that allows greater safety in communities by ensuring that for
people who commit violent crimes there will be room in our
correctional facilities, thus ensuring they are there for an
appropriate length of time.
(1300 )
The second amendment is with respect to victim impact
statements and section 745 hearings. When Bill C-41 was
introduced it was silent on when the victim impact statement
provisions would become effective. This amendment merely seeks
to clarify that and make certain that victim impact statements, if
the victim wishes to make one, must be accepted by the court after
the passage of this bill. That very briefly sums up the provisions of
Bill C-17 and the amendments.
I want to make one more comment. I noted with interest when
the hon. member from Calgary, the critic for the solicitor general,
indicated that since California put in a three strike law the crime
rate has gone done. He used that as an argument to suggest that if
the crime rate is going down what is being done in California must
be working and we should do it here.
I would like to inform the hon. member that over the last four
years the crime rate in Canada has gone down, due largely in part to
a broad range of initiatives. First, the initiatives taken by the
government to toughen and strengthen the Young Offenders Act,
the criminal law and other related criminal statutes. More
amendments and more changes to improve and toughen the
criminal law have been made by this government than had been
made in the history of this nation. That is certainly part of the
reason.
Another part is that the government has worked hard to increase
jobs and economic opportunities for people. That is a very
important factor in reducing the crime rate. As well, the
government has introduced many important initiatives on the social
front to ensure social justice. That too is of importance in reducing
the crime rate; removing the underlying causes for crime.
I would like to wrap up and thank the hon. members for hearing
me these few minutes on this bill. I hope this bill will receive
prompt attention, will be quickly passed and that it will receive
expedient and quick consideration by the other place so it can be
brought into force as soon as possible for the benefit of all
Canadians.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have some questions for the hon. parliamentary secretary to the
justice minister.
First, has the justice department or the member ever researched
the three strikes legislation in California? I point out to the member
9617
that I have been doing that on a regular basis for approximately one
year. I have received interesting statistics on what is happening.
I am going to dispel one statement that is often used on the
government side in reference to the three strikes legislation. It
targets 6, 7 or 8 per cent of the criminal element. The most violent,
habitual, intrusive, abusive type of people are by far mostly the
male population. What it spells out is this. An individual commits
an offence, he is charged and he is sent away. He serves the major
part of his sentence. The second time he offends, it is spelled out to
him very clearly that if he messes up with another violent offence,
he will serve an even greater portion of his sentence, a longer one.
(1305)
If that individual commits any crime again whatsoever, even
stealing a pizza, as is often said, because he has had two violent
offences against him, he will be put away for life.
In effect, for the offender who commits these violent acts, who
has a greater propensity to commit a violent act such as taking
someone's life, there is the death penalty in the state of California.
The research put forward by the Department of Justice and those
who initiated this bill was quite substantive. It brought about this
piece of legislation. It is targeting. It is effective. Did he examine
any data or research to see how and why the department arrived at
what it did? Maybe it is in the state of California, but also here
sentences have been reduced.
This omnibus bill, Bill C-17, is alleged to modernize the law and
streamline court proceedings. It quickly points out that the
maximum sentences for very serious criminal activity, including
unlawful confinement which is a crime against a person, that the
maximum sentence be reduced.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Justice to justify why those sentences were reduced and to produce
the facts that justify this legislation in its total form. Lay it on the
table here. Can the parliamentary secretary address that point?
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite has raised
a number of points in his questions. He indicated that he
investigated the three strikes rule in California. After someone has
committed two violent offences-I do not know what the definition
of violent is, perhaps two common assaults-and then afterward
stole a pizza, he should be put in jail for life.
I am unclear what the hon. member means by violent offence.
Certainly he is not suggesting that, in the case I mentioned in which
someone brushes against someone else, committing common
assault twice and then stealing a pizza, he should go to jail. That
would be absurd.
The hon. member said that he researched a number of interesting
techniques of crime prevention. There is the three strikes rule,
caning in Singapore as well as a number of other issues. The
member makes the statement that because the crime rate is going
down in California with its three strikes rule, somehow it alone is
responsible for the reduction in crime rate.
