CONTENTS
Thursday, October 3, 1996
Bill C-61. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 5021
Bill C-62. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted. 5021
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5021
Bill C-41. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 5021
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5023
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5024
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.) 5037
Bill C-55. Motion for second reading 5037
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 5048
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 5052
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 5054
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5056
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5056
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5056
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5056
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5057
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 5061
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5062
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5062
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5062
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5063
Bill C-55. Consideration resumed of second reading 5064
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5069
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5071
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5071
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 5076
Bill C-236. Motion for second reading 5084
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 5093
5021
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 3, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, a report on official languages in federal
institutions.
* * *
Hon. Fred Mifflin (for the Minister for International Trade)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an act to implement the
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great honour today to bring forth to this House
a petition with the signatures of over 20,000 Canadians.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to legislate the prohibition
in Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and
transfer of all anti-personnel land mines; to work for an
international convention banning these activities; to substantially
increase Canadian contributions to the UN fund for assistance in
mine clearance for indigenous and other humanitarian mine
clearing initiatives; and to increase Canadian funding and other
types of assistance to rehabilitate mine victims.
It gives me great honour to introduce this petition today.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have a petition from places like Prescott, Oxford Mills, Kemptville
and Brockville, Ontario in my riding.
The petitioners are concerned about the unborn and the rights of
the unborn. They would like to see legal protection for children
both before and after birth.
The petitioners go further and ask for a national referendum to
be held in conjunction with the next federal election to ask the
people of Canada if they think that we should be spending our
scarce health dollars these days to promote abortion on demand.
The petitioners believe that legally and morally it should not be
allowed and that funding for it should be very limited.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 1, consideration of the motion
that Bill C-41, an act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders
and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment,
Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
5022
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the House will recall that on Tuesday when I spoke last on this
bill I only had two minutes to speak on it. I am pleased to have
a few more minutes to intervene and to add some considerations
to my colleagues' interventions who will be voting on this bill.
Bill C-41 is an act to amend four other long acts. The intent of
the bill is to strengthen the provisions and terms under which
people who are responsible to pay child support are enforced and
dealt with. There are four main provisions of this bill. I will speak
to each one and outline how sufficient the legislation is in dealing
with each of these areas.
(1010 )
The four main provisions are: to have a grid or some legislated
guidelines for child support amounts; to open up Revenue Canada
databases so that defaulting parents can be located; to allow for the
garnishment of public service pension benefits and seamen's
wages; and to mandate or allow for the withdrawal of federal
licences. The term federal licence is defined in such a way as to
include passports. There are other provisions in the bill but those
are the four main areas in which the government is attempting to
tighten up the whole area of child support and the enforcement of
maintenance payments in support of children.
When we deal with issues relating to children and issues relating
to family breakdowns, the allocation of responsibilities and the
onus that is being placed on parents in a divided family situation,
very strong feelings come forward. This is not at all surprising. Our
families, our children and our own personal emotional difficulties,
hurts and disappointments that necessitate the kind of legislation
we are dealing with today call for some very strong feelings and
emotions.
I know other members, like myself, have had calls from very
concerned and upset custodial parents, mostly women, who are
beside themselves that the father of their child, who is no longer
part of the marriage picture, chooses to be derelict in his duty and
responsibility to assist the mother as the custodial person. They
find it very difficult to understand why a simple court order
allowing them to provide the necessities for their children cannot
be better enforced. They are demanding that there be a better
enforcement mechanism. It is in response to those kinds of
demands that this legislation has been brought forward and was
needed to be brought forward.
It is also fair to point out that there have been calls from many
parents who are paying child support, who are mostly men. They
have been very concerned about the one-sidedness of this kind of
legislation where only the monetary responsibilities they have been
given are enforced, dealt with and seem to be important. The other
rights and responsibilities they have as parents seem to be ignored
and violated without any corresponding concern on the part of
government and legislators.
One of the things we need to look at is whether the balance and
thrust of this legislation, while it is necessary and clearly to the
benefit of ensuring proper support for children, is as it ought to be.
There is a tendency sometimes in the debate on enforcement of
child support, to talk about deadbeat parents, parents who abdicate,
ignore and renege on their responsibilities to the children they have
brought into this world and seem to have no care or concern as to
whether these children have proper income so that they can be fed,
clothed, educated and raised properly. There seems to be some
concern about putting the emphasis on money and treating fathers,
as one gentleman said to me, like a wallet, but ignoring other
parental responsibilities and prerogatives.
I happened to pick up a copy of Psychology Today this summer. I
read an interesting article about violence against women. In that
same magazine was an interesting article about the roles of fathers
in the lives of their children. The article cited studies that showed a
father has a very complex role in the emotional and intellectual
growth of his child. Although a father may interact with his child in
more physical and less intimate way than a mother, he has a key
impact on his child's development. The article also stated that a
father with emotional problems will have a more dire effect on his
child than a mother with similar problems.
(1015)
This is only one article that looked at studies. There are many
others that state it is very important for children that fathers
continue to have a role in their lives. Many fathers are asking that
their responsibility for support be looked at. They would also like
ongoing access to their children to be part of the equation. That is
not the case in this legislation.
Other speakers have raised the concern that if we are going to
deal with the matter of ensuring the well-being of children, we
should include in their need for monetary support their need for
emotional and intellectual support in ongoing relationships and
training.
I recommend that the government seriously consider this whole
area. When it brings in legislation to deal with the well-being of
children it should look at other aspects of their well-being, other
needs. It should not suggest by the way it frames legislation that as
long as money is coming to the custodial parent that is satisfactory.
That is not the only thing needed to be looked at in relation to the
best interests of children.
One of the main provisions in this legislation is that a grid or
guidelines for the amount of child support payable will be put into
place. According to some of the information that has been put
forward by government, these guidelines were drawn up after a
5023
broad consultation with people who were familiar with the area of
child maintenance and child support, and I think that is good.
We can accept that the amounts on the grid and the guidelines
represent a reasonable and honest effort to put in place amounts
based on the income and circumstances of the parties. Generally
speaking, that will be fair.
My concern is with what this legislation does not deal with. A
one size fits all award of maintenance is not practical when one
considers the wide variety of circumstances and employment
realities that are factored into calculations of the need, the
reasonableness and the propriety of a particular monetary award for
child support.
There is concern that the discretion of the courts, which have
many judges-most judges have a great deal of experience and
background in calculating these awards for support-will be taken
away in favour of a rigid one size fits all system. There must be
more thought and debate before this happens.
There is a great deal of concern about rigid awards, particularly
where circumstances change quickly and often. Parents who are
paying child support simply cannot come back to court on a regular
basis every time their circumstances shift. In this economy, for
example, many people are under-employed. Many people are
unemployed. Many people are concerned about job loss. Many
people are self-employed on a consulting basis and have irregular
income. These hard and fast awards, guidelines and grids, are not
properly reflective of the economic realities of the citizens. They
create hardship and frustration for the people who must adhere to
them. I would ask the government to reconsider the rigidity of the
rules which it is trying to implement.
(1020)
Certain areas in the legislation provide for a variation of the
awards handed down under the grid, however, the provision for a
variation or for taking into account unusual or different
circumstances is too narrow to be of much assistance to most
parents who are paying child support.
Second, the legislation will allow Revenue Canada databases to
be opened in order to locate parents who default on their child
support payments. Most Canadians believe that parents have a
strong obligation to their children. Children need to know that their
needs are going to be met by both parents on an ongoing basis. That
is a very important consideration for them.
Parents have the primary responsibility for the care and support
of their children. This burden should not be placed on other
members of society simply because parents decide to be
irresponsible.
Any measures which will ensure that parents carry out their
obligations should be applauded. However, we must ensure that the
opening up of Revenue Canada databases does not unfairly or
inappropriately breach the privacy rights of the parent who is under
a maintenance order.
Substantial concerns have been raised about whether access to
private financial information will be fairly administered. Will the
databases be opened up when there are substantial arrears or when
there is simply an allegation of arrears? Will private information,
which is not necessary to locate the defaulting parent, be given to
other parties? We need to look very closely at the issue of fairness.
There can be a number of circumstances involved in a default
situation. Perhaps a default has been alleged but has not taken
place. The rights and privacy of all parties concerned need to be
protected.
Sometimes there is a tendency to hammer everyone involved
and, in doing so, violate the rights of everyone, rather than the
minority who are at fault. Most parents who are under an
agreement or a court order to support their children do so. They do
so gladly, regularly and in a responsible manner. We have to be
careful to ensure that the majority of parents are not unfairly
treated simply to get at the minority. Caution must be taken
because a lot of lives and rights will be affected. Third, the
provisions being brought forward for the garnishment of public
service pension benefits and a broader ability to ensure that every
parent who is obligated to pay child support actually does pay are
good. Again, we need to be careful of the fairness factor.
Unfortunately, the regulations that will show how these measures
will be implemented are absent. They will be introduced later. They
will not be debated. They will simply be put into place.
(1025)
We have a real responsibility to the people who are going to be
affected by the legislation. It is important that their human rights
and freedoms are not unduly impinged upon because of the way
this legislation is constructed. The same principle holds true when
we are withdrawing rights of citizens such as drivers' licences and
passports.
It is fair to say that the sentiment behind this legislation is good,
however, it is not as balanced as it needs to be. There are a lot of
unanswered questions about how it will actually be administered at
the end of the day.
On behalf of citizens who will be very seriously affected by this
legislation, I would ask for a re-examination of it to see whether it
can be better balanced and whether more fairness and certainty can
be assured when it is finally implemented.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I was very interested to hear the comments of my hon.
colleague from Calgary North on this very critical piece of
legislation concerning families, especially children.
5024
In light of some of the legislation that has been passed,
particularly in California, Florida and Washington state, among
others, which reflects those governments' policies of encouraging
parenting by both parents after divorce, I wonder if my colleague
could give us her views on what steps she might feel the
government could take to encourage and develop that type of
legislation and that thinking in Canada.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, when we have legislation of
this type, it should not just address one injustice, one problem or
one difficulty that relates to the well-being of our children. It
should be balanced and talk about the other needs of children as
well.
A measure that could bring a greater involvement into children's
lives by their father, which many studies show is vital to their
well-being, would be addressing this whole matter of access.
As my colleagues are aware, orders relating to children in
separation or divorce situations not only address monetary support
for children but also the ongoing involvement through access and
other areas where fathers particularly, or the non-custodial parent,
continue to have as strong and healthy a relationship with their
children as possible.
I would suggest that, if legislation of this type were as strong on
ensuring that parents' involvements and responsibilities were
equally upheld and enforced, it would be to the very great benefit
of children.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Calgary North.
She always brings a different perspective to this question when we
debate it in the House because of her experience in law. I think she
may be able to help me on this particular issue. I wonder if my
colleague could comment on the prospect of mediation before
access and custody is even decided or settled, usually prior to
divorce. It would then be agreed by both parents and hopefully on
the needs for the child and the ability of the non-custodial spouse to
pay. Hopefully that would make for a better and lasting settlement
and would probably result in payments being made on a regular
basis.
(1030)
Would my colleague also comment on the program called
parenting after divorce? It became mandatory in Alberta after
February 1, and Alberta justice minister Brian Evans said that the
program is intended to help children and also to save the courts
time and money since our courts are already overburdened. The
program was basically brought in to minimize the impact of
divorce on children. Would my colleague comment on whether she
feels mediation would help and if so, should it be in the bill?
Mrs. Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, it certainly has been my
experience in my practice of law and some of the work I did in the
area of divorce that the divorce proceedings and process are
unnecessarily adversarial, particularly when it has to be considered
that a good relationship with both parents on a continuing basis is
absolutely vital to the well-being of children.
If there is an adversarial situation where someone is the bad guy
and somebody is the good guy, a very difficult situation has been
set up for children. Very often they are put in the position of
judging who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. Whereas, their
real needs and what is best for them would be to sorrowfully accept
that parents have differences that are not going to allow them to
live together, but that these are both people they be proud of,
respect and have good relationship with.
I think moving more toward a mediated approach or mediated
settlement of the issues in a divorce situation would be much
healthier for the children.
My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam also mentioned the
training which is being implemented in Alberta which assists both
parents in the kind of training, education and skills building that
would be necessary for both parents to continue to play a very
positive and very necessary role in the lives of their children. I
would certainly recommend that the government look at those
kinds of measures to make the legislation more balanced.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, before I get into my remarks today on Bill C-41, I would
like to take a moment or two to reflect on what happened in this
place yesterday. I feel it is very relevant to everything we as
individual members of Parliament endeavour to do in the House of
Commons.
Yesterday we witnessed not only the breaking of a Liberal red
book promise, but I believe the powerlessness of individual MPs
was truly revealed. The Prime Minister promised during the last
election campaign to give individual MPs, those in opposition as
well as his own backbenchers, a greater say in the running of
government. Yesterday showed how seriously he took this
commitment to the Canadian people.
Yesterday the government brought in time allocation to cut off
debate on Bill C-45, a bill which we should never have debated in
the first place. This in itself is not surprising, because the Liberals
have closed debate about 24 times in this 35th Parliament, despite
their howls of protest to the Tories in the last Parliament when the
Tories took similar parliamentary action.
In this place we should have been debating the repeal of section
745 of the Criminal Code as outlined in the private member's bill
of the member for York South-Weston, Bill C-234.
I believe it is obvious to all here and, more important, out in the
real world just how hopeless it is for an individual MP to affect
change in this place.
5025
Canadians were and are demanding the repeal of section 745.
A member responded by drafting and introducing a private
member's bill in response. The majority of the members in the
House of Commons supported it, sent it to the justice committee
and it disappeared. Democracy. It is enough to make a grown man
weep.
(1035)
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-41 which seeks to make some
sense out of this country's system of child support payments. Here
we have yet another example of the Liberal government's attempt
at patchwork legislation. Canadians have been clamouring for
change in how child support payments are determined and
enforced. The Liberals pretend to be listening and respond with
proposals that do not truly address the basic issues of child custody.
While this bill does take some great strides in improving the
enforcement of child support payments, or getting tough on
so-called deadbeat dads, it entirely skips the issue of custody
arrangements and mediation of disputes.
The federal government plans to involve itself in a strong arm
approach to enforcement without looking at original access issues.
This includes revoking or refusing to renew passports, the use of
Revenue Canada's data banks in order to locate defaulting parents,
the garnishment of public service pensions to pay child support as
well as the wages of those working at sea.
This get tough attitude toward delinquent support payments is
appropriate only after all circumstances surrounding the original
custody arrangements have been thoroughly analysed and only
after attempts at voluntary support have been exhausted.
This means that before taking such invasive measures it must be
shown that the non-custodial parent is getting the entitled access to
their children and that all other outstanding questions surrounding
the custody arrangements have been resolved.
Automated steps to withhold someone's passport, crack open
their private income tax information or garnish their wages are
irresponsible if used without a thorough investigation of the
individual case. This bill does not include proposals to do this.
There are two sides to every issue and while there is no doubt
that children across this country are suffering because child support
payments are going unpaid, Bill C-41 ignores that many children
are also suffering because their right to see and enjoy the love of
their non-custodial parent is being denied.
I join with most of the members of this House in getting tough
with parents who do not meet support commitments, but let us not
encourage the problem with unfair laws. There is a relationship
between access to children and non-compliance in support
payments. A non-custodial parent who sees his child more often is
much more likely to make his payments. This bill does not even
touch on this aspect. In many cases the denial of payment is rooted
in the non-custodial parent's frustration at being denied access to
their children.
According to a 1995 study by the U.S. bureau of statistics
non-custodial parents with visitation and or joint custody were
much more likely to pay support; 79 per cent of those with access
paid support while only 59 per cent of those without access paid.
A May 1992 a study by the Canadian Research Institute for Law
and the Family found that almost 75 per cent of non-custodial
parents reported problems in visiting their children. This shows
that access and visitation rights in Canada are not working and this
results in many problems, including non-compliance in child
support.
On March 20 of this year I introduced a private member's bill in
the House that would also amend the Divorce Act so that joint
custody would be automatic. Right now custody automatically goes
to one parent unless an application for joint custody is made. Bill
C-242 says it should be the reverse. Kids need the love and security
of both parents. Joint custody should be automatic except in cases
of abuse, neglect or where it is not in the child's best interests.
We would no doubt see the number of delinquent support
payments drop significantly once joint custody eliminated many of
the access disputes that lead to non-payment in the first place. In
many cases non-payment boils down to an issue of guaranteed
access to both parents, not dollars and cents.
(1040)
In 1992 Canadian courts awarded joint custody only 16 per cent
of the time. Sole custody is awarded to mothers approximately 72
per cent of the time and to fathers in only 12 per cent of divorces.
This brings about another point to consider when looking at the
non-payment of child support. How much potential child support
money has been tied up or wasted in fighting over access rights in
the courts? The separation and divorce industry drains parents of
thousands of dollars. With automatic joint custody legislation that
is money that could go to the children instead. It can be difficult for
a parent to pay child support while they are doling out $10,000 in
legal fees just to see their child.
If the custodial parent moves a child to another province or
country, the non-custodial parent is suddenly left with no
opportunity to see their child or faces great travel expenses to do
so. Making certain that non-custodial parents are accountable for
continued financial support even when they have chosen to move to
a different provinces is a common goal of the courts and all levels
of government. When it comes to ensuring that non-custodial
5026
parents have reasonable access to their children, the governments
and courts are strangely silent. This is a double standard.
In my riding of Prince George-Peace River in British Columbia
and in other northern areas a divorce can often result in the
custodial parent moving with the children to the lower mainland,
severely limiting access for the non-custodial parent. It is little
wonder that some parents withhold support payments in protest.
Under Bill C-41 the fact that the parent's right to access was
arbitrarily taken away would not be considered and the federal
government would simply start proceedings to enforce payment.
This would overlook even a supreme court ruling in May of this
year concerning a Saskatchewan mother who choose to move with
her daughter to Australia against the wishes of her ex-husband. The
supreme court's decision took into account the effect of a custodial
parent's geographic move on the access rights of the former
spouse.
Did the Liberals consider this when they attempted to address
the issue of child support payments? I do not believe so. The
Liberals have spent a good part of their mandate reviewing child
custody and taxation issues, yet they still did not get it right. The
finance minister has said that the first obligation of a parent is
financial. I could not disagree more. Yes, children need financial
security, certainly, but the emotional security of access to both
parents cannot be overlooked. Until such time as the federal
government is willing to take a look at the entire issue of child
custody, the complete picture, it is not qualified to proceed with
enforcement.
At the very least in the absence of legislating automatic joint
custody the federal government should be encouraging the
provinces to be more vigilant in enforcing access problems before
they agree to help with the enforcement of child support payments.
The Canadian Council for Co-Parenting, a custody and access
support group for divorcing couples, agrees that the deadbeat
scenario is not that simple. On its position paper on custody access
and child support the CCC claims that many loving parents are
deparented by a legal system content with the win-lose approach. It
says that many non-custodial parents withdraw disgusted,
dismayed and angered by the inequities and imbalance of many
court decisions.
The justice minister should be familiar with the Canadian
Council for Co-Parenting. The CCC has formally stated its
dissatisfaction with Bill C-41. I will quote from a letter which the
CCC sent to the justice minister. These are words which is he
obviously ignoring: ``Our position on Bill C-41 guidelines released
in June of 1996 is that they must be reworked. They are seriously
flawed in their omission of shared parenting principles of treating
both parents fairly. No loving parent, male or female, in a time of
great turmoil or anger should be ostracized from the lives of their
children for no good reason. C-41 aggravates and enhances the
current inhumane imbalances in family law''. Of course the CCC is
just one of many organizations and individuals concerned with the
ramifications of Bill C-41.
(1045)
Another issue that this bill neglects involves spending
accountability by the custodial parent. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact
that some custodial parents are not using child support payments to
properly feed or clothe the child. That parent may be receiving
substantial amounts of money from the non-custodial parent but
they are not required to account for how the funds are spent. There
is no mechanism in place that ensures the child support is used for
example to buy a winter coat for a child instead of being spent by
the custodial parent on alcohol, cigarettes or whatever.
I want to be perfectly clear that I am not saying this is a prevalent
occurrence. However, before the federal government begins
vigorous enforcement actions, it must recognize that non-payment
of child support may be due to the non-custodial parent's
awareness that their child is not the one benefiting from those
support payments.
Once again there are many ambiguous questions surrounding
child custody cases. A responsible enforcer must first scratch
beneath the surface, investigate and then take action based upon
complete knowledge of all the pertinent facts.
I would like to further clarify my position on child custody laws.
It is not my intent or desire to take sides on this issue. I am neither
an advocate for the mothers or the fathers. I am not siding with
custodial parents or non-custodial parents. My goal for introducing
Bill C-242 and opposing Bill C-41 as it is currently drafted is
twofold.
First, the law should be administered as fairly as possible,
treating both parents equally. When married and the relationship is
intact, it is assumed that both people are good parents. Why assume
otherwise just because they are divorced?
Second and most important, I believe in supporting the children.
When a relationship ends, they are the innocent victims. I believe
very strongly that their emotional and psychological welfare is best
supported by maintaining physical contact with both parents and
there are studies that bear this out. In other words, I am an advocate
for the kids.
If we remove the issue of who will have sole custody from the
equation, parents will obviously no longer be able to use custody as
a bargaining chip. Fathers would not be able to threaten to seek sole
custody unless the mother agrees to unreasonably low
maintenance. Mothers likewise would be prevented from holding
restricted access over the father's head to obtain a better divorce
5027
settlement. If both parents knew ahead of time with reasonable
certainty that custody would be awarded jointly and therefore was
not going to be an issue, there would be one less issue to fight
about.
As a loving parent, I cannot imagine anything worse than being
prevented from seeing my kids. The mere thought of not having
access to them on a continual basis provokes angry, protective
emotions.
When a marriage ends it is natural for the spouses to blame each
other, to have lost respect for each other as a spouse, a lover and a
friend. However, if the separating couple can be assisted and
encouraged to still respect each other as loving and caring parents,
it will provide as positive an environment as possible for the
children.
The awarding of joint custody in the vast majority of cases will
nurture this respect for each other as parents and will remove the
greatest fear every parent faces: the loss of a child. It will also
reduce the chances of partners remaining in a potentially abusive
relationship because they know that if they walk out without the
children, it will be currently held against them at the custody
hearing.
Bill C-41 is an inadequate piece of legislation. It is inadequate
because it does not responsibly and fairly address child custody
laws in their entirety. This is yet another example of quick fix
legislation. The government knows there are problems with the
child support system and that Canadians are demanding change.
However, instead of looking for the root of the problem, the
government is proposing superficial and brash changes which it
believes will appease voters in the next election.
(1050)
In its current form Bill C-41 will bring little satisfaction to
anyone. It will only result in further emotional suffering for the
children who are caught up in these tragic child custody laws.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, before
the Liberal government became involved in the issue of child
support payments, the system was that the payer deducted the
amount of child support payments and the recipient paid the tax on
it. The logic for that was that usually the person who received the
child support payments was in a lower income bracket and
consequently would be taxed less and would therefore have more
money available. Also, the person who was making the payments
would be more willing to give the maximum because the payments
would be deductible.
The justice minister has changed that system and now child
support is non-deductible and non-taxable. The non-deductibility
aspect of child support payments will mean that the government
will receive an additional $300 million in revenue. The government
claims it will put the money into some form of child support
subsidy or child care benefit for the Canadian public. We will have
to wait and see.
My concern is, with the government having made these changes,
eliminating deductibility will encourage those people who have to
pay to give less. Ultimately the children will suffer. They will
receive less in benefits because less money will be given to them.
I recognize that my colleague does not wish to pick sides on the
issue between mother and father, but let us pick on the government
a bit. Let us see if in its wisdom the government has actually done a
great service or whether it has made it worse with its half measures
and tinkering.
I wonder if my colleague has a comment on the effect of the
impact of what appears to be another tax grab by the government to
generate $300 million in revenue at the expense of children.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague from Calgary
Centre.
He is quite right. I do not see the logic behind the changes which
the government has made. I recognize there is a problem in the area
of taxation of child support and the government moved on that. The
reality is that the children will be poorer for it. As he correctly
pointed out, the money will now flow into government coffers
rather than staying in the hands of the children.
While I recognize that Bill C-41 is moving toward setting some
base rates for child support so that we will not see it diminish in
cases of real need, I believe that the changes which have been made
by the government have actually created more of an adversarial
approach. That is unfortunate because there is already enough
adversary surrounding divorce. It is one of the reasons in many
cases that these things drag on for so long. They get tied up in the
courts and people get more and more angry with the whole process.
(1055 )
I believe quite strongly that we have to move toward more
mediation in these matters. The issue of who would get the tax
credit could be decided between the parents and in the best interests
of the children. As I said earlier, I am involved in this issue because
I feel very strongly in being an advocate for the children, which is
why I am speaking against this legislation.
I will quote an expert in the field, Professor Ross Finnie of
Carleton University School of Public Administration, on Bill C-41.
He calls for Bill C-41 to be revisited by the justice department. He
is not a Reformer criticizing the government. I heard an hon.
colleague from the other side say a minute ago that nothing is new
in that we should be criticizing the government. Part of our role is
to criticize the government when we see there are things wrong
with what it brings forward. In this case it is not a Reformer making
this observation but an acknowledged expert in the field.
5028
In his review, ``Good Idea, Bad Execution: The Government's
Child Support Package'', Professor Finnie comments: ``In short,
the basic unfairness incorporated in the current guideline
proposals might undermine the basic goal of the whole guideline
exercise''. He argues that overall the package is likely to worsen
the child support situation in Canada.
This is an expert in the field making his comments on Bill C-41.
It is important to remember that it is not just a few Reformers,
people like myself and my colleagues, who are being critical of the
government; there are also people with a lot of background
knowledge who are calling into question this legislation.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand in my
place today to support Bill C-41 which amends various existing
legislation to ensure that child support reforms become law.
I am proud to do so because the Department of the Status of
Women Canada and my predecessor, the hon. member for Mount
Royal, played a major role in bringing this legislation to the fore.
The hon. member did so by going around this country with a three
person task force to meet with women, with custodial and
non-custodial parents and the public in general. They listened to
some of the problems and ideas that came from women, men and
children with regard to child support. As a result, some of this
legislation was brought into the fore.
This was also brought about by working with the Law Reform
Commission of Canada which again has the body of expertise that
can understand and deal with the law. The family law committee of
federal, provincial and territorial representatives brought
understanding and expertise on what happens when people divorce,
on what happens to the child.
This piece of legislation speaks clearly to and in support of one
person in this problem: the child. It speaks to one group of people
who have had no one to advocate for them very strongly. This
government has decided that we will advocate for the child.
Above all, this reform is a tribute to the hundreds of people
across Canada who contributed to the dialogue. We heard from men
and women, advocates for children, for mothers and fathers. We
heard from accountants, lawyers and social service providers to
name only a few.
The result before us is a law that will create a system of child
support that is fair, equitable and beneficial to all Canadians. But
above all, this legislation represents a balanced approach that is fair
for children. It puts children first.
If I could summarize this bill in one phrase, it would be that
child support is not a discretionary payment. Both parents must
assume responsibility for their children, whether they live together
or not. This is a duty, a responsibility. It is not something that a
non-custodial parent can choose to ignore because the
non-custodial parent has suddenly assumed a new life and wants to
undertake a new lifestyle. The child is a responsibility of both
parents.
(1100)
We have seen clearly that children live in the same
socioeconomic status of the custodial parent. I am using the term
custodial parent, but we know that the majority of custodial parents
in the country are women and that the majority of single women
with children are living in poverty. These children must be
supported first and foremost by both parents. They must, if
possible, be assisted in support by the state wherever it can be
done. This is where the working income supplement will apply.
When families break up it is generally the children who suffer.
As a physician who has spent 25 years in practice, I can say that
children suffer greatly. Many children of divorce who live with the
mother do not have the same access to post-secondary education
that other children have. We know many of these children are
living pretty close to the poverty line. They are a shared
responsibility. It is the right of the child to be financially supported
by both parents.
We would then create a system where families would still be
united. But there are divorced parents and the children, therefore,
live in different status purely because they happen through no fault
of their own to be living in a divorced situation. Children should
not have to bear the brunt of that. There should not be two classes
of children in this country.
The government applied gender based analyses to these reforms
to ensure that neither women nor men are unfairly disadvantaged
by the legislation. We have ensured that the outcome of the changes
are fair and equitable to both men and women.
The child support strategy rests on four very important pillars.
One is the tax treatment of support payments for children. I want to
stress the tax treatment of support payments for children, not of
spousal support. We are talking only of child support. We have set
up guidelines that will make it clear across the country that we are
no longer going to have to depend on the discretion of lawyers,
judges or courts. It will be a fair system of guidelines, based on the
income of the non-custodial parent. It takes into consideration
whether the non-custodial parent can afford to pay or not. It also
makes very clear that afford to pay does not mean that child support
for a non-custodial parent comes after the car, the holidays and the
investments, but that child support is considered as one of the first
and foremost duties of the non-custodial parent and not as a second
thought.
5029
These guidelines are clear, equitable and they will be the same
no matter where those people pay live in this country. It takes into
consideration the cost of living, the standard of living and the tax
treatments of each province. Different provinces will have clear
guidelines for what the non-custodial parent must pay, based on
the number of children, as a percentage of the income of the
non-custodial parent.
The third pillar on which this rests is enforcement of child
support guidelines and child support, period. We know that many
children do not get child support. This is a major problem. I do not
think hon. members across in the third party would disagree that
enforcement is extremely important.
The fourth pillar is the working income supplement. This is the
so-called tax grab that the hon. member just spoke about. We know
that by changing the tax treatment of child support the federal
government will receive a windfall of money. That money is not
going back into federal government coffers. After $50 million of
that money has been taken to set up the data bases and to assist
provinces to get this going, the rest will go into a working income
supplement which will assist 700,000 children.
(1105)
As a state we need to ensure that our children are clearly
supported and that our children are treated equally whether their
parents can afford to or not. Children are the future of this country.
The first pillar of change is the way in which the child support
system is taxed. This system has been place for 54 years. It has
become outdated. It was an inequitable system which said parents
who live together and who are bringing up a family do not get to tax
deduct the money they spend on their children, but if they become
divorced all of a sudden their child because a tax deductible
expense. This did not make any sense at all because it was creating
an uneven playing field.
It was saying that if you were divorced it was better for you to be
able to support your child because you got the tax deduction. If you
live together as a family you were in fact being discriminated
against in terms of caring for your children because caring for your
children is not a tax deductible expense. It is not an expense of
business. It is not a discretionary expense. It is a duty and a
responsibility for parents.
Under the new system the full amount of the support payments
can be used to care for the child so that when a custodial parent is
given a sum of money that custodial parent knows that all of that
money is going to the child and that some of it does not have to go
back to Revenue Canada so that the child only gets part of the
money.
Child support payment under a written agreement or court order
made on after May 1 will therefore not be deductible to the payer or
included in the income of the recipient for tax purposes. This has
finally given us an equitable system and not a system that is based
on the fact that if the custodial parent can afford a good lawyer,
then the custodial parent gets a better amount of money for the
child.
We know that many custodial parents did have the money and it
really rested on who could afford the better lawyer. This has been
taken away now. The system is going to be fair and equitable and
that is the second component of the pillars of this legislation. The
guidelines are clearly set and clearly written down so that there is
no more trying to see who could argue their way out of the paper
bag that we have had in the past in terms of how child support has
been accepted.
The tax rules, however, will not automatically apply to existing
orders. Governments cannot unilaterally change support
agreements between parents negotiated on the basis of another set
of rules. This is not going to be grandfathered. We know that if
parents are not happy with the way their child support has been
structured they can go back and seek to change it and bring it under
the new rules if they work together to do that and if they work
together in the best interests of the child.
Implementation of the new rules will not take effect until the
spring for two very important reasons. First, we expect there will
be a large increase in applications to change existing orders to
conform to the new child support rules because in many cases
much of the child support that is today given is not being enforced
and is not enough. It would cause chaos if the federal government
did not have the provinces to establish a more efficient way to deal
with the sudden influx of support orders.
For that reason we have established a $50 million fund that will
be used in partnership with the provincial government to develop,
pilot and implement efficient and cost-effective mechanisms to
help parents obtain, vary and update their awards.
The second reason for leaving the implementation until May
1997 brings me to the second pillar of child support. The
implementation date allows us time to enact federal child support
guidelines. These guidelines are going to make the system
equitable.
If I could sum up this bill in one phrase it would be that child
support is the single most important thing that we can do for our
children tomorrow. This legislation introduces a number of
measures that the provinces and the territories can draw on in
partnership with the federal government to enforce support
payments.
Federal pensions can be diverted so that we can garnishee from a
federal employee who is not paying child support. We can
garnishee out of that federal employee packages, whether it be
pension funds or some sort of benefit funds, in order to ensure the
child gets the support.
5030
Revenue Canada's data base will now be used for the federal
information network so that we can track defaulters. In other
words, they can move from province to province and they can run
but they cannot hide.
Passports and even certain federal licences can be suspended if a
debtor is in persistent arrears. We will develop finally a
standardized data base across this country so that there will be
compliance with the support orders in Canada.
(1110)
This will help both levels of government to design more
effective mechanisms for support enforcement. In addition, the
legislation provides for measures to help the provinces streamline
the collection of out of province orders. In these ways the federal
government will help the provinces to pursue what is really their
jurisdiction which is to support enforcement programs.
Although it is not covered in this legislation it will be noted that
the fourth pillar of our child support strategy is the doubling of the
working income supplement of the federal child tax benefit. This is
the tax grab the hon. member across spoke about and conveniently
ignored, that the money is to be going over the next five years, half
a billion dollars, to support approximately 700,000 low income
working families. About one-third of these families are single
parents. These single parent families are predominantly led by
women and they predominantly live in poverty.
We as a government are making a very strong statement. We are
saying that we as Canadians, all of us, whether we have children or
not, whether we are living together with our children or not, owe it
to all Canadian children to prepare them for the future, to prepare
them for tomorrow, to give them equal opportunity so they can
realize their fullest potential, so we do not continue to foster two
sets of levels of children, those who have and those who do not
have and who will be the people we look to carry this country
forward in the next century. If we do not give them the tools and the
skills, if we do not give all our children the opportunity and value
our children, we are not truly looking to our future for tomorrow.
The four pillars in our child support strategy reinforce one
another. These changes have long been overdue. The government
has studied these issues carefully and we have worked closely with
all the stakeholders, not only the public but accountants, men and
women, and lawyers to talk about this issue and to find the right
answers. This is not a thrown together piece of legislation, as hon.
members across the floor would have us believe. This was
discussed in public hearings. I do not know if the hon. members
even went to the public hearings or even listened to some of the
information we heard from men and women who spoke on behalf
of the children of this country.