We have taken a very multi-pronged approach, as I indicated in
my speech, to prevent crime. There is no simple solution to the
problem of crime but if the hon. member's logic applies, then we
are doing the right thing. The crime rate is going down here also.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the
member. I do not think the parliamentary secretary is getting the
point of my question.
I asked him to lay on the table in this House the justification for
reducing maximum sentences as opposed to increasing them.
(1310 )
The Liberal government has a tendency to constantly want to
trivialize some of the more serious Criminal Code charges and
there are more than three examples. Dual procedure offences can
be handled as indictable or as summary convictions. However, the
parliamentary secretary does not want to answer that question.
Where are the facts for bringing about any changes in the law
and placing it before Parliament and passing it? I do not see any of
that information flowing from the government side, apart from the
fact that somebody in the legal community wants it this way or
there is a charter argument that states we cannot do it that way any
more. That is strictly an opinion that is offered too often by the
justice department.
I want to see the facts for justifying a reduction in those
maximum sentences.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the changes
introduced in the bill that deal with dual procedure offences, if the
court decisions over the past number of years are looked at, we get
an indication of what the judges are doing with respect to various
types of offences.
All that we are trying to do, and something the provinces want to
see because it aids the efficiency of the legal system, is to allow
that where the cases are not so serious to give the provinces
discretion to proceed at a more efficient level in court. Where the
case is more serious, the result would be a more serious criminal
sanction. Therefore, what it is doing is simply allowing more
flexibility for the provinces. In more serious cases the accused will
still be prosecuted in a serious, tough fashion with serious
consequences if a conviction is rendered.
9618
At the same time, in very minor cases, it would allow them to
be handled in accordance with the type of issue that is a stake.
That is simply reality.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
parliamentary secretary keeps talking he is going to convince me to
vote against this bill. I will not because I see the need for some
aspects of the bill.
However, the penalties imposed by the courts are no justification
for reducing the penalties as prescribed by law. If that is the case
then what do we do with this new conditional sentencing law that
allows violent offenders to walk free? It is the courts that render
those sentences, only because the law has been passed to allow
them to do that.
Surely we cannot justify the reduction of penalties simply
because some judges deem that a rapist should walk free and that
we should reduce the penalty-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary has
about 30 seconds.
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I dealt with that in the
body of my speech. I indicated that we are simply allowing that
where there is a serious offence it will continue to be dealt with
seriously. Where it is not so serious it will be dealt with in a more
summary fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted that Bill C-17 was tabled or rather brought
back to the House this week. As you know, the official opposition
had to approach the federal Minister of Justice on several occasions
until he finally agreed to introduce Bill C-17 in the House, a bill
which was and still is anxiously awaited by practically all the
provinces, since they are responsible for the administration of
justice.
Mr. Crête: Lucky we were there.
(1315)
Mr. Bellehumeur: As my colleague just said, lucky the Bloc
Quebecois was here to keep reminding the Minister of Justice of
Quebec's biding interest in Bill C-17.
You will recall that on Monday, April 7, the Bloc Quebecois
practically had to threaten the government opposite with
amendments that would add provisions concerning anti-biker
legislation before the government suddenly decided to bring back
Bill C-17.
I think this was another important gain for the Bloc, the way the
minister decided to act on Bill C-17 by bringing it back to the
House.
Again, we have always been very consistent in our position on
Bill C-17, in other words, we have always said yes, it is a good bill.
What the Minister of Justice proposes in Bill C-17 is an
improvement. The Bloc Quebecois is prepared to support the
government 100 per cent on this bill, but considering recent events
in Quebec, he should take advantage of this opportunity to amend
this bill by including, as requested by Quebec, a provision that
would open the way to legislation or provisions dealing with bikers
and organized crime.
The government has often told us to go to Quebec City, go to
headquarters and see our former leader. Get him to agree, and then
come back, and more of the same. As far as criminal law is
concerned and Quebec's right to have its own anti-biker legislation
and even regarding the most far-reaching provisions in Bill C-17,
the Bloc and the Parti québécois are definitely on the same wave
length. The minister was forced to admit that sovereignists are
unanimous about the need for this kind of legislation. He had to do
something to make up for the mistakes he has made in this area.
So he brought back Bill C-17. The government even proposed
amendments at a stage when it does not usually do so. We gave our
unanimous consent. Our co-operation with the government was
exemplary. We have tried to make this bill as good as it could
possibly be, with some very useful amendments so the police will
be able to do their job. And I think Bill C-17 will provide the police
with additional tools so they can deal with at least part of the
problem of crime in this country.
The Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly asked the minister how he
intended to deal with crime. He kept saying: ``Now listen, Bill C-17
is going to deal with all this. We will pass Bill C-17 in the House,
which will introduce various changes, and the problem will be
solved''. So why has Bill C-17 yet to pass third reading, although it
was tabled on March 8, 1996, when it passed first reading, and
today is April 11, 1997, more than a year later?
However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
recalled that some bills were tabled in 1994 and 1995. So they go
back even further than March 1996. I wonder. Bill C-17 is
supposed to be the answer to all our problems with crime. Because
of C-17, we do not have to pursue legislation we have been
demanding for months and even years-anti-biker legislation-to
deal with the majority of criminal offenses. So why did the
minister, who has been responsible for these matters since 1994,
not table it so it could be passed?
(1320)
Allow me to make a short digression. The biker war is currently
an issue, but you will remember that, as early as 1982, the
municipality of Tracy, in Quebec, asked for a special law to deal
with the problem. The mayor of Sorel-Tracy asked for such a
measure, because a bunker was being built by the Hell's Angels.
So, this problem has been with us for a long time. Now, the
parliamentary secretary is reminding us that the bill, which the
minister has had in his hands since 1994, has yet to be adopted.
If the minister had had any political will at all, and a good dose
of humility to admit his mistake regarding the anti-biker legisla-
9619
tion that is being asked of him, he could have introduced the
necessary amendments and enlisted the same degree of
co-operation that he received for his own amendments, on Monday.
The minister could have enlisted the participation and co-operation
of the Bloc Quebecois and, I am convinced, of the third party, since
the result would have been a more comprehensive bill.
But the Bloc Quebecois will show magnanimity. We will once
again give the minister a chance, because he promised us that
legislation would be introduced next week. We are anxiously
waiting for this legislation, but with an open mind. I hope the
minister will follow up on our representations, on those of a large
number of Quebec municipalities, and on those of Quebec's
Minister of Justice, Mr. Bégin, and Minister of Public Security, Mr.
Perreault.
In events surrounding the biker war and Bill C-17, I was
somewhat surprised to see in the newspapers that the federal justice
minister was accusing his provincial counterpart, Mr. Bégin, of
being responsible for the fact that Bill C-17 had still not been
passed. The federal minister said: ``Bill C-17 could have been
passed, but Mr. Bégin, the Quebec justice minister, is partly to
blame for the fact that it was not''.
I think it important that I mention to the House a letter, just to
show that sometimes the Liberal government opposite puts out
misinformation. On July 9, 1996, Quebec's deputy justice minister
and deputy attorney general, Michel Bouchard, wrote to George
Thomson, deputy minister and deputy attorney general of the
federal justice department, to express his strong interest in seeing
Bill C-17 passed as quickly as possible.
I know that earlier the parliamentary secretary cited a letter from
New Brunswick's justice minister, Paul Duffy. In fact, New
Brunswick has followed this issue with a great deal of interest, for
essentially the same reasons as Quebec, but I find it strange, unless
I missed something because I had to step out to make a phone call,
that I did not hear the parliamentary secretary mention Michel
Bouchard, although Mr. Bouchard wrote a very interesting letter to
the deputy minister of the federal justice department on July 9,
1996.
I will read the first paragraph, because I know it sums up
Quebec's position. It says: ``Bill C-17, introduced in the House of
Commons on March 8, 1996, contains many criminal amendments
that we have been calling for for several years now and that have
been approved by the conference to harmonize legislation''.
A little further on, it reads: ``The introduction of these new
measures alone will, in the short term, save us millions of dollars, a
not insignificant amount in the context of the budgetary constraint
facing us all. It will therefore come as no surprise that we were
extremely disappointed to learn that passage of this omnibus bill,
which was already postponed until last spring, has again been
postponed''.
(1325)
He went on: ``You will therefore understand our great desire to
see Bill C-17 among the bills the federal justice minister is
determined to move on as quickly as possible''.