More important, our children deserve the right to be treated
fairly. They deserve the right not to have to be forced to live with
the consequences of what their parents have done and with the
power struggles between parents as we have seen in the past. Our
children deserve to be given every opportunity. This bill does
exactly that for all our children.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to summarize this bill in one word for the hon. parliamentary
secretary who spoke with such glowing words. It is a mistake.
It is a mistake in a lot of ways. There were some misconceptions
within her statements that I would like to clarify. The
parliamentary secretary is concerned about child support and how
children are important and I agree 150 per cent. However, the way
the government is going about will hurt the children more than help
them.
In that tax grab that we talk about, which she has now identified,
in the neighbourhood of $.5 billion, 30 per cent to 40 per cent of
that goes, as she admitted herself, into overhead, into a federal
bureaucracy, into a federal administration. She said initially it will
take $50 million of that. That is not helping children. That is
creating jobs in government. That is what it is doing. It is hurting
the children, at the expense of children.
The parliamentary secretary talks about how the person who
pays used it as a tax deduction and a person might as well get a
divorce because they got a tax deduction if they have children. The
adjudicator determined between the couple divorcing in the case of
children the amount of money paid based on need and ability to pay
and an amount was set. Yes, it was deductible and taxable. What
that really is, if the parliamentary secretary considers this for a
moment, is if the amount is $10,000 and the individual makes
$50,000 to $60,000 in income, it is a deferral of $10,000 of income
to the person who is looking after the children.
The principle of taxation is that we tax income. That deferral
from the $50,000, $60,000, $25,000 or $100,000 is a deferral to the
custodial parent. That parent paid the tax. Do you know what? In
that system, that is a tight system. There is no leakage there. There
is no government bureaucracy taking 30 or 40 per cent of that
money. All the money is going to the children. The taxes paid on
that are paid at a lower rate.
(1115)
I submit that the single biggest mistake in this bill is doing away
with deductibility and taxability of child support. Arbitrarily
setting amounts across the country no matter where a person
lives-this is the amount-is a good principle. It should be applied
to UI as well.
Why should somebody in Alberta paying $1 get 75 cents in
benefits and somebody in Newfoundland paying $1 getting $3.75
5031
in benefits? If the parliamentary secretary would apply that same
principle to UI, then the government might be making some sense.
This bill is a mistake. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of
people in a way that will just support more government
bureaucracy. It is a mistake to intrude into the lives of people and
say that government will now look after the children, not the
parents. Government is taking money away from the parents'
ability to look after the children.
Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's question to
be so absolutely typical of someone who does not really
understand. He has never been there and does not even understand
the reality of the lives of divorced families and of children of
divorce.
This is the kind of statement that you would hear from an upper
middle class male who does not have a clue. The hon. member talks
about child support and that the adjudicator takes into
consideration the real need and ability of the parent to pay. That is
absolute rubbish.
Child support has, in the past, been dictated by who had the
better lawyer. Invariably the custodial parent did not have the
money to have the better lawyer and was at the wrong end of the
stick. The point here is that it is the children who suffer.
The hon. member talked about income tax and child support. The
interesting thing is that we get this kind of information coming
across the floor because when you try to answer the question, you
are not even given the courtesy of their listening to the answer.
Misinformation continues to be fostered. They really do not want
to hear the answer. The answer is that child support is not spousal
support. Spousal support is income in the hands of the custodial
parent. Child support is income in the hands of the child.
Parents who live together do not deduct the support for their
child. They do not get to deduct it. Why should it be that we have
this uneven system of parents who are not living together with their
family get to deduct child support? Child support is not a
discretionary thing. Child support is an absolute duty to the child.
I also heard the hon. member asking me about using 30 to 40 per
cent of the half a million dollars in order to create a bureaucratic
structure. I am not a mathematician. I certainly never claimed to be
one. However, when I last looked 40 per cent of a half billion was
not $15 million. This is grade 2 arithmetic we are talking about
here. It is interesting that this kind of arithmetic comes out. Fifteen
million dollars is not half of a half billion dollars. That is not 40 per
cent of it.
One of the important things to remember is that if there is a
system that is fair and equitable, that is going to be tracking people,
you have to use the technology so the information is available
across this country. That has been the major problem of
enforcement. People leave provinces. They go to other provinces.
No one can find them. They do not know where they are. If the
defaulter cannot be tracked, support payments cannot be enforced.
It is a clear issue. We know that 43 per cent of non-custodial
parents in the province of Ontario today do not pay a penny of child
support. Of the remainder, only about 30 per cent of them manage
to pay the full amount.
We are talking here about major default. We have to set into
place the structures to help these children. Saying that this is a lot
of rubbish actually means that the hon. member does not even
understand the issue to start off with.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the minister with interest, especially in her response to
the comments to the member for Calgary Centre.
(1120 )
What I heard the minister say was that the non-custodial parent
had a duty to make payments but that the payments were not put in
the hands of the custodial parent but in the hands of the children.
That simply is not true. The custodial parent administers the
payments that are made to those children.
The minister also said earlier in her speech that the non-custodial
parent has a duty to make sure there was an enforcement of child
support payments. I agree with that, but I would like to ask if she
thinks there is also a duty, on behalf of the custodial parent, to
spend that money on the children. We all know of cases where the
money is not necessarily spent on those children. Is there not a duty
for the custodial parent as well?
Ms. Fry: Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Maybe I
did not make my point clearly enough. I did not say that the money
for child support was not money put in the hands of the
non-custodial parent. It was not directed to the custodial parent. It
was directed to the child. Of course if the child is a minor then the
custodial parent has a duty to use the money in the best interest of
the child. This is different from spousal support which is not what
we are talking about here. Spousal support is income in the hands
of the custodial spouse and is tax deductible and should be. We are
talking about two very different things here.
The hon. member asks whether it is the duty of the custodial
parent to take the money for child support and spent it on the child.
Yes, it is the duty.
Whatever stories or anecdotes we hear from the hon. member
opposite to try to support his position that most custodial parents
take that money and fritter it away on something for themselves is
absolute nonsense. Most children of divorced parents are living a
very low income status. The custodial parents are trying very hard
to use that money in the best interest of the child. Often these
children are not clothed or fed properly because the money is given
back in taxes to the government. We are saying that is no longer
5032
appropriate. Money should go directly to the child and not to the
Government of Canada.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to join my colleagues to debate Bill C-41. One of my hon.
friends said that it is a mistake that this legislation is before us. We
just had a long speech from the Minister of State for the Status of
Women and not once did I hear her say she cared for and supported
families, that she wanted to nurture families, that families were the
fundamental building blocks of our society and that if we were to
focus on nurturing, supporting, protecting and building the
families, a lot of the problems we have would not occur.
Instead, we find that the government wants to probe, analyse,
tax, regulate and push around families, as if they are something like
a vehicle that everybody jumps into and they can just control the
vehicle.
The point is that the government has it wrong. This whole
concept that families can be probed, analysed, regulated and taxed
and the money can be passed through the government's pocket, that
they take from one and give to another and pay the bureaucrats in
between. Surely we should be talking about protecting, nurturing,
building and strengthening families. We should ensure that
families play the real role in our society. No one can raise kids
better than families. That is why the bill is a mistake.
(1125)
The Minister of State for the Status of Women talked about how
important it is that we are going to regulate the system, how
important it is that we are going to collect all this taxation, how
important it is that we are going to have a new program and how
important it is that we are going to give the money back to the kids.
The government has missed the point. Where is the support?
We have known for years that the Income Tax Act penalizes
families. We know that the Income Tax Act has given a greater
benefit to families that break up rather than to the families which
stay together. That is a terrible indictment for a government which
is in charge of helping our society. It seems to be quite happy with
the concept of regulating. If the family breaks up the government
will give it another program. If the family breaks up the
government will collect taxes in a different way and channel them
back through the bureaucracy.
We on this side of the House have always said that the dollars
which are left in the hands of the families will be better
administered than if those dollars are handed back to the families
through a program. The government has missed the point entirely.
I had an accounting business before I got into this game. I met
many families which had broken up. The statistics published by
Statistics Canada confirm what I saw personally. There is hurt and
damage. Self-confidence is destroyed. Job stability is threatened.
The family breaks apart and one-half moves to a different location.
Sometimes the family is destroyed. There is little doubt that in
many cases the standard of living goes down. That is unfortunate.
We have to help these people.
We do not help them by bringing in legislation which contains a
bunch of rules and regulations. On page 22 of the bill, at clause 77,
after the government has poked and probed and administered and
regulated and pushed around all these families, Her Majesty, in
right of Canada, disclaims all responsibility for discharging the
obligations under the act. While the government figures that it can
get involved in the day to day administration of families, in the
running of families, and so on and so forth, if it screws up, do not
blame the government.
The Minister of State for the Status of Women mentioned the
hearings which were held across Canada where women could say
this and women could say that. I did not hear anything about men
being invited to participate. That being so, we have to take a look at
the failure of the Liberal policies over the years.
Back in the sixties the government introduced the great concept
of universality for pensioners. It said: ``Do not worry. We are here.
We are going to look after everybody. Everybody is going to get the
same old age security. Everybody is going to get a pension''. The
first thousand dollars of pension money that a senior would get
would be tax free. That rule has been in place for many years. That
universality is gone. In 2001 it will be gone. Pensioners will not get
old age security because in the year 2001 there will be no old age
security. It will be gone. The first thousand dollars of income tax
deduction which pensioners have relied on for many years will be
gone. The age deduction for seniors in the year 2001 will be gone.
The guaranteed income supplement for the poor in the year 2001
will be gone. Universality is going out the window with it and in
comes another seniors benefit program. We are going to massage,
regulate, poke, administer and push around all these seniors though
all the paperwork they will have to file. Their universality program
for seniors failed. So they just walked away.
(1130)
Now the Prime Minister stands in the House and says: ``Health
care. We go for universality, one of the five principles; universality
of health care in this country. That it is important to Canadians''.
Remember, the federal government says that universality across
the country is provincially administered. I have a letter on my desk
from someone who lives in Edmonton. This person happens to be a
Canadian missionary who lives here and travels the world
spreading the good word, doing good work with the poor and the
underprivileged. She also works in countries in Africa where the
standard of living is abysmally low. She returns to Canada for
5033
some months to visit with her family and then returns to foreign
countries. She is a Canadian citizen and she has no health care.
She comes and goes as resident of Canada, a Canadian citizen,
paying Canadian taxes. Under the universal health care program
promoted by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government she
has nothing, absolutely nothing. The universality of health care is
eroding.
The government said: ``We blew it with pensions, health care is
crumbling. What about kids? Let us move on to kids''. Bill C-41 is
now the social engineering for kids. We heard the minister of state
for the status of women say that all kids are going to be equal. We
are going to ensure that all kids are equal. There is no such thing as
equal opportunity anymore, but there are going to be equal results.
Therefore we know that when there are equal results it means
poverty for all. There will be no opportunity to rise above and be
the best possible because as soon as a person says he is going to
work hard a be a great Canadian, do the best he can to have a good
standard of living-zap, taxation.
These are the types of things, this social engineer, the
government is trying to do and must be stopped.
There is no mention in the bill about mediation. I am married, I
have a wife and two kids and sometimes we have our
disagreements so we have to mediate and resolve our differences.
Families that break up are those that have differences they cannot
resolve by themselves. Mediation has proven to work. It works to
help families stay together. It works in every other environment.
Employers and employees mediate.
General Motors and its union last night mediated to the point
where they disagreed and said they agree to disagree. But they will
get together one day soon and the workers will get back to work
through mediation. Families that have problems need mediation.
(1135 )
But Bill C-41 says no, we are going to regulate this broken
marriage, we are going to regulate the kids and we are going to
collect the taxes from one and give to the other because we know
how it is done. We know that one shoe fits all, one rule fits all and
there is no such thing as families being themselves. The
government is going to get right into administering the families and
right into the bedrooms.
Remember Mr. Trudeau said the government has no business in
the bedrooms of the nation. Here is an interesting side note. Last
week Statistics Canada phoned a couple in my riding. The
questions asked by its representatives do not belong in this House.
Questions about the personal intimate things that go on in the
bedrooms of the nation are being asked by Stats Canada: ``Can you
tell me all the things that go on in there?''
And when they finished with the questionnaire, the Stats Canada
representative asked for my constituent's Alberta health care
number so they could go back to the record and know who gave
certain answers to the questions: ``Now I can relate these questions
about bedroom activities with their health status''.
This government is getting far too intrusive. It is time for it to
recognize the sanctity of the family, to promote the family, to help
the family. When families need it, they should get mediation.
The government introduced a grid to make everything fair, so
everyone would get the same. We have judges who make $130,000
a year and we give them the right to determine if somebody will be
locked up for 25 years or longer or if he will walk free. We give
them the total and absolute freedom to make decisions on many
things.
They decide on the validity of multi-billion dollar contracts.
They decide who gets what. They have total and absolute power
over everything, but we do not give them the discretion to take a
look at the family standing before them to decide what is best.
These people are educated. They are the best trained in the
country. They are compassionate people. They have the interests of
the family in mind. But this government says that while judges
have authority on everything else, it will not trust them with
deciding how much should be paid in child support.
It is a disgusting disgrace that this government wants to impose
that type of an affront on the judiciary of this country which is
perfectly capable of making these decisions itself. Because every
family is unique, judges should be given the opportunity to decide
what is important.
Think of the commission salesman. Think of the seasonal
employee whose income goes up and down. But he will get a court
order that every month he must come up with this cash. When the
family was together its fortunes rose and fell according to his
income. As a seasonal employee, in the good months the cash
would flow in and the family could enjoy a little luxury, but it had
to tighten the reins when the money was not so readily available.
It is the same with the commission salesman. If he has a good
month, he will get a big paycheque; if he has a bad month, his
income will go down. And the family goes along with it.
Not anymore. The non-custodial parent is going to see these
fluctuations through on their own, and according to this grid the
family will be protected from the vagaries and fluctuations of the
non-custodial parent's income. That person will be hounded
practically down the road for his last dollar if he does not live up to
his agreement. Is that helping families?
5034
This government has not thought about these kind of people.
It has not built that into the system.
(1140)
With regard to violation of privacy, we have a longstanding
tradition in this country that says our income tax files are private,
but not anymore. Through social engineering, Bill C-41 allows
people to have access to Revenue Canada.
On page 16, section 19, it says section 15 of the Family Orders
and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act is replaced by the
following: ``Information banks that may be searched under this part
are the information banks designated by regulations from among
the information banks controlled by the Department of National
Health and Welfare, the Department of National Revenue, Canada
Employment and Immigration Commission''.
If there is a deadbeat non-custodial parent out there you can
guarantee he is not going to file a tax return anymore. You are not
going to get your money and the family is not going to get the
money and we now have two losers instead of one because this
government's heavy handedness says there is nothing that we want
to protect from intrusion. Privacy means nothing when it comes to
the government. The information banks we always thought were
private are no longer private. Therefore you can guarantee that we
will not see any income tax return or any taxes collected from
someone who wishes to evade the whole system.
It is very unfortunate that this government will not support
families. The member for Mission-Coquitlam has talked long
about grandparents rights; visiting rights for grandparents who
when a family breaks up, if they are the parents of the
non-custodial parent, cannot see their grandchildren. The love and
the nurturing that grandparents want to bestow on the children are
denied sometimes, and this government does not care.
Surely that is what it is all about, the love and nurturing of
families, not the regulation, the taxation, the poking, the pushing,
the managing and manipulating this government is going to do.
Let me leave it there. It would please me if the government
would withdraw this bill and bring in something positive that
would help families.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I truly
enjoy rising when a member of the third party is done because it is
easy to ask questions of his intervention in the House. I have a few
questions. I will make them quick because I would like to get up on
my feet again to ask another series of questions if I get the chance.
I listened very carefully to the member's speech as to where the
Reform Party stands. In all that rambling I heard in the last 20
minutes he never once told us what the Reform would do as it
relates to individuals who, as the member put it, are not capable of
reconciling whether it be through mediation or one process or
another.
The member was unclear but he was suggesting in his remarks
that an individual who happens to be divorced, in most cases a
mother who has one, two or three children, is not a family. Can the
member explain to me why he seems to think the only definition of
a family is someone that has two parents and a number of children,
whether he agrees with the reality of the situation that in Canada it
is a pretty close even split that there are many families that have
only one parent either because they decide to through divorce and
cannot reconcile or a parent passes away and they carry on as a
single parent.
I would like those two questions answers. The one that is the
most important is the definition. The other one, and I am not
surprised, is what is Reform suggesting in that it does not like this
bill? That is acceptable I suppose to us on this side. That means it
must be a pretty good one. What would Reform do to replace it?
(1145 )
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that the
member would ask where the Reform Party stands, when it is the
government that has brought forward this bill. I thought it was this
bill that we were debating but I am pleased to answer the member's
question.
We stand for families. Government should help nurture and
encourage families rather than regulate and tax them. Remember,
as I said, the Income Tax Act has always discriminated against a
family that has stayed together and a family that splits apart. That
is discriminated against. Yet we know that families are the building
blocks of our society and we discriminate against them.
The second point is families that have children usually start off
with a couple of parents, as far as I am aware. They come together
and unfortunately through problems they do not stay together. They
are people, they are Canadians and we have to respect their right to
live, work and try to be the best that they can be.
My experience is that when a family falls apart, everyone
suffers. The non-custodial parent suffers and the custodial parent
suffers and it is what we call a broken family. There are children
involved and usually they are innocent of the causes of the broken
family, but they are definitely, according to the research we have,
the group that suffers the most.
That is why I said we believe in mediation first because
mediation works within families who stay together. Mediation
works in other environments but there is not the slightest hint of
5035
one nickel of time, effort or any other commitment by this
government toward mediation to keep that family together.
We say get the grid out of there because a judge who makes
$130,000 and passes judgment can surely decide what is best for
that family when it is sitting or standing in front of him. As in the
couple of examples I gave, a grid will destroy individuals, not help
them.
I am totally opposed to the income tax change because people
will stop filing tax returns. The government will lose. The
government will not collect the money. There will be no
opportunity for parents to get back together. It will drive a wedge
between them and will force them even further apart.
As I also mentioned, grandparents are a part of families too. My
hon. colleague from Mission-Coquitlam has tried hard to get this
government to recognize grandparents who want to love and
nurture their grandchildren. They are not even recognized by this
government as playing any role whatsoever. They can play a major
role in helping children.
Mr. Nault: Madam Speaker, for the record, the member was not
willing to verify whether he or his party agree that a single parent
with children is a family. He skirted around it and said they were
good Canadians and the whole bit but he would not say whether he
thought they were truly a family like every other family which
happens to be in Canada.
I want to ask the member about this whole issue of intrusiveness
in the family and the whole issue of the Income Tax Act.
I will refer to what has been taking place in the provincial
legislature in Ontario in the last few days. Members on the other
side like to talk about their great friend the Mike Harris
government and how close it relates to the Reform Party. That
government just introduced a child support payment bill. I want to
bring to the member's attention a couple of areas in the bill and ask
him if he agrees or disagrees with what the Ontario government is
doing. It is important if in fact he believes that our bill is so
intrusive.
In the new bill that was presented to the legislature this is what
the Ontario government is proposing to do. Parents who default on
payments under the government's family support plan could have
their driver's licences suspended and their names could be reported
to credit bureaus.
(1150 )
Also included is obtaining financial statements of defaulters and
making support orders against third parties who shelter the
defaulter's assets; seizing 50 per cent of any funds in a joint bank
account with the delinquent parent's new partner; and seizing
lottery winnings of more than $1,000. Keep in mind that 77 per
cent in default owe more than $1 billion in the province of Ontario.
In fact, 97 per cent of those defaulters are fathers of that family the
member talks about.
I want the member to answer one question. Does he think this is
too intrusive? It sounds similar to what we are proposing to do
when he talked especially about obtaining financial statements. I
would like to know whether he agrees or disagrees with the Ontario
government's move in relation to trying to deal with what is called
in this article, deadbeat parents.
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, let us remember that this
government is setting up this whole regulatory process before
mediation. There is no mention of mediation. There is no mention
of positive help for a family. All it is concerned about is picking up
and regulating the broken pieces.
Yes, there are situations where people try to avoid their
responsibilities. The Reform Party is concerned about those as
much as anyone else. These are the unfortunate types of things that
have to be dealt with as a last resort but this government is dealing
with them as a first resort. That is the point I want to get across.
The government's first resort is: let us regulate, let us browbeat, let
us help ourselves, let us seize, let us take away, let us tax. There is
no help, no sympathy, no recognition of these people as
individuals. If we could help them get back together, all this
regulation would then be irrelevant, except in a small number of
situations.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate. I would like to remind the hon. members in this House that
we are now in the 10-minute speech period with no questions or
comments.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to join in this debate, although most
everything has probably been said. When I listened to the
comments coming from across the floor, certainly everything there
is being said again because it simply does not seem to get through.
I just listened to the member for Kenora-Rainy River for some
reason try to trap my colleague from St. Albert into some kind of
remark about families including single parent families. Of course
no one on this side of the House would deny that single parents
with children are families. Certainly I will not apologize and I do
not think anyone should apologize for supporting the traditional
two parent family with children. That is the ideal.
If we were to talk to single parents anywhere in this country, be
they men or women, they would choose to be in a relationship with
two parents and with children. That is what everyone in this
country strives for. We in this party make no apologies for
supporting the traditional family and opposing the government in
its recognition of all manner of alternative arrangements it would
propose to refer to as families.
5036
There have been huge problems around the whole issue of
divorce, family break-up, child support and child custody. There
is a need in this country for the government to address those
issues.
The minister of state said earlier that they had travelled across
the country listening to Canadians on the issue before the bill was
drafted. Unfortunately what I see in this bill, if they truly went out
and listened to Canadians, is not what Canadians were telling them.
It certainly addresses one issue that probably one segment of
Canadians would have them address, but it does not address the
whole issue in a comprehensive way.
(1155)
In some instances the failure of non-custodial parents to pay
child support is a major problem and needed to be addressed in a
pretty substantive way. This bill establishes four different areas of
federal guidelines for support. There is the grid we have heard so
much about. I will talk more about each area a little later.
There is also the opening of the Revenue Canada databases for
search in cases of payment default; the denying of passports and
licences to individuals who are persistently in arrears; and a
provision for the garnishment of wages from public servants and
seamen. On the last one, I find it interesting that the government
would single out individuals working at sea. I do not know where
that one comes from. Why do individuals at sea warrant specific
attention any more than individuals working anywhere else?
Maybe it has something to do with the longstanding reputation of
sailors around the world. However, it seems strange that it is in
there.
This issue is a major problem and I applaud the government for
at least attempting to address part of it.
I listened to the minister talk at some length about child poverty,
the favourite Liberal buzzword. It always disturbs me when I hear
parliamentarians refer to the absolute necessity of solving child
poverty in this country. It is unrealistic. We do not solve child
poverty without solving family poverty.
If addressing the default in support payments is an attempt to
address the problem of family poverty, it should strike fear into the
hearts of non-custodial parents everywhere. If they are expected to
solve the problem of single mothers with children living in poverty,
then a huge responsibility is being put on them. I do not believe that
is fair.
One of the problems all of us in Canada are quite familiar with is
that 50 per cent of marriages end in divorce. Most of us have either
been touched by the reality of divorce or have personally
experienced it. As a member of parliament, I have certainly heard
many divorced mothers and fathers discuss the problems
surrounding this issue. There are a lot of real issues that need to be
addressed. I wish the government had used a broader brush when it
dealt with this matter and had dealt with some of the other issues
besides support payments.
While at first glance the bill certainly looks broad and all
encompassing, when one examines it, the bill is lacking. One of the
issues we heard discussed earlier which has not been addressed in
the bill but should have been is the whole issue of tax deductibility
of child support payments as announced in the last budget. The fact
that the government took half a billion dollars out of the hands of
single mothers and custodial parents and put it into the government
coffers saying that it was much more able to provide benefits to
children by taking that away from parents and providing the
benefits through government programs is assuming an awful lot on
the part of government. One of the other issues that I hear about
when I talk to divorced fathers who do not have custody of their
children is the problem of access. Because of the adversarial court
system, it is not the children going to court against the parents, it is
one parent going to court against the other parent. One parent loses
and one parent wins. That is the nature of court settlements. Often
what is good for the child is not taken into account. In many
instances custody is not dealt with fairly and access has not been
addressed. It is unfortunate that the issue of access was not
addressed by this bill.
(1200)
This is a piecemeal bill, not unlike many other initiatives which
the government has brought forward over the last three years. The
Liberal government addresses the issues that the Canadian public
wants it to address, but it only deals with the issues that are easy to
deal with and avoids the more controversial ones. That is
unfortunate.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked what we
would do in this situation. It has been stated before, but I will
repeat it. We would approach the whole problem in a more
comprehensive manner and would deal with the issue as a whole.
We would focus on the issue of family support payments and
enforcement of those support payments. That part of the bill is
good. However, we would begin with a compulsory mediation
process.
Those of us, like myself, who have been married for 30 years and
have raised a family, know what it takes to make a marriage work.
A willingness to mediate disputes is one of the things which keeps
marriages together. When a marriage is falling apart, a system of
compulsory mediation would go a long way in getting the marriage
back on track. If it failed, at least it would make the split less
painful for the children.
We would also include access provisions for both parents, unless
that was not in the best interests of the children. Of course there are
cases when a parent should not have access, but those truly are the
5037
exception. We would also include access provisions for the
extended family, which would include grandparents.
We would also deal with the way the tax system treats families
and give all the benefits and encouragement that we possibly could
to traditional family units under the tax system. It is quite clear that
we would take a much broader approach to this whole issue.
I would like to address briefly the grid issue. It would be nice if
everyone's life was as structured as the grid would have it. We
could lay out the grid and someone making this much would pay
this much money. That would be great, but unfortunately that is not
the way life is. Different families with the same family income
certainly do not have the same standard of living, nor do they enjoy
the same benefits. Everyone has different circumstances and
everyone manages their lives differently. It is unfortunate the
government is trying to make everyone fit into these square holes.
There needs to be more flexibility by the courts in addressing
different circumstances. It is very unfortunate that the bill is so
rigid-
(1205)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member's time has
lapsed, even with some additional time. I understand we are at the
stage of debate where 10 minutes are the maximum allowable.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
An hon. member: On division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried
on division.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Justice, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk
offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the
Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the
Department of the Solicitor General Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to a bill that will make an important
contribution to the safety of our communities. The high risk
offender bill responds to a problem that Canadians have told us is
their priority concern in the criminal justice area, namely the threat
they perceive from sex offenders and other violent offenders.
In effect, Bill C-55 lays out a new sentencing regime for the
worst categories of offenders. It changes and fortifies several parts
of the Criminal Code and I invite members to give close attention
to these amendments, particularly to the amendments that have
potential to help the police, the prosecutors, judges and
correctional authorities to do their jobs better.
These amendments improve the dangerous offender procedure of
part XXIV of the Criminal Code, create a new long term offender
sentencing category targeted at sex offenders, and establish a new
form of judicial restraint order that will place controls on persons
who clearly pose a threat to the security of our communities.
The Minister of Justice has held the portfolio for three years. He
recognizes the passions and fears that the issue of crime inspires in
many Canadians. The government has acknowledged the challenge
of violent crime in the first speech from the throne. Since then the
Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice have
worked steadily to develop effective anti-crime legislation.
The government has sought the views of all Canadians in this
process. The Minister of Justice has tried to meet as many
Canadians as possible to obtain their insights into community
safety and how to ensure it. He has frequently met with victims
groups, police groups and crime prevention committees.
(1210 )
He has discovered that Canadians want the justice system to be
more focused as far as violent crime is concerned. They want to see
tough measures applied to high risk offenders but the more he
consults, the more he hears that people do not want simplistic
solutions.
Whether talking about crime prevention, policing, sentencing or
parole, Canadians expect governments to devise well crafted well
focused laws that really home in on the categories or sub-categories
of offenders who commit serious crimes of personal violence.
5038
Let me turn to the proposal for a long term offender sentencing
category because it is central to the package and exemplifies what
I believe is a well tailored and well focused strategy.
The new long term offender procedure would be created in the
Criminal Code to help us in the sentencing of repeat sex offenders.
I am referring to pedophiles, the various levels of sexual assault,
sexual touching, sexual exploitation, exposure and sexual
interference. These are offences which may involved children or
adults as victims. These are offenders who, unfortunately,
frequently show a long pattern of offending.
Under the new procedure, when the prosecution identifies such
repeat offending, it can make an application for a special hearing
into the risks posed by the persons found guilty under these
sections of the Criminal Code. Where the court finds that there is a
pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a likelihood of the offender
causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe
psychological damage, it can declare him or her to be a long term
offender.
The judge will then impose a penitentiary sentence-in effect
the normal sentence for the sex crime in question-but also make
an order which can add up to 10 years of intensive community
supervision. This long term supervision period begins only when
the long term offender has finished the full prison sentence,
including parole and any other period of conditional release.
Thus, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault might
receive a sentence of eight years imprisonment with an added ten
years of supervision. Eight years from now, after completing the
full sentence of imprisonment and any parole time, the offender
would begin 10 years of supervision. The National Parole Board
would set whatever conditions were necessary. These could involve
very intensive rules for the offender, controlling his conduct, his
use of alcohol, his access to places where children congregate and
so forth. A requirement to report to a Correctional Service of
Canada supervisor as often as is deemed necessary could also be
made a condition.
We are giving teeth to this supervision system. We propose a
new Criminal Code offence of breach of an order of long term
supervision. This is an indictable offence carrying a maximum
penalty of 10 years imprisonment. A charge can be laid whenever a
long term offender without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to
comply with the order. These new sentencing tools will extend the
authority of the criminal justice system to monitor and control sex
offenders.
I want to take a moment to clarify the relationship between the
long term offender category and the dangerous offender procedure.
The question will be raised, should not the dangerous offender
procedure, which carries an indeterminate sentence, be applied to
all these sex offenders? The short answer is that it often will be.
Most of the sex offences in the long term offender category, such as
sexual assault, can equally support a dangerous offender
application.
The solicitor general, a colleague of the Minister of Justice,
released a research study in May which showed that 92 per cent of
the successful dangerous offender applications involved sex
offences. Dangerous offender and long term offender sentencing
are complementary but they are not necessarily redundant.
(1215)
Over the past 20 years dangerous offender rulings averaged 13 to
15 offenders annually. However, several hundred sex offenders are
admitted to federal penitentiaries each year. Some may be potential
dangerous offender candidates but many more, though certainly not
all, could be candidates for the long term offender application. The
difference is, in the assessment of risk in a long term offender case,
the court must find not only that there is a substantial risk of
reoffending but at the same time there is a reasonable possibility of
eventual control of that risk through community supervision.
As I have described, the judge will then structure the sentence
with the appropriate combination of penitentiary time and the
community supervision order. In effect, prosecutors will have
flexibility in seeking a dangerous offender finding or a long term
offender finding.
When a conviction for a serious sex offence occurs the crown
can ask the court to remand the offender for a detailed assessment
of the nature and degree of risk posed by that individual. The crown
can then decide which way to go, dangerous offender application or
a long term offender application.
Actually Bill C-55 provides that if the court does not find that
the criteria for a dangerous offender finding are satisfied it can still
make a long term offender finding and sentence the offender
accordingly.
Some will ask why we are not simply increasing the prison
periods for all sex offenders. We are calling this the high risk
offender bill, not the throw away the key bill. The Criminal Code
already provides for lengthy sentences for sex offences. For
example, sexual assault causing bodily harm carries a maximum of
14 years.
Our goal is not simply to lock up every sex offender indefinitely
although, as noted, an indeterminate dangerous offender sentence
remains an option in some cases. Our goal is to reduce the risk
posed by this special group of offenders. The reality is most
offenders will eventually return to the community having served
their time. Community safety is not assured by the sudden release
of offenders from a prison environment.
We need to control sex offenders through a combination of jail
time and managed reintegration. A long term supervision order
5039
can result in an effective doubling of the period that a sex offender
remains under the control of the state, the control of Correctional
Service Canada.
I share the concern of Canadians about recidivism by pedophiles
and other sex offenders. Now we will be able to structure the
sentence, closely monitor the conduct of the long term offender and
provide the support the offender needs to successfully readapt to
the community.
I am sure figures will be thrown at me showing that pedophiles
remain an ongoing risk, that the risk of reoffending is still there
even after several years. Do not forget that long term offender
procedure includes enforceable conditions. Any breach of the
conditions of a long term supervision order can result in the
offender's being immediately brought back into custody and if
serious enough lead to the prosecution for a newly created offence
of breach of an order.
On the other hand, it seems that full compliance over a 10 year
period with the potentially stringent conditions of a long term
supervision order will be a good indication of a reduced risk of
reoffending.
I have mentioned the dangerous offender procedure several
times. We are introducing amendments to improve part XXIV of
the Criminal Code without changing the essential elements of the
system which the Supreme Court of Canada has described as a
valid form of sentencing. It will no longer be possible for the court
to hand down a fixed sentence to a dangerous offender. An
indeterminate sentence will be the only option. Of the 176
dangerous offenders to date only 7 have received a determinate or
fixed sentence.
(1220)
Nevertheless, we believe that it makes little sense for the courts
and the prosecution to go through the extensive dangerous offender
procedure only to obtain a fixed sentence that might be close to
what the offender would have received in ordinary circumstances.
The core of the dangerous offender finding is that the individuals
represent an ongoing risk, the limits of which cannot easily be
predicted.
An indeterminate sentence is the appropriate one. Currently a
dangerous offender gets an initial parole review at the third year
point; that is, three years after being taken into custody. We
propose to move the initial parole review date from the third year to
the seventh year. Subsequent parole reviews would occur every two
years thereafter.
We feel this change is justified by the fact that dangerous
offenders present a very high level of risk to the public and that risk
is not likely to soon abate. In fact, no dangerous offender has
obtained parole on the first review.
The Minister of Justice discussed the dangerous offender
procedure on several occasions with the ministers of justice and
attorneys general of the provinces. After all, it is the provinces that
are to be making the prosecutorial decisions in these cases. The
minister's provincial colleagues unanimously agree that part XXIV
is a useful mechanism and there are signs that dangerous offender
applications are being used more frequently across the country.
The dangerous offender procedure requires the prosecution to
meet a high standard of proof, proof of a pattern of offending, of
brutality and of risk. This is as it should be given that the sentence
provided is the most serious of any in the Criminal Code with the
exception of life sentences for murder.