This letter is dated July 9, 1996. Nobody should be blaming the
provincial justice minister, Mr. Bégin, for the delay in passing this
bill. I think that all provincial attorneys general were in agreement
that Bill C-17 should be passed as speedily as possible, given
certain factors that I will mention in a few minutes. Why are these
attorneys general in Canada and in Quebec in favour of Bill C-17?
Why is the Bloc Quebecois in favour of this bill? Because it
contains some very important elements that are necessary to update
the Criminal Code.
I will presently discuss the main components of this bill. The
third party in the House probably would have liked to see a much
harder line in this bill on parole, for instance, and the repeal of
section 745, but I can assure you we do not share the position of the
Reform Party on this part of the Criminal Code. I think the minister
has taken a major step forward, but, as I will explain later on, he
should have done more.
Here are some of the main areas affected by Bill C-17. The bill
proposes a series of changes to deal more effectively with the
proceeds of crime. Some of these changes will help the police to
carry out seizures, including the money that makes the world of
organized crime go round. In politics, money makes the world go
round; the same is true of organized crime. I think we must have all
the tools we need to seek out the proceeds of crime.
If I may digress for a moment, this is what Mr. Bégin made very
clear in a proposal that was rejected out of hand by the Minister of
Justice on Monday, a proposal that favoured anti-biker legislation,
with provisions that would help the police seize their money, their
property, their bunkers, their armoured cars and their big
limousines. The bill will make all this possible. I think that by
cutting off their livelihood, it will be possible to get rid of the
organized crime element. I just wanted to say that in passing.
As for other aspects of this bill, there were several changes with
respect to computer-assisted crime, counterfeiting and the
fraudulent use of credit cards. I think we have to move with the
times. The Criminal Code goes back many years and has to be
updated regularly. That is the purpose of Bill C-17. We certainly
had no objection to updating the Criminal Code.
There are also provisions to deal more severely with driving
under the influence. Here again, I think that considering certain
court decisions, it was necessary to amend the Criminal Code in
this respect.
There are also provisions-and this is very important as far as
the provinces are concerned-that will save money while helping
counsel with court appearances. For instance, there are provisions
for videoconferencing and the issuing of warrants by means of
modern communications. Here again no one would have thought of
this ten years ago, but, today, with informatics and the whole field
9620
of telecommunications, things like remote appearances are
possible so as to save money for the provinces, which administer
justice. All that is in Bill C-17.
Clearly we support these provisions, but, once again, I think
things could have gone further, as for example with the provisions
on money laundering, because this is glossed over somewhat.
Canada, let us face it, is the best country for money laundering. The
Liberals opposite often boast that Canada is the finest country in
the world, but in this finest country in the world, we annually
launder, according to estimates, between $20 billion and $90
billion.
The police estimate it as follows: only some 10 per cent of drugs
are seized annually. The seizures are worth between $1.5 billion
and $4.5 billion a year. A quick calculation reveals that 100 per
cent would be over $20 billion.
The President of the Treasury Board is looking at me with great
interest. I am sure he sees a lot of numbers, but he has only to
consult the Canadian crime service and the RCMP for confirmation
of my figures.
Bill C-17 should contain provisions to reinforce the whole
matter of money laundering to further prevent it and to better equip
the police so Canada loses its title.
I will conclude on this point. The title is awarded by the great
jurists of the world and by the Americans annually in September,
because American inquiries and commissions look into the matter.
Every year, the Canadian government is encouraged to strengthen
its legislation to prohibit this activity because of the border
between Canada and the United States.
I could go on with my speech, but I see my time has run out.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, pursuant to the order
made April 10, the question is deemed to have been put to a vote,
and the recorded division is deemed to have been requested and
deferred.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The division on the motion stands
deferred.
Mr. Pomerleau: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe
you would find unanimous consent that all questions relating to
Private Members' Business of April 11, 1997 be deemed to have
been put to a vote and that any required division be deferred until
April 15, 1997, at the end of Government Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member's proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being more or less 1:30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as
listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9620
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make all Crown
corporations subject to the Privacy Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to this
motion of mine, which was selected as a votable item by the
parliamentary committee responsible. I would like to thank the
committee and particularly the member for Bellechasse, who made
it possible for us to vote on this motion.