The prosecution should be able to gather the necessary evidence
at the time of trial and conviction. There may be rare exceptions,
however, where the crown believes that additional information not
available at the time of trial may exist to support a dangerous
offender application.
Bill C-55 will allow the prosecution to bring an application
within six months of conviction in respect of convictions for
serious personal injury offences.
I would emphasize that this is a very limited window of
opportunity for the crown. The prosecution must give notice at the
time of conviction of its intention to apply and must actually do so
within six months. Furthermore it must show that relevant evidence
that was not reasonably available at the time of the imposition of
the sentence became available in the interim.
There is a third pillar to this legislation, one that I believe will
strengthen the community policing capacity of our police forces
across this nation. This bill proposes a new form of judicial
restraint order in the Criminal Code to become section 810.2. This
comes within the part of the code entitled ``Sureties to Keep the
Peace''.
The Canadian legal system has always provided for various
forms of restraining orders, both common law and within the
Criminal Code. In 1993 this House adopted a special form of
judicial restraint order contained in section 810.1. It allows the
court to impose an order where there are reasonable grounds to fear
that a person will commit a sex offence against someone under the
age of 14 years. The order can last up to a year. Conditions can be
attached to the order and a breach of conditions constitutes a
distinct offence.
The potential victim need not be named, nor does the section
explicitly require that the person be a convicted child sex offender.
Police forces and provincial prosecutors report the law is proving
useful. It is frequently used in Ontario and Manitoba, and
successively used.
5040
The proposed new judicial restraint order, let us call it a section
810.2 order, has been modelled on the existing section 810.1
which I have just described.
(1225)
The order would apply for up to 12 months and would include
conditions. It would be used where there are reasonable grounds to
fear the commission of a serious personal injury offence. The focus
therefore is on serious sex offences and other serious crimes of
violence. The persons potentially at risk need not be under the age
of 14, although they could be.
Section 810.2 allows the judge to set conditions with the overall
objective of securing the good conduct of the defendant. In
addition, Bill C-55 will specify that the judge can order the person
to report to a provincial correctional authority, an appropriate
police authority or to comply with a program of electronic
monitoring provided that such a program is available in the place
where the person resides.
I do not claim that this provision will be a panacea to the
problem of individuals who pose a risk to neighbourhood safety.
Rather, it is a crime prevention measure that will assist police and
prosecutors to do their difficult jobs in a better fashion.
We are building on the initial promise of the existing section
810.1 provision by establishing a limited form of judicial restraint
where it is clearly established that a risk of committing a serious
personal injury offence is present.
I will not feel slighted if anyone characterizes this bill as a get
tough package. It is that, but it is not a simplistic package. It does
not climb on to the American bandwagon of simply adding prison
time to every felony or, in our case, every indictable offence.
Some in this country regard the American experience as the
model for us, following the American justice system down the road
of three strikes and you are out or two strikes and you are out,
whatever the flavour of the day happens to be, more imprisonments
and massive prison construction.
I also watched the American experiment with grim fascination.
There are now 1.6 million United States citizens in jail. The state of
Texas now incarcerates more of its citizens than were imprisoned
in the entire country several years ago.
California, with its constitutionally entrenched three strikes law,
is spending more on new prisons than it is on higher education.
Something is definitely wrong with that model. We are not
interested in repeating that experience in this country.
I am not interested in amending the Criminal Code for the
benefit of a new prison industry. There are some useful American
approaches to criminal justice policy, but the facts show that too
often prison is seen as the solution to every crime problem
resulting in too many non-violent and low risk offenders being
caught in the net.
It is too simplistic, too expensive and it simply does not work.
The alternative is the one that this government has proposed, a
targeted approach where we use imprisonment for serious
offenders and use community based controls for others.
I want to briefly mention the federal-provincial co-operation that
has gone into the development of this legislation. Unlike many
other countries, our Constitution confers legislative authority over
criminal law to the federal Parliament.
This division of power ensures a consistent criminal law
nationwide. It also dictates that the federal government be sensitive
to the role of the provinces which, for the most part, administer the
law.
The Minister of Justice has received extensive help from the
provincial attorneys and solicitors general in this instance. Most
recently, in May 1996, they expressed strong support for the major
components of this bill despite the recent comments by the Ontario
solicitor general about our resolve in the area of high risk policy.
(1230 )
The federal Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have
introduced a series of measures in the House over the past two
years that keep the focus where it belongs: on the prediction and the
management of risk. The punishment must match the crime. The
overall sentence must match the risk.
I am very pleased that chapter 22, the sentencing legislation, is
now in force. It sets out clearly the fundamental premises of
sentencing in criminal cases. The bill being considered today is
totally consistent with these principles in its strategic use of
imprisonment, supervision and crime prevention, and its focus on
risk management.
Our other legislation is equally consistent and focused. Bill C-45
for example tightens the rules and criteria for lifers who want to be
considered for early parole. Bill C-104, which was proclaimed in
July, improves the ability of police to investigate serious crime by
allowing them to obtain DNA evidence. Bill C-17, now in
committee, contains over 140 separate amendments to the Criminal
Code that modernize the administration of justice and the criminal
law.
To bring this full circle, let me reiterate that this bill, by
improving sentencing options in regard to sex offenders and other
high risk offenders, is consistent with our approach to the most
serious kinds of crimes. It is consistent with a series of bills we
have introduced in the area of sex offences, for example: Bill C-72,
now in force, dealing with self-induced intoxication; Bill C-46,
5041
addressing the question of evidence in sex offence cases; and Bill
C-27, concerning child prostitution, child sex tourism and stalking.
Certainly there is more to be done, but I would urge the members
to support this bill as an important step. I would urge members to
support this bill as one of the many bills that have been introduced
by this government to toughen up and improve the criminal law of
this country.
This government continues to pursue its agenda, strategic, well
targeted, tough minded, to ensure that all citizens of Canada can
live secure in safe homes on safe streets.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill
River's speech on Bill C-55. Let me say right off the bat that both
his speech and Bill C-55 contain some things I like, other things I
do not like at all, and yet other things that are in a grey area.
When the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River talks
about improving the law, about protecting society, in some regards
I can only agree with his statements of principle. For example, the
hon. government member who tabled this bill talks about convicted
criminals, especially sexual offenders. The cases that are being
raised the most often and that we find particularly troubling are
obviously those associated with pedophilia and with sexual assaults
against people.
Let us look more closely at the pedophilia cases. Incarceration
does not cure pedophilia. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to
children. Keeping a pedophile behind bars for five, six or seven
years will not cure him. Society will be protected, but once the
sentence has been served and the person released, he remains a
high-risk offender. Unless we resort to extreme measures like
chemical or surgical castration, there is no way to guarantee that he
will not reoffend.
Under the new provisions in Bill C-55, after serving their
sentences, convicted sexual offenders may be kept under
supervision for up to 10 years. So by keeping them under
supervision after their release, we can exert a measure of control. I
think that is reasonable in a free and democratic society, where a
happy medium must be found between individual rights and the
right of the community to protection.
(1235)
Incidents like those witnessed recently in Sherbrooke for
instance are the kind of thing we must strive to prevent as much as
possible by increasing the level of awareness of the decision
makers, be it only regarding parole. If the provisions of the Parole
Act had been enforced in Canada, we would not have cases like the
one in Sherbrooke and the one involving young Isabelle Bolduc,
because the offenders in these cases would not have been released
when they were.
Bill C-55 also aims to make it easier for the crown to have a
convicted offender found to be a dangerous offender or a long-term
offender. This new terminology will have to be incorporated into
our criminal law.
Basically, the crown will no longer be required by law to select
one or the other immediately after the verdict is rendered and
before sentencing. The crown will now have six months to make
application for a court hearing to have a person who has been found
guilty of a crime declared a dangerous offender or a long-term
offender.
This six-month period sounds like a good thing to me in that it
will give crown attorneys, who, in most judicial districts in Canada,
are already overburdened, the time to assess the case properly,
seeking the advice of social workers, police and the community
involved on whether or not this person should be declared a
dangerous offender or a long-term offender. This will make for a
more considered decision.
There will be less chance of the crown's overlooking obvious
cases or missing cases on which it should have acted because, at
present, if the crown does not make its case immediately after
conviction, which means before sentencing, it loses any right to do
so. It sounds reasonable to me. I agree that it is an improvement
over the existing legislation to give the crown another six months
and to ease the crown's burden of proving, with the help of two
psychiatrists, that an offender has to be declared a dangerous
offender and now a long-term offender, according to the new
terminology used in section 752.1 of the Code.
The aim of this bill is to have an individual considered to be a
dangerous offender or a long-term offender given an indeterminate
sentence. At present, in Canada, there are orders-not many
admittedly-that set specific dates. In the future, the rule will be
the same for everyone: indeterminate sentence. I think this shift
will also foster a more uniform application of the law in Canada.
Finally, one last measure regarding dangerous offenders and
long-term offenders. A person who has been declared a dangerous
offender or a long-term offender will now have to wait not three
years, but seven years to apply for parole to the National Parole
Board. We can agree, in essence, with measures like these ones,
given the rise in crime in society.
(1240)
It is true that, in Canada, the trend generally is to say that crime
is on the decrease. However, there is a rise in certain types of
crimes we have not had to deal with in the past.
5042
The proposed amendments are the new tools to deal with these
different forms of crime. Traditionally, murders, theft or armed
robberies accounted for some 80 per cent of the crimes brought
before the courts.
In order to deal with specific crimes, we must give ourselves
specific tools and modernize criminal law.
My comments apply to the bill generally. I also said at the
beginning that I am not so happy about some provisions, while I
truly dislike other ones, including section 810.2.
Should the bill be passed as it now stands, clause 810.2 and the
ones that follow it would allow a judge, who has acquitted an
individual, to impose measures to have the individual monitored.
This contradicts traditional British criminal law, which is premised
on the presumption of innocence and on the weight of an acquittal.
How can we sentence someone who was acquitted? If one is guilty
of a crime, he must pay for it by going to jail or, if the offence is
minor, by paying a fine. However, a person who is acquitted can go
home, unless he is being detained for another offence committed
under other circumstances. A verdict of acquittal means the person
is free to go. There is no grey area between the two possibilities.
The bill introduces the notion whereby someone can be acquitted
but still be under probation. It basically says: ``You are acquitted,
but something about you makes me feel you are a risk to society.
Therefore, for a period of some ten years, you will have to
regularly report to police authorities, and you will have to stay
home between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m.''.
We cannot function with such rules in a society where the rule of
law prevails. This is a debate that took place almost 320 years ago.
In 1679, when the law of habeas corpus was passed under King
Charles II, the issue was precisely that some people, whose face or
behaviour the prince did not like, were detained in the Tower of
London, by virtue of an order bearing the sovereign's seal.
Parliament reacted by passing the law of habeas corpus, which
gave people, and which still gives them, because it is enshrined in
the Canadian Constitution, the right to petition a judge on any scrap
of paper available-a piece of toilet paper was once used-to have
the jailer bring them before the judge and justify the legality of
their detention. That was what habeas corpus meant in 1679, and
that is what it still means today. It is not often used in our country,
precisely because it is there, a sword of Damocles preventing the
violation of citizens' basic rights.
When a writ of habeas corpus is issued, prison authorities must
explain why someone is being detained. One justification may be to
show that there was a warrant of committal following sentencing
by a judge at the conclusion of a duly held trial. But if there was an
acquittal, the accused, who is no longer the accused, however,
because he was acquitted and told: ``I acquit you'' is also told that
now, for ten, three or five years, he will be the object of certain
special measures.
In the provinces where it is possible, he could even be
electronically monitored. He is told: ``You will be required to wear
a small bracelet and stay near a telephone line, and when the signal
is interrupted or cut off, will come to your home to see if you are
there'', well, the accused, it would seem to me, is justified, under
the Canadian Charter, under the rules of habeas corpus, in saying:
``I require you to justify the legality of my detention''.
(1245)
This is a 300 year step back in the history of criminal law. Under
no circumstances can we support provisions creating sentences for
individuals who have been acquitted.
However, we can quite happily support more stringent, more
appropriate measures for those found guilty who are at risk of
reoffending. That is one thing, and Bill C-55 deals with that
problem, but it is another thing to sentence, in a roundabout way,
those who have already been acquitted. This is not a concept that
belongs in our criminal law.
I taught criminal law for twenty some years and at the end of
each session in various groups I invariably put the following
question, or something along these lines: ``What should be the
sentence for someone who has just been acquitted for the third time
of murder in the first degree?'' I underlined the words ``murder in
the first degree''. Invariably, two thirds of the class would tell me:
life imprisonment. In the next class, I always got a kick out of
telling them that we were lucky to live in a country where there
were no sentences for people who had been acquitted.
If I go back to teaching law, I will have to revise my thinking. I
will have to tell my students: now, because of Bill C-55, a person
acquitted in our country can be sentenced. There is something
fundamentally wrong with this.
Canadians know the rules of criminal law. We are all familiar
with the concept of presumption of innocence. We all know that the
crown is bound to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think
people are most familiar with this aspect of the law because it is so
often applied by the average person. The jury rule, which
essentially goes back to 1215 and the Magna Carta, is a concept
that has forged our legal thinking, even that of the average citizen.
When we talk to constituents in our ridings, they are often more
familiar with the rules of criminal law than civil law. These are not
complicated rules. They are simple rules based on logic and
common sense. In this case, the government is no longer using
common sense, and when concepts get confused, citizens get
confused as well.
5043
I hope, and the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River
might discuss this with his minister, that the idea of giving a
sentence to a person who has been found not guilty will be dropped
when the bill is considered in committee.
It is not our intention to vote against the bill at the second
reading stage. We want this bill to be studied in committee.
However, we do not want a replay of what happened in the case of
Bill C-45 last June, when the government wanted Parliament to
pass all stages of the bill in a matter of days. There should be a
thorough study of the bill.
And should the government ever decide to maintain the
provisions in section 810.2-a government that is so fond of
making references to the Supreme Court-I think that before
issuing an order in council for the coming into force of this bill, the
bill should be referred to the Supreme Court for an opinion on the
constitutionality of section 810.2 and following, in the light of our
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, more specifically,
sections 11(d) and 11(h) of the Charter.
I will read these two sections. We read the following:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:
(
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found
guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;
This principle is clear in the Charter. It is wrong to say that the
law is contrary to the Charter. If it is, it is because the Charter
recognizes certain fundamental values with which Canadians
identify. These fundamental values have been evolved for
centuries. The book is red, but when Mr. Trudeau had the Charter
adopted in 1982, it did not drop out of the clear blue sky. It is a
codification of what has been built up over the centuries in the
United Kingdom, here and in other countries with a system based
on British criminal law and where there were also comparable civil
liberties. Before moving away from that, or running the risk of
doing so, a detailed examination needs to be carried out.
(1250)
I believe that the government is taking considerable risk, perhaps
unawares. If it has not seen that risk, probably the questions we are
raising today will prompt it to take a second look, or, to use the
oft-repeated expression, to go back to the drawing board. No one
will hold it against the government if it has to improve its own bill
when it comes to the committee stage, after redoing its homework.
If the government is aware, and is doing this knowingly, one may
well wonder what its purpose is. Does it really want to change the
Criminal Code in order to improve the application and
administration of justice, or does it want to make a political
statement? Is it courting a certain segment of the electorate who
would be delighted to see the innocent detained?
The other day I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot defending
some positions similar to mine. In appearing before a
parliamentary committee discussing a bill, he said that it is one
thing to punish a person who has been found guilty, but it is quite
another thing to take away the freedom or fundamental rights of a
person who is presumed innocent, or worse yet who has been found
innocent of the crime of which he was accused. This is a serious
reservation.
If the same bill were to come back to us at third reading with no
guarantee of the rights of those who have been acquitted,
potentially anyone of us in this House, you, me, anyone, could be
the target of section 810.2, where there is a return to guilt by
association, guilt by suspicion, like there was under the Mussolini
regime in the 1930s. Then anyone could be found guilty on
legitimate suspicion.
In Canada, we operate on the principle that proof must be
established beyond a reasonable doubt. Other jurisdictions in other
countries say that there must be sufficiently convincing proof. Italy
in the 30's established the criterion of legitimate suspicion. Why?
Among other things, in order to fight organized crime. This did not
work, because it constantly lowered the degree of evidence a judge
needed to find someone guilty.
What is legitimate suspicion? This can expand to crimes that
may be committed, thought crimes, any kind of crime. It is a
criterion which does not go into sufficient depth. With section
810.2, the government is going back to the Mussolini laws of 1930,
which allowed people to be found guilty based on legitimate
suspicion.
On the one hand, using the criterion of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, someone is acquitted. On the other hand, using the criterion
of legitimate suspicion, someone is acquitted, but subject to certain
measures, to supervision for a given number of years. There is
something wrong with this.
I believe that, the further this bill moves along in the House and
in committee, the more it will be realized that these clauses are
privative and need to be taken out of the bill. On these grounds, the
official opposition will support second reading of this bill, but will
take steps to see that section 810.2 and all those clauses which, to
all intents and purposes, are intended to sentence an acquitted
person, are deleted.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find
this bill quite substantial in content. It takes a considerable amount
of time to grasp everything that is recorded here and what impact it
5044
will have on Canadians, on criminal justice and certainly policing
and the courts.
(1255 )
I had an opportunity to go through a good portion of the bill in
detail. I tried to cross reference it with the Criminal Code. It was
not an easy task because the bill touches on so many areas, not only
of the Criminal Code but of the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act and other statutes.
In my preamble relating to criminal justice matters I will relate
some of the concerns that Canadians, including those in my caucus,
have expressed to me, and then I will get into the bill.
Let me reflect on what the parliamentary secretary to the justice
minister has stated. He has trumpeted this legislation by the justice
minister as evidence of the government's commitment to get tough
on criminals. He even said that he would not apologize for that
statement if anyone accused him or his government of getting
tough. But I will question it.
Although the parliamentary secretary is prone to that kind of
rhetoric, he really has not looked closely at his statements nor at the
bill. If he looked at the bill, he would not say such nonsensical
things. It is not a tough bill, as this debate will clearly show.
Reformers will certainly examine this claim in the debate that
follows. I trust the parliamentary secretary and the justice minister
will listen intently.
In the end, Canadians will judge whether this bill properly
addresses their well founded concern over rising violent crime, the
unchecked activities of sexual predators and the proliferation of
pedophiles within our communities.
Before my colleagues and I address the technical aspects of the
bill, let me spell out what Canadians are calling for in terms of
protecting their communities, their families and their sense of
personal security.
Canadians deserve to feel that they and their families are safe in
their homes, at work, at school, on the street and in their
communities. They want to live in a country where their children
can play in parks, go to school and grow up without fear. They want
a justice system that does more to protect law-abiding citizens than
it does for criminals. Canadians want a country where they can
look to the future instead of over their shoulders.
How can this be done? I know the justice minister will say that
Bill C-55 is the solution. He will consider this bill to be his trump
card going into the next election. However, Reformers will let
Canadians judge how convincing are the arguments of the justice
minister and the parliamentary secretary.
Canadians tell Reformers at town hall forums, community
meetings, victims' memorials and rallies, coffee shops, truck stops
and outside bank machines that the justice system has failed them. I
do not know where the parliamentary secretary to the justice
minister has been but obviously he has not been talking to people in
front of a bank machine to listen to what the average citizen has to
say.
Reformers never feel awkward about looking Canadians in the
eye. In fact, we look them straight in the eye and we listen to what
they have to say. They tell us to enact a victims' bill of rights that
puts the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of criminals' rights.
That is probably the most contentious issue that exists today when
it comes to the penal system. Canadians want to see some
punishment in it and there is none. Of course the government side
is not listening to that at all.
Canadians say the justice system should be reformed to provide
safer communities, safer streets and safer homes. They say, hold a
binding national referendum on the return of the death penalty for
first degree murderers. Canadians believe they should have the
final determination, not ivory tower, soft on crime Liberal lawyers,
in choosing a fair and just punishment for monsters such as
Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo.
(1300 )
Well over 76 per cent of Canadians seek to have the death
penalty reinstated. However the Minister of Justice, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister, the Solicitor General, and
those sitting in that front row will not consider reinstating the death
penalty or even asking Canadians what they would like the
government to do.
They say that Canadians want the Liberals' $400 million gun
registry replaced with meaningful laws to fight the criminal use of
firearms. Just to touch on that one point, the amount of money that
is being spent on this registration system is indecent and insane.
And it is not protecting Canadians one iota.
Canadians want meaningful reform to the parole system and at
the very minimum they want parole abolished for first degree
murderers. Clearly the debate in the House over Bill C-45 brought
that message home loud and clear. I know for a fact that Canadians
have been pointedly telling those in that front row over there on the
other side that section 745 should be stricken from the record,
scrapped and repealed.
Canadians also want the Young Offenders Act repealed, or at
least replaced with measures that would hold young criminals
accountable for their actions. This is a very common sense request
on the part of Canadians which has now become a demand that the
government do that, but again deaf ears on that side.
5045
These are the things Canadians are saying. This will be the
criteria by which Canadians judge the justice minister's claim that
Bill C-55 will get tough on violent criminals or high risk
offenders.
Canadians will also judge the strengths and weaknesses of this
legislation in terms of how it proposes to change the justice system
with a view to getting tough on crime. Those are the parliamentary
secretary's specific words. The parliamentary secretary says they
are getting tough on crime. Let us look closely at the bill and see
how tough, if at all.
Canadians tell Reformers that they want to see very specific and
very broad changes to the criminal justice system. They tell us that
they want some of the following measures introduced into the
justice legislation. The guiding question should be: How far does
Bill C-55 go toward changing the criminal justice system? Will Bill
C-55 for example implement truth in sentencing, meaning that the
sentence given will be the sentence served by all violent offenders?
I listened to the parliamentary secretary talk about sexual
assault. Obviously the parliamentary secretary has not been in a
courtroom for some time or he would realize that judges are
handing down two and three-year sentences to rapists, not the 14
years as outlined in the Criminal Code as the maximum sentence.
That is reality.
Will Bill C-55 for example implement two strikes laws, meaning
that violent offenders who commit on two separate occasions an
offence causing serious personal injury will be sentenced to an
automatic indeterminate life sentence? Will the bill do that? No.
Will parole be limited, earned and tightly monitored under the
proposals put forward in Bill C-55? Can a dangerous offender
application be made at any time during a criminal's sentence, not
just at the beginning of court proceedings? Will section 745 of the
Criminal Code be repealed, scrapped and abolished, not simply
tinkered with, to ensure that no murderer receives early parole?
(1305 )
Those will be the questions and criteria by which Canadians will
judge this legislation. On behalf of Canadians, Reformers will
certainly do their part to bring the government to task on these very
important concerns, especially with respect to Bill C-55.
Let us examine the specifics of the bill. Essentially, Bill C-55 is
made up of three components: a new and expanded dangerous
offender provision; a new long term offender provision; and a new
judicial restraint clause. Also of concern is clause 15 which grants
special rights in respect of aboriginal convicted offenders.
Let us look at the dangerous offender provision. The new
dangerous offender provision in Bill C-55 recognizes that the
current process by which certain criminals are assigned dangerous
offender status and are therefore required to serve an indefinite
penitentiary sentence is not sufficiently strong enough to protect
Canadian communities against violent criminals.
Reformers applaud the new provisions which expand the criteria
for designating violent criminals as dangerous offenders. That is
one positive aspect of the bill. However, the proposed changes for
designating certain criminals as dangerous offenders do not go far
enough.
Section 753(1), (2), (3) and (4) in Bill C-55 would allow the
crown up to six months after conviction to bring about a dangerous
offender application. At present the current rules afford the crown
only a narrow and limited window at the time of conviction to bring
about a dangerous offender application. Even under the proposed
changes the provision would apply only if the crown gives notice at
the time of conviction of the possibility of a delayed dangerous
offender application and where relevant, information emerges to
support the application.
The Reform Party will be proposing several amendments in
committee to this part of the bill. In the past a dangerous offender
application had to be made at the time of sentencing. This bill
proposes a slight extension to that window.
There has been a problem with releasing high risk offenders into
the community. They will reoffend. The authorities have stated this
time and time again. There are no provisions in the bill which
address this point. The fumbling way the justice minister has
attempted to address this has been to impose a judicial restraint
order after the fact. In other words, after the offender has served his
time and he most likely is not under any parole supervision, the
justice minister will go to the attorney general of the province to
apply for a judicial restraint order. I will get into that point in more
detail later.
I want to reflect on what Reformers will do as far as the proposed
amendments are concerned.
We will propose that Bill C-55 allow for dangerous offender
findings to be made at any time after sentencing. To be clear, the
crown should be given the right to seek dangerous offender status
for persons convicted of crimes causing serious personal injury at
any time during the offender's penitentiary sentence. One of our
members submitted Bill C-254 which addresses the issue in detail,
but unfortunately members on the other side of the House voted it
down.
(1310)
We also propose that Bill C-55 be amended for greater certainty
to require the courts to automatically place a dangerous offender
finding upon any person who commits on two or more separate
occasions an offence constituting a serious personal injury offence.
Under the present system the crown may or may not apply for a
dangerous offender finding after any number of offences. Reform's
5046
proposal would require the courts to automatically effect a
dangerous offender finding after the second offence.
Another thing disturbed me about the bill as I was going through
it this morning. One can make the application for dangerous
offender. That is a given; there is no question that this application
can be made but that is not the end of it. The offender's agent, the
lawyer, can then appeal that dangerous offender statement by the
court. So it does not end there. It does not matter if the person is a
dangerous offender or a long term offender, the lawyer can again
bring that person before a court of appeal and the whole process
starts all over again. I find that to be questionable.
What are we creating here, another bill of so-called Liberal
justice? We are saying it should be automatic. Once that offender
has committed a second offence, he is gone away for an
indeterminate sentence and there is no opportunity to appeal.
Mr. Morrison: Then there would be less work for lawyers.
Mr. Hanger: My colleague points out that it might put a few
lawyers out of work.
That in itself is not the most disturbing part. I looked even
further and it reflects on the whole area of appeal. Another very
interesting part of the bill deals with section 760 and reads as
follows:
Where a court finds an offender to be a dangerous offender or a long term
offender, the court shall order that a copy of all reports and testimony given by
psychiatrists, psychologists, criminologists and other experts and any observations
of the court with respect to the reasons for the finding, together with a transcript of
the trial of the offender, be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada for
information.
In other words, through this hearing and through the appeal, it
seems that everyone in the justice industry will be involved and it
will go on and on and on.
The parliamentary secretary talked about dealing with the
legislation in a very open fashion when it is fraught with all kinds
of hidden agendas and this is one of them. There will be endless
hearings, endless court cases, endless record keeping, endless
filing. It goes on and on to further perpetuate the problems our
justice system is already in. It will be bogged down with more and
more administration. It will be a bureaucratic nightmare.
There can be no question that pedophiles and sexual predators
are dangerous offenders. Therefore, we propose that Bill C-55 take
into account pedophiles and sexual predators, especially to expand
the list of Criminal Code offences upon which a dangerous offender
application may be brought about.
(1315)
Specifically, we suggest that the following provisions be added
to the dangerous offender designation: an offence under any of the
following provisions of the Criminal Code, section 151, sexual
interference; section 152, invitation to sexual touching; section
153, sexual exploitation; subsection 160(3), bestiality in the
presence of or inciting a child to commit bestiality; 170, parent or
guardian procuring sexual activity; 171, householder permitting
sexual activity by child; section 172, corrupting children; section
212(2), living off the avails of prostitution by a child; section
212(4), obtaining sexual services of a child.
Under part (b), an offence under any of the following provisions
of the Criminal Code involving a person under the age of 18:
section 155, incest; 159, anal intercourse; 161(1) and (2), bestiality
and compelling bestiality; section 271, sexual assault; section 272,
sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing
bodily harm.
Under part (c), an offence involving a person under the age of 18
years under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code,
Chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970 as they read
immediately before January 4, 1983: 144, rape; section 145,
attempt to commit rape; section 149, indecent assault on a female;
section 156, indecent assault on a male.
Those sections reflect on our children, on our families and are
not included in the present bill put forward by the justice minister.
It is our suggestion that they will come forward in the form of a
motion that may be included.
In point three, under the dangerous offender provision, Bill C-55
proposes to change section 761, which would review indeterminate
sentences after seven years of custody rather than the previous
three years.
This is an improvement on the previous review process but it is
not tough enough. Therefore Reform proposes that section 761 be
amended to allow review of indeterminate sentences after 15 years
of custody rather than the existing provision of three years or the
proposed seven years as advanced in Bill C-55.
Let us talk about the long term offender provision. Bill C-55
would amend the Criminal Code to proposed section 753.1(1)
which would permit a court to find a person to be a new category of
offender, a long term offender, if it can be determined among other
criteria that there is a substantial risk that the offender will
reoffend.
Under section 753.1(2), it is further required that the court shall
be satisfied that there is a substantial risk if the offender is
convicted of an offence under ones that have been previously
related to sections 151, 152 and 153, subsection 173(2), sections
271, 272 and 273.
Reform believes that this list of Criminal Code provisions does
not again go far enough for the stated purpose of assigning long
term offender status to certain criminals.
5047
(1320)
Therefore for greater certainty and to include a broader range of
offences committed by sexual predators and pedophiles, we
propose that Bill C-55 be amended to include under proposed
section 753.1(2), part (a), an offence under any of the following
provisions of the Criminal Code: subsection 160(3), bestiality in
the presence of or inciting a child to commit bestiality; section 170,
parent or guardian procuring sexual activity; section 171,
householder permitting sexual activity by a child; section 172,
corrupting children; section 212(2), living off the avails of
prostitution by a child; section 212(4), obtaining sexual services of
a child.
Part (b), an offence under any of the following provisions of the
Criminal Code involving a person under the age of 18 years:
section 155, incest; section 159, anal intercourse; sections 160(1)
and (2), bestiality and compelling bestiality.
Part (c), an offence involving a person under the age of 18 years
under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code,
Chapter C-34, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970 as they read
immediately before January 4, 1983: section 144, rape; section
145, attempt to commit rape; section 149, indecent assault on a
female; section 156, indecent assault on a male.
Those are the long term offender provisions that the Reform
Party will certainly be entering in the form of amendment.
The final point is that of judicial restraint provisions. Bill C-55
proposes that section 810.2 be added to the Criminal Code, thereby
permitting the attorney general to lay an information against
anyone the attorney general believes will commit a serious
personal injury offence. The individual then appears before a
provincial court judge. If the judge is satisfied of the concern, an
order to enter into recognizance with reasonable conditions for up
to one year may be made. If the individual fails or refuses to enter
into recognizance the judge may commit the defendant to a prison
term not exceeding 12 months. That is substantial considering there
are no charges, no convictions and really nothing more than a mere
suspicion.
The judge may also prohibit the possession of firearms or
ammunition and order the surrender of firearms acquisition
certificates. Conditions can include reporting to the correction
authority of a province, police authority or complying with a
program of electronic monitoring if available.
This provision may be made even though the individuals may
have been acquitted of any charge or never even charged with a
criminal offence and is probably the most obnoxious part of this
bill. It is a violation of civil liberties.
Reform believes that this clause constitutes a broad
indiscriminate infringement of personal liberty which unduly
violates the civil rights of an individual. The judicial remedies
proposed in clause 9 of Bill C-55 should only be contemplated in
matters where individuals have been convicted of offences under
the Criminal Code of Canada and according to due process of law.
Therefore in our list of amendments that will be forthcoming at
another time Reform proposes that clause 9 be struck in its totality
from Bill C-55.
I am going to again briefly reflect on something else that comes
to mind on this bill, another point that makes this legislation
somewhat weaker than what the minister or the parliamentary
secretary has just indicated.
I was going through the bill on section 753.3 where an accused
has been placed on long term supervision and has been released
into the community where monitoring has been required of the
individual. It is noted that if that offender steps outside the
province, the conditions that he is to meet no longer apply. I
suggest there is going to be quite a movement of long term
offenders about this country as they hop from one province to
another. Just think of the implications that will have on our police
departments trying to keep track of these wandering long term
offenders.
(1325)
If the long term offender commits another offence in that
province it is not an automatic thing that he be suspended or placed
back into incarceration. Rather, the police agency is required to do
the following: ``Where the accused is found, is arrested or is in
custody, but if the place where the accused is found, is arrested or
in is custody is outside the province in which the offence is alleged
to have been committed, no proceedings in respect of that offence
shall be instituted in that place without the consent of the attorney
general of that province''.
In other words what do we have? We have another glitch in the
so-called tough legislation presented by the Minister of Justice. As
we dig more and more into this bill it is becoming evident that it is
far from getting tough on crime and it is not going to be this trump
card that the minister thinks he will be walking into the election
with.
I want to address one point before concluding, clause 15. Clause
15 deals with the provisions of the aboriginal community. It states
that if the long term offender expresses the interest in being
supervised in an aboriginal community, that community must
receive notice of the supervision order and have the opportunity to
propose a plan for release and integration into the community.
This point does not apply to any community in the country
except an aboriginal community. This would again appear to be an
example of the Liberal government's decision to treat some
Canadians differently and bring about inequality. Aboriginal
communities will have the right to notice of release of a high risk
offender into their community and the right to become involved in
planning for that release. Other Canadian communities do not
receive this notice or this opportunity.
5048
We will propose that clause 15 be amended so that ``aboriginal
community'' reads ``local community'' so that it will be applicable
to every community in this country, not just those as indicated by
the Liberal justice minister's form of justice. That concludes my
statement on Bill C-55.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for
Brampton.
I have a number of thoughts to express to the House today,
having consulted widely with my constituents of
London-Middlesex on this bill and having received considerable
input from them.
The hon. member who just spoke, my colleague opposite from
the Reform Party, in his last point addressed the matter of
application of this bill to the aboriginal community. Frankly, I get a
little tired of hearing from the Reform Party that unless we treat
each and every Canadian in the exactly the same way on exactly
every piece of legislation, somehow we are taking a wrong
approach or that we are being unfair. That simply perpetuates a
myth that ought to be debunked right now.
Mr. Thompson: Do you have a problem with equality?
(1330 )
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): I believe the member for
Wild Rose, in interjecting just now, asked if I have a problem with
equality. No, I do not have a problem with equality. However, not
every single Canadian has to be treated in exactly the same way in
every single aspect of our society in order to respect equality. As a
matter of fact, I suggest that it is just the opposite. That kind of an
attitude fails to recognize that there exists in this great land, from
coast to coast to coast, a number of differences among Canadians.