When first elected in 1993, I became the Bloc Quebecois' critic
on Canada Post. During the first few weeks, I asked this Crown
corporation for some information that would have helped us
evaluate its efficiency.
We all know that, since then, several allegations have been made
as to whether or not that corporation was properly managed. I
cannot come to a conclusion even today because we never had
access to the information. We might have had the opportunity to
examine all relevant documents if only that corporation had come
under the Privacy Act and possibly the Access to Information Act.
Therefore, I move this motion today in order to remedy an
absurd situation. Some ministers are responsible for Crown
corporations and they should reply to questions in the House about
those corporations. At the same time, these corporations do not
have to
9621
provide the information that would be relevant to the decisions
made by parliamentarians. This situation is rather absurd, and I
think it would be nice if it could be solved. We cannot assume that
illegal and inappropriate actions are taking place, but justice must
be seen to be done.
When a minister is put in charge of a Crown corporation, it
means that people who have questions to ask, parliamentarians and
citizens who need information and those on whom this corporation
holds personal information can ensure that it is properly managed
and that data banks will not be shared between corporations
without their having a say in the matter.
(1335)
We are talking about personal information. Is the personal
information held in these Crown corporations' data banks well
protected? Is it not sometimes shared with other organizations for
money? Is the Crown corporation not sometimes used as a straw
man in order to get information that would otherwise not be
available to the department? We may ask these questions and
others as well.
I would like to list a number of organizations that are not covered
by the Access to Information Act: the Canadian Wheat Board,
Atomic Energy of Canada, Petro-Canada, Canada Post, the Export
Development Corporation, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
and VIA Rail.
We see that all these organizations have an impact on the lives of
Canadians and Quebecers, particularly when it comes to the
Canadian Wheat Board and the issues that were raised recently
about its management. When we think about Petro-Canada, which
is a Crown corporation competing with the private sector, is there
not a double standard if the corporation will now be able to act like
a private corporation, but with the advantages provided to a Crown
corporation? Some things have yet to be clarified in this regard. I
think my motion would improve the situation.
Also, for your information, let us review the mandate of the
privacy commissioner and see how all public corporations could be
subject to the Privacy Act. The privacy commissioner has the
mandate to review each and every complaint about a federal
institution that has not adequately processed the request made by
an individual who wanted to review his or her personal files or that
has collected, used, released or eliminated personal information in
an illegal fashion.
Right now, some crown corporations do not have to meet these
criteria. Complaints can be made against them, because an
individual has been unable to review his or her personal files or
because personal information has been collected, used, released or
eliminated and the individual is left without any recourse. The
purpose of my motion is to provide that individual with some
recourse, because if an institution is considered to be a public
corporation, if it is accountable to Parliament, if it has to submit
reports to Parliament, then it is quite normal that these corporations
be treated the same way as our departments.
We cannot think, on the one hand, that public institutions are
sometimes less efficient than crown corporations could be if, on the
other hand, we do not subject them to the same requirements. On
this issue, our society needs to make some progress, especially
since we live at a time where information exchange is now made
possible thanks to all the new technology.
We need to ensure our citizens that they will be treated as fairly
as possible and that they will be able to get the information that a
particular corporation has collected about them. Did the
corporation have the right to have this information? Is it handling
that information appropriately and does it not transmit it to other
organizations that do not have a right to have them?
Taking into account how important information has become in
our society-information is power, as we say-and how important
privacy is for us, there is a void that my motion seeks to fill.
It is also possible that the motion can be improved, in that it
would be interesting if this matter was also covered by the Access
To Information Act. Passed in 1983, this legislation gives
Canadians the general right to access information detained by
federal institutions, as we said earlier for the protection of personal
information. There is also an Information Commissioner who
investigates complaints.
The Commissioner sees to it that rights are protected and
convinces public institutions to adopt information management
practices that are in line with the Access to Information Act. Thus
we must ensure that there is a watchdog and that he has real powers
to act appropriately and have the necessary influence. He can even
refer to the federal court any problem in the interpretation of the
law that require its attention.
All those who think that this will create insuperable difficulties
should remember that access rights are not absolute rights. They
are subject to specific exceptions, limited exceptions, exceptions
that did not prevent departments from working properly.
(1340)
There has been a shift toward an increase in efficiency within
departments and crown corporations, and I agree with that, but we
must be careful that this shift does not result in a corporation acting
as if it were a private corporation that is not accountable to the
people.
I think it is necessary to ensure that all crown corporations are
subject to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. Let
us take, for example, the Export Development Corporation, which
is not covered. I was reading all kinds of things this week about
exports. For example, I heard that, when a product such as a
Japanese car arrives in British Columbia, it is considered as a
9622
product imported by that province even though it can be used
anywhere in Canada.
When we hear that kind of information that seems absurd, we
should be able to obtain the available data and analyze it to see if
what we heard is true. Let us not forget that all that money comes
from the public purse, that it is the taxpayers' money.
For all these reasons, I hope to have the support of the members
of all parties in the House so that we can fill what I would call a gap
in our privacy and access to information legislation. I hope all
members of the House will agree on this and we will be able to
agree to this motion before the next federal election.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address the motion by the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
Motion No. 260 proposes to include all crown corporations
under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Act. I put forward a very
similar motion to this in the last session with respect to crown
corporations under the Access to Information Act. This one is on
the Privacy Act. It is very similar.
The right to privacy is a significant issue and important to many
Canadians. Privacy is the right to enjoy private space, to conduct
private communications, to be free from surveillance and to respect
the sanctity of one's body. Privacy is a basic human value that
Canadians hold as a right central to their freedoms and sense of
human dignity and autonomy. Most Canadians believe they should
have the right to control their personal information and to choose to
remain anonymous if they should so wish.
Our privacy rights come from many sources. They are
entrenched in international law, constitutional law, federal and
provincial legislation, professional codes and guidelines. All the
largest provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta,
have provincial privacy acts and freedom of information acts
The Privacy Act took effect July 1, 1983 and replaced some
limited personal information rights set out in part IV of the
Canadian Human Rights Act. These rights were expanded in the
Privacy Act to deal with the growing impact of computers on
government record keeping. The act increases the transparency and
accountability of the process and gives Canadians greater
individual control over their personal data in the government data
banks.
In its day to day operations, federal government departments and
agencies collect personal information from almost all Canadians.
The Privacy Act gives Canadian citizens and people present in
Canada the right to have access to information that is held about
them by the federal government. It also protects against
unauthorized disclosure of personal information.
In addition, it strictly controls how the government will collect,
use, store, disclose and dispose of any personal information. The
act gives Canadians the right to examine information about them
that is held by 110 federal departments and agencies subject to
some specific exceptions. Individuals may request to have any
errors corrected and if the request is refused individuals may
require that a notation be attached to the information describing
any corrections requested but not made.
(1345 )
According to the act the government can only disclose personal
information to someone else with consent or when one or more of
the criteria in the Privacy Act are met such as to comply with a
subpoena. The act also establishes an information code to regulate
government handling of personal records.
Clearly standards for the use of personal information must be
imposed on all federal departments, agencies and crown
corporations. This is basic to the principle of responsible
government that Reform upholds.
However there are many problems with the Privacy Act both
with its enforcement and its abuse that must be addressed. Our
rights under the Privacy Act are meaningless unless there are
enforcement measures to ensure that the violation of these rights
are deterred.
However, as it stands, there are no enforcement measures built
into the act which means clearly the act is not as effective as it
should be. Our privacy rights can be abused and there is nothing to
prevent it.
A clear example of this point was recently reported in the
newspapers when the Prime Minister's friend and political
appointee, Bob Fowler, broke the Privacy Act. Bob Fowler
improperly issued documents in an attempt to destroy the
reputation of Colonel Michael Drapeau. Fowler sent poison pen
letters about Colonel Drapeau to CSIS, the Department of Justice
and the Department of National Revenue. These letters clearly
broke the Privacy Act.
The privacy commissioner looked at the case. When he
confirmed that in fact Bob Fowler had broken the Privacy Act what
happened? Nothing happened because Bob Fowler is a friend of the
Prime Minister and there is nothing in the Privacy Act to enforce its
provisions. This incident clearly illustrates the ineptness of the
Privacy Act. It is not working.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada may investigate
complaints about violations of the Privacy Act by government
institutions. Yet when the commissioner finds a breach of the act,
as he did with Bob Fowler, he can only recommend changes to the
9623
government and bring to public scrutiny institutions that do not
accept the instructions.