I would ask my colleagues from the Reform Party to respect my
opportunity to speak to the House without heckling me as I
certainly did with them when they were speaking, although I
disagreed with some of their points of view. I would certainly
welcome their questions within the spirit of the rules.
It is obvious that our aboriginal peoples, respecting their
traditions and what reality has shown us is more effective in
dealing with offenders from the aboriginal community, that there is
nothing wrong with taking a look at how this bill can be most
effectively applied to aboriginal offenders. I would be disappointed
in the Minister of Justice and in this bill if it did not hold out that
possibility. That was the first point I want to make.
I am sure all of us, as members of Parliament, whatever part of
the House we sit in, are well aware of the public perception that the
rate of violent crimes has increased. I hear that from time to time
from some of my constituents. However, I also hear from police
officers, chiefs of police and other experts in the law enforcement
field that fortunately the reality is that we do not have this massive
increase in violent crime. We have some alarming trends that need
to be dealt with and the purpose of Bill C-55 is to do just that. It is
to address the reality of high risk offenders and to deal with those
people effectively.
However, as members of Parliament, it is very important that we
not subscribe to, let alone fuel, the perception that Canada is seeing
a massive increase in violent crime because it is simply not the
case. Anybody, whether he be an elected member of the House of
Commons or a non-elected Canadian citizen, who fuels that myth
and buys into it is doing a disservice to our society. Statistics and
facts do not bear it out.
In my view, we need to ask where the dangerous trends are in our
society vis-à-vis violent crime and address those. I believe Bill
C-55 will do that very effectively.
First, as the speech from the throne made the commitment to the
Canadian people, there has been widespread, public consultation
on this bill. As one member of Parliament, I believe that the vast
majority of Canadians agree with this bill and will support it
becoming legislation.
Most experts, whether they be in law enforcement or other
aspects of the criminal justice system, support this move by the
government. I quote Mr. Scott Newark, executive officer of the
Canadian Police Association, in speaking to this bill. He said: ``The
proposed high risk offenders legislation is the single most
important improvement in Canadian public safety legislation in the
last 20 years''. That does not come from me as a Liberal member of
Parliament. I am quoting the executive officer of the Canadian
Police Association.
On matters of crime and justice, whether it was Bill C-68, the
gun legislation issue was so emotional, or whether it is this bill, I
do not purport to be an expert in law enforcement or in the justice
system. I am not a lawyer as most Canadians are not lawyers.
(1335 )
I have learned through 16 years of elected office at the municipal
and now federal level that we ought very carefully to seek out
expert opinion before casting a vote on important legislation. It is
very important to me to hear from the law enforcement community
on issues such as gun control and Bill C-55. I put great stock in the
comments of the executive officer of the Canadian Police
Association.
5049
There was widespread public input on the bill. There is very
general and widespread support for Bill C-55. Several initiatives
are set out in the bill, three of which are most important.
It creates a new long term offender designation that targets sex
offenders and adds a period of long term supervision of up to 10
years following release from prison. That is a very valid concern of
the people who have contacted me as a member of Parliament.
Unfortunately, repeat violent offenders will pose a risk to public
safety now and in the years to come. Some of them will pose a risk
for the remainder of their lives. This legislation seeks to deal
specifically with the threat to public safety.
The second important initiative is the strengthening of the
dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.
The third initiative is the new judicial restraint provision to
permit controls, including electronic monitoring, to be applied to
individuals who pose a high risk of committing a serious personal
injury offence.
Public perception matches the reality of the statistics. Although
there has not been a massive increase in violent crime in Canada, a
number of individuals who are repeat violent offenders, pose a
serious threat to public safety. The initiatives to which I have just
referred very effectively deal with those people.
Concomitant with that, and very important in my mind, is the
fact that the government also is taking an initiative to deal with low
risk, non-violent offenders in other ways besides incarceration. The
answer is not simply to build more jails. If that were true the safest
society in the world would be the United States of America. It
incarcerates an incredible percentage of its population. Statistics
tell us that on a per capita basis the most dangerous society in the
world in which to live-the society in which a person has the
greatest odds of being assaulted, robbed, sexually assaulted or
murdered-is the United States of America. The building of more
jails in the U.S.A. has not resulted in a safer society. As a matter of
fact, it has not dealt with the problem effectively at all.
I am very pleased to be a member of a government which is
going to proceed, through this and other pieces of legislation, to
deal more effectively with repeat violent offenders, including
sexual offenders. However, at the same time a more enlightened,
effective and efficient approach has to be taken in dealing with
those offenders who are low risk, non-violent offenders. Both
initiatives have to be seen as complementary.
The fact of the matter is that the public will see more effective
measures to deal with high risk offenders. What do I mean exactly
by a high risk offender? It is someone who has been convicted of a
serious violent crime and who has been found to have a strong
likelihood of reoffending, but who cannot be shown to meet the
narrow definition of the dangerous offender which would result in
indefinite incarceration.
The bill increases the options of the government in dealing with
violent offenders. Suffice it to say that most of the constituents who
have contacted me regard this bill as good legislation. They support
it. That includes lay people and law enforcement officers in my
community. They support it as a necessary improvement in dealing
with serious violent offenders, and I am pleased to support the
legislation.
(1340)
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be brief so my colleague can get in his question as well.
I first want to comment on the equality statement that was made
by the hon. member in his speech. This bill outlines that the law it
is presenting is prepared to go into community a and prepare it for
the release of a violent offender.
Why would the hon. member not be willing to see community b
or community c receive the same kind of preparedness? Why only
one community? It is a good idea so why not do it all the way
through the system? Or are we talking about discrimination here? I
do not understand where the member is coming from when he says
that community a should get this but the others should not.
Second, has the member checked lately the number of
unreported violent crimes? When experts talk about the number of
violent crimes going down, it is the number of violent crimes being
reported that is going down.
When we ask individuals who have had offences committed
against them why they did not report them, they say that they have
seen from the experiences of others who have gone through the
same things that due to this soft Liberal approach on crime, the
criminals and their rights are up front and the victims and their
rights are not considered. The victim suffers more in some cases by
reporting a crime than by not reporting it. The victim would rather
not go through further suffering.
Is the member aware that that actually exists in this country, or is
he living in some dreamland where he thinks that does not happen?
I have one comment to make on the bill as a whole. I hope when
the justice minister goes home at night he does not travel the way
he makes legislation, because if he does he would never get home.
He would only get half way. I wish the Liberals would go all the
way with some of their legislation and cover all the aspects and quit
leaving big holes in these bills.
Of course, most of the legislation I have seen in the past has been
built by lawyers for lawyers, and benefits lawyers. We are quite
5050
concerned about the amount of court time that will be involved in
implementing this entire package.
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I hardly
know where to begin. My colleague from Wild Rose has raised
several points.
Let me begin with the hon. member's assertion that this is
legislation built by lawyers for lawyers. Perhaps he was not in the
Chamber when I quoted the statement of Mr. Newark, executive
officer the Canadian Police Association: ``This proposed high risk
offenders legislation is the single most important improvement in
Canadian public safety legislation in the last 20 years''. Mr.
Newark is not a lawyer. He is a law enforcement officer and I take
his comments very advisedly. It speaks very clearly to the fact that
experts in the field besides lawyers view this legislation as a very
important improvement.
As to my comments about the application of Bill C-55 to the
aboriginal community, with all due respect to my colleague, I
certainly did not say that one community should get this but others
should not. He attributed those comments to me but I certainly did
not say that.
I was reacting to his colleague who spoke just before me. He said
that he saw no way this bill should be applied any differently to the
aboriginal community than to the rest of Canadian society. I repeat,
in my opinion that is a very short sighted view of Canadian society.
The reality of the aboriginal community in Canada is that different
techniques are more effective within that community. But because
we can apply a bill in a different way with one community does not
mean than we are favouring one community over another.
(1345)
If that were the case, as a parent with three children, two boys
and one girl, I would have to treat them exactly the same in every
aspect of their lives. That is just not common sense in a family
situation or in the justice system. That is the point I was trying to
make.
With reference to how this may apply in other communities, I
would only say to my hon. friend opposite that we live a dynamic
society. The bill is an improvement. That is not to say it is perfect
or that over time it cannot be improved. Perhaps there will be
opportunities to apply it differently in various communities as the
cases may warrant.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hope we can interpret
the hon. member's statement as saying that there may be an
amendment to this bill to make it equally applicable to all sectors
of society.
My specific question deals with the hon. member's reference to
statistics. I do not know how much he knows about the subject. I
know a considerable amount because it is part of my background. It
is very easy to pull a short section out of a statistical trend and say
look, it is rising, it is dropping. If we are going to study a trend we
have to study it over a reasonable period of time. I will grant that
over the last couple of years there has been a very minor drop in the
rate of violent crime in the country. But if we look at the statistics
from about 1962 onward we can see many positive and negative
blips. There is no such thing as a flat statistic trend.
Then the hard fact of the matter is that the rate of violent crime in
Canada since 1962 has increased by almost 400 per cent. I suspect
the hon. member knows that. I wish that when he uses statistics he
would use them a little more broadly and generously.
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, I am not
given to long statistical arguments. I would invite my colleague to
review my comments. I did not cite specific statistics. I did speak
to the misperception which has been statistically proven as a
misperception by experts in the field, both in the justice and law
enforcement system.
Mr. Morrison: What about Statistics Canada?
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker, the member
asked me a question and now he does not seem to want the answer.
The fact is that statistics prove that the misperception that we are
on some rampant, runaway course of increase in violent crime in
Canada today is simply not the case and it does none of us credit to
fuel that misperception.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, justice
policies often deal with issues which are the focus of great concern
among Canadians. It is an area of public policy that comes under
scrutiny daily in homes across the country as Canadians read their
newspapers and watch the news. Unfortunately, it is also a source
of a great deal of frustration.
The failure of successive governments to effectively combat
high risk offenders has left Canadians feeling wary and cynical.
Canadians are well aware of the types of crimes that occur and
reoccur in their communities. They are well aware of the
challenges we as parliamentarians face. That is why it is difficult
for me as a member of Parliament and a democrat to act on the
conventional wisdom prevalent among so-called experts. They
claim the concern among Canadians over crime issues is
overstated. They would have us spend our energies telling our
constituents that they have no reason to worry about crime in this
country.
(1350 )
I speak to my constituents every day and every day they tell me
they are frustrated and afraid because of the level of violent crime
in Canada. I am pleased to speak to this proposed legislation which
addresses many of the concerns expressed by my constituents.
This legislation addresses very legitimate fears among
Canadians over the ability of the justice system to deal with repeat
sex offenders and specifically high risk offenders. It introduces
tough
5051
but effective controls to tip the balance in the fight against crime in
our favour.
A case in point is the new long term offender designation. This
designation was created to respond to the threat posed by sex
offenders who do not quite qualify as dangerous offenders but still
pose a risk to society. Bill C-55 proposes to add a period of
supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison. This
designation applies to a wide range of serious sexual offences from
sexual touching to aggravated sexual assault.
The long term offender designation could also be applied to a
person who committed another offence that had a sexual
component, for example, somebody who committed a break and
enter with a clear intention of sexually assaulting the occupants.
Canadians have consistently expressed frustration with the
release from prison of sex offenders who are likely to reoffend. The
dangerous offender designation responds to this concern in only the
most extreme cases, leaving a significant gap in the high risk
offender sentencing regime. The creation of the long term offender
designation fills this gap.
A long term offender finding can be made only where the court is
satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of eventually
controlling the risk imposed by the individual to the community.
This allows a more structured kind of sentence for this type of
offender, allowing the courts to pass tailor made effective
sentences within a broad framework. This approach to justice
policy is characteristic of the manner in which this government and
this minister have responded to the challenges of this very
important portfolio.
Efforts to streamline the sentencing process are evident in the
proposed amendments to the dangerous offender provisions of the
Criminal Code. Currently judges have the discretion to establish
fixed sentences for individuals who are designated dangerous
offenders. This is problematic.
The federal-provincial-territorial task force on high risk violent
offenders correctly reported last year that it makes no sense to go
through the dangerous offender procedure only to obtain a fixed
sentence comparable to what might have been obtained without
this lengthy exercise.
Under Bill C-55 when a dangerous offender application is
successful the offender will automatically be sentenced to a period
of indefinite incarceration. This measure is a recognition that
dangerous offenders are just that and that the onus rests with them
to demonstrate that they should be released from prison.
Other measures in the proposed legislation underline this
message. The initial parole review of a dangerous offender would
be moved to the seventh year from the third of incarceration and
the number of psychiatrists required to testify has been reduced
from two to one.
The introduction of a mechanism to allow a dangerous offender
application up to six months after conviction rather than at the time
of sentencing will allow the crown to act on information which may
be brought to its attention following the conviction of an offender.
A third aspect of this legislation is the new judicial restraint
provision which permits controls, including electronic monitoring
of high risk offenders. This provision is much needed and has great
potential for monitoring and controlling the movement of
individuals who pose a risk of committing a serious personal injury
offence. It should be noted that the exercise of this option does not
depend on the individual's having committed a criminal offence. It
is a preventive measure which will equip police with the means to
monitor the conduct of offenders who pose a risk to society.
I might suggest that one feature of this legislation be singled out
for intense study in committee, the long term offender designation.
This is a very innovative and desirable aspect of the proposed
legislation which deserves special attention. The committee should
ensure that judges have a great deal of flexibility in the substance
of its application. I have a specific use in mind.
(1355)
Judges should have the ability to prescribe the application of
new technologies for use in the monitoring of high risk offenders.
Electronic monitoring has a multiplicity of uses in the fight against
crime.
Judges should be vested with the ability to put this technology to
use in monitoring high risk offenders. The committee should make
every effort to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to
allow the application of new and emerging technologies to monitor
long term offenders.
This legislation represents a well thought out, effective approach
to dealing with justice issues which are paramount in the minds of
Canadians. Some politicians have made a career of demanding
monolithic, inflexible blanket legislation which imposes hefty
minimum sentences. They will no doubt argue, as they always do,
that this legislation does not go far enough in the war against crime.
To them and their supporters, I offer the following observations.
It is true that we can draft any bill conceivable as long as it is
within the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, if it
will not work in the real world, the world that exists beyond these
four walls, we are just wasting our time and betraying the trust of
the people who put us here.
Let us not take the easy way out. Let us take the time to draft
effective legislation that works. I would like to remind all hon.
members that drafting justice policy is always a very difficult task.
5052
We must balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the
victims and the entitlement of society to an effective, fair justice
system.
We must not fall into the trap of introducing laws that are
inflexible and therefore incompatible with the task of achieving
individual acts of justice within a broad public policy framework.
In the end, the true measure of an effective justice policy is the
sum of the individual acts of the justice it achieves. We must strive
to have effective laws. Bill C-55 achieves the balance required of
good justice policy. I would encourage hon. members to give it
their support.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member intently as she made her presentation on
Bill C-55. In her opinion this legislation was tough, it was going to
really answer the concerns of a lot of Canadians.
I have one major concern that Canadians have regarding sexual
offenders, particularly pedophiles. The concern is that a pedophile,
a sexual offender, is sentenced to a definite term. Because that
person refused treatment, refused to follow through on the criteria
set before them as far as rehabilitation in the Liberal sense, because
the law is the law when the warrant expiry comes up, the offender
is released into the community in spite of statements by
psychiatrists, psychologists, those who in the know, prison
officials, that clearly point to the fact that this individual is high
risk, that this individual will reoffend.
I do not see any provision in this bill that deals with the concern
that Canadians have here. The minister had placed that point
forward that the minister will allow a window of six months for a
dangerous offender application to be made, thus determining an
indeterminate sentence for that offender.
I would like the member to comment on that provision because
there is a lack of teeth, if you will, still in Bill C-55 dealing with the
sexual predators of this world.
The Speaker: If the hon. member for Brampton would care to
answer now, I will permit a very brief answer. If not, the hon.
member might want to answer right after the question period.
Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party view
everything in black and white. There is no acknowledgement on
their part that there are differences in sex offences. There has to be
a provision for individual sentencing and determinations to occur.
The member for Wild Rose said earlier that there are so many
crimes that are not being reported. At the same time, they are
saying that violence is increasing. We dealt with this a year ago.
The Speaker: You still have another minute and a half, but it
being 2 p.m. I will proceed to statements by members.
5052
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that the city of Corner Brook and all
of western Newfoundland will play host to the 1999 Canada Winter
Games. We are very excited about the opportunity.
The Canada games are for all Canadians. Shortly after the 1997
games in Brandon, the people of my riding will be opening up their
hearts and their homes for two weeks of great sport and great
hospitality. That same year, Newfoundland and Labrador will be
celebrating its 50th anniversary within Confederation. As everyone
knows, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be making this
quite a celebration.
Let me take the opportunity to thank TSN and RDS for investing
in the Canada games and for investing in Canada. Let me also thank
the volunteers who so early on in the process are making these
games a success.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, 1996 marks the centennial of the municipality
of Martinville and I invite the public to take part in the celebrations
under way until December 7.
Like Daniel Martin, the municipality's founder who, around
1838, built a dam, a sawmill and a bridge on the rivière aux
Saumons, the people of Martinville are known as people who are
not afraid to innovate. This fact is evidenced by the exceptionally
balanced make-up of the current council, comprised of three
aldermen, three alderwomen and the mayor, a position also held by
a woman, namely Arlette Champagne-Lessard.
Once again, Martinville has distinguished itself. Smaller than
Montreal, maybe, not as well known as Quebec City, granted, but
in the hearts of the people of the Eastern Townships and anyone
who has ever vacationed there, the municipality of Martinville is
nonetheless a pillar of our region's historical heritage.
Long live Martinville.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Charles
Schroeder and Mr. Bob McGinn in my riding believe that the 7 per
cent GST is an unjust tax on reading materials and state that a
5053
regressive tax on reading handicaps that development. Their letter
was endorsed by 56 other constituents in my riding.
Ordinary Canadians want the GST on books removed. The
Minister of Finance has doubled the taxation on books in Atlantic
Canada. His GST harmonization policy which has replaced the
Liberal red book policy of GST elimination is going to double
taxation on books right across the country.
Education is the foundation of our prosperity. An educated mind
is the most valuable resource a country has. Obviously this
government ignores these realities in order to raise taxes to fund its
insatiable appetite for big government.
Mr. Schroeder and Mr. McGinn have demonstrated their
commitment to education by the giving of their time to serve on
school boards. Will the government recognize that education is
important and eliminate the GST-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kamloops.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance yesterday closed the infamous Bronfman family tax
loophole to much applause and hoopla. But let us not forget that the
Bronfmans actually got that $500 million Christmas present from
the federal government in 1991 and have kept it.
It took five years before either a Tory or a Liberal Minister of
Finance was embarrassed by the auditor general to act. The
Minister of Finance has obviously known of this loophole for the
past three years but only acted when the auditor general and public
and political pressure made him do it.
(1405 )
In yesterday's Toronto Star, the Minister of Industry was quoted
as saying that we need more foreign investment and to attract it the
federal government will promote the fact that we have very low
corporate real tax rates. He pointed out that Canada has the lowest
labour costs among the seven leading industrialized nations.
Low corporate taxes and low wage rates; this promotion sounds
like it should refer to a poor developing country, not Canada. If low
corporate taxes and low wage rates are things the Minister of
Finance and the Minister of Industry are bragging about, I say
shame.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
proud to rise today to recognize the achievements of Telecare
Burlington Distress Line. Tomorrow marks the 20th anniversary
that this volunteer organization has provided crisis care 24 hours a
day and seven days a week to Burlington residents.
Under the leadership of Ms. Cheryl Harrison, 160 energetic and
compassionate volunteers have listened to and have been
supportive of distressed callers. This dedication to fellow citizens,
to share the pain of others and to offer sympathy and hope to those
in need is the embodiment of the principles of community. These
volunteers work without recognition, they work anonymously.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, please join me in congratulating
this outstanding team of volunteers for their extraordinary
commitment to helping others and wish them all the very best for
the future. Their work is important. Their work is needed.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have received many, many phone calls from
constituents in my riding and Indo-Canadians from across Canada
congratulating the Prime Minister, and in a special way, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the upcoming opening of a
Canadian liaison office in the capital of India's Punjab state. This
makes Canada the only foreign country with a presence in the
region.
As the most open-minded, tolerant and inclusive party in
Canada, the federal Liberal Party remains the party of choice for
most new Canadians.
Having taken part in last January's Team Canada trade mission
to India and having worked toward this week's news for years, I
wish to express my personal gratitude to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for this
historic step which will be remembered forever in the record books
of both India and Canada.
* * *
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pay tribute today to Crosskeys Systems Corporation
of Kanata.
This morning the Prime Minister was in my riding to officially
open a new building for Crosskeys, which is an affiliate of
Newbridge Networks.
In addition, Crosskeys received an award which names it as one
of Canada's 50 best managed private companies recognizing its
commitment to product quality and a team approach to customer
relationships.
Crosskeys, founded in 1992, is a very young company. This is a
Canadian company that is a success in global markets. Its software
and services are at work in telecommunications systems around the
world. In just a little more than four years Crosskeys has gone from
being a start up to being an established international competitor in
5054
its sector. As it has done this, it has created jobs with a future. It has
helped cement the reputation of our community as a hotbed of new
technologies.
This is one more example of how the high tech companies in
Kanata, our very own silicon valley north, are changing the face of
the national capital region and assuring our position of global
leadership in the information age economy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to pay tribute today to a deserving fellow citizen of Verchères,
Gilles Gagné, from Boucherville, who recently received the
Governor General's award in recognition of his outstanding
commitment to the underprivileged.
After retiring in 1989, Mr. Gagné dedicated his time and energy
to volunteer work at Accueil Bonneau in Montreal. This man, who
is an example to us all, is working untiringly at relieving the
distress and hardship of those to whom this admirable institution
caters. To top it all, he claims his life is enriched by this experience
as a volunteer.
Let me tell you how he puts it in his own words. ``I see a lot of
misery, but I find great satisfaction too. I feel that my work with
transients improves their lives a bit''.
Mr. Gagné is, for each and every one of us, an example of
courage, self-sacrifice and generosity. In a world that is more and
more insensitive and individualistic, he is most deserving of this
public recognition for his noble contribution to the cause of the
underprivileged in our society.
Congratulations, Mr. Gagné.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over 110 million of these silent killers claim over 25,000
people's lives every year, primarily innocent civilians. Some are
designed to look like toys so that when children pick them up they
will have their arms blown off. They are anti-personnel land mines.
(1410 )
Calls are coming in from all over the world for an international
ban on these devices. Canada has called for an international ban
too, but has failed to do so domestically.
There is no reason whatsoever to use these inhumane weapons.
This is backed up by over 80 top military officials from around the
world, including General Norman Schwarzkopf and our own
General Lewis MacKenzie.
Let us get out of the Jurassic age. I call upon the government to
show leadership, do the right thing and call for a domestic ban on
land mines and anti-personnel devices. Then we can persuasively
do the same internationally.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say how delighted I am with the October 1
announcement by Commercial Alcohols Incorporated that the
dream of a $153 million ethanol plant in Chatham, Ontario is now
official.
As one of the largest and most efficient in the world, the state of
the art, computerized Chatham plant will operate 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year, producing over 150 million
litres of fuel ethanol and industrial alcohol.
Construction of the plant, which will be operational by next
winter, will be a real catalyst for economic renewal in southwestern
Ontario. It will provide 400 direct and indirect jobs and a new
market for 15 million bushels of locally produced corn each year.
As well, all Canadians will benefit from a renewable, cleaner
burning fuel for motorists. It is worth noting that all car
manufacturers approve the use of ethanol blends in their
warranties.
This announcement is the perfect counterpart to the
government's intention to ban the use of MMT in Canadian
gasolines, ethanol being the logical replacement as an octane
enhancer.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has just tabled his
annual report on the status of the official languages in federal
institutions.
I am happy to see that progress has been made at all levels. The
number of bilingual employees in the federal public service more
than meets the requirements and shows that one out of five public
servants has a superior knowledge of his or her second language.
[English]
The capacity to serve the public in both official languages has
significantly improved. Further to the recommendations made by
the Commissioner of Official Languages on language of work in
5055
the national capital, federal institutions took measures which
should result in a major improvement.
Program review has not had a negative impact on the level of
bilingual services provided to the public, nor on participation rates
of anglophones and francophones.
I am happy to note that we are making progress in advancing
official languages in federal institutions.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, commercial
and sport fishing on the Great Lakes sustains 36,000 jobs and adds
$1.5 billion yearly to the economy of Ontario. Uncontrolled, the
sea lamprey parasite would decimate many fish species native to
the Great Lakes and cause serious economic damage.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Canada-U.S. sea
lamprey control program and the 30th anniversary of the Sea
Lamprey Control Centre in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Since 1954
the work of the program, the centre and its dedicated staff has
resulted in a significant reduction in the sea lamprey population.
The federal government recently announced its renewed
commitment to sea lamprey control with a contribution of over $5
million in each of the next two years. Our government will work
with concerned stakeholders toward a long term funding
arrangement for this program. All beneficiaries of this effort are
being called upon to contribute to its continued success.
I commend the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his
commitment to the sea lamprey control program and trust that
those who benefit from healthy fish stocks in the Great Lakes will
work together to ensure this good work continues.
* * *
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food is
expected to finally announce if the Liberal government will allow
farmers to decide how to market their grain.
An Angus Reid poll commissioned by the minister's own
department showed that a majority of farmers supported marketing
reforms, including allowing feed barley for export sales to be
marketed outside the board. However, in a clearly loaded question,
the poll then asked farmers if they supported marketing reforms
even if they resulted in a decline in the price they receive for their
barley.
Farmers can only cross their fingers and hope that if the minister
finally honours his election promise and calls a plebiscite he will
frame the question in a manner that is clear, honest and democratic.
I know the minister has trouble making decisions. Let me help
him out. The question to all barley growers should be: Do you
agree or disagree that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board
should be made voluntary?
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, lately the
Liberal members, especially those from Quebec, have accused the
sovereignists of all the evils in the world. We are even being
accused of violating human rights. Yet, I have been unable to find
any mention of Quebec in Amnesty International's latest report.
However, I noticed that some of the countries mentioned in this
report-two of which are England and Greece-have always been
considered beyond reproach. The report points out that, in Greece,
some 350 prisoners of conscience are in jail, eight people are being
sued simply for exercising their freedom of expression in a
non-violent way, and there are still cases of abuse and torture.
Some members of this House find it easier to see the mote in
their neighbour's eye than the beam in their own.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the death
of former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa marks the end of one of
the most momentous periods in Quebec history.
The youngest ever premier of Quebec had a dream if not an
obsession that led him to devote all of his efforts and energy to
Quebec's economic development.
Robert Bourassa saw big for Quebec and, inspired by the wealth
of ideas born of the Quiet Revolution, he put in place the conditions
needed to turn his province into one of the most prosperous and
promising industrial societies ever.
In less than 30 years, this visionary succeeded in getting Quebec
to take the giant step separating it from the great economic powers.
Today, we pay homage and thank him for his unique contribution to
Quebec's economic development.
On behalf of all the people of Quebec, thank you and goodbye,
Mr. Bourassa.
5056
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Robert Bourassa was both a proud Quebecer and a proud Canadian.
Throughout his life, he strove to find ways to express this dual
commitment that most Quebecers share with him.
Despite the defeats and constitutional failures he experienced, he
never stopped believing that Quebecers were better off within the
Canadian federation.
One day after his death, we join with all the people of Canada in
expressing our gratitude and admiration for his outstanding
contribution to the development of Quebec and Canada.
_____________________________________________
5056
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, in a ministerial statement, the Minister of
Finance implied that he was closing the tax loophole whereby a
Canadian family trust was able to transfer $2.2 billion out of
Canada tax free. The fact remains that the particular tax loophole is
still there.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the $2.2 billion
transfer that took place in 1991 would still be possible today,
despite the announcement made by the minister yesterday?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
no. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. There
was a loophole in the legislation, and yesterday, with my
announcement, it was plugged.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, could the Minister of Finance confirm that the action he
took yesterday regarding this problem of tax evasion did not plug
the loophole, did not prevent money from being taken out of the
country, but, on the contrary, only made things easier than in 1991,
because now, with what the Minister of Finance has done, trusts
will no longer have to pull a December 23 and obtain special
authorization in order to be allowed the huge privilege of taking
money out of Canada tax free?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, this has nothing to do with trusts. I was very clear in the
1995 budget; we have eliminated all tax advantages for family
trusts. The question is how to treat capital gains when someone,
whether a trust, an individual or a corporation, wishes to leave the
country.
This was precisely the problem dealt with yesterday. In the past,
it was not necessary, in certain cases, on leaving the country, to pay
tax on gains that had accrued. As I said in yesterday's
announcement, emigrants are now required to pay tax on capital
gains or give us a security in order to ensure that Canada will
receive its fair share.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware that this is a problem involving trusts and
other financial vehicles as well, but the minister cannot say that he
has removed all advantages for trusts in his last budget. This is
effective 1999, so between now and then, they have the same
advantages they had before. I take pleasure in correcting the
minister on this point.
When the Minister of Finance says that an emigrant will give
securities, he is relying on the signature of a notice of waiver,
because sufficient security, under the Income Tax Act, usually
takes the form of a notice of waiver. That is the basis on which he
says that the taxes will eventually be paid to Canada.
Will the minister confirm that the notice of waiver on which he is
pinning his hopes of recovering the taxes due Revenue Canada at
some future date has no legal value, but merely a moral one, as the
deputy minister of Revenue Canada, Pierre Gravelle, yesterday told
the public accounts committee?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. If there is the
slightest risk the Canadian government will not be paid its fair
share of taxes, we will require a lot more than a notice of waiver.
We will require a bond, a debenture, a valid security for ensuring
that the taxes will be paid.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the usual practice at this time, when assets are being
transferred and we want to make sure that the trustee does not
evade taxes, is that a notice of quit claim is required. That is the
only guarantee we require at present, and it has no value in
international law and tax conventions. That is the reality.
Yesterday, contrary to what he has claimed, the Minister of
Finance did not close up the tax loophole for family trusts. On the
contrary, he announced that the interpretation of December 23,
1991, which allowed the tax-free transfer to the United States of a
two billion dollar trust will, in future, be government policy for all
of the assets of millionaires and billionaires.
Will the minister confirm that, by extending the concept of
taxable Canadian assets to Canadian residents, as he did yesterday
in his ministerial statement, he has given his blessing to the scandal
of 1991, which now becomes the basis of his taxation policy?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc is having a little trouble getting the point. As I have just
said, and as I said clearly in my speech of yesterday, the security
we intend to require will be far more than a quit claim, if there is
any risk whatsoever of the individual's not paying his fair share of
Canadian taxes. It is very clear, and I said so in my speech, that it
5057
could take the form of a debenture, a bond, but we will insist upon
the security if necessary.
Second, there was a loophole in the legislation in 1991. The
legislation was applied as it stood, but there was a loophole.
(1425)
That loophole was blocked yesterday. We have closed up a great
many loopholes, and will continue to do so, because it is our
objective to have Canadians pay their fair share of the taxes owing
to the government.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I see the minister is in a co-operative mood today. If I
have understood correctly-and we will see in the bill that will be
introduced-he intends to require firm monetary commitments,
real binding commitments. That is what we have been asking him
to do since the beginning, so we are pleased today that he has just
now given us at least part of an answer.
Since he is in a co-operative mood, could he respond to other
requests from the official opposition concerning the case of interest
to us here? First of all, contrary to what he said yesterday in his
ministerial statement, can he limit the use of the TCAs, taxable
Canadian assets, solely to non-residents? Second- something he
has not wanted to do from the start-could he demand that there be
a complete investigation of the 1991 case, which is still somewhat
unclear, and which is still an outrageous scandal for Canadian
taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is no scandal, The auditor general himself has said that there
was no scandal of any kind, that the integrity of the public servants
concerned was not in question.
The auditor general himself, whom the hon. member has quoted
on numerous occasions, has said that there was no scandal.
[English]
It is quite important that we understand what has happened here.
There was a law in place in 1991, of which certain taxpayers took
advantage. The government decided there was a loophole in the law
which should be closed.
We gave the matter to a parliamentary committee which made a
series of recommendations. Within a month of those
recommendations we stood up in this House of Commons and
closed that loophole.
Let us understand what the opposition is asking. Because it
refuses to deal with the substance of the issue, it wants to make a
lot of unsubstantiated charges. Also, opposition members are
asking us to act retroactively.
They are asking us to say to the world that Canada's laws do not
stand, that we cannot count on them. They would destroy the
economy of this country, and we will not do it.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has a problem that it cannot avoid. The
Minister of National Defence has become a lame duck minister.
The minister has committed so many mistakes, from
interference in the Somalia inquiry to personal contracts for
political friends, bungling the downsizing of the forces, bungling
the base closures, from budget overruns to mismanagement of
morale, that nothing the Somalia inquiry finds or the Prime
Minister says can rehabilitate this minister.
Does the government believe that it is in the national interest to
leave a lame duck minister in charge of the Canadian military?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the point was
made yesterday by the Prime Minister that what we are seeing here
is the politicizing of the entire hearing process dealing with our
deployment to Somalia.
This government has tried to do the right thing. We proposed an
inquiry. We created the inquiry. We want the inquiry to do its job.
We will hold to that line.
Obviously the leader of the Reform Party does not like those
answers, but he is going to get those answers until the inquiry
reports.
He says there is one thing that cannot be avoided and that there is
a problem. I would say that we could use the same language about
him and his party. There is one thing his party cannot avoid. The
fact is there is a problem with leadership; it is a problem with his
leadership.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and now the minister keep repeating
the same old thing, let the inquiry do its work. We agree.
Canadians also want the Prime Minister to do some work. The
Prime Minister says do not interfere with the inquiry. The minister
says the same thing. At the same time, this minister repeatedly
protects and endorses General Boyle, one of the key figures being
investigated by that inquiry. The government cannot have it both
ways.
5058
If the government is serious about letting the inquiry do its
work, why does it not instruct the Minister of National Defence
to withdraw his protection and endorsation of General Boyle?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
public is finding it quite odd that the Reform Party, day in and day
out, is going at this issue. It is, in effect, undermining the integrity
of the inquiry process.
Canadians want constructive suggestions about the economy,
about national unity, about pension reform, about agriculture,
about a host of other issues that affect them in their daily lives.
What do we have here? We have a party that ostensibly
supported the inquiry process but has done everything, by its
behaviour in the House of Commons, to undermine it. That is
unacceptable.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this answer from a minister who attempted to influence
who sat on the inquiry, who tolerates document tampering before
the inquiry and who himself makes statements of endorsation about
General Boyle even before he gets off the stand at the inquiry. Who
is interfering with the inquiry?
We hear that the government is looking for an election slogan.
We have one from a letter from a retired soldier: ``Canadians
deserve better''. Our soldiers have been saddled with a lame duck
minister and chief of defence staff.
How long is it going to take the government to acknowledge that
Canadians deserve better leadership at the top of the Canadian
military?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really have
tried to avoid politics as much as possible in this whole matter.
Canadians want to find the truth regarding what happened with
our deployment to Somalia. They want the commission to do its
work.
The leader of the Reform Party talks about Canadians deserving
better from the government. Canadians deserve better from the
opposition. They deserve an opposition that asks constructive,
intelligent questions that contribute to the national policy debate,
not to come here every day and try to make partisan political
interjections on the facts not only of the inquiry but of the Canadian
military itself.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
As the minister knows, our country's major defence industry
companies are concentrated in Quebec. These include Expro, Bell
Helicopter, SNC and Oerlikon. It is also a fact that, without
government support, up to 10,000 jobs will disappear in this sector
over the next five years.
Considering that 56 per cent of the aerospace industry is located
in Quebec, and that, for ten years now, Quebec has been receiving
$115 million annually under the existing program, will the minister
pledge to maintain the same level of funding for Quebec under the
technology partnerships program?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for mentioning that federal
support to Quebec's aerospace industry has been very significant.
Indeed, it is the Government of Canada that established
technology centres in the Montreal region. It is also the
Government of Canada that set up the base on which was built the
industry in Montreal. And now, we are committed to continue
supporting Montreal's technology sector.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we take note of the fact that the minister will have to set
aside $115 million for Quebec.
I have a supplementary. Does the minister know that the English
version of his document on the technology partnership program
points out that funding will be exclusively for feasibility studies,
while this information is lacking in the French version-
(1435)
The Speaker: I remind the hon. member that he must not use
props when putting his questions. The Minister of Industry has the
floor.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member had reviewed Montreal's economic
situation, he would know that it is those sectors relying on the
political framework, and the industry sectors supported by the
government of Canada that do well, namely the pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, telecommunication and aerospace industries.
By contrast, the sectors that depend on the government of
Quebec are doing very badly.
5059
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know it is this Liberal government that has
destroyed the morale of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is this lame
duck minister and this government that are playing politics at the
expense of armed forces personnel.
Despite what the Liberals think, most military personnel who
served in Somalia served with distinction and should be recognized
for their often stellar performance.
The Prime Minister and the defence minister continue to support
General Boyle but refuse to support the rank and file in the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Will the defence minister move his support from General Boyle
to our Somalia veterans and strike and issue a Somalia medal?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
question that the majority of work that was done in Somalia by our
forces was exceptionally good. However, a serious problem has
been identified and it is being dealt with by the commission.
This government feels it would be inappropriate to issue such a
medal at this time. Those people who will be deserving of a medal
will get their medal in due course. However, I think we owe it to the
commission and to a sense of fair play and justice to allow the
commission to do its work before we proceed on any other matter.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the government's failure to issue a Somalia medal
shows its complete disregard for morale in the Canadian Armed
Forces
The Prime Minister is rewarding his bad apples, General Boyle
and the defence minister, when they do not deserve it. Through his
lack of leadership, the Prime Minister has caused morale in the
forces to suffer.
When will the government shift its obsessive and misguided
support for the defence minister and General Boyle to recognize
armed forces personnel who served in Somalia on Canada's behalf?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
Prime Minister and I have dealt with most of these points in recent
days.
The hon. member is often talking about the morale in the armed
forces. There is no question that when people see television or
newspaper reports of the inflammatory rhetoric that comes from
the opposition day in and day out, that obviously affects morale.
This is a difficult time for the armed forces. It is time for
everyone to pull together and allow justice to take its course. I
remind the hon. member, although he should know, a former
member of the Canadian Armed Forces, that morale does not come
only from leadership. Morale comes from a sense of worth, a sense
of mission and a sense of duty to the country.
I have every confidence in the men and women of the armed
forces, despite the problems we are facing, that they feel they are
getting that sense of worth, that they have a sense of mission and
that they are serving with distinction despite all these problems.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
report on official languages in the public service, tabled this
morning by the President of the Treasury Board, once again
confirms that the federal government applies a double standard in
its official languages policy.
My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
In Quebec, 54 per cent of the positions in the federal public service
are bilingual, to serve an anglophone minority that represents 10
per cent of the population. Why are francophones in Ontario and
New Brunswick not entitled to the same quality of service in their
language?
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the opposition member missed the main point of the report.
The main point is that the position of official languages in Canada
is improving steadily, and the report indicates that progress is
continuing in nearly all areas, including service to the public,
language of work and equitable representation of francophones and
anglophones in the Public Service.
In Quebec, the proportion of anglophones and allophones is
nearly 20 per cent, and consequently we have a proportionate
number of bilingual public servants which reflects the needs of the
province.
In the other provinces, the percentages are much lower, and
consequently the number of bilingual public servants is lower but
adequate to existing needs.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government will not give francophones in the rest of Canada the
same services as anglophones in Quebec. How can the President of
the Treasury Board be a party to such discrimination, being a
francophone himself?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
not true there is discrimination against francophones. About 63,000
positions in the Public Service have been designated bilingual. The
5060
total percentage of francophone public servants in the Public
Service is 27 per cent, while the proportion of francophones in the
general population is 24.9 per cent. So there is no discrimination as
far as numbers are concerned.
I would also like to point out that if there is a problem, it is due to
the fact that in Quebec, the proportion of anglophone public
servants is only 5 per cent, while anglophones represent 13 per cent
of the population. We will make every effort to correct this
imbalance as we have done in the case of francophone communities
outside Quebec.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how
quickly the heritage minister forgets her GST promises.
Over the last six months the Minister of Canadian Heritage has
announced spending of $20 million on Liberal propaganda, $23
million on flags, $16 million on Radio Canada, and $100 million
on a TV production fund. Not one penny of the money appears in
the minister's detailed budget but it does add up to a grand total of
$159 million.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage defend $140 million
GST on books while spending $159 million in unbudgeted,
borrowed money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I happy that the member
has raised the issue of spending for flags. Over past months I have
received a number of requests from across the country for flags. In
particular, I received from the constituency office of Jim Gouk-
The Speaker: I ask hon. members not to refer to other members
by their name.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have received faxes from the office
of the member for Red Deer looking for flags-
(1445 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Earlier in the question period I asked that
members not use props. Of course, we are going to be referring to
material which is written. I would ask you not to use the paper to
wave it around or to use it as a prop. I would appreciate you doing
that. I will return to the hon. Deputy Prime Minister for a brief
response.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, there are further faxes from the
member for Port Moody, British Columbia and further faxes from
the member for Capilano-Howe Sound.
Some hon. members: More, more.
Ms. Copps: Faxes, Mr. Speaker, from a number of members of
the Reform Party who obviously believe that the flag program is a
popular and useful program.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
quite understand the minister's point.
Is she saying that Reform members should not be acting on
behalf of their constituents when they come into their offices? She
is simply trying to deflect the fact that when she was told that her
Liberal propaganda office was going to cost $20 million, she said:
``Oh, that's only a cup of coffee for every Canadian''. That is a
typical Liberal answer.
How can the minister justify this spending, wrapping herself in
the flag and doing all of these things while at the same time leaving
the tax, the GST, on books?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third
party obviously has a very strong affiliation with the flag program
as well because in his constituency over 1,000 people have called
the government concerning this most popular program ever.
Over the last seven months the government has received over
three million calls. Those same individuals in the Reform Party
who stand day after day in the House of Commons complaining
about the flag program have no shame in demanding that they
receive flags for their constituents. Unfortunately for the Reform
Party they cannot have it both ways.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The embezzlement scandal at Valcartier continues to cause a stir.
The lead witness in the inquiry into this matter contends that Public
Works and Government Services Canada simply ignored schemes
to bypass the tendering process. Clearly, the military police
investigation was not very thorough. While this has been a
widespread practice for at least 15 years, only 4 charges have been
laid.
Given the very serious nature of the allegations and since this
form of corruption is apparently commonplace in several other
bases across the country, will the minister launch an independent
inquiry into this other scandal?
5061
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regarding the
allegations the hon. member referred to, of course it is understood
that, if certain things are not as they should be, the authorities are
prepared to investigate as required.
As far as the news report he mentioned is concerned, I have
asked my officials to fill me in on what happened. I am told that a
contract that could be extended for more than one year was
awarded. During the first year of the contract, additional work was
requested and performed. Later, the department asked for an
explanation for this work and an explanation was provided. The
work had to be paid for since it had been done; there was no choice.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): This does not sound
very reassuring, Mr. Speaker. Taxpayers have the right to know
how their money is used.
My question is for the Minister of Defence. Does the minister
not realize that, by not calling an independent inquiry into this
matter, he is lacking transparency and indirectly condoning a
fraudulent scheme which, I remind him, is said to be widespread in
several other bases, costing taxpayers in Quebec and Canada a
fortune?
(1450 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last
week, we are obviously aware of what has been going on there and
disciplinary action has been taken. Certain charges have been laid
and other charges may be laid.
The way to deal with a problem, no matter how regrettable, is to
allow the normal course of justice to go on. Those people who have
committed an offence will be dealt with appropriately.
As to the allegation about this series of events which have gone
on at Base Val Cartier being prevalent across the country, I would
invite the hon. member to give us evidence of that. Is this just wild
speculation? If he has evidence then he has an obligation to bring it
forward to me or to others so that we can investigate it.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The final post-election statement on the recent Armenian
presidential elections concluded that very serious breaches in the
election laws took place affecting the outcome. Over 250
opposition members, including eight members of Parliament, have
been arrested.
Can the minister assure the House that the government will
review its policy toward Armenia to guarantee the protection of the
democratic process and the physical safety and human rights of
Armenian citizens?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Don Valley North for
bringing to the attention of the House a serious breach in election
law that took in Armenia.
Canada is one of the few countries that actually sent observers as
part of the OSCE team. We have now undertaken to represent to the
OSCE that there should be a full scale assessment given to the
government of Armenia and ask it for a clear answer to the
criticisms of that breach of the process.
We have also conveyed directly to the Armenian ambassador
here our very deep concern about the breach of the rights of certain
people in the assembly in Armenia and we hope to have a response
from that government soon. If we do not get a response I can assure
the hon. member and other members of the House that we will take
all the actions necessary to make sure the democratic process is
respected in that country.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
spending priorities say a lot about a government. This summer
while hospitals were closing, while universities were cutting back
on classes, while seniors prepared themselves for the benefits
clawback, while the GST was being levied on the books and while
the debt climbed up toward $600 billion, our heritage minister dug
deep into taxpayers' pockets and found another $23 million for
flags.
I realize that the broken GST promise has probably harmed her
future leadership bid, but does she really think that taxpayers
would prefer cutting in health, education and other priority areas
while spending moneys on a flag program?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member did not
express that view when on March 25 and on several other dates the
member for Fraser Valley East contacted my office so that I might
send the flags out to his constituents.
Mr. Abbott: What a joke.
Ms. Copps: The fact is flags certainly will not save a country,
but it is also true that in this time when our country was taken to the
brink it is important that we find public expressions of our
connection to our country.
The reason that three million Canadians have called the
1-888-Fly Flag line is because they obviously believe this is a
government program that has some merit.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
flags are symbolic and this $23 million giveaway is symbolic too.
It symbolizes a failed national unity strategy. It symbolizes the
waste of other people's money that this minister seems to regard as
her birthright. It symbolizes the arrogance of thinking that
patriotism can be bought. It symbolizes the Liberal Party which
uses taxpayers' money for crass pre-election spending.
5062
How many more flags will the heritage minister wrap herself in
to disguise the fact that this government simply does not have a
national unity plan?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says
that the flag program is not wanted by Canadians. Perhaps the
member can explain to the House why on March 25, March 27,
March 14, March 20, March 21, April 3, April 4-
(1455)
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The relentless fight against inflation has been the Bank of
Canada's policy since 1988, and this goal set by the former
governor expires at the end of 1998. So talks on the monetary
policy to be adopted for the next decade are now being held.
Could the Minister of Finance specify his government's position
with regard to the inflation fighting strategy soon to be adopted by
the Bank of Canada for the years 1998 to 2008?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will certainly have talks with the Bank of Canada when the time
comes. It would be premature at this stage to comment. I would,
however, like to make a slight correction: the 1 to 3 per cent goal
valid until 1998 was set by myself and the current Governor of the
Bank of Canada when we came to office in 1993-94.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today's
interest rates are low but the question is: Will they stay low? Now
that we know the disastrous impact a zero inflation monetary
policy can have on employment, will the Minister of Finance see to
it that the Bank of Canada does not unduly restrict the money
supply as soon as inflation raises its head?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question because he raises a very
important point. I can tell him that the 1 to 3 per cent range set by
the government and the Bank of Canada remains our goal at this
time.
Canada paid dearly, perhaps too dearly, in the fight against
inflation in the early 1990s. Now that our inflation rate is very low,
it is an asset we want to keep. Having said that, I think the range
set jointly by the Bank of Canada and the government is
appropriate for now.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in his reply to the speech from the throne the Prime
Minister promised seniors that the OAS and GIS payments which
they receive would not be reduced. However, budget documents
show that some seniors will pay at least $1,200 more per year in
taxes.
The Prime Minister promised that senior benefits would not be
reduced. Budget documents show that the removal of age and
pension tax credits will in fact reduce seniors' income.
Who should Canadian seniors believe: the Prime Minister or the
budget documents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at
the time the new seniors' benefit was set out it was made very clear
that current seniors would be protected, that the new benefit plan
would come into effect only in the year 2000 and at that point
seniors would have the ability to choose which of the two plans was
best for them.
There may well be changes in the tax act that are going to affect
all Canadians. Those changes will occur. However, let us be very
clear. The Prime Minister said that current seniors would be
protected and current seniors have been protected.
It is very important that we listen to what the Prime Minister said
because opposite him is the Reform Party which has made it very
clear that it would eviscerate the Canada pension plan, the OAS and
the GIS. That is why what the Prime Minister said is so important.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is one thing we can be sure of: today's extreme
Reform policies will be Liberal policy tomorrow. Of that we can be
sure.
(1500 )
I know Canadian seniors have a bit of a worry with the present
government which promised them the moon before the last
election. I would like the minister to seriously consider this: The
clawback provisions of the seniors benefit affect low income
seniors the most and by far the hardest. Income of up to $16,000 is
clawed back at a rate of 50 per cent, but income between $16,000
and $25,000 is not clawed back at all. It makes absolutely no sense
and it is-
The Speaker: Would the hon. member please come to the
question.
5063
Mr. McClelland: The Prime Minister promised protection; the
government is not delivering it. Will the minister go back to the
books, revise that portion of the provisions of the clawback and
make if fair to seniors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
it be very clear that what we have done is ensure that low income
and middle income seniors will be protected. It is true that at the
upper end certain seniors may receive less. That has been done in
order to make the program sustainable and to make sure that low
income seniors are taken care of.
However, I think a far more significant thing has been said here
today in this House. A member of the third party has finally
admitted that which all Canadians know: whether it is health
policy, pension policy, or another way in which they approach
society, theirs is a party of extremists. It is a party that refuses to
take the middle course. It is a party that says extremism is a virtue.
Nowhere in this country will Canadians allow the forces of the
far right to dominate.
* * *
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last year the minister of agriculture introduced
the matching investment initiative program for agricultural
research which is vital to the continued growth of this country's
agri-food sector. After a year of operation does the program have
the support and participation of industry? Are the funds being
shared across Canada?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matching investment initiative
is a very creative way in which my department works with the
private sector in increasing the total pool of funds available for
agri-food R and D in this country.
In the 1995-96 fiscal year, the first year of the program, it was
virtually fully subscribed with a total of $24 million being invested
in new agri-food research and development activities. So far in
1996-97, just in the first quarter of this fiscal year, we have
invested a total of more than $30 million in matched funds under
this initiative.
I am confident it will be fully subscribed doing good work from
Newfoundland to British Columbia in the interests of agriculture
and agri-food in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment.
As far as I know this government has never repudiated the
endorsement of the Brundtland commission that was given by a
previous government.
A tremendous environmental effect will be felt as a result of the
rail line abandonments which are now proceeding as a result of the
government's policy with respect to transportation. We are going to
see more trucks on the road. We are going to see a lot of other
environmental effects.
Has the Minister of the Environment commissioned an
environmental assessment of this major policy decision? Pursuant
to the recommendations of the Brundtland commission and a
Canadian endorsement thereof, has the Minister of the
Environment commissioned that kind of assessment? Will he make
a representation to his colleague the Minister of Transport to put a
stop to these rail line abandonments until we have had that kind of
environmental assessment?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, not yet.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like to draw to your attention
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Chuck Furey, Minister of
Industry, Trade and Technology for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
(1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know what the government has on the
agenda for the coming week.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today and tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-55 and
hopefully be done with it. If this is the case, we will resume the
debate on Bill C-58, which concerns marine transportation, before
moving on to Bill C-29.
[English]
On Monday we will be calling Bill C-26, the oceans bill. After
that, we would like to do report stage and third reading of Bill
C-54, the extraterritorial measures bill, and second reading of the
Canada-Israel trade agreement bill that was introduced this
morning.
We would then like to get Bill C-60, the food inspection bill into
committee. In this regard, I would like to give notice to the House
that it is the intention of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
5064
to propose that Bill C-60 be referred to committee before second
reading.
We would then turn to the Indian and northern affairs bills, Bill
C-6 and Bill C-50, followed by Bill C-49 regarding administrative
tribunals, and Bill C-47 respecting reproductive technologies.
_____________________________________________
5064
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-55,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records
Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the
Solicitor General Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Speaker: I would like to know if the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm intends to speak for 20 minutes, or if he will
split his time with a colleague.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to speak for 20 minutes.
There is no doubt that, with the introduction of Bill C-55, the
Minister of Justice fulfils a popular wish. Western Canada, among
other regions, must be pleased to see measures which, at first
glance, are aimed at strengthening and tightening the supervision
of high risk offenders and at keeping them in prison for a longer
period.
However, we should not rejoice too quickly, since this is a bill
motivated by purely partisan considerations and the fact that the
next election is not far away.
In order to assess Bill C-55, one must see where it comes from,
know what is currently being done in this area, and try to figure out
the purpose of the proposed amendments. You will realize that Bill
C-55 is hardly the result of lengthy research by the federal Minister
of Justice and that it did not originate with him, since it is a topic
that has been discussed for a long time and one on which even the
Conservatives had done some very thorough research.
In fact, between 1988 and 1993, if I may digress to provide a
better understanding of the purpose of these amendments, many
studies were carried out and many people looked into this problem.
There were provincial commissions of inquiry on the Stephenson
case, the Pepino federal commission of inquiry, and reports by the
Standing Committee on Justice on serious and bodily harm in
February 1993 and on the Fulston and Crews case in April 1993.
(1510)
All this combined with increasing public pressure led members
of the Conservative caucus in 1988-93, faced with the Reform
threat, to convince the Conservative government that it should
propose a series of measures, which it did in the form of a white
paper on the subject of dangerous offenders.
On May 25, 1993, the then solicitor general Doug Lewis tabled
two draft bills, which covered five main components, most of
which we see again today in Bill C-55. The first component is
post-sentence detention, which could be ordered by a court and the
purpose of which was to incarcerate indefinitely inmates who were
found to be far too dangerous to be released on expiry of their
sentence.
The second point indicated in this draft bill was long-term
supervision for a maximum of 10 years, to be imposed by the
courts at the time of sentencing. The third point was no parole for
offenders serving a sentence for sexual assaults against children
and automatically considered as having caused serious harm to the
victim.
The fourth point was a change in the calculation of consecutive
sentences for any new convictions during a parole period that
would result in an extending the time of detention. The last point
concerned various amendments to the Parole Act, including a
disciplinary committee for members of the National Parole Board.
This happened between 1988 and 1993, as you can see. After a
series of studies, in 1993 a number of components were defined
and the bill was introduced with these five components.
One would have thought that, if amendments in this area were so
badly needed, the Minister of Justice would have amended the
Criminal Code immediately after his election, since the research
had been done. He did not. Since this was a popular issue with the
public, the government preferred to wait a little longer to be able to
use this issue closer to an election, and use it for campaign
purposes.
According to the same study, in 1993, the then minister set up a
federal-provincial-territorial task force to consider the problem of
high risk violent offenders. In 1994, the new Liberal government
tabled Bill C-45, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional
Release Act, but all this was still subject to the task force's soon to
be released report on high risk offenders.
In January 1995, the federal-provincial-territorial task force on
high risk violent offenders set up by the Conservatives and
maintained by the Liberals released its report outlining a strategy
for managing high risk offenders. The report contained a series of
recommendations. Among other things, the task force
recommended that dangerous offender provisions and civil
incarceration procedures be used more often in the case of
dangerous offenders suffering from mental illness who had almost
completed their sentences.
5065
It also proposed a procedure for criminals to be declared
long-term offenders so they could be subject to supervision after
their release. As you can see, the conclusions in this report bear a
great deal of resemblance to the bill tabled by the then solicitor, Mr.
Lewis, in 1993. The wheel had already been invented back in 1993.
In March 1996, a Reform member tried to revive former minister
Lewis' bill during private members' business. In May 1996, a bill
on the government business research project was tabled. This is
another study in the area, this time on dangerous offenders.
(1515)
This study, which focused on 64 dangerous offenders and 34
high-risk violent offenders, was designed to help solicitors
determine which cases met the criteria for being declared
dangerous offender. The report contained 11 recommendations.
There were many studies, as you can see. We have been looking
into this problem for years. We had a series of tools at our disposal
to act quickly in an emergency, if there was a need to amend the
legislation, but these were not used until the very last minute.
What is the present situation? Is there a vacuum, a void in the
legislation? We have seen all the publicity around Bill C-55, the
reassurance the minister wanted to give the people of Quebec and
Canada through this legislation, as if that was the problem and he
had just found a magic solution.
But the subject of dangerous offenders is already covered by the
existing legislation, part XXIV of the Criminal Code, sections 752
through 761. More and more individuals are being declared
dangerous offenders. Statistics show that, in March 1995, 145
inmates had been declared dangerous offenders. Of these, 51 per
cent were in a maximum security institution, 43 per cent in a
medium security institution and the rest, or 4.5 per cent, in a
psychiatric institution.
Dangerous criminals are not out on the street. We already have in
the Criminal Code all that we need to jail those who need to be and
to identify dangerous offenders as such. The problem rests with
enforcement.
Does the justice minister's Bill C-55 do more? Is the Minister of
Justice ensuring that the citizens of this country and their families
will be afforded better protection? Perhaps we should take a look at
what exactly this bill provides for.
The bill aims to make it easier for the courts to attach the
``dangerous offender'' label to violent offenders who are likely to
offend again. In short, it covers four points, which are strangely
similar to the four I mentioned earlier in reference to the bill
former solicitor general Lewis had introduced. As I said, the Lewis
bill was introduced in 1993. We waited three years for essentially
the same results.
First, a special court hearing to have an accused designated a
dangerous offender; there is nothing particular about this. Second,
the Crown will have until six months after the conviction to make a
dangerous offender application; this may be a new element that was
not in the Lewis bill. It is easy to understand the reason for this
six-month period, given that useful additional evidence is
sometimes obtained later by the crown.
Third, the number of psychiatrists who have to testify at a
hearing goes up from one to two. Fourth, the initial review of an
application for parole by a dangerous offender increases from three
to seven years.
The bill also creates a new category of offender, who will be
subject to long-term supervision, for up to ten years. This new
category will include offenders convicted of sexual assault, sexual
interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation,
exposure, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault,
or breaking and entering to sexually assault an occupant.
So far, we cannot really be opposed to this bill and its proposed
changes.
Legal constraint could also be used in the case of an accused
found not guilty by the court, but likely to commit a serious
personal injury offence, as defined under section 752 of the
Criminal Code.
(1520)
Such constraint could include the use of electronic monitoring
when such a program exists in a province. We are totally opposed
to this approach, which goes against a number of judicial
precedents and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is
a very serious violation of recognized legal principles, and I will
get back to this later on in my speech.
Finally, in the case of the fourth point concerning low-risk
offenders, there is no problem with an increased use of risk
assessments by lawyers, judges and prosecutors so that sentences
can be served in the community; there is no problem with more
frequent use of day parole; nor is there a problem with correctional
services using particular techniques on a more frequent basis to
reduce repeat offences; and, finally, there is no problem with
encouraging the use by natives of sentencing circles either.
So there you have Bill C-55 tabled by the minister in this House.
It is well-intentioned but, in my humble opinion, the minister has
merely given an official legal structure to what is current practice.
What he is seeking to achieve through amendments is already
being done by judges and the legal world as a whole through their
discretionary powers.
In cases where judges realize that the person before them is a
dangerous offender, they make sure that he cannot regain his
freedom as easily as that. In fact, the courts are already handing
5066
down indefinite sentences to offenders identified as dangerous.
According to the statistics consulted, there are a good dozen a year.
In addition, even under the present legislation, none of the
offenders identified as dangerous by the courts have been granted
parole on their first application after three years, so it goes to seven
years and the result is the same.
Why is the public being treated to all this song and dance? In the
end, it is to persuade the public that Bill C-55 now before us will be
the answer to almost all the problems with dangerous offenders. I
would say to you that it is because it is a good move, election wise,
because it goes over well, particularly out west.
Although the minister could have taken action much earlier, he
was waiting for the right moment. He was waiting for a good date
in the party's electoral calendar. By responding to the Reform
Party's campaign, the minister is minimizing his party's losses.
Furthermore, I wonder to what extent Ottawa consulted. We
were told that it carried out a series of consultations. I heard the
minister himself say so. Section 810.2, subsections 1 to 10,
allowing a judge to order preventive monitoring for an accused
found not guilty, was never part of these consultations. I checked
with my colleagues in Quebec, and we realize that this point was
never submitted for discussion. They were very surprised to see
this matter of electronic monitoring in the bill.
When you talk about electronic monitoring, you are also talking
about additional costs. That, too, was not discussed. We do not
know who will cover these costs, it was not discussed. Generally
speaking, the criticism we have of this bill concerns the costs. In
1993, the cost was evaluated at $150 million by the former solicitor
general of Canada, Mr. Lewis. Today, it could go as high as $250
million with electronic monitoring. We have no commitment from
the minister as to who will pay.
There is no evidence that electronic bracelets are a reliable way
to monitor dangerous offenders. Some reports from the United
States indicate that a person who is fitted with a bracelet must
remain within a certain radius of his telephone, because the waves
are transmitted via the telephone. If the person is one floor down,
he disappears from the screen, and we no longer know where he is.
(1525)
Furthermore, an electronic bracelet will not keep a dangerous
offender from repeating an offence or an assault. A bracelet will
only help the police to find out where the individual was on a given
date at a given time. As far as crime prevention is concerned, the
system is worthless.
This is one point where we are very critical of the bill. That the
government did not act sooner is another point, as I said earlier, and
above all-and I think this is a good question-how does the
Correctional Service of Canada intend to make this new system
work, a system that will involve increased supervision, when today,
that same correctional service is unable to prevent the sale of drugs
in so-called maximum security prisons?
I had an opportunity to question the commissioner in committee,
and he admitted quite frankly that drugs were a problem in our
prisons, but they were incapable of monitoring all that. They are
incapable of monitoring the circulation of drugs in prisons, and
they want to supervise dangerous or so-called dangerous offenders
using electronic bracelets. It does not make sense, considering the
cost involved.
Another point is that Bill C-55 contains no preventive measures.
It has an extremely serious weakness. Nor does the bill reflect the
reality of 1996, because when we look at the statistics, we realize
that the number of violent crimes has decreased by 13 per cent
since 1991. We also realize, on the basis of the same statistics, that
cases of sexual assault have dropped 21 per cent since 1994.
So things are not all that bad. I agree that the ideal situation is
paradise. I agree that we see full page headlines in the newspapers,
but if I told you that newspaper headlines are inversely
proportionate to reality, what would you say? You would say I was
right. Indeed. But big headlines sell newspapers. And the Reform
Party takes advantage of those headlines. Every day we see Reform
Party members using the newspaper headlines to try and make
political capital. But reality is different.
We must keep working on prevention as they are doing in
Quebec and in more and more Canadian provinces as well. But Bill
C-55 is a band-aid solution being used to cope with a problem that
is far more serious than that.
There is also another point, another important criticism, which is
that the bill does not contain any clauses related to extending prison
terms or creating a monitoring system for an inmate who turned out
to be far more dangerous when his release was imminent than when
he was sentenced. It is not possible to know that someone
sentenced for 10 or 15 years will not be more dangerous when he
comes out than when he went in. We have absolutely nothing about
this in Bill C-55.
Finally, what I feel is the major point is the problem relating to
an acknowledged principle, the presumption of innocence, since
section 810.2 would allow a judge, as I have just said, to bring
down a not guilty verdict while imposing supervision, which casts
doubt on the validity of his verdict.
I believe very sincerely that, when a society starts to suspend
such basic rights as the presumption of innocence on a
case-by-case basis, it is treading close to the line of intolerance and
is at risk of falling over that line into unjustified excesses.
5067
Canadian society and Quebec society merely mirror the people
who constitute them. Society, therefore, bears a share of the
responsibility, and this bill I have before me, Bill C-55, does not
reflect this sharing of responsibility.
It is imperative, and absolutely necessary, for the government
and Parliament as a whole, to ensure the protection of our children,
the ensure the protection of our families, as well, of course, as to
ensure the protection of society.
(1530)
As a party and as responsible individuals we intend to fight for
these important principles. However, I would have liked to see in
this bill a comprehensive prevention policy that would really try to
achieve the objective the minister had in mind. I will have to wait
for another bill, because I can find nothing in Bill C-55 that gives
me reason to believe the safety of the public, of our children and of
society in general will be improved. I see absolutely nothing in this
bill that would achieve this.
That being said, the Bloc Quebecois as the official opposition
can hardly object to the principle of a bill whose purpose is to
protect the public against violent or dangerous offenders, and
deficient though the bill may be, there is a principle to which we
cannot object.
However, I think the minister should be very careful when he
says that this kind of bill will solve practically all our problems. I
think he is raising expectations among the public, which clearly
will not be met by Bill C-55.
I therefore urge the minister to pay attention to what I just said,
to review that part of the bill which concerns the electronic bracelet
and electronic monitoring, and remove the part which I think might
be challenged by the courts and which would otherwise cost the
governments of Canada and Quebec and all taxpayers who would
challenge this part of the legislation a fortune in legal fees.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Annapolis
Valley-Hants.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-55,
an act to amend the Criminal Code for high risk offenders, the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records
Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the
Solicitor General Act. I was pleased to hear that members of the
Bloc Quebecois will be supporting the bill.
I would like to congratulate both the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada and the Solicitor General of Canada
for introducing this bill as early as they have.
There is no doubt that Canadians are very concerned about
personal safety, as well as the safety of their families. Indeed, this
bill has already been endorsed by a number of communities and
individuals across the country.
Bill C-55 represents one of the most significant initiatives in
relation to the criminal justice system in Canada. In keeping with
the Liberal election platform, our government is committed to
public safety in this country. This promise was reiterated in the
throne speech of February 27, 1996, when the government stated:
``The non-violent character of our country, safe homes, safe streets,
is also an essential element of security for Canadians''. The bill
fulfils that commitment by taking the necessary steps to ensure the
safety of our streets.
The main components of Bill C-55 are threefold. There is a new
category created, the long term offender category. This category
targets sex offenders and provides for supervision of their
movement up to ten years after they have completed their parole
and prison sentences. Convictions made in this category can
include sexual assault, sexual touching, sexual exploitation,
indecent exposure, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault
with a weapon or causing bodily harm.
(1535 )
The second main component of this bill deals with dangerous
offenders. The dangerous offender procedure focuses on cases
where there is a very high level of brutality. Under the proposed
changes a judge will no longer have the discretion and will be
required to impose an indefinite sentence.
The crown under current laws may bring an application to
declare someone a dangerous offender in the period between
conviction and sentencing. However, the amendment to this bill
will allow the crown to bring in a dangerous offender application
up to six months after conviction.
The third main category of Bill C-55 allows a new judicial
restraint provision to be added to the Criminal Code. This will
permit pre-emptive controls including electronic monitoring to be
applied to individuals. If there are reasonable grounds to believe
that an individual has a high risk of committing a serious personal
injury offence, the judge can impose conditions on that individual.
In conjunction with these initiatives Bill C-55 discusses
alternatives for incarceration of low risk, non-violent offenders.
The federal inmate population has increased 22 per cent in the last
five years. Canada's incarceration rate is 130 per 100,000
population. This statistic is far ahead of countries such as Britain,
which has 92; France, 86; Germany, 81. However, it is also far
behind our neighbouring country, the United States, where the rate
is 529: in Russia it is 558. Imagine, out of 100,000 population over
500 are sitting in prison.
This is what Reform Party members want this country to lead to.
They should be ashamed of themselves. They should go back to
their constituents and ask do they want what is in the United States.
Do they want what is in Russia? Or do they want the Canadian way
5068
of doing things? I think their constituents will tell them they will
have the Canadian way of justice in this country.
Low risk, non-violent offenders are those who have not
committed a crime involving personal violence and whose risk of
reoffending is low. This government's first priority is the safety of
Canadians. Not all offenders need to be imprisoned to achieve this
goal of public safety. Promoting measures such as sentencing
reforms and community diversion programs as alternatives for
imprisonment for first time non-violent offenders at a low risk of
reoffending distinguishes between the low risk and the high risk
offenders.
This balanced approach by this government came about through
consultations with provincial and territorial governments, the
National Crime Prevention Council, voluntary organizations and
community groups such as Parkdale Focus Community Watch in
my riding which met with the minister, and the minister listened to
their concerns and those concerns are addressed in this legislation.
In addition, much input was received from individual
constituents. This was instrumental in bringing forward this
legislation.
The measures announced last week are in response to
communities such as Parkdale-High Park where citizens have
lived in fear because of a high risk offender being housed in a local
correctional facility.
Indeed community safety is a high priority in my riding, as in all
of our ridings. This was especially evident when a pedophile was
placed at a correctional centre in the west end of Toronto. Bobby
Oatway, a third time federal offender, served 10 years for sexual
assaults including rape, indecent assault, buggery and bestiality,
and was brought into my riding from British Columbia with no
prior consultation with the citizen advisory committee which we
have set up. In fact, there was no knowledge of his relocation from
B.C. to my riding until after his placement.