The provincial privacy acts in Quebec and Ontario, on the other
hand, contain enforcement provisions which allow their privacy
commissioners to make orders. These provincial acts and their
effectiveness should be examined by the government to make our
federal act more effective.
Despite the ineffectiveness of our federal Privacy Act, the main
concern which I share with many Canadians is the abuse of the
Privacy Act by government and its departments. The privacy and
access to information acts work hand in hand. One is to protect
information and the other is to ensure that information is open and
available. There must be a balance between privacy protection and
freedom of information.
Canadians have a right to see government files. At the same time
they have a right to protection of personal information. Yet time
and again the Privacy Act has been used to prevent individuals
from accessing information that should be public.
The information commissioner has noted many problems and
abuses of both the privacy and the access to information acts in his
1994-95 annual report. According to the information
commissioner, the Privacy Act is used by the government as
``justification for keeping secret embarrassing details about misuse
of public funds or position''.
The information commissioner also notes that ``officials in the
system have sometimes sought to protect the privacy of their
colleagues by withholding the portions of records and reports
which questioned their actions or competence''.
The commissioner also says that ``such a selective and
seemingly self-serving application of privacy rights in the
corrections and parole systems increases the cynicism of the news
media and Canadians about the value of the right to privacy''.
One example he gives, which I support wholeheartedly, is the
government's refusal to disclose the names of former MPs in
receipt of pensions. The government defended this decision by
citing protection of privacy.
At present the Red Cross is fighting the Krever report and wants
to go to the Supreme Court of Canada rather than have any of its
members publicly named for their role in this scandal. In our
criminal justice system we are also faced with the need to balance
the public right to know how the corrections and parole system are
working on the one side with offenders privacy rights on the other.
The right to information should be a fundamental block of
democracy. There should be a spirit of openness and honesty
practised by the government, not deceit and cover-up as we
witnessed in the Krever and Somalia scandals the government
continues to cover up. The destruction, withholding and disguising
of information have become an everyday part of the government.
The government has an elaborate and sophisticated early
warning alerting system that warns departments and ministers of
requests under the Access to Information Act and that damages the
public right to know about government.
(1350 )
Several pre-release administrative practices assist the
government in monitoring, manipulating, delaying and holding
back the release of information to the public. Clearly the system
has been abused and exploited to the extent that Canadians no
longer trust the integrity of their government. There is no question
this has to change.
Many issues need to be addressed regarding the Privacy Act. It is
important all government agencies be covered under the act. At the
same time it is vital that the abuses of the act be brought under
control. The Privacy Act must be a tool of individual protection,
not an agency of political cover-up.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have before us today a motion asking the government to make all
crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act.
While the motion is very specific it also addresses a much larger
issue which has gained a new sense of urgency: the fact that
Canadians feel they are losing control over their information or that
they have been subjected to new invasions of privacy.
A recent survey suggests a great majority of Canadians are
concerned about their privacy. This is hardly surprising. Personal
information has become a valuable commodity in the marketplace.
New technologies are making it possible to do widespread data
matching and to electronically capture a person's profile for
purposes of target marketing or other uses.
Without the consent of the individual, downstream use of
personal information by third parties means the individual has lost
control of his privacy and his personality. Not only that, but
because of the unregulated exchange of personal information
without the consent or even the knowledge of the concerned
individual, financial and other decisions that have great
implications on the individual's life may be based on inaccurate
information.
Canadians are thus increasingly concerned that technology is
threatening their privacy at home, on the street and in the
workplace. Video surveillance in the street, workplace monitoring
including interception of E-mail and voice messages, personality
profiling aids, drug testing for employment screening, photo radar
9624
and genetic testing are some of the examples of the threats to
privacy created by new technologies.
New technological advances that promote efficiency and less
costly flow of information also carry with them great dangers to the
protection of individual privacy. As technology is making it easier
to gather, manipulate and transmit personal information all over the
world without individuals even knowing it is happening, concerns
are growing that individuals could lose control over their
information or be subjected to new invasions of privacy.