Mr. Oatway refused treatment while in prison, was considered
too dangerous to be returned to his home community in British
Columbia, and yet was found to be safe enough to be plunked into
our community in the west end of Toronto. If a pedophile is too
dangerous in one community, the solution is not to transfer him
into another community.
Reform asks why do we not do something about it. We are doing
something about it. That is why we are bringing in Bill C-55. I hope
we can get speedy passage with the support of the Reform Party.
My constituents were enraged when this individual who had
committed atrocious crimes against children was placed in a
minimum security facility that is close to five elementary schools,
a shelter for battered women and several child care centres. Any
parent in this circumstance would be concerned about their
children's safety and the potential denial of their children's basic
right to life. This bill goes a long way toward protecting the basic
right of children, the right to life.
(1540)
On arrival to Toronto on statutory release, Oatway resided at
Keele Community Correctional Centre. He participated in
assessments with our district psychologist as well as with the
admitting psychiatrist with the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. He
was under 24 hour supervision within the Keele Community
Corrections Centre. All access to the community had to be under
escort.
The residents living near the centre, community organizations
and local politicians mounted such a strong and effective
opposition that Mr. Oatway himself requested to be returned to
prison in British Columbia.
Under Bill C-55, the Oatways will not be a threat to communities
either in B.C. or in Parkdale-High Park. The principle concern
that remains within my constituency is why was Bobby Oatway not
declared a dangerous offender. The application for dangerous
offender must be submitted by the crown upon conviction. This did
not occur in this case and the Correctional Service Canada does not
have the legislative powers to impose such a designation.
Under the proposed changes the government will now have up to
six months after conviction to bring in a dangerous offender. Under
the proposal a convicted person found to be a long term offender
would be subject to a prison sentence suited to the offence with an
additional period of supervision for up to 10 years.
In April I attended a public meeting at Indian Road Crescent
Public School where I received almost 1,000 signatures concerning
Bobby Oatway. The petition was forwarded to the Minister of
Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada and I am pleased that
the Liberal government has listened to our communities right
across this country by acting appropriately to seek improvements
to dangerous offenders legislation and to ensure public safety.
It is my strong belief that these government amendments will
extend controls over persons convicted of sex crimes and other
violent offences and will give us the measure to monitor their
activities. In the event that they recommit, these amendments will
put them where they belong, in jail.
Through this legislation there can be an effective combining of
policing, prosecution, sentencing, custody, supervision and
rehabilitation strategies that will control high risk groups within
our society and keep our streets and neighbourhoods safe for our
children and the general public.
5069
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief since I know some of my colleagues would
like to ask questions of the hon. member. I was very interested
to listen to his remarks, especially the case of Bobby Oatway,
which I am fairly familiar with.
I would like him to explain as succinctly as possible exactly how
Bill C-55 will prevent Mr. Oatway from being released? How is it
going to get him classified as the dangerous offender that he
certainly is? I agree with the member's sentiments about Mr.
Oatway, as would all members in this place.
My understanding of Bill C-55 is that they will be able to apply
to have people like him classified as dangerous offenders and kept
in prison for an indeterminate amount of time, if application is
made six months after conviction. But it has been quite a long time.
As the member said, Mr. Oatway has already served 10 years. It is
not six months after conviction so how will Bill C-55 keep Mr.
Oatway in jail where he should be?
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question
and I am pleased that he knows the case. It affected communities in
British Columbia as well as in Ontario.
Bobby Oatway was released because we did not have Bill C-55.
This is why we are bringing in this legislation, so that the judge
after sentence has six months to declare him a dangerous offender.
There is a very small population of Canadian criminals that fits
into the category of dangerous offender. Before there was no such
thing. We are trying to identify the very serious offenders who
should not be allowed into communities. That is what this
legislation will do. He can actually be in prison indefinitely. If the
hon. member would study this bill, he would see that and would
convince his party to support it and give it speedy passage.
(1545)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to the comments of the hon. member. I can really
identify with what he is saying when it comes to the scenario he
outlined regarding Mr. Bobby Oatway, a serious sexual offender. I
too had a similar circumstance in my own riding. The unfortunate
part is that I do not see Bill C-55 answering the hon. member's
concern nor the concerns of other members who have similar
situations in their ridings.
A serious sexual offender, unless he is declared a dangerous
offender at the time of sentencing, cannot be declared one after that
six month period time. Therein lies the problem. There are serious
sexual offenders being released into the community after serving
their sentence and all authorities have indicated that they are a high
risk.
I would suggest that the hon. member look at that legislation the
Minister of Justice is putting forward and seek to have him address
that particular point because this bill does not.
Mr. Flis: Mr. Speaker, again we should make it very clear to the
public that the Oatways and Olsons were out endangering
communities because we did not have this kind of legislation.
Now, after a judge makes a conviction, the judge still has six
months in which to identify him as a dangerous offender, if the
information that is collected points this out. Members of the
Reform Party are living in the past. They are quoting cases of
criminals who have been out endangering our communities. These
criminals were doing that because we did not have this legislation.
This legislation does allow us to identify the Olsons and the
Oatways as high risk offenders and they can be imprisoned
indefinitely if need be.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak in support of Bill
C-55.
Since our government took office in 1993, improving public
safety has been a major priority and we have passed a series of
important legislative initiatives in this regard.
This bill is an important step in our efforts to keep our streets and
our homes safe from violence. Members will recall in the 1996
speech from the throne our government pledged to ``focus
resources on high risk offenders while developing innovative
alternatives for low risk offenders''. This legislation will ensure
that we will meet this commitment.
Let us look for example at the provisions in this bill dealing with
high risk offenders. The bill includes a new long term offender
designation that targets sex offenders and adds a period of long
term supervision of up to 10 years following the release from
prison. This designation will apply to people such as sex offenders
who are less violent and brutal than dangerous offenders but are
found to pose a considerable risk in reoffending.
Now undoubtedly members from the third party will say: ``Why
not keep these people in jail, lock them up and throw the key
away''. That seems to be their one and only solution on the issue of
crime and justice they put forward.
The reality is that eventually prison sentences will come to an
end. For a person who falls under this category, no matter how long
they serve, they will some day be released. A long term offender
designation will however ensure that offenders are closely
monitored beyond the completion of their sentence. Rather than
locking people up and throwing away the key, our government is
working to find responsible, workable solutions to serious public
safety issues.
5070
(1550 )
I believe the best hope for rehabilitation is to gradually
reintegrate an offender back into the community. By imposing on
the offender an additional period of supervision in the community
after the end of his regular sentence, we are giving the offender an
opportunity to reintegrate into society. In doing so, we are not
putting public safety at risk.
The second component of the bill includes strengthening the
dangerous offender provision in the Criminal Code. Again, we
have listened to Canadians who have expressed concerns about
public safety and we have responded in a forceful yet reasonable
manner.
Under the new provisions, anyone who is classified as a
dangerous offender will be kept in prison indefinitely. The judge
will no longer have the discretion to sentence a dangerous offender
to a fixed term. As well, presently the dangerous offender
application must be made at trial. Under Bill C-55, the crown will
now be able to bring an application forward within six months after
conviction.
While members of the third party grandstand day after day
posing as defenders of the public's safety, our government is
working to ensure that such measures are put in place, measures
that will genuinely improve public safety in our communities.
The legislation also includes a new judicial restraint provision.
This provision will permit controls, including electronic
monitoring, to individuals who pose a high risk of committing a
serious personal injury offence. Under these provisions, a judge
will have the power to impose general conditions such as keeping
the peace, specific conditions appropriate to the kind of threats
posed by the individual such as staying away from places where
children congregate.
As one of the conditions for example, a judge could order that
the program of electronic monitoring be applied in provinces where
this option is available. A breach of conditions would constitute a
separate criminal offence which could lead to a jail sentence.
The tough new measures we are bringing forward in the bill will
address many of the concerns we as members of Parliament hear
from our constituents. Over the summer months I held a series of
town hall meetings in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. At
these meetings the issue of crime and public safety was brought
forward on numerous occasions. People are concerned. They want
to know that they can walk safely through their communities. They
want to know that the violent and sexual offenders will not be free
to walk the streets because our justice system has been too lenient
on them. They want to know that the punishment will fit the crime.
I would like to read a brief quote from a letter from one of my
constituents on this issue. The constituent writes: ``I do not want to
see a big brother society, but I feel strongly that peaceful citizens
have a right to safety on the highway and in their homes''. I could
not agree more. I believe that the tough new measures included in
the bill will address the concerns that we members of Parliament
are hearing.
Another important component of Bill C-55 is our approach to
low risk non-violent offenders. I am referring to those offenders
who have not committed a crime involving personal violence and
whose risk of reoffending is assessed to be low. Unlike members of
the third party, our government recognizes that not all offenders
need to be imprisoned in order to improve public safety.
The experience of American states which have used such an
approach should be a lesson to us that incarceration of all
non-violent offenders does not necessarily lead to lower levels of
crime. Our government recognizes that low risk non-violent
offenders can be best dealt with by serving their sentences in the
community with appropriate control and supervision. I strongly
believe that in such instances our community is best served by
promoting rehabilitation and community responsibility rather than
just simply locking people up in jails.
Crime is certainly not a simple issue. Our government's
approach avoids the kind of simplistic solutions we keep hearing
from the third party. Flogging petty criminals and throwing more
and more non-violent offenders in prison for long periods of time is
not the answer.
(1555)
Instead, we are taking serious measures to clamp down on
violent, sexual or dangerous offenders in our society. At the same
time we are promoting community oriented rehabilitation and
treatment of non-violent offenders who are not considered a threat
to our communities. This is the type of balanced and reasonable
approach that will truly make a difference on issues of public safety
and crime prevention. That is why I support Bill C-55.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member referred to the members of the third party, the Reform
Party or whatever, as having an attitude on crime of lock them up
and throw away the key.
I would like to know which member said that. I would like the
member to refer specifically to whose opinion that is and who said
that. I do not like a general comment that all Reformers are this or
all Reformers are that. Not all Liberals are incompetent, just
95.5-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Silye: The member also said that the punishment should
meet the crime. In saying that, does he believe that the penalty for
premeditated first degree murder is a review after 15 years? After
someone receives a lifetime sentence subject to parole, subject to a
5071
review after 25 years, another relaxation for a first degree
murderer, a killer who premeditated gets a review after 15 years.
This is the kind of legislation the Liberal government has
brought in and all the Liberals voted for. All the Liberals support
the view that the punishment should meet the crime. Is that what he
believes is an example of the punishment meeting the crime?
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the member asked about the
throwing away of the key.
I do not ever hear Reform Party members talking about
rehabilitation and treatment. Instead I hear them say, as I perceive
it and hear them day after day in this House, that they would prefer
that people who commit crimes should be in jail.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): You have not listened
to my speech.
Mr. Murphy: You say it all the time.
Mr. Penson: Who said it? It must be in Hansard.
Mr. Murphy: I am sure it is there.
About the review after 15 years, I spent 30 years in psychiatry
and mental health. I have always believed there is the possibility
that people can change. If that possibility is there, then we can look
at a review of a criminal after 15 years. If that person has not
appeared to have any change of heart, has not appeared to have any
treatment programs who has not looked like he can change, then we
keep him in jail.
However, do we have to keep everybody in jail who has a
sentence of 25 years and the opportunity for parole? We as a
Liberal government believe that at times criminals can change.
Their behaviour can change and they can come back into society to
contribute.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I note the member did not answer the question of my hon.
colleague from Calgary. I also note the member revealed that his
background is in psychiatry and mental health. That points out the
real problem we have here. In his remarks he said that he believes
everybody can be rehabilitated.
Mr. Murphy: I never said that, no.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Check Hansard and
see what you said, because that is what you said. Mr. Speaker, that
is what the hon. member said.
(1600 )
I want him to very clearly state, because Reformers believe and
the majority of Canadians believe, that there are some inherently
evil people out there who cannot be rehabilitated. We talk about
rehabilitation, but we believe that some people cannot be
rehabilitated. They have to be kept confined, away from society
and away from the opportunity to reoffend. I wonder if the hon.
member would agree with that or not.
Mr. Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I did not say
that everybody can be rehabilitated. I said some can be
rehabilitated with treatment programs. I still believe some people
need to be kept in jail because they are going to be violent
criminals for the rest of their lives. I believe that is true as well.
Reformers do not agree that they say this. They say in very
subtle ways that with these people they would throw the key away.
I do not believe that is the case.
The Speaker: Will the hon. member for Prince George-Peace
River be speaking for the 20 minutes or splitting his time?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be speaking for the 20 minutes or close to it.
Perhaps before I get into the text of my speech I would like to
rebut what the hon. member from across the way just said in his
closing remarks. I do not know of any Reform member that is
subtle about anything. Take that as it is.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-55 which finally
attempts to respond to the concerns that Canadians have regarding
high risk offenders in our society. Too many convicted offenders
injure or kill after their release and we have become weary of a
justice system that caters to the rights of high risk offenders.
Unfortunately this legislation does not go nearly far enough to
ensure Canadian communities enjoy safety and protection from
violent criminals.
While I find it encouraging that the government may actually
recognize that the justice system currently fails to adequately deal
with dangerous offenders, I am disappointed in the shallow nature
of Bill C-55.
As I have stated in this House during debate on Bill C-53, which
makes the ludicrous proposal to expand temporary absences for
convicted criminals, and during the debate on Bill C-41, which
proposes a strong-arm invasive approach to enforcing child support
payments, there is a recurring theme in government legislation that
is being brought before members for consideration. That theme is
an election theme. Evidence of it can be found in the recent series
of government bills that attempt a quick fix on hot issues.
Despite their ignorance of the fundamental problems plaguing
child custody laws and many aspects of the justice system, the
Liberals are ramming through legislation, any legislation, so they
can tell voters during the next election that they did something to
make changes that Canadians have been demanding.
We know that the Liberals have been content throughout the past
three years to do very little in the way of substantial legislation, but
with an election looming in their future they are scurrying to
5072
appease voters in the areas that they have previously neglected.
This includes the sorry state of our justice system. Canadians have
been horrified with consequences resulting from the lenient
treatment of dangerous, violent and repeat offenders. There have
been demands for tougher sentencing, supervision and more legal
options for the crown should it wish to seek dangerous offender
status for someone convicted of crimes causing serious personal
injury.
With one eye on the election, the Liberals have come up with
Bill C-55, and like many Canadians, I am happy to see the
government get tougher to any degree with these violent criminals.
The bill does not include the fundamental changes required to
effectively protect our communities from these individuals. To use
an analogy, the proposed legislation may heal some superficial
wounds but does little to stop the internal bleeding. With their usual
kid glove approach to convicted criminals, the Liberals have barely
scratched the surface. With a number of amendments this bill could
actually make our streets safer.
(1605 )
I would like to discuss a few of the possible amendments.
Reform has proposed that the bill be amended to allow the crown
the right to seek dangerous offender status at any time during an
offender's jail sentence. Bill C-55 suggests that the crown must
give notice at the time of conviction that it may seek dangerous
offender status for the convict. The crown will have six months
after the conviction to apply for that status.
I do not see why there should be any limitation in seeking
dangerous offender status for those who have caused serious
personal injury to their victims. Who are we trying to protect: the
victims or the violent offenders?
An hon. member opposite tried to clarify this point. I still believe
that the hon. member was wrong in his assessment of Bill C-55. He
used the example of a violent pedophile who is currently in jail.
However, this bill will not prevent that individual from getting out
of jail.
Reform has proposed an amendment to the bill which would
require courts to automatically place dangerous offender status on
anyone who commits a serious personal injury offence on two or
more more separate occasions. Such criminals would be
imprisoned for an indeterminate period of time.
Another glaring omission in Bill C-55 is the failure to specify the
inclusion of pedophiles and sexual predators as dangerousoffenders. It has to be solidly and definitively stated in legislation
that these despicable criminals, such as Paul Bernardo, are
dangerous and a high risk to the safety of our children and to the
safety of the entire country.
Bill C-55 also makes an attempt to remedy section 761 of the
Criminal Code which allows for the review of indeterminate
sentences for dangerous offenders after just three years. The
proposed legislation would increase the period to seven years. I
must admit that this is an uncharacteristically rational approach by
the Liberals, but, again, it does not go far enough. Given the nature
of these offences and in the interest of punishment that fits the
crime and the protection of society, Reform has proposed that these
sentences be reviewed after 15 years of indeterminate
imprisonment.
As I said earlier, it seems as though the government emphasizes
taking a softer approach with convicted criminals than it does with
the rest of society. In the Liberal version of justice the rights of the
criminal are given careful attention, while the rights of society are
irrelevant.
We only have to look at the injustice that millions of innocent,
law-abiding citizens in the country face because gun control
legislation, rammed through by the government, severely impairs
their personal freedom. The Liberals encourage minimal
incarceration for criminals, but because of Bill C-68, their gun
control bill, a law-abiding citizen can face up to 10 years in jail for
failing to register a firearm. Section 104 of this draconian bill also
allows an inspector to obtain a warrant to search an individual's
home for a firearm, even if there is no evidence that a crime has
been committed or is about to be committed. Section 104 of Bill
C-68 has no place in the Canadian justice system.
Rejecting an individual's right to protect themselves, their home,
their family and their property is a frightening prospect. Were the
civil liberties and rights of legitimate gun owners ever considered?
Were civil rights considered in the drafting of this bill?
Bill C-55 includes a judicial restraint provision to impose
restraints on individuals which an attorney general suspects may
commit a serious personal injury offence. This might involve the
suspected individual being ordered to report to correctional
officials or police on a regular basis, or participating in an
electronic monitoring program. Note that I used the words
``suspected'' and ``may''. That means that a person acquitted by a
court of law for any charge or a person who has never been charged
with a criminal offence could be forced to undergo monitoring.
There is a great deal of similarity between this provision and
section 104 of the gun control legislation in that both impose a
restriction on citizens who have not been charged or convicted. We
know the Liberals are reluctant to take such invasive measures
against convicted criminals for fear of infringing on their rights.
However, when an innocent person's rights may be violated, the
Liberal concern for the protection of personal freedoms and
personal liberty is curiously absent.
5073
(1610)
Is this the kind of treatment we should expect in a free and
democratic society? Is it worth risking an individual's civil rights
for technology that is not guaranteed to protect Canadians?
Electronic monitoring systems are expensive and impractical in
crowded cities where buildings occasionally block out signals.
This clause constitutes a broad, indiscriminate infringement of
personal liberty which violates the civil rights of individuals and
should be entirely struck from Bill C-55.
It is puzzling that the idea of electronically monitoring
unconvicted and uncharged individuals was introduced by the same
justice minister who has steadfastly refused to repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code. Dangerous killers, such as Clifford Olson, have
the minister to thank for preserving a law that gives them the right
to have their sentences reviewed after just 15 years. This tells
Canadians that the Liberals are not making the protection of society
a priority.
On the other hand, the same minister attempts to justify the
infringement of civil rights of innocent Canadians by claiming that
the protection of society is paramount. This contradictory
legislation is another result of the piecemeal, quick fix Liberal
election strategy. It has been reported that even senior officials in
the justice department and close friends of the minister tried to
persuade him to drop this clause. Reformers think the minister
should have listened to them.
The identified problem that the minister was attempting to
address was the ineffectiveness of some restraining orders, but how
will this clause be used in practice? What safeguards will be in
place to prevent future abuse? Admittedly, there is a problem with
restraining orders. The most vulnerable members of our society are
the ones most at risk from what has become known as stalkers.
There are a number of well documented cases where restraining
orders have proved to be completely ineffective.
I believe the minister was attempting to solve the problem of
improving the effectiveness of restraining orders by imposing
electronic monitoring as a means to track these individuals. I
support the need for something like this. We also must be cognizant
of the possible abuse of this clause if it is not itself carefully
monitored.
Another amendment I would like to discuss which will improve
the effectiveness of this bill is the elimination of clause 15. It is the
opinion of the Reform Party that all Canadians should be treated
equally. This means that no individual or group should be given
special status. The Liberals are rather fond of conferring special
status on certain groups and this only results in inequality.
Under clause 15 aboriginal communities will have the right to
receive notice of the release of a high risk offender into their
community and the right to become involved in planning for that
release. They are given this special privilege while other Canadian
communities do not receive such notice or opportunity.
There is no logical or justifiable reason to provide these
privileges to one community and not to another. Canadians from all
communities have been requesting notification procedures for the
release of high risk offenders. Why not enact legislation to
implement these measures for all communities? This clause
exemplifies piecemeal legislation that seeks to appease certain
groups on selected hot button issues and it should either be
scrapped or expanded to include notification to all communities.
I reiterate that Bill C-55 has some potential to make a difference.
However, it comes up short in keeping our streets safe from violent
criminals. I ask myself and many Canadians are asking themselves
this question: What is stopping the Liberals from developing
justice policies that keep these offenders in jail?
One issue that might answer this query is the severe over
crowding and financial burden of the prison system. The Liberals
are attempting to reduce corrections costs by letting criminals go
free and therefore making more space available. They are
instituting lenient parole legislation and letting violent, dangerous
criminals out of jail. I emphasize this. There is absolutely no
justification for allowing these high risk individuals to roam our
streets. Second, it is irresponsible to encourage early release or
expanded temporary absences for what the Liberals call lesser
criminals, as we saw in Bill C-53.
(1615)
What will really reduce the number of these types of criminals
sitting in jails at taxpayers expense is deterrence. While the
government strategy has been to rehabilitate these convicts, we
have watched the prison population grow by 22 per cent in the last
five years. This is despite the fact that the number of convicts out
on probation rose by 40 per cent between 1990 and 1994, and 80
per cent of the 154,000 convicts in the correctional system were out
on some form of community supervision in 1994.
The solution to overcrowding and financial problems in the
prison system is deterrence. Hard jail time for those convicted of
the so-called lesser offences will deter them from committing more
crimes and deter those who might commit similar crimes.
Mandatory work, something I mentioned earlier, some outside
during winter under conditions that taxpaying, working Canadians
face every day, will do more to dissuade these individuals from a
life of crime than the longest leisurely stay at a cottage style prison.
Then there will be plenty of space and resources available for
dangerous, violent, high risk offenders who deserve to rot in jail for
raping, mutilating and killing their victims.
5074
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the member for
Calgary Centre who asked us to name one person in this party who
subscribes to the philosophy of lock them up for life, I would like
to quote for his benefit Hansard, September 17, page 4316, the
Reform member for Calgary Northeast:
We say that for every criminal who is convicted of a violent crime for a second
time, he or she should be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for
early release or parole.
To me that means locking them up and throwing away the key. I
hope I have answered the question for the hon. member.
The member who just spoke raised the question of why we are
allowing the crown six months to apply for dangerous offender
category? It is very simple. During that six months new evidence
could arise that would be beneficial to the crown. I refer to recent
cases such as the Bernardo case where there was evidence after the
fact that tapes were available.
He also referred to the clause on stalking and he agrees that we
should take measures to allow correctional services a mechanism
to prevent stalking. I know statistics can be played with and some
members are very good at that. But when we look at the statistics
over 50 per cent of offenders are known to the victims. It is usually
the husband or the spouse, a direct member, when sexual abuse and
violence occurs. As a result there is no mechanism.
We have heard of a case from the Montreal area where a woman
had been stalked by her husband for over a year and the police were
helpless, until finally she was murdered. Then the police had the
law to intervene.
I ask the hon. member if he believes we should remove this
provision from the law. What procedure would he propose that
would allow the police jurisdiction to intervene without necessarily
infringing on the rights of people? If the member took the time to
look at the bill he would know that before a restraining order can
obtained, one must apply to a judge. It is not automatic. The judge
would review the case and if the judge feels that there is sufficient
grounds to justify the restraining order then it is very inexpensive
way for us to monitor the movement of that person. With a bracelet
for example, we would know at any time where the individual is. I
ask the hon. member how he proposes to prevent fear in the women
who are stalked night after night.
(1620)
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for his many comments and questions. I will try to
address them in the same order he made them.
The member's first comment was about some Reform members.
He cited one who said that after a conviction for a second violent
offence those people should be locked up forever. I guess the
obvious question to pose back to the hon. member is how many
times does someone have to commit a violent, horrendous,
despicable crime on innocent members of society before the
Liberals would lock them up and quit letting them out.
We say that if someone commits a crime twice it should be
enough. Do the Liberals want them to do it five or six times and
have more victims before they finally lock them up?
The second point made by the hon. member was an explanation
for the provision of the six-month window to have the prosecution
apply to the courts to have a convicted felon declared a dangerous
offender. I understand the reason for the window, but what I
suggested in my speech is that it should be wide open. We should
be able to retroactively apply it to people who are already in jail to
keep them there.
An hon. member: There are charter rules.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): The member is
indicating there are charter rules which prevent that. Then I am
suggesting that we have to change the charter. We have to do
something. We cannot simply sit here, as the Liberals do, and throw
up our hands and say we cannot do it. That is simply not good
enough.
Earlier when one of the member's colleagues was talking, he
specifically mentioned a horrendous case, the case of Bobby
Oatway, and said that Bill C-55 would solve this problem. The
reality is that Bill C-55 does not solve the problem of existing
dangerous pedophiles like Oatway who are currently in the prison
system. It will do nothing to prevent them from getting out of jail,
which is the point we are trying to make.
The last point that was made by the hon. member was what was
my suggestion, if we drop this clause, to prevent stalking. I think he
made a very good point. What I was bringing to his attention was
that with this legislation I am concerned about possible abuse. I
recognize, as I did in my speech, that there is a need to address this
issue. My concern is not that it will be used where it is justified to
help innocent victims who are in fear of their lives but that it will
possibly be abused by the authorities, one way or another, to
infringe on the rights of people who should not have to undergo
electronic monitoring.
The Deputy Speaker: Before resuming debate, it is my duty,
pursuant to our standing orders, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing,
employment; the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadowlake,
agriculture.
5075
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-55. It deals
with an issue of great importance to my constituents, the whole
issue of public safety and protecting Canadians from violent
offenders.
While the proposals in this bill introduce tough new measures to
deal with high risk offenders in our society, they also introduce a
number of initiatives to deal with non-violent offenders who are at
low risk at reoffending.
The proposed sentencing and corrections reforms incorporated
in the bill build on current criminal and correction laws. They
extend controls over those people convicted of sex crimes and
other violent offences and aim to reduce the risk of repeat
offenders.
One of the most significant parts of these proposals is the
establishment of a new sentencing category. This category is to be
called long term offender and I believe this is an important new
designation that will work well for the better protection of society
as a whole.
(1625)
Most people are familiar with the dangerous offender provisions
in the Criminal Code because this designation has proven to be a
useful mechanism for sentencing serious offenders who pose a high
risk of committing further violent offences.
This long term offender designation would be equally effective.
Long term offenders would be subject to an application procedure
similar to that of a dangerous offender. The procedure would apply
to people convicted of sexual assault and other sexual offences.
Under the proposal the convicted person found at a special
hearing to be a long term offender would be subject to an
appropriate sentence and an additional supervision period of up to
10 years.
Every long term offender would also be subject to standard
conditions such as keeping the peace and not being allowed to
possess firearms. Further specialized conditions can also be added
to ensure close supervision of the offender such as regular
reporting to an assigned supervisor and mandatory participation in
counselling, electronic monitoring and other rehabilitation
programs.
I support this initiative and I support the government in its
attempt to make our homes and streets safer for all Canadians.
Bill C-55 goes even further. Not only is the category of long term
offender being created, the dangerous offender provisions are also
being strengthened.
Because under the current law a judge has the discretion to
sentence a dangerous offender to a fixed term, under these new
proposed changes a judge will no longer have the discretion and
will be required to impose an indefinite sentence, thus better
protecting members of our society from these dangerous and repeat
offenders and keeping them behind bars.
In addition, the crown will now have up to six months after
conviction to bring in a dangerous offender application. Currently
the application must be made at trial. Sometimes new information
surfaces after the completion of a trial and this new information
may be critical to the service of justice and to the protection of
society from dangerous offenders. I definitely support this
proposed change as well.
The reforms to Bill C-55 are simply the latest initiatives in a
long series of federal justice initiatives designed to better protect
Canadians.
Members of the third party stand in this House day after day and
suggest that the government is not fulfilling its obligation to
protect Canadian society against criminals, against violence. That
is absolutely wrong. The Minister of Justice has produced strong
legislation in this House time and time again that protects
Canadians. The really strange thing about this is every time he
proposes increased sentences, every time he proposes better
protection of Canadians, the third party votes against it.
When we proposed and passed legislation that would have
increased sentences for young offenders who commit violent
crimes, the government supported it. It was government
legislation. Look at the Reform Party. A vast majority of its
members voted against young offenders who commit violent
offences from having longer sentences. Check Hansard. The
majority of them voted against it.
For my colleagues opposite, I will list some things. This one they
will find difficult to deal with. We have created a national crime
prevention council because part of dealing with criminals, part of
dealing with justice in society is to work toward dealing with some
of the underlying causes.
The third party might have some difficulties with that concept
but we have dealt with it. We instituted a flagging system for use by
Canadian police to identify high risk offenders.
We established a new mandatory five year sentence for those
convicted of using violence to force children into prostitution. I
guess that is being soft on criminals. We classify as first degree any
murder committed while stalking. I guess that is being soft on
criminals, according to the third party.
We have increased sentences for those convicted of stalking and
we have specifically dealt with the issue of eliminating the drunken
defence and giving the police the tools and means to issue warrants
so that they can get DNA samples. I guess, according to the third
party, that indeed is mollycoddling to criminals. It is not.
5076
(1630 )
We talked about violence in society. It was the government that
introduced legislation that increased the minimum sentence for
using a firearm in the commission of a criminal offence by 400 per
cent.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River)): That is a crock.
Mr. Mitchell: It classified the smuggling of firearms as an
enterprise crime that carries up to a 10-year sentence.
Mr. Speaker, you can hear all the noise in the Chamber because
they hate being told that the government is dealing with the justice
issues. They simply ignore them and every time they vote against
them.
Mr. Thompson: Why do the victims' groups not go away?
Mr. Mitchell: They vote against increased sentences. They vote
against our efforts to help control violence in Canadian society.
They try to have it both ways. They say they want increased
criminal control, but when they have the opportunity to vote for it
in the House what do they do? They vote against it. It is very
difficult to understand the logic of that type of system.
Mr. Penson: Dispense.
Mr. Mitchell: Absolutely. Bill C-55 is legislation. It works
toward controlling violent criminals in society. It provides a
number of tools to the courts. It provides tools to crown attorneys.
It provides tools to enforcement agencies to better protect
Canadians.
The government is committed to a safer society, to ensuring that
criminals are apprehended, to ensuring that criminals once
apprehended who pose an ongoing risk to Canadians find
themselves behind bars and that the tools are provided to monitor
these individuals if and when they are returned to society.
This legislation deals with the issue of criminals. It deals with
protection of Canadians. It deals with making our streets safer. It
deals with making communities safer. It is good legislation. It
achieves those important objectives.
Not only do I support that bill, but I believe in all good
conscience every member of this House, including those opposite,
should be supporting this bill because it does what we all want
done. We all want a safer and more secure society and this bill
achieves those important objectives. I will be pleased to support
this legislation.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate you recognizing me when so many of my
colleagues also want to ask questions of this hon. member.
I would like to state at the outset that this legislation, like every
other piece of justice legislation that has been brought to the House
by this Liberal government was designed by lawyers, drafted by
lawyers, passed by lawyers for the benefit of lawyers.
When members opposite say that the Liberals are getting tough
on crime it is an absolute joke. Everybody in this country knows
that. Earlier the hon. member for London-Middlesex quoted Mr.
Newark of the Canadian Police Association. The Liberals are
bringing in Bill C-55 because the Canadian Police Association
wants it and it going to do so much. Yet I find these same Liberals
strangely silent when the same Canadian Police Association calls
for the repeal of section 745. What a shock. It is also calling for a
referendum on the return of capital punishment.
I would like to know from this hon. member who says that he
wants to get tough on crime and that this government is getting
tough on crime, how he voted on section 745. Would he support the
repeal of section 745 as Canadians from coast to coast are calling
for? Would he support a referendum to see the return of the death
penalty for first degree, cold-blooded, premeditated murder?
Mr. Thompson: Never.
(1635 )
Mr. Mitchell: After those comments, Mr. Speaker, I am glad I
am not a lawyer. My goodness, they might get some mail from the
law society tomorrow.
Let us talk about section 745 because I know the member has
been up a number of times. I want to make sure the Canadian
people understand exactly what the third party voted against.
Section 745 has been in the Criminal Code for quite a while. The
government changed it. Reformers voted against a bill that would
stop somebody who was a multiple murderer from having
eligibility of parole. They voted against that. If their vote had
carried the day, it would mean that people who were multiple
murderers would have eligibility for parole after 15 years. They
voted against that change.
What else did they vote against when they voted against section
745? Under the old regime only two-thirds agreement was needed
of the jury of the individual's peers from the community from
which the crime had occurred to set the individual free. This bill
made sure the jury had to be unanimous. Reformers voted against
that. Since they voted against it obviously they thought it only
necessary to have two-thirds of the jury in agreement.
There was a third component to the revisions of section 745.
Judges would have the ability to disregard an application for parole
that was considered to be frivolous so the victims in those types of
cases would not be subject to the actual hearings. Reform Party
members voted against that too.
It is unbelievable. They are here trying to suggest that they have
the complete corner on the issue of wanting to control violence,
wanting to strengthen the criminal justice system, but every time it
comes to a choice, every time it comes to a vote where they have an
5077
opportunity to see those types of laws strengthened, what do they
do? They vote against it. It is unbelievable. They vote against
justice bills over and over again.
It is this Liberal government that has pursued a policy of
controlling violence in Canadian society. If the legislation put
forward in the 35th Parliament is checked, one initiative after
another works to strengthen the criminal justice system. It works at
keeping criminals behind bars. It works at keeping society safer,
communities safer and streets safer.
The Deputy Speaker: I inform all members that there is an
indication that the hon. member for York North is sharing his time.
Therefore he has 10 minutes.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
``The proposed high risk offenders' legislation is the single most
important improvement in Canadian public safety legislation in the
last 20 years''. So said Scott Newark, executive officer of the
Canadian Police Association. I could not agree more. The
government has announced new measures to deal with high risk
offenders.
The following three initiatives will toughen the sentencing and
correctional regime for those who pose a high risk of committing
another violent crime: a new long term offender designation that
targets sex offenders and adds a period of long term supervision of
up to 10 years following release from prison, strengthened and
streamlined dangerous offenders provisions in the Criminal Code,
and a new judicial restraint provision to permit controls, including
electronic monitoring, to be applied to individuals who pose a high
risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.
In the 1996 speech from the throne the government pledged to
focus resources on high risk offenders while developing innovative
alternatives to incarceration for low risk offenders.
(1640 )
Once again we have kept our promise and fulfilled our
commitment to the Canadian public. After all, they deserve no less.
Canadians are honest, hard-working people. They give much to
their communities and expect very little in return. What they did
ask for during the 1993 election campaign was safer homes and
safer streets. That is what they are getting.
Canada's crime rate fell again in 1995, its fourth straight drop
following 30 years of almost constant increase. Violent crime is
down for the third year in a row. The homicide rate reached its
lowest level since 1969.
The York region, which includes my riding of York North, has
one of the lowest crime rates in the country. This is good, this is
progress, but this is not good enough.
Criminals still commit offences and victims still suffer. That is
why we have introduced Bill C-55. Under the proposed changes a
new sentencing category, to be called long term offenders, will be
added to the Criminal Code. It will target sex offenders who are
less violent and brutal than those designated as dangerous
offenders but are found to pose a considerable risk of reoffending.
The procedure will be similar to the existing dangerous offender
application. On conviction the crown can ask for a thorough
assessment of the offender's criminality and the risk he or she
presents.
On the basis of the assessment report, the crown can then bring a
dangerous offender or a long term offender application. With a long
term offender application, a special hearing is convened and
evidence is heard, including the assessment report.
If a long term offender finding is made, the judge will impose a
prison sentence suited for the offence and add a period of long term
supervision of up to 10 years to start when the incarceration period,
including any parole, expires. Every long term offender will be
subject to standard conditions, such as keeping the peace and not
being allowed to possess firearms.
Further, specialized conditions can be added to ensure close
supervision of the offender, such as regular reporting to the
assigned supervisor and mandatory participation in counselling,
electronic monitoring and other rehabilitation programs.
The long term offender designation, by imposing on the offender
an additional period of supervision in the community after the end
of the regular sentence, gives the offender a real opportunity to
reintegrate without putting the community at risk.
Public safety is improved because Correctional Service of
Canada and the parole board can set stringent conditions on the
offender, monitor the offender closely and pull the offender back if
there is a breach. An offender who breaches these conditions can be
persecuted and reincarcerated.
Next we looked at the dangerous offender category. This
classification has proved to be a useful tool in increasing public
safety. Dangerous offender applications have been used
successfully in approximately 150 cases and we are building on
this success. Anyone who is classified as a dangerous offender will
be kept in prison indefinitely. A judge will no longer have the
discretion to sentence a dangerous offender to a fixed term.
Currently a dangerous offender application must be made at
trial. Under Bill C-55 the crown will have a window of six months
after conviction to bring a dangerous offender application based on
newly received information. The process has been streamlined.
5078
The number of psychiatrists required to testify at a hearing has
been reduced from two to one.
Third, a new judicial restraint provision will be added to the
Criminal Code. This procedure will focus on persons who pose a
risk of committing a serious personal injury offence. It can be
applied to people who are not under sentence as well as those who
have completed their sentences. The crown attorney will be
empowered to bring an application where there are reasonable
grounds to fear that an individual will commit a serious personal
injury offence. These grounds will be examined at a hearing before
a judge. The judge will have the power to impose general
conditions, such as keeping the peace, and specific conditions
appropriate to the kind of threat posed by the individuals, such as
staying away from schools and playgrounds or certain
neighbourhoods.
(1645)
As one of the conditions, the judge could order that a program of
electronic monitoring be applied if such a program were available
in the province. The judicial restraint would last up to one year and
could be renewed.
A breach of conditions would constitute a separate criminal
offence which could result in a jail sentence. This is an important
step forward for the victims of domestic abuse. The reality is that
we live in a country where women are six times more likely to be
killed by a spouse than by a stranger. In fact, spousal homicides
continue to account for one out of every six solved homicides. Of
those women who were registered married and who were killed by
their spouse, almost one in four were separated at the time of the
incident.
Community safety has always been a priority for this
government. The high risk offender package is a big step forward.
Bill C-55 provides the tools necessary for the justice system to do
its job. Law enforcement officers are empowered to protect their
community. The chair of the law amendments committee of the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police said: ``It will help law
enforcement officials, especially at the local level, to deal better
with the people who pose the greatest danger to community
safety''. It gives judges more options when deciding which course
of action would be best, both for society and for the offender, when
handing down sentences.
In bringing forward these measures to control high risk
offenders, we are strengthening our society and building a safer
future for all Canadians.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member support the present bill. I suppose that for
him to criticize the bill in any fashion would be difficult, given that
he is from the Liberal side of the House.
I am concerned about this legislation in that when a dangerous
offender application is made, it points out that the application must
definitely be put forward prior to the imposition of sentence.
Therefore there is a window of six months to supply the necessary
information to support that application. That is not a very long
period, given that maybe an offender, a pedophile for example,
could be sentenced to a 10 year stint and there would be no
opportunity after to make application for dangerous offender.
In fact, in the legislation a pedophile or a sexual predator is not
listed in the area of dangerous offender. I think people seek to have
those individuals classified as dangerous offenders. In my opinion
that is one very major flaw in this legislation.
The second point that troubles me about Bill C-55 is that once
the application is made and there is a conviction for a dangerous
offender, the whole process again can be appealed. So now they can
go through a course of appeals. I find that difficult to understand
when members across talk about getting tough on crime and there
is a recourse for appeal and this very narrow window in which to
make application for dangerous offender designation and so on.
What is wrong with including pedophiles and sexual predators,
which the bill does not address, in that list of Criminal Code
offences and automatically seeking the courts to place a dangerous
offender finding on anyone who commits on two or more separate
occasions an offence constituting a serious personal injury offence?
(1650)
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. If he were to look at the bill as an entire package he would
find that it is certainly an improvement to the existing laws.
I reject one major point that he made. We have a civilized society
with a justice system that is fair and just to all individuals, yet
somehow he rejects the whole concept of an appeal procedure. The
hon. member should understand that as fair as our system is,
everyone should have the right to appeal if a wrong decision was
made in a lower court.
This speaks to the notion and the type of logic that the Reform
Party has toward social justice and the whole justice system. The
only answer Reformers have is to throw criminals in jail, lock the
door and leave them there.
The reality is that even when it comes to the issue of getting
tough on crime, as my eloquent colleague from Parry
Sound-Muskoka stated, they have voted against any piece of
legislation presented by the Liberal government to get tough on
crime.
However, I want to stick to some of the facts because facts are
things that escape the Reform Party on most issues. Look at the
major components of Bill C-55, the new long term offender
designation that targets sex offenders and adds a period of long
term supervision of up to 10 years following their release from
prison. We have strengthened and streamlined dangerous offender
provisions in the Criminal Code and we have a new judicial
restraint provision to permit controls which include electronic
5079
monitoring. Members can rest assured that Canadians from coast to
coast will applaud this initiative.
Let us be honest in this Chamber. I am sure Reformers are all
honourable members; at least they are addressed as such. The
crime rate is declining and we are bringing safer homes and safer
streets to the Canadian public.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time
with the member for North Island-Powell River.
Before I enter into my semi-prepared remarks, I will comment
on something the member said about the declining crime rate. I
think we have heard this convenient juggling of statistics about
eight times in the House today.
Yes, there has been a temporary blip in the last couple of years in
the rate of violent crime, a slight decrease. But if we do statistical
analyses-if members do not believe me, talk to people at
Statistics Canada-we do not go on blips. We take the long term
timeline. In this case we can take it over the period beginning with
1962.
There has been a steady progressive increase in the rate of
violent crime. During this period there have been years when the
crime rate has dropped precipitously. There have been years when
it has risen precipitously. But if we look at the trend, there has been
an increase of almost 400 per cent since 1962. That is the gospel
according to StatsCan and we all know that the Liberal government
never argues with anything StatsCan says.
(1655)
This bill, as with so many other major pieces of legislation
brought forth by the Liberal government, is like the bishop's egg, it
is good in parts. However, it always has the problem of making it
this grand melange of the good and the bad which makes it almost
impossible for any normal human being to either support or oppose
it. This is strategy. Fine.
The thing I could support and which I do not find offensive in the
bill is that the crown will no longer have to apply immediately for
dangerous offender classification when a prisoner is sentenced. It
will have as much as a six month window of opportunity in which
to do it. I do not object to that at all, but I wish the government had
gone the whole nine yards and allowed the crown to make
dangerous offender applications through the entire length of the
sentence.
An hon. member: You cannot because of the charter.
Mr. Morrison: It is easy for the hon. member to say we cannot.
If we do not have that then any prisoner who refuses to co-operate
in any sort of counselling or rehabilitative program cannot be
nailed. He will still get out in the usual period of time.
The minimum sentence for dangerous offenders will now be
increased from three to seven years. I approve of that but in the
end, dangerous offenders will continue to be turned loose on
society, and that is wrong. The 10 year supervision, as I understand
the act, is not aimed at dangerous offenders. It is aimed at what is
referred to by the member as long term offenders such as
pedophiles, people who are not considered potentially very brutal,
sadistic and extremely undesirable folks.
Unfortunately, while this act will religiously protect the rights of
the convicted, the justice minister has no compunction in the same
bill in threatening the rights of people who have never been
convicted of anything or even charged with a crime. Under his
judicial restraint section, a person deemed likely to commit a
serious crime can be required to accept supervision, including the
wearing of an electronic bracelet, for up to one year without being
convicted of anything or even formally charged. All it would take
to set the process in motion would be for a crown attorney to
believe that a person might injure someone. So much for the hard
won principle that one is innocent until proven guilty.
An hon. member: A judge has to approve.
Mr. Morrison: The hon. member says he would have to appear
before a judge. That is quite correct. Who makes the decision of
whether one appears before a judge? The crown attorney. No
charges need be laid.
The government's approach to justice is developing a very
frightening pattern. Vicious convicted criminals are assured of due
process and every possible consideration of their rights but
ordinary citizens had better beware because it will be possible
under this legislation to impose criminal sanctions on the basis of
rumour, misinformation or malice. If someone is having boundary
troubles with a neighbour and has had heated words with that
individual, watch out, they could end up with an electronic bracelet
around the ankle if the fellow is well enough connected.
If someone is involved in a dispute with a vindictive or vengeful
ex-spouse, watch out, he or she could end up with an electronic
bracelet around the ankle. As a matter of fact, anybody could.
(1700)
All of this is not really surprising when we consider the past
Liberal record toward civil liberties. It was a Liberal government
that incarcerated Japanese Canadians during the war without any
formal legal proceedings. It was a Liberal government that
invented the War Measures Act and used it in peacetime. It was a
Liberal government that brought in Bill C-68 which, if it is ever
enforced exactly as it is written, would require penalties for even
the mere possession of an unregistered firearm which could be
5080
stiffer than penalties people are receiving right now for assault,
arson or drunk driving causing death.
It is absurd, but that is the Liberal concept of justice: treat
vicious, depraved monsters with a lot of TLC but come down like a
ton of bricks on ordinary citizens who for one reason or another just
do not fit in or who do not conform. This is the Liberal social
engineering tactic. It is a kick them in the head philosophy we have
lived with for the better part of a half century. This is just a logical
continuation of what we have been about.
I hope there are people opposite-they are not sitting there right
now-who care about civil liberties so that when the amendments
which we will be proposing to this bill come before the committee,
the section on judicial restraint will be stricken from the proposed
legislation. It is a brutal and indiscriminate infringement on
personal liberty that unduly violates the civil rights of everyone.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have to explain to the
member again because he does not seem to understand. Sometimes
I wonder if it is a lack of taking the time to read or if it is a lack of
taking the time to understand. I will tell him how judicial restraint
will work for the third time this afternoon.
I remind him that the crown attorney will be empowered to bring
an application where there are reasonable grounds to fear that an
individual will commit a serious personal injury offence. These
grounds will be heard at official hearings by a judge. The
application will be made and the judge will hear it. He will analyse
all the information he has at his disposal and will make the
decision.
I will ask the member again. If he wants that part of the bill
stricken out, would he tell the House how he proposes to prevent
innocent women from being stalked by their husbands or their
lovers? Do we have to wait until they are victimized before the
police can act, as is the current case?
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that wearing an electronic
bracelet will protect anyone who is truly in danger. I have never
heard such an absurdity in my life.
There are provisions in the Criminal Code and someone can be
prosecuted for stalking, for uttering threats. These should be
rigorously enforced and with due process. That is the key phrase.
That is something Liberals should learn. They should write it on
their blackboards: due process. We have 200 years of tradition in
this country.
(1705 )
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I want to take two minutes to bring
the member up to speed on this new technology.
It is called GPS. GPS stands for geographical positioning
system. It is based on the positions of satellites. Through
technology we can within 15 feet determine where the inmate is at
any location on Earth. With the technology we can also determine
if that person, who happens to have a special profile whether it be a
person out on parole or whatever, is near a school but should not be.
We can determine whether the person is near a spouse but should
not be. The technology is there. It is a very convenient way of using
today's technology economically without further burdening the
taxpayers.
I do not understand what is so difficult about understanding that.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, having used the GPS myself in my
line of work, I did not really need that explanation as to how it
functions.
The point is, if we can tell where someone is who is wearing the
bracelet, that will not help anyone if the police take three-quarters
of an hour to get there. If someone is really dedicated to harming a
person, it will not stop them.
There are many places in my riding where the potential victim
might have to wait for two hours for police assistance. The hon.
member is wearing his urban blinders. He does not realize that the
whole country is not Toronto.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before us today is Bill C-55. The purpose of the bill is to
address those offenders who present a high risk of violently
reoffending. As well, we have a new designation of long term
offender with a provision of supervision for up to 10 years in the
community. That is in addition to the sentence for the offence.
At the outset let me say that the Reform Party will not stand in
the way of Bill C-55.
The bill is composed of three components: a new and expanded
dangerous offender provision; a new long term offender provision;
and a new judicial restraint clause.
The Reform Party supports adding a new definition to the
Criminal Code which will deem any person who on two or more
separate occasions commits an offence causing serious personal
injury to be a dangerous offender and subject to an indeterminate
period of imprisonment.
The new dangerous offender provision in Bill C-55 recognizes
that the current process by which certain criminals are assigned
dangerous offender status and therefore required to serve an
indefinite penitentiary sentence is not sufficiently strong to protect
Canadian communities against violent criminals. Therefore,
Reformers applaud those new provisions in Bill C-55 which
expand the criteria for designating violent criminals as dangerous
offenders.
Who in the House could find fault in designating a person as a
dangerous offender who has been sentenced for armed robbery,
5081
unlawful confinement and shooting at a police officer and who,
during a jail sentence, commits a further 40 offences including a
stabbing?
Sadly, this was not the case when career criminal Paul Butler
was granted day parole in September 1993 in Prince George and
then went on to murder Dennis Fichtenberg, the son of a constituent
of mine, Marjean Fichtenberg. Despite Mr. Butler's criminal record
and an arrest weeks before the murder was committed, the parole
board agreed that Mr. Butler posed no risk to society and was not
dangerous. Tell that to Marjean Fichtenberg and her family who
suffer their loss and whose only satisfaction has been some
recommendations made by a coroner's request initiated last year by
the attorney general for B.C.
(1710)
The government had an opportunity in this new dangerous
offender provision as contained in Bill C-55 to let the Marjean
Fichtenbergs of this world know that she and her family, the
victims, have rights too. However as usual, the proposed changes
for designating certain criminals as dangerous offenders once again
do not go far enough.
Specifically the proposed changes in Bill C-55 would allow the
crown up to six months after conviction to bring about a dangerous
offender application. Even under the proposed changes this
provision would apply only if the crown gives notice at the time of
conviction of the possibility of a delayed dangerous offender
application and where relevant information also emerges to support
the application.
What Reformers want, what the Marjean Fichtenbergs want, and
what all level headed Canadians want is for dangerous offender
findings to be made at any time after sentencing. To be precise, the
crown should be given the right to seek dangerous offender status
for persons convicted of crimes causing serious personal injury at
any time during that offender's penitentiary sentence. Would 40
offences while in a correctional institution including a stabbing be
good enough for the Minister of Justice?
Reformers also propose that Bill C-55 require the courts to
automatically place a dangerous offender finding upon any person
who commits on two or more separate occasions an offence
constituting a serious personal injury offence. This proposal would
also include that the dangerous offender be subject to an
indeterminate period of imprisonment.
If we are going to begin to address the agony, loss and frustration
of the type Marjean Fichtenberg and her family feel, our
amendments are essential. We propose a further essential change to
Bill C-55 and that is to expand the list of Criminal Code offences
upon which a dangerous offender application may be brought about
to include pedophiles and sexual predators.
A basic tenet of Reform policy is for violent offenders to serve
their full sentence. Once released, some violent offenders and all
repeat offenders should be under parole supervision, and I do not
mean unsupervised parole which was applied to Paul Butler and
under which he committed murder.
My colleagues have spoken to the long term offender provision.
It is incumbent that we broaden the range of offences committed to
include sexual predators or pedophiles so that they cannot only be
designated long term but can also be designated as dangerous
offenders, because many of them are.
The judicial restraint provision proposed in clause 9 of the bill
contributes a broad indiscriminate infringement of personal liberty
which unduly violates the civil rights of individuals. The judicial
remedies proposed in this clause should only be contemplated in
matters where individuals have been convicted of offences under
the Criminal Code and according to due process of law. We propose
striking this clause in its totality.
On the one hand we do not go far enough in the dangerous
offender clauses by excluding sexual predators or pedophiles. On
the other hand we have the potential of allowing the attorney
general to lay information against anyone he believes will commit
a future offence, even though the individual may have been
acquitted of any charge or never even charged with a criminal
offence.
I will now turn to clause 15 of Bill C-55 concerning long term
offenders, specifically the provision regarding aboriginal
communities. Clause 15 allows that for long term offenders who
express an interest in being supervised in an aboriginal community,
the aboriginal community must first receive notice of the
supervision and have the opportunity to propose a plan for the
release and integration into the community.
(1715)
In other words, aboriginal communities have the right to become
involved in planning for the release of a high risk offender into
their community and the right to become involved in the planning
for that release. Other Canadians do not share this proposed right
and consequently receive no such notice. We think they should.
Why is the government doing the right thing for aboriginal
communities and not for other Canadian communities?
The government should be uniting Canadians with a standard of
behaviour. Canadian citizens everywhere deserve the same notice
and planning provisions as those proposed for the aboriginal
communities.
Besides all that, the minister of defence should resign.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague has
suggested that an application for dangerous offender designation
could be made at any time during the period the individual is
incarcerated. He used the example of an individual who committed
5082
40 offences during the period of his incarceration and one of those
being a stabbing.
My concern is that in our rules of law we can only really be tried
for an offence once. The fact that you are incarcerated does not
mean that you have carte blanche to commit crimes willy-nilly and
go unprosecuted. Surely these 40 offences, especially the stabbing,
are of themselves offences deserving of charges being laid, being
brought to trial and sentencing again. Would that not be an
appropriate time then to bring this dangerous offender application?
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, that is an option but of course that
adds complexity to the arrangement. One of the concerns that I
have about a lot of the legislation is the way the parole boards
operate, the way the courts operate and so on. We have so much
complexity now into the system that there are too many avenues of
things falling between chairs.
If you look at the Paul Butler case I was describing, I have only
described the tip of the iceberg. What we had here was an
incredible set of complex circumstances. When you talk to
someone like Marjean Fichtenberg who has lived and breathed this
case since the murder of her son, you hear descriptions of all of the
rules, the guidelines, the terms of reference, the different bodies
involved in terms of applying or trying to interpret policy, all the
various ways things cannot happen that are supposed to happen.
The more straightforward the legislation is, the less likely that is
going to happen.
If it involves having to go back to court, the likelihood is that the
authorities will not pursue it in many cases because there is once
again an opportunity for too many things to happen. I think that is
one way to respond to the question.
(1720 )
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, watching a repeat
child molester walk out of a prison, unrepentant and unreformed,
understandably drives people crazy with anger and betrayal.
Many Canadians want the justice system to do more with chronic
pedophiles and rapists than simply wait for them to strike again. I
agree.
My colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General
of Canada, have responded to this genuine concern and recently
announced new measures to deal with high risk offenders. Bill
C-55 will toughen the sentencing and correction regime for those
who pose a high risk of committing another crime. This is good
legislation. This is responsive legislation.
These tough new restrictions on high risk, violent offenders will
make Canadian homes and streets safer. The measures fulfil
commitments made the red book as well as in the speech from the
throne. The 1996 speech from the throne pledged that the
government will focus resources on high risk offenders while
developing innovative alternatives to incarceration for low risk
offenders.
The following initiatives will strengthen the sentencing and
correctional regime for those who present a high risk of violent
reoffending, particularly sex offenders: a new long term offender
designation that targets sex offenders and adds a period of
supervision of up to 10 years following release from prison;
strengthening the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal
Code and a new judicial restraint provision to permit controls,
including electronic monitoring to be applied to individuals who
pose a high risk of committing a serious personal injury offence.
Bill C-55 positively amends the Criminal Code and these
changes have been welcomed by the Canadian Police Association
and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, a very sound
endorsement.
The government is also committed to developing alternatives to
incarceration for low risk offenders. This set of initiatives includes
amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to
allow for earlier parole for offenders convicted of crimes which did
not involve violence to support rehabilitation and return to the
community.
Let us review some of these provisions in more detail, first the
long term offender provisions. Under the proposed changes a new
sentencing category to be called long term offender will be added
to the Criminal Code. Long term offenders will be those convicted
of sexual assault, sexual touching, sexual exploitation, indecent
exposure, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault with a
weapon or causing bodily harm.
This is a useful designation and is not necessarily the same
designation as dangerous offender which is applied to those who
have been convicted of repeatedly committing crimes of violence.
It will target sex offenders who may be less violent and brutal than
those designated dangerous offenders but are found to pose a
considerable risk of reoffending.
The category will also include those offenders convicted of
another crime such a break and enter with clear intent to commit
sexual assault.
To better protect the community, offenders in this category will
be subject to an additional period of supervision for up to 10 years
after they have completed their parole and prison sentences.
This designation could be applied to first time offenders with
psychological histories or other factors that indicate a possibility
that they will likely repeat their crime; again, such as a pedophile
convicted of assaulting a child. The long arm of the law will not
miss such perpetrators.
5083
The long term offender process will be similar to the existing
dangerous offender application. Upon conviction the crown can
ask for a thorough assessment of the offender's criminality and
the risk he or she presents. On the basis of the assessment report
the crown can then bring a dangerous offender or long term
offender application.
If a long term offender finding is made, the judge will impose a
prison sentence that suits the offence and add a period of long term
supervision of up to 10 years to start when the incarceration period,
including any parole, expires.
An effective program for rehabilitation is to gradually integrate
offenders back into the community under controlled conditions.
The long term offender designation by imposing on the offender an
additional period of supervision in the community after the end of
the regular sentence gives the offender a real opportunity to
reintegrate without putting the community at risk, and that is very
important.
Public safety is improved because Correctional Service Canada
and the parole board can set stringent conditions on the offender,
monitor the offender closely and pull the offender back in for any
breach. An offender who breaches these conditions can be
prosecuted and reincarcerated.
(1725)
These safeguards address the fear that potentially dangerous
criminals do the crime, finish their time and then are free to
disappear back into the community without any monitoring.
I will also address the issue of dangerous offenders. The
dangerous offender category will be improved by keeping such an
individual in prison indefinitely. A judge will no longer have the
discretion to sentence a dangerous offender to a fixed term. It will
be an indeterminate term.
Currently a dangerous offender application must be made at
trial. The crown will now have a window of six months after
conviction to bring a dangerous offender application based on
newly received information that may not have arisen at trial.
The process has also been streamlined. The number of
psychiatrists required to testify at a hearing has been reduced from
two to one. These are very positive and effective developments.
I would like to briefly touch on judicial restraint orders. The
judicial restraint provision will be added to the Criminal Code and
is another measure for the protection of the public. This procedure
will focus on people who pose a risk of committing a serious
personal injury offence. It can be applied to people who are not
under a sentence as well as those who have completed their
sentences.
Under this provision the attorney general would apply for a
special hearing before a provincial court judge where there are
reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is at high risk of
committing a serious personal injury offence.
A judge will be able to impose general conditions such as
keeping the peace and specific conditions appropriate to the kind of
threat that could be posed by the individual. Two examples are
staying away from places where children might congregate and
staying away from an estranged spouse. As one of the conditions,
the judge could order electronic monitoring in provinces where
such programs exist. The judicial restraint would last for up to one
year and could be renewed. A breach of conditions would
constitute a separate criminal offence which could result in a jail
sentence.
The judicial restraining order has been a topic of much
conversation on the basis of its constitutionality, especially when it
involves individuals who have no criminal record or charges
pending. I well understand that this is an option to deal with
stalkers and others who are difficult to convict.
As a member on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs, I look forward to examining this provision further. On one
hand, it may be no different than court orders now being granted
that restrict known sex offenders from hanging around schools and
playgrounds. These orders are granted rarely and officials must
prove the person constitutes a serious threat. While I have my
concerns about this section I reserve judgment on this provision
until further study is completed.
The low risk non-violent offender is also addressed. In tandem
with these tough new controls on high risk violent offenders, the
Liberal government has introduced initiatives to deal with low risk
non-violent offenders.
The first priority of the government's justice agenda is the safety
of Canadians. The Liberal approach balances tougher penalties and
restrictions with necessary community based efforts at
rehabilitation and prevention. In co-operation with other levels of
government, the federal government will promote measures which
include sentencing reforms and community diversion programs as
alternatives for imprisonment of first time non-violent offenders at
a low risk of reoffending.
The route this government has taken is to get tough on repeat
violent offenders while finding alternative sentencing for low risk
offenders. There is no doubt this is a move in the right direction.
The Liberal government's safe home, safe streets agenda draws a
clear distinction between low risk and high risk offenders. This
balanced approach will help to ensure an effective criminal justice
system with the penalties appropriate to the gravity of the crimes.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member's reflections on Bill C-55. He has certain
5084
reservations about the portion of the bill which deals with judicial
restraint. The Reform Party also has reservations about that point.
I need a good clear explanation from the member, given that I
was a police officer for 22 years prior to this past election, how
electronic monitoring would apply to stalkers. I have had to
personally answer a number of complaints in that regard as a police
officer, and time is quite factor.
I would like to know how it would be applied and how it would
be able to save a victim like an individual in my riding, Kelly
Howe. Recently a trial was completed where an individual was
convicted of the first degree murder of Kelly Howe. How would it
save a person like Kelly Howe who was killed by her ex-boyfriend?
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the
circumstances of Kelly Howe's death, but as was indicated earlier,
the electronic monitoring which is called the GPS system can
pinpoint an individual within yards of his or her position.
One of the Reform members was concerned about this having
application in rural areas. I believe it would be easier to pinpoint
someone in a rural area. If an offender is living in a major centre
like Calgary, where the member comes from, and it is found
through the system that he is now 30 miles away where his
estranged spouse lives, we know darn well that he is not in a place
where he should be. It is certainly easier to pinpoint him than it
would be perhaps within a block or two of the city.
How would it work? The wisdom and benefit of the technology
today can do these things. That is where I am coming from in
answering the member's question.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the hon. member for his concern on this issue.
I have in the gallery today a member of the OPP who comes from
my riding, Mr. Alex Williamson. I wonder if the hon. member
would be confident in telling Mr. Williamson, who is a long term
member of the OPP, given the opposition says this motion is weak
and ineffective, that we are making a strong case against dangerous
offenders.
Mr. Maloney: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member's question.
To be honest, I thought he was getting up to speak on another
matter. Could he just quickly rephrase that question?
The Deputy Speaker: Time has expired. I cannot let the
member ask the question again even though he has a friend in the
gallery.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business.
5084
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into
Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a special privilege to stand
in the House and talk about a subject that I have taken some time to
develop, study and put forward and to see if perhaps I can get the
concurrence of the House on this concept that I have developed.
Bill C-236 is called an act to prevent the importation of
radioactive waste. As members know, there are over 400
commercial nuclear reactors worldwide and an untold number of
small research reactors at universities, on ships, submarines and
what have you, which all generate a certain amount of radioactive
waste. That waste needs to be dealt with.
Over the years these reactors have generated and will continue to
generate enormous amounts of toxic nuclear waste that will have
some toxicity depending on when one would be in contact with it,
but it will last for thousands of years.
Canadians in general do not want radioactive waste in their
backyards. I realize there has always been the nimby syndrome
where people do not want any kind of garbage in their backyards.
In this case, people in Canada have a very strong feeling that we
will look after our own radioactive waste but they do not want to
import radioactive wastes from other countries for disposal here.
As an example, it took eight years and over $20 million for the
siting task force struck by the former Minister of Natural
Resources to even find a place for our low level radioactive waste
alone, not including the high level radioactive waste for which it
has yet to find a spot. I will say right up front in deference to my
learned colleague behind me that a lot of this is because of
ignorance. People have so much fear of radioactive waste, even low
radioactive waste that is relatively harmless, they are afraid to have
it in their neighbourhood.
(1735)
That is why, in the entire country, only the town of Deep River
finally said yes in September 1995 to accepting low level
radioactive waste. In all of Ontario, only two communities even
considered the question.
There is widespread opposition to handling or storage or
anything regarding radioactive waste, some of it because of
ignorance. The truth is that we will not be able to find communities
that will be willing to handle this waste. That is the truth. People in
Canada
5085
do not want it. They feel they should not have to have it in their
back yards. It will have to be dealt with, but there is this problem.
At the start, I should also mention that just because people do not
want to handle it, do not want to talk about the subject, the truth is
we need to discuss what is going to happen and how we will handle
radioactive waste in Canada.
It is like an intergenerational transfer of wealth or
intergenerational transfer of responsibility to say: ``We are going to
generate this waste from our nuclear production facilities and we
will leave it to some other generation to look after''. The truth is we
have to say in our generation and for generations, that we are
benefiting from nuclear power, that we are benefiting from nuclear
research and that we will look after the waste too. We will look
after it in the generation that got the benefits.
We do not want to dump this multibillion dollar problem on
future generations. When talking to young people, they say that too
much has been dumped on their plate already. The least we can do
is look after our own garbage.
It is an absolute truism that the importation of nuclear waste
from other countries for disposal in Canada is not acceptable to
Canadians. As I will explain, there are some very good reasons that
I ask that this law be set in stone.
From the outset, I want to make clear that this bill would not ban
the importation of plutonium from the U.S. and Russian warheads.
One of the proposals is to burn it in our Candu reactors. It is
important to note that all the current proposals-there are several
being tossed around-in the deactivation of the warheads call for
the plutonium to be reworked and fabricated in the United States
and then shipped to Canada to be burned as fuel.
That is not waste. We can still do that. I think Canadians are
willing to consider that option because they feel it is part of what
we can do. If we can get rid of the number of nuclear weapons
around the world, we certainly are prepared to do our part.
We will burn that fuel. Candu reactors can handle it with
modifications. I think Canadians will consider that option,
depending on how many dollars are involved. Nothing in this bill
would prohibit that. We can import fuel. Fuel is not waste. Fuel is a
product that we can use. The measures in the bill would not ban the
importation of plutonium to be burned. We can do our part for
world peace and for nuclear disarmament, if it comes to that.
There will be some retooling necessary at our plants in order to
use this plutonium. One of the proposals calls for the Bruce reactor
to burn it. While Canadians are willing to consider that, we want to
see how many dollars are involved. It will be a very costly process
to upgrade our reactors to handle that product. We need to see all
the dollars and cents laid on the table before we agree to any of it.
That is obvious and that is in the future.
Let me address what this will mean to Canada, if we accept this
plutonium. It looks like the amount they are talking about from
Russia is about 50 tonnes over the next 25 years. That sounds like a
small amount if we are thinking in terms of wheat, but in terms of
plutonium it is a lot for Canada to handle. That is how much
plutonium will be generated from the dismantling of approximately
40,000 nuclear warheads. It is a huge proposal and if we could take
part in it that would be useful.
(1740)
By way of comparison, at the moment we already have 22,145
tonnes of high level waste in Canada stored at nuclear reactor sites.
It includes 78 tonnes of plutonium. By the year 2025 there will be
58,000 tonnes, which will include 206 tonnes of plutonium.
Another 100 tonnes of plutonium from the U.S. and Russia
would increase that portion of the plutonium waste by a third. It is a
significant amount if we were to accept it. It is a significant factor
in our handling of nuclear waste. The price which Canadians would
have to pay would be in the handling of the waste. I believe we
would be prepared to do that because we could burn it. Once it is
ours it is our waste and we would have to deal with it as we would
other by-products.
This bill does not affect the possible plutonium deal. We can still
do that. Canadians will want to debate the matter but we can still
press ahead with it if Canadians so desire.
Why do we need this bill? There may be people who will try to
profit from burying high level radioactive waste. There are profit
oriented groups which may want to import waste for money. In
other words, dispose of it in Canada for a buck.
America alone has an enormous amount of highly radioactive
waste. There is enough to fill 86 football fields a metre deep. That
may not be too astounding, however, under current proposals it
would cost about $57 billion to dispose of it. It would be a huge
expense to dispose of it.
The total clean-up costs in the U.S. alone are projected to
approach $230 billion. It is a huge project. The U.S. has 77,000
tonnes of this waste to bury and more is being produced all the
time. Initially, the Americans wanted to bury it in Nevada, but they
found 32 fault lines running through the burial site. In fact in 1992
there was an earthquake on the site. Now they do not know what it
will do with the waste.
It is not that I believe the Americans are our best friends, but
they will be looking for another place to bury it. They will look
north. That is what this bill is meant to address.
5086
There are 413 commercial reactors worldwide. There are 26
countries with nuclear reactors. Pressure all over the world is
growing to bury this waste.
Canada has a lot of vacant land. The Canadian shield is an ideal
location to bury nuclear waste. In fact, in 1981 the Geological
Survey of Canada identified over 1,300 potential suitable locations
for burying radioactive waste in Ontario alone. Many countries
around the world are looking to Canada as a possible place to
dispose of their waste.
Why worry about it? Who would want to bury this waste
anyway? Nobody wants this kind of stuff. It is too politically
sensitive. It is too environmentally uncertain. All kinds of
problems could arise, including the transportation of the waste.