These considerations have led the Standing Committee on
Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons to conduct a
study of these issues. We are looking forward to its comments and
recommendations.
Canadians view privacy as a fundamental right, and rightly so.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the right to privacy is based
not only on respect for an individual's anonymity and privacy but
on his or her autonomy. The right of privacy is therefore not simply
an individual right to be exercised in opposition to some larger
public interest to make the operations of governments and
businesses more efficient, less expensive and less subject to fraud.
It should also be considered as an important social tool essential to
the maintenance of a free society.
If citizens lose the basic individual autonomy provided them by
the right of privacy they will not be able to make their own
contribution to a free society. A free society cannot exist solely on
values such as efficiency and attention to the bottom line. Mutual
respect and personal autonomy, two values promoted by the right to
privacy, are essential ingredients to a free society that must always
be nurtured and protected.
The protection of personal information can no longer depend on
whether that data is held by a public or private institution. This
does not mean that rules governing the collection, use,
communication and disposal of personal information need to be
exactly the same for every individual and organization, but it
means that it should be based on a common set of principles. It
does mean that personal information held in the private sector
should be protected by law.
(1355)
What are the implications of the motion which is before us
today? The Privacy Act governs the collection, retention and
disposal of personal information by government institutions. It also
limits the use government institutions may make of personal
information and under what circumstances it can be disclosed to
another government institution or to a third party. In brief,
government institutions may only collect personal information
defined as information about an identifiable individual that is
recorded in any form that they need for one of their programs or
activities. In most circumstances they must collect it directly from
the individual to whom it relates. The personal information that has
been used must then be kept for a certain amount of time, usually at
least two years.
In addition, strict conditions must be met before personal
information may be disclosed to a third party by a government
institution.
Finally, the act grants individuals a right of access and correction
which, if refused, may be investigated by the privacy
commissioner and reviewed by the federal court.
When Parliament adopted the Privacy Act in 1982 the
government was by far the main collector and user of information
on individuals. The act was therefore made applicable to the
various departments and agencies of the Government of Canada,
including some crown corporations, such as Canada Post
Corporation.
At the time, however, it was felt that crown corporations which
conducted business in competition with the private sector, such as
the CBC, should now be subject to the act so as not to place them at
a disadvantage against their private sector competitors. Since then
most provinces have adopted similar legislation applicable to their
public sector. The province of Quebec has gone even further by
subjecting its entire private sector to the protection of personal
information legislation.
As it stands now, the Minister of Justice has committed the
government to introducing legislation which will protect personal
information held by federally regulated private sector businesses.
As the Minister of Justice said last September at the international
conference of privacy and data protection commissioners, by the
year 2000 we aim to have federal legislation on the books which
will provide effective, enforceable protection of privacy rights in
the private sector.
The Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of
Disabled Persons will report to the House shortly on its study of
privacy issues raised by the availability of new technologies, and I
believe the government should wait for the recommendations of the
committee before following up on the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues having made me realize how important
this motion is, how important it is to make the information as
widely available as possible while protecting people's privacy, I
would like to put forward an amendment to the motion proposed by
my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding, after the words ``Privacy Act'', the words
``and the Access to Information Act''.
9625
[English]
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was also
going to move a very similar motion. I would like to amend Motion
No. 260 by adding after the words ``Privacy Act'' the words ``and
the Access to Information Act''.
The table officers ruled that this was not an acceptable
amendment because it would introduce a new concept. I question
why my motion was rejected when my colleague's was accepted.
The Deputy Speaker: The member raises a good point. In fact,
it is sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander. Actually the Table
does not rule. The Chair rules with the advice of the Table. The
Chair rules that both of the proposed amendments are out of order
for the reasons given by the member.
[Translation]
A new legislation, a new concept is being introduced, and for
this reason both amendments are out of order. But, as the hon.
members know, with the unanimous consent of the House, such an
amendment may be accepted.
Does the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies want to
ask for unanimous consent?
Mr. Pomerleau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to accept
this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: We do not have unanimous consent.
Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House is deemed to
have divided on the motion and the recorded division on the
question is deemed to have been requested and deferred until
Tuesday, April 15, after government orders.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the question is
deemed to have been requested and deferred until April 15, after
government orders.
[English]
It being two o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.00 p.m.)