There is a proposal or two in the works. The Meadow Lake
Tribal Council, which represents nine Indian communities in
northern Saskatchewan, was reported in February of last year to be
considering offering their land, which lies over the Canadian
shield, to be used for disposal for a price. That is part of their
20-year economic development plan. As a matter of fact, a major
environmental assessment of the deep rock disposal concept is
currently ongoing. If the Meadow Lake group or any other group or
company met the standards of environmental assessment, what
would prohibit them from demanding and receiving a licence to
import waste? There is no law against it.
(1745)
Now they might even be able to go to the courts to obtain it.
Aboriginal self-governments in Canada in this example have much
wider powers than ordinary groups or companies to take part in and
direct environmental assessments.
Just as an example, in my own area, in western British
Columbia, if the Nisga'a agreement in principle passes, and it
looks as if it will pass both by the NDP government and the Liberal
government in power here, the Nisga'a government will have the
power to take part in any environmental assessment on its land. I
will read from the relevant section of that agreement:
Nisga'a Central Government may make laws in relation to the environmental
assessment of projects which are on Nisga'a Lands-where a Nisga'a Central
Government law and the law of another Party requires an environmental assessment
of a project on Nisga'a Lands, the project will be assessed under the process
prescribed by Nisga'a law-
It is unclear in the agreement in principle if the federal government
could step in and overrule that. I am just using that as an example.
Even handling the process of how environmental assessment
takes place is a very powerful tool, as we know. The process of
environmental assessment in essence will give us the result we are
looking for. Some of my colleagues will be talking about that
aspect in more detail. Again, we being the Canadian people in
general, could lose this by default.
The Nisga'a agreement in principle is considered to be a
template for 60 other aboriginal self-government agreements in
British Columbia. It is being used as a template for many groups
across the country.
There is also another group. That is the Whiteshell task force
which was struck this spring to investigate alternative uses for
AECL's Whiteshell Laboratory in Pinawa. They may have
considered using the underground research laboratory site as a
disposal area. I have been down in that deep dark hole a long way
under the earth and they have some very interesting and exciting
ideas for disposing of radioactive waste.
If this site were used for Canadian waste, I think Canadians
should consider that. It is something to consider and the debate will
be entered into as to whether it should be used for Canadian waste.
It is not Canadian waste that I am worried about. We should look
after our own waste, our own problem. It is the international waste
that I do not want to have trucked up to Pinawa or any other site and
that is what this bill is meant to address.
In June the motion came before the regional municipality in
Manitoba to change AECL's lease to allow it to bury high level
waste at the Pinawa site and it was turned down by one vote. In
other words, we are one vote away from pushing this idea that
perhaps we could accept waste from around the world for burial at
that site.
Over the past 15 years Atomic Energy of Canada has spent
nearly half a billion dollars studying the concept of deep rocks
disposal. The site at Pinawa has been specifically dedicated to that
study. AECL, like every other government department, has become
stressed because of the cutbacks and budgetary problems. Whether
it is at the Chalk River research plant and the cyclotron there, at the
Pinawa site or wherever, more and more it is looking for ways to
make money and profit.
I hope it proceeds and pushes this idea of disposal of Canadian
waste in that method. I cannot see another method. I think it is a
viable one. Again, that is for Canadian waste. It is a Canadian
problem, made in Canada, disposed in Canada. Let us do what we
have to do. But I do not want to have 413 other nuclear reactors
around the world giving up and saying to ship it all to Canada. That
is what this bill is meant to prevent.
The temptation to go the disposal route increases in proportion to
the closeness of our relationship with the United States. I
mentioned this earlier. We are closer geographically to the U.S.
than to any other country. We are also under their economic
influence because of our special trade arrangements.
I want to address the question raised by environmentalists who
say that under chapter 9 of the NAFTA, Canada does not have the
5087
power to legislate the ban or to ban the importation of toxic
substances. We do have the power, at least in theory, because it is
hard to say how the Americans will argue with us, in that article
904 of NAFTA states:
Each party may, in accordance with this agreement, adopt, maintain or apply any
standard-related measure, including any such measure relating to safety, the
protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers,
and any measure to ensure its enforcement or implementation. Such measures
include those to prohibit the importation of a good of another party-
(1750)
We do have the power, at least theoretically, to follow through on
this bill. I want to read another clause from that same article:
-each party may, in pursuing its legitimate objectives of safety or the protection
of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers, establish
the levels of protection that it considers appropriate-
Under NAFTA we can theoretically ban the importation of any
kind of waste and we can establish any levels of protection we
want. Of course the United States may choose to challenge our high
environmental standards under NAFTA. They have a dispute
resolution process where they can say our standards are too high,
but I think it is going to be pretty hard to say that our standards are
too high when we are dealing with one of the most toxic substances
on the planet.
There is a little bit of a wrinkle in the works in that cabinet has
already decided to export PCBs southward across the border. That
may establish a precedent the U.S. could use in our NAFTA
challenge. If we are willing to export our highly toxic PCBs, why
could the U.S. not export its own highly toxic nuclear waste to
Canada? That argument may come up. It is not impossible that we
will be challenged on this, but I think it is therefore doubly
important for the House of Commons and the Canadian people to
take a stand now before it becomes a critical issue.
I think there will be a profit seeking group within Canada
accompanied by a NAFTA challenge sometime in the future that
will make a proposal that Canadian soil be used for these purposes.
Currently Bill C-23, the nuclear safety and control act, is before
the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. It was introduced
the week after I introduced my bill. Clause 26 of the bill allows the
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to ``possess, transfer,
import, export, use or abandon a nuclear substance''. All the
commission has to do is grant any group a licence to do any of
those things. The commission should not have that discretionary
power. I do not believe the people of Canada want to give that to
the commission.
The fact that Bill C-236 is votable is important. This will affect
the passage of the nuclear safety and control act by highlighting
this important aspect of this bill. Perhaps if this House voted to
send my bill to committee the principle in it could be incorporated
into the nuclear safety and control act. The House would have
spoken here and given its express opinion on this subject, having
sent it to committee and instructed the committee to incorporate it.
I appeal to the members of the natural resources committee to
listen carefully to what I have had to say, and reconsider the clause
in Bill C-23 that allows for the importation of radioactive waste
into Canada.
I have gone through the reasons but I will give a quick summary.
It has negative implications for international trade. It has negative
implications for aboriginal self-government. It has negative
implications for the safety of future generations of Canadians. It
may be our only golden chance to send a message to the United
States and to profit seeking groups within Canada. It is an
opportunity to affirm the desire of the people of Canada that
importation of substances harmful to Canadians, such as
radioactive waste, will not be allowed by this government and by
Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to my colleague from the Reform Party. He
presented a very strong argument, that I think may get many people
thinking.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-236, an act to prevent the
importation of radioactive waste into Canada. In order to fully
understand this bill, you need to know that the federal government
divides radioactive waste into three broad administrative
categories: high level waste, HLW; low level waste, LLW; and
uranium tailings.
(1755)
HLW remains highly radioactive for at least 500 years and its
handling requires appropriate measures to ensure the protection of
human beings and, obviously, the environment.
What my Reform Party colleague was saying earlier is true.
People say this waste must be got rid of, somehow eliminated, but
not in their back yard, of course. I can understand people's fear. I
have seen children in my riding from East Bloc countries and, after
so many years, probably because certain nuclear power plants
lacked protective controls, these children are handicapped for the
rest of their lives.
We took in several in our riding, and we will host others this
summer, and we can see that there can never be enough precautions
to protect the environment, and especially the health of human
beings.
There are two kinds of LLW: historic waste and operational
waste. The bulk of LLW consists of historic waste. Unfortunately,
Canada does not have, at this time, any permanent storage facility
for radioactive waste, either HLW or LLW.
5088
Since 1978, the Government of Canada has been trying to find
a solution to the disposal of HLW through a research and
development program, but I think that the people doing this
research are taking an awfully long time to find safe and effective
solutions.
In May 1995, the Auditor General of Canada tabled an entire
chapter on the management of radioactive waste by the federal
government. He said that ``Natural Resources Canada should work
toward establishing an agreement among the major stakeholders on
their respective roles and responsibilities and the approaches and
plans for implementing solutions''.
The federal government has jurisdiction over and regulatory
authority for nuclear energy, including radioactive waste.
Yesterday, the natural resources committee heard from some very
specialized people from Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec and New
Brunswick Power. I asked them the following question: ``Is there
some way, on the international level, of having some sort of
regulation?'' As we are well aware, there are nuclear plants just
about everywhere in the world, and Canada is proud of ours, but
some countries that have built plants do not necessarily have the
same environmental standards. A rather cavalier neglect of these
plants sometimes ensues in certain countries, because
environmental protection is not a concern.
Questions would therefore have to be asked, and I would propose
that this be the occasion for creating international regulations
which would govern all countries.
We also know that Ontario produces the most waste. As at
December 31, 1992, the total number of spent fuel bundles was
estimated at 900,000. One bundle is about the size of a fire log, and
the 900,000 would fit into one and one-half Olympic-sized
swimming pools.
Approximately 87 per cent of this fuel came from Ontario
Hydro, 6 per cent from NB Power, 4 per cent from Hydro-Quebec,
and 3 per cent from Atomic Energy Canada Limited.
(1800)
By the year 2033, the volume of spent fuel would be the
equivalent of 17 Olympic pools-full, or four million bundles. An
enormous figure, and a potentially very scary one as well.
Recently, Canada lifted its ban on shipping PCBs to the United
States. The purpose of doing so was to have them destroyed in the
U.S., not stored. Why then would Canada import radioactive waste
for storage? If we woke up tomorrow to find metric tons of
radioactive waste lined up at our borders ready for storage, there
would be some questions asked. If this waste entered Quebec
freely, there would be still more questions. We would not be
thrilled in the least. I trust that we do not wish Canada and Quebec
to become a giant dump site.
This bill is a very worthwhile one, and I congratulate my
colleague for introducing it, thus giving us the opportunity to ask
ourselves some very serious questions. Shortly, we shall be making
additions to the bill which will increase its value.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill
C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into
Canada. Although I shall not be supporting it, I am glad that the
member for Fraser Valley East has introduced this bill. He has
provided us with an opportunity to discuss a topic of great
importance to the government, the sustainable development of
nuclear energy within Canada's supply mix of energy resources.
It is recognized that all energy sources present some advantages
and some disadvantages. The mix adopted by governments
necessarily takes into account the specific conditions in each
country and the advantages and disadvantages for each energy
source.
Nuclear energy is seen as an environmentally sound energy
option that does not contribute to any greenhouse or acid gas
emissions. Many countries have recognized the significant
advantages of nuclear energy for the production of electricity.
Others are considering the use of such energy for the undertaking
of future development activities.
Members of the House will recall that the government has
introduced Bill C-23, an act to replace the current Atomic Energy
Control Act with more modern legislation entitled the nuclear
safety and control act. This act will ensure the federal government
continues to exercise fully its responsibilities for the control of
nuclear energy in Canada.
Bill C-23 received second reading by the House of Commons in
June and is before a parliamentary committee for a review as we
speak. Members of the House are well aware of the government's
position on the entire matter of Canada's domestic and
international approach to nuclear safety.
Bill C-23 goes on in 127 clauses to define a comprehensive
regime that is designed to regulate practically, thoroughly and
strictly all aspects of nuclear activity in Canada. The Canadian
nuclear industry is already one of the most strictly regulated in the
world. As for the radioactive waste specifically, the Government of
Canada takes the proper management of this material very
seriously.
On July 10 the Minister of Natural Resources announced the
government's policy framework for radioactive waste which will
guide Canada's approach for radioactive waste disposal into the
next century. This framework, which reflects consultations with
5089
waste producers and owners, incorporates three principles that will
ensure the sound and effective management of radioactive waste in
Canada.
The first principle is that the federal government will ensure that
radioactive waste disposal is carried out in a safe, environmentally
sound, comprehensive, cost effective and integrated manner.
(1805)
The second principle is that the federal government has the
responsibility to develop policy, to regulate and to oversee
producers and owners, ensuring they comply with legal
requirements and meet their funding and operational
responsibilities in accordance with approved waste disposal plans.
The third principle is that waste producers and owners are
responsible in accordance with the principle of polluter pays for the
funding, organization, management and operation of disposal and
other facilities required for their wastes.
These principles highlight the roles of the federal government
and the waste producers and owners for the management of
radioactive waste while recognizing that the management may be
different for the three types of radioactive waste encountered in
Canada, nuclear fuel waste, low level radioactive waste, and
uranium mine tailings.
Regardless of the type of radioactive waste, the primary concern
of the government is to ensure that no undue risks are posed to
workers, the public and the environment. Much work has been
done to date to establish national directives regulating the
management and transportation of waste, whether classified as
hazardous or radioactive.
Any proposed projected associated with the management of such
waste, which has a component falling under federal responsibility,
would be subject to all relevant legislation and regulations. Most
prominently, even before the project could proceed, it would have
to undergo a thorough environment assessment review process
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
Currently other legislative instruments include the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, 1992, with its regulations for the
exportation and importation of hazardous waste; the Transportation
of Dangerous Goods Act and Regulations, 1992; the 1946 Atomic
Energy Control Act and its proposed replacement, the Nuclear
Safety and Control Act, which is currently under review by
Parliament.
Internationally, considerable effort has been spent recently by
countries to come to an agreement on the proper management of
hazardous and radioactive waste, including the trans-boundary
movement of this material, implying that the practice of importing
and exporting radioactive waste is not in itself detrimental if it is
managed appropriately.
Examples include the regulations for the safe transport of
radioactive materials published by the International Atomic Energy
Agency; the International Atomic Energy Agency code of practice
on the trans-boundary movement of radioactive waste; the decision
of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
concerning the trans-frontier movements of hazardous wastes and
their disposal; the Basel convention on the control of
trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal;
the safety standards on radioactive waste now under development
by the International Atomic Energy Agency; the international
convention on the safety of radioactive waste management now
under development by the same agency.
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources and the
Atomic Energy Control Board continue to participate actively in
these international efforts. Canada has over the years acquired an
enviable reputation. Canadian officials are often called on to
mediate disputes during international discussions.
For instance, Canada has been asked to chair several
international working groups associated with the ongoing
development of the international convention on the safety of
radioactive waste management.
I have in the last few minutes endeavoured to list initiatives to
clearly show that this Parliament, this government, other
governments and international organizations have already devoted
a great deal of attention to the vital issues of the management of
radioactive waste. The work by people with international as well as
national experience is continuing.
We can see that there is ample evidence of continuing,
comprehensive, close attention by national and international
organizations to the management of radioactive waste, including
the importation and exportation of this material.
Bill C-236, which purports to be necessary for the protection of
the health and environment of Canadians, is essentially
unnecessary given the extensive regulations already existing or
under development in this area. It is important to understand that
we do have existing regulations and other regulations are under
consideration and under development.
(1810)
I use my last few seconds to simply recommend to all members
of the House on this side and on that side that they not support Bill
C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into
Canada.
5090
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to join the debate on this subject, probably more from my
perspective as the natural resources critic for our party.
This has has been an ongoing debate in this country for many
years, going back to the creation of the first nuclear power plant in
Canada when the question of what to do with the waste was asked. I
found the reaction from the government side interesting. I really
have to wonder about the wisdom of approving and licensing an
energy source in Canada before dealing with the whole question of
the disposal of radioactive wastes in Canada.
Certainly energy from nuclear materials does not create the
problems some of the other energy sources do but some of the other
energy sources do not have the potential for the human disaster this
energy source does. I think the disaster at Chernobyl brought home
very quickly to people all around the world the potential disaster
that the creation of powerful nuclear energy does have. The
destruction in Ukraine and the rendering unproductive of a huge
area of some of the most productive agricultural land in the world
and the human suffering and disaster that it created and even the
effects that it had around the globe should scare Canadians and
everyone in the world when they start talking about this source of
energy.
This bill my colleague introduced does go a long way to meeting
the fears of Canadians about the disposal of the world's nuclear
waste in our own backyard and I think that is important. However,
the question which also needs to be debated and needs to be
continually debated is the continuing production of nuclear waste
in Canada before we tackle this question of what we are doing with
it. I believe that is a very important question we have to deal with.
When we look at Canada and at the debate going on in every
metropolitan area about what to do with landfill sites, what to do
with the mountains of garbage produced every year and the great
difficulty in even locating landfill sites, it certainly makes the
possibility of finding an acceptable site for high level nuclear waste
disposal pretty remote.
In my province very close to my residence, we have had a
similar debate going on for some years about a hazardous waste
disposal site in the Swan Hills area of Alberta. It began with all the
same promises that we heard from across the way about safety and
the promise to not become a site for the disposal of anyone else's
hazardous waste. Because of the monetary considerations, the
money to be made or lost in the destruction of hazardous waste,
quite quickly that plant has become a site for the importation of
hazardous waste from all over Canada and proposals have been
made for importing hazardous waste from the United States for
disposal at this site.
(1815 )
Residents who live around that site, including me, have great
concerns about the impact that would have on our air and water
quality. We were never in favour of the importation of hazardous
waste to that site and we remain opposed to it today, in spite of the
fact that it is happening.
The assurances that the Government of Canada will always
dispose of nuclear waste in a safe and responsible manner do not
give me a lot of comfort. I would like to know where the disposal
site will be and what it will cost.
There has been research done about the safety of burying the
waste deep in the Canadian Shield. When the minister appeared
before the committee she assured me that the cost of disposal has
been built into the rate which the utilities charge for the energy. I
wonder how that is possible when nobody has established what the
cost will be.
If we are going to talk anybody, be it First Nations people or
anybody else, into burying the waste in their backyard, it will not
be done cheaply. There will have to be a major incentive involved. I
do not believe that anybody has determined what the cost will be.
The natural resources committee is dealing with Bill C-23. It is
very unfortunate that it does not deal with some of these issues.
As my colleague pointed out, the body which regulates nuclear
waste and nuclear production in the country allows companies to
import and export and do virtually whatever they want with nuclear
waste in Canada. Most Canadians would not accept that group's
having that responsibility without some controls being placed on it
by Parliament.
It is unfortunate that the government did not incorporate this bill
into the provisions of that bill and take a stand for the protection of
Canadians and the environment. There is a huge stockpile of this
waste which is growing every day all over the world which will
need to be disposed of.
I support the bill. I would encourage other members of the
standing committee to consider amendments which would
incorporate this bill into Bill C-23. It would be a giant step in
protecting Canadians and their environment.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a fortunate
opportunity that I have to join the debate today. The hon. member
for Fraser Valley East has brought up a subject which is of concern
to all Canadians and indeed to the government.
I agree with my hon. friend that the management of radioactive
waste brings up policy matters of vital interest to thoughtful
Canadians.
This issue by its nature is an international one and of
considerable importance. Governments must respect the wishes of
other
5091
national governments to decide whether they wish to provide
management services for the waste originating in other countries.
For example, many African countries, recognizing that they may
lack the necessary legal, administrative or technical capabilities,
have officially banned the importation of hazardous and
radioactive waste. However, when an authority has been
established that does indeed have the proper legal, administrative
and technical capabilities it is a necessity to consider that position.
There are significant volumes of various types of radioactive
waste in Canada. They include low level radioactive waste, nuclear
fuel waste and uranium mine tailings. Canada has acquired much
experience in the safe management of these wastes. Included in the
management are handling, treatment, transportation, storage and
disposal. The element of transportation is particularly important
when considering the importation or exportation of radioactive
waste.
(1820)
Developing expertise and safe transportation have always been
important to Canada. In view of the large land mass of our country,
they are extremely important. The expertise acquired by Canada
over the years is recognized by many countries. In recognition of
this, Canada plays an important role in the development of
transportation regulations by the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
As mentioned previously, the government confirmed on July 10,
1996 that it continues to take seriously the proper management of
radioactive waste by establishing a radioactive waste policy
framework. The elements of this framework consist of sets of
principles governing the institutional and financial arrangements
for disposal of radioactive waste by waste producers and owners.
The principles would guide the implementation of radioactive
waste disposal in Canada in a safe, comprehensive, cost effective
and integrated manner. The federal policy role continues
determining the broad financial institutional arrangements that
would be acceptable as well as developing a cost effective
integrated approach to radioactive waste management. In parallel,
the federal regulatory role continues to ensure that management of
radioactive waste is carried out in a safe and environmentally
sound manner and that adequate financial guarantees are in place.
In keeping with the government's environmental agenda, the
policy framework adds to Canada's efforts and expertise in
radioactive waste management. The bill that we consider today is a
proposal of blanket legislation to prevent the importation of any
and all radioactive waste into Canada.
First of all, let me make it clear that there are no plans to import
any nuclear fuel waste into Canada. In fact, eight years ago in 1988
the Government of Canada responded to the report of the standing
committee on environment and forestry, ``High Level Radioactive
Waste in Canada: The Eleventh Hour''. In its response the
government indicated that it agreed with the committee's
recommendation that a public review process be launched if the
then department of energy, mines and resources should envisage
the possibility of accepting nuclear waste from any country.
It bears repeating that today such a review would be considered
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. At the same
time, the minister of EMR indicated to the committee that it was
not the government's policy to accept used nuclear fuel from other
countries.
The disposal concept of nuclear waste is currently undergoing a
federal environmental assessment review. As I mentioned earlier,
radioactive waste also includes low level radioactive waste. Many
countries around the world routinely export and import low level
radioactive waste resulting from certain uses, for example, the use
of radionuclides for environmental, agricultural health purposes.
For instance, hospitals in developing countries may wish to profit
from considerable advances in the use of radionuclides for
diagnostic and therapeutic uses in treatments.
Use of this material necessarily produces a certain amount of
low level radioactive waste. Exporting this waste to countries that
can be responsibly managed and make material advantage for those
countries is the only option. Developing countries may also wish to
use radiation and radionuclides to produce the nuclear energy for
development of methodologies that enhance environmental
protection, agricultural production and public community health.
To do so they may have to depend on the waste management
services of developed countries. Those developed countries that
agree to import low level radioactive waste do so for many reasons
which include honouring international conventions and
agreements, assisting in the development of responsible
management of nuclear activities on a global scale, participating in
global developments in environmental technology vital to the
future of sustainable development of several nations around the
world, and solving potential world environment and health
problems in the area of radioactive waste management. Canada has
not been one of these developed countries.
(1825)
In conclusion, the bill proposed as a blanket to act to prevent the
importation of any and all radioactive waste into Canada is not
needed, desirable, appropriate or effective. Moreover, I believe the
member for Fraser Valley East did not fully appreciate that this bill
would not provide any added benefit to the health and environment
of Canadians.
5092
Therefore I recommend to the members of the House that they
cannot support Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of
radioactive waste material into Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let me start by
saying that I am somewhat surprised to hear what members
opposite have to say about from the Liberal government's position
on the management of radioactive waste.
According to the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James, who
brilliantly defended the government's position, and according to
the hon. member who just spoke, there is no problem, the existing
regulations are effective and future legislation will settle the whole
issue of the importation of radioactive waste. However, there is
also that surprising comment by the auditor general in his May
1995 report, in which he said that Natural Resources Canada should
concentrate on reaching an agreement with the major stakeholders
on their respective roles and responsibilities and on approaches to
and a plan for the implementation of solutions. He was referring to
the management of radioactive waste.
According to the auditor general, radioactive waste management
is not entirely satisfactory in this country. So it is somewhat easier
to understand why the hon. member for Fraser Valley-East
presented his bill to prohibit the importation of radioactive waste
into Canada.
It is clear that, when there are no policies, no clear cut
regulations and no legislation on the whole issue of radioactive
waste management, it would be immoral for a country to allow its
importation. For the same reasons as my colleague from
Matapédia-Matane, I am inclined to approve the bill presented by
the hon. member for Fraser Valley-East.
However, when we consider the tenor of the bill, a number of
questions arise. The hon. member who presented the bill mentioned
that what we have here is the famous not in my backyard syndrome.
However, the fact remains that waste is being produced, whether
industrial or radioactive, in all countries. We see it in our own
regions where we often have problems.
If I look at my own riding of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean,
discussions have been going on for ten years in an effort to find a
landfill site. For some reason, every community designated by the
appropriate authorities to have a waste treatment site often
manages by means of petitions and protests to ensure the site is not
located in that community. Although today, things are starting to
change.
(1830)
Nevertheless, there comes a time when Canadian and Quebec
citizens will have to realize that the industrial society in which we
live has produced waste and that steps will have to be taken
initially to prevent all this waste from damaging the environment
and subsequently to treat the waste.
If we look at the whole issue of radioactive waste, I think it is
disturbing to see what is happening throughout the world, not just
in Canada. I am quite willing to admit we have been negligent in
Canada, but look at what has happened in Russia and the Ukraine. I
probably know the situation a bit better because of my role as a
parliamentarian. I had an opportunity to look at the situation and to
visit the country and I realized there was a problem. There was a
problem worldwide with radioactive waste management.
I realize that I do not have much time left, but I want to say that
like the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane, I certainly agree
with the bill because in Canada we cannot afford to receive
radioactive waste. We are not even able to handle what we have.
Nonetheless, I think that Canada has a responsibility, as an
advanced industrial society, to look for ways of helping other
societies that are perhaps having a little more trouble right now,
such as Russia, such as the Ukraine, to find ways of treating the
nuclear waste produced, because it is a question of survival not
only for Canada and for Quebec, but for all of humanity.
So that is the appeal I wish to make. At some point, we must quit
saying ``not in my back yard'', seek information, and take the
necessary measures in terms of research and development so that
we can find a solution to the situation we are now facing.
My colleague said it, with what is now going on in Canada,
looking at the waste produced in Ontario alone, and in thirty years,
it will have increased fivefold, so if we do nothing, if we are
content with temporary solutions, if we do not take the measures
necessary and if we simply look for holes in which to bury the
waste, I think that then we will not have found a solution.
It is high time that Canadians and Quebecers realized that this is
a problem that must be solved, and we are going to support the bill
presented by the member for Fraser Valley East. This does not
change the fact that much remains to be done in Canada and in
Quebec in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: The hour provided for the consideration
of Private Members' business is now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
5093
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a while ago I asked the finance minister to explain to
Canadians why the government had broken its promise to create
jobs and how did he feel about the government telling Canadians
that they will have to accept and get used to high employment? The
government does not have any long term vision of how to deal with
Canada's unemployment.
Canadians know why we have high levels of unemployment. It is
because federal economic and social policies continue to create
unemployment not only through significant numbers of layoffs of
federal civil servants, but there is no commitment to full
employment. That has been made clear by this government.
There is no long term economic or industrial strategy, no vision
of how to address the very real challenges posed by continue
globalization of trade, no strategy for the economic advancement
of less developed regions, no rejection of failed policies of
privatization and deregulation, no long term vision.
Quite plainly the federal government has its priorities wrong. It
has abandoned middle class and working Canadians and instead
has listened to and responded to the concerns of its wealthy
corporate friends.
Recently there have been numerous reports of record corporate
and bank profits at a time of continued and unacceptably high
unemployment. The heads of major corporations are being paid at a
rate 212 times that of the pay of average workers. The gap between
the executive suite and the shop floor has increased fivefold in the
last 30 years.
(1835)
Something is wrong when a bank president or a large corporation
president can announce record profits one day, cash a six figure
paycheque the next, lay off a thousand workers on day three, on day
four hold a news conference to demand that the government force
middle class families to get by with less, and on day five attend a
$1,000 per plate Liberal Party fundraising gala.
Something is tragically wrong when the Prime Minister and the
federal finance minister support all this and wash their hands of
their electoral commitment to get Canadians working again. It is
dead wrong in terms of the direction for Canada.
The government is irredeemably short term in its economic
policy. The Liberals, Conservatives and Reformers are obsessed
with the market even when the market fails. The government runs
things for the few at the top, not the many.
We can begin to seriously address Canada's high unemployment
levels only when we have a national reconciliation on the economy.
There needs to be a co-ordinated approach in which all the major
stakeholders play a role in generating a vision for the Canadian
economy. A critical part of this must be the full blown pursuit of
full employment and a commitment to full employment.
The ability of high tech and knowledge based industries of the
economy of the future to provide jobs needed by Canadians must
be seriously addressed as competition from newly industrializing
countries continues to undermine traditional industrial sectors.
Measures to encourage industrial and business innovation and a
financial sector committed to job creation must be developed. Our
educational systems and our commitment to education must be
revamped to address these challenges, and the federal government
has a major role to play in all this.
Only when Canada knows where it is going as a country can
Canadians design and implement the effective measures needed to
ensure we get there. The federal government should show
leadership in this regard, not just wash its hands of the problems
faced by the millions of unemployed Canadians and their families
across this country.
Needless to say an important part of this strategy is for Canada to
work with other countries to make full employment the goal of
global economic development. The presence of unprecedented
numbers of unemployed across developed nations and in Canada
indicates how far away that goal is.
I challenge the federal government to look beyond the status quo
and toward proposals that promote real and effective change.
Canadians are demanding it and it is time for the government to
take a lead in meeting those demands. After all, in the red book it
promised it would.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, jobs are and
continue to be the Government of Canada's highest priority.
Since the government took power it has worked very hard to
create the climate necessary for job creation and economic growth.
A number of measures have been taken to stimulate employment
growth in Canada, including the $6 billion infrastructure program,
a national tourism promotion program and the reform of the Small
Business Loans Act to improve access to capital for small
businesses.
In the speech from the throne and the 1996 budget, the
government re-emphasized its commitment to increasing job
opportunities for Canadians. For example, it doubled its
contribution to student summer job creation this year and it
launched Technology Partnerships Canada, a $250 million fund to
support technology development and job creation in the aerospace,
environmental and biotechnology sectors.
5094
The government also launched the expansion of the Community
Access and SchoolNet programs to improve access to the
information highway.
The results so far show that the job strategy of the government is
working. Since October 1993 over 639,000 additional new jobs
have been created across the country, and these jobs are mainly full
time jobs. In the meantime, the unemployment rate declined by
almost two full percentage points from 11.1 per cent in October of
1993 to 9.4 per cent in August of 1996.
Since the government came into office, helping young
Canadians make the transition into the workforce has been our
particular priority. Three hundred and fifty million dollars was
allocated to youth employment initiatives over a three-year period,
sixty million of which was allocated to summer employment
programs this past summer creating more than 60,000 summer jobs
for young Canadians.
In addition, the findings and recommendations of last spring's
ministerial task force on youth and of the recent youth conference
will help in the development of a new youth strategy. The strategy
is expected to be announced later this fall.
The government has a job creation record to be proud of. It will
continue in its effort to help Canadians find and keep jobs, working
in collaboration with provinces and the private sector.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, this summer I watched as the prairies produced one of the
best crops I have ever seen or ever heard about. Wheat, oats, barley,
canola, peas, lentils and even the hay crops were good.
Prior to the harvest the sun came out and baked the fields for
several days.
(1840)
These were marvellous pre-harvest conditions. Farmers across
the prairies began their harvest in earnest. Then the rain hit. For
almost three weeks during the time when the combines should have
been running full out, very little harvesting took place.
According to official records, about 50 per cent of the crop came
off the fields and got put in the bins before the rain came. Just as
the rain stopped and the weather forecasters predicted clearing and
warming, the frost hit and then it snowed.
As members have seen on TV, more than an inch of heavy snow
hit my part of Saskatchewan on the last weekend in September, a
time that is a traditional prime harvest period. Now, during the past
two days, more than a foot of heavy snow has hit standing crops in
Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.
Farmers are beginning to worry. The summer had produced a lot
of optimism at a time when optimism was sorely needed but hardly
deserved. Farmers know they had just come off 10 very bad years.
Incomes had dropped substantially, crops had been poor, interest
rates were high, prices were depressed and bankruptcies were
occurring too frequently.
More recently, Tory governments in Saskatchewan and Ottawa
had changed the way agricultural emergencies were financed. In
other words, what used to be a federal responsibility became a
shared responsibility. The province had less of an ability to finance
agricultural emergencies than did the federal government.
Therefore a new safety net program, the GRIP, came and went in
a flash as a result. When the government changed, the Liberal
government in Ottawa maintained the cost sharing principles and is
currently negotiating with the provinces to establish a new crop
insurance program.
The changes to be made to the crop insurance have not yet been
agreed to, let alone implemented. At the same time, the new
Liberal government did away with the Crow benefit, a program
designed to share the cost of transporting grain from the farm gate
on the prairies to the ports on the coast with all Canadian taxpayers.
This move immediately increases the costs of operating the farm.
Other input costs have increased. As a result, a lot more money
than usual has been put into the ground or paid to railways this year
in preparation for the year's harvest.
A good crop this year was necessary not only to pay the bills but
to make up for the debts created from past years. Let us face it,
everyone was looking forward to a good crop and is still hoping
that little damage has been done by the weather.
Yes, we may take in a good crop but we cannot ignore the fact
that farming depends on the weather. If the weather does not
co-operate, we as a nation cannot afford to just let farmers go. We
cannot afford to lose our capacity to produce food for the world and
to generate the revenues necessary to maintain rural populations.
Therefore even in good times it is important for governments to
ensure that contingency plans are in place just in case there is a
crop failure or something happens to reduce the incomes necessary
to produce the next year's crops.
I ask the minister if these contingency plans are indeed in place
so that we can reduce the stress already being felt in the farming
community.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal and
provincial governments assist producers across Canada with
significant financial protection against weather related problems.
Crop losses, through government safety nets, are covered.
5095
The federal-provincial crop insurance program is specifically
designed to protect producers against crop losses such as those
associated with current weather conditions on the prairies.
In the event of poor harvesting conditions, it provides direct
compensation to insured producers for yield and quality losses
which can result in reduced revenues.
In 1996 about 80 per cent of the grain and oilseed crop acres in
Manitoba, 55 per cent of the acres in Saskatchewan and 45 per cent
of the acres in Alberta are insured.
Recent reports indicate that harvesting is well advanced and that
the percentage of harvesting completed are as follows: Manitoba,
75 to 80 per cent; Saskatchewan, 50 to 55 per cent; and Alberta, 65
to 75 per cent.
In addition to crop insurance, most producers participate in net
income stabilization account program, or NISA. NISA encourages
producers to build up funds for use in periods of difficulty by
matching producer contributions on a dollar-dollar basis and by
providing a 3 per cent bonus each year of the producer
contributions held on account.
The funds in a producer's NISA account can be drawn on if
revenues, due to weather related and other losses, fall below the
five year average. Currently, prairie producers have about $1
billion in their NISA accounts.
In addition to the above measures, the minister may authorize
the Canadian Wheat Board to make advance payments to ensure
producers of grain to better finance the drying of damp or tough
grain.
While we hope the weather will improve so farmers can harvest
their crops, if it does not, existing safety net programs are in place
to assist with the losses which can result.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, the motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.43 p.m.